Disclaimer: The Eqbal Ahmad Centre for Public Education (EACPE) encourages critical and independent thinking and believes in a free expression of one’s opinion. However, the views expressed in contributed articles are solely those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the EACPE.
The recent incidence of 400 men hauling a single woman seems to create a flurry of agony and resentment on social media and mainstream media. People, from the right to the left spectrum of political and social position, are all moved by this inhumane incident. Previously gory incidents like Motorway Rape became attention of media. What makes this incidence unique is the involvement of 400 people. This unbecoming incidence involving ordinary men becoming the part of inhumane activity seems to carry deeper analysis into human behaