Rise of Fascism in Germany: Collective Behavior Theory

Introduction to Collective Behavior and Fascism

The rise of fascism in Germany, viewed from a collective behavior standpoint, raises issues that are theoretically complex and problematized by a host of different variables and factors. This paper attempts to answer the following question: which sociological theory of collective behavior is most appropriate for understanding the reasons behind the rise of fascism in Germany prior to the Second World War? The central thesis explored here is that value-added theory provides the most structured and intelligent basis for understanding this social phenomenon.

In a general sense, collective behavior refers to "any activities that are engaged in by sizable, but loosely organized groups of people" (Gunes 2). Spontaneity and a common sense of purpose and interest among the group are also central characteristics associated with the term. Furthermore, assessments of collective behavior refer to "those forms of social behaviour in which usual conventions cease to guide social action and in which people collectively transcend, bypass, or subvert" established norms (Gunes 2).

Another central aspect associated with collective behavior is that it commonly occurs when previously accepted norms and values fail to meet current needs and aspirations. This is a central theoretical facet that will be discussed in relation to the rise of fascism in Germany.

As can be discerned from the above, many different perspectives and variables must be considered in any discussion of collective behavior. This complexity has long impeded the development of a coherent sociological theory. As one commentator stresses:

It includes an enormous array of behaviors, processes, structures, and contexts. It encompasses parts of many sociological sub-fields. It tends to focus on a particular kind of behavior, rather than on a particular institution such as schools, on abstract group properties such as social stratification or bureaucratic structure, or on a single social process such as socialization. (Marx and McAdam)

This observation is important to keep in mind when assessing different sociological theories as they apply to German fascism as a social movement. Various types of collective action are more strongly related to certain theories than others. A brief overview of the theoretical history of the subject is therefore pertinent before turning to fascism as a form of collective behavior and social organization.

Overview of Theoretical Origins

There are two general ways in which collective behavior is described in the theoretical literature. The first derives from the analysis of crowd behavior by Gustave Le Bon, who viewed crowd behavior in terms of negative social disruption. This is contrasted with the more modern and more positive view associated with the work of George Rudé and others, who regard collective behavior as essentially a rational response by a group seeking to achieve a particular social or political objective. These two divergent views can be seen as an originating matrix for much of modern theory.

Gustave Le Bon stated in his work The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1986) that, when acting collectively — as in a crowd — people feel anonymous, and with their individual identity goes their individual conscience. Therefore, when involved in a crowd or mob, people participate in violent and other types of extreme activities that they would never perform as individuals (Funston).

Le Bon is also known as the originator of the "breakdown theory," which is "the classic sociological explanation of contentious forms of collective action such as riots, rebellion, and civil violence" (Useem 215). The essence of this theory is that riots and violence occur as a result of the breakdown of the mechanisms of social control and when those mechanisms lose their restraining power (Useem 215).

In contrast, a new approach to crowd and group behavior began to develop in the twentieth century. This approach was more sympathetic to crowd behavior. Theorists such as Pasquale Rossi (1867–1905) promoted the view that collective behavior was not irrational but was rather the expression of reason and collective will. Rudé followed this trend and viewed the crowd as a collective expression of shared and common interests — a view that seems more applicable to the German situation prior to the Second World War.

These perspectives led to the theories discussed in this paper in relation to the rise of fascism. It should also be noted that these theories must be considered alongside sociological views of social movements. The theoretical stance that seems most appropriate to the historical period under discussion is one suggested by Herbert Blumer:

Social movements can be viewed as collective enterprises to establish a new order of life. They have their inception in the condition of unrest, and derive their motive power on one hand from dissatisfaction with the current form of life, and on the other hand, from wishes and hopes for a new scheme or system of living. (Blumer 199)

This places the emphasis on the social movement as the search for a "new order" in society — a collective response to, and rebellion against, the status quo.

Historical Causes of Fascism in Germany

In order to place these theoretical trajectories in context, a brief summary of the historical factors that led to the rise of fascism in Germany is necessary. The German people had experienced a profound sense of defeat and loss of national prestige following the end of World War One. This was exacerbated by very poor economic conditions, largely a consequence of the Treaty of Versailles. The intensity of this hardship was worsened further by the worldwide stock market crash and the subsequent economic depression. In essence, the Nazi party cleverly exploited the needs of the German people, offering answers to their economic and nationalistic grievances.

As many commentators have observed, the seeds of social change and collective action can be found in the social and political situation of the country and in the people's need to reclaim their sense of identity and patriotic pride. There was also a general perception that the government was weak and ineffectual:

Many Germans perceived the parliamentary government coalition as weak and unable to alleviate the economic crisis. Widespread economic misery, fear, and the perception of worse times to come — as well as anger and impatience with the apparent failure of the government to manage the crisis — offered fertile ground for the rise of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party. (Rise to Power)

Theoretical Perspectives on Collective Behavior

This theory, also known as social contagion theory, originated with the work of Gustave Le Bon. It stresses the "imitative nature of collective behavior arising out of emotional contagion" (Gunes 62). As noted above, this view falls within the category of destructive or pessimistic theories of collective action, in which the rationality of the individual is overtaken by the emotional and irrational response of the crowd. Because the crowd is anonymous, the emotions of the group take control. Mass hysteria is described as "an instance of widespread and relatively rapid, unwitting, and nonrational dissemination of a mood, impulse, or form of conduct that disrupts social routines and authority patterns" — essentially "an emotional reaction to perceived threat" (Gunes 20).

However, while applicable to many social contexts, this theory does not go far enough in explaining the rise of fascism as a complex social phenomenon. Although there was certainly an emotional and impulsive component to the rise of fascist and nationalist sentiment in Germany, the social movement that ultimately emerged was very rational and carefully structured.

It is also noted by commentators that this theory does take into account the fact that "people having certain inferior socioeconomic attributes are more prone to involvement in mass hysteria than others" (Gunes 23), which would apply to the German situation. However, the overall theory falls far short of providing a strong theoretical foundation to account for the full range of social variables — such as the economic and political stressors that led to the growth of nationalist and patriotic groups — and cannot adequately explain the sophisticated organization and collective action that occurred in Germany.

Emergent norm theory holds that "when people are faced with an unusual situation, they create meanings that define and direct the situation" (Unit 22: Collective Behavior & Social Movements). The theory also posits that a collective or group is initially normless, and that this normlessness leads to distinctive patterns of behavior. Developed by Turner and Killian, it is based on the assumption that crowds and collective behavior are rational and norm-governed.

One critique of this theory is that it assumes groups coalesce in a normless environment. While well-suited to explaining spontaneous group formation, it does not address the fact that movements such as fascism are grounded in prior normative formations and pre-existing value systems that give rise to collective behavior. At the same time, the theory has value in emphasizing that "behavior is social" and that "each individual's behavior is affected by the presence and actions of others" (Brown and Lewis).

Conclusion

It is important to recognize that there are many different types and categories of collective behavior, and that some theories are more applicable to certain types of collective action and social organization than others. The theory that seems most appropriate to account for the rise of fascism in Germany from a sociological perspective is value-added theory.

However, other views and theories also shed further light on this social phenomenon. In this regard, it is worth bearing in mind the view of Parsons on collective behavior and social change. Parsons was in fact responsible for coining the phrase "collective behavior," which he defined as "the behavior of individuals under the influence of an impulse that is common and collective — an impulse, in other words, that is the result of social interaction" (Coser 358). This places social interactionism at the center of the impetus behind collective behavior. Both structuralist and social interactionist theories of collective behavior and action are useful in that they illuminate the complexity of this important social phenomenon from different perspectives.

A German View of the Treaty of Versailles. 20 Apr. 2009. <

Blumer, Herbert. "Collective Behavior." In Robert E. Park (ed.), An Outline of the Principles of Sociology. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1939.

Brown, Clyde, and Erik L. Lewis. "Protesting the Invasion of Cambodia: A Case Study of Crowd Behavior and Demonstration Leadership." Polity 30.4 (1998): 645+.

Cole, Laurence (ed.). Different Paths to the Nation: Regional and National Identities in Central Europe and Italy, 1830–70. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Coser, L. Masters of Sociological Thought (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977.

Funston, T. The History of Crowd Psychology. October 2002. 20 Apr. 2009.

Gunes, I. Structuralist and Interactionist Perspectives of Collective Behavior and Control of Crowds. 2001.

Marx, G. and McAdam, D. Collective Behavior and Social Movements: Process and Structure. Prentice Hall, 1994.

Rise to Power. Holocaust Learning Centre. 20 Apr. 2009. <http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005480>

Unit 22: Collective Behavior & Social Movements. 20 Apr. 2009.

Useem, Bert. "Breakdown Theories of Collective Action." Annual Review of Sociology 24.1 (1998): 215+.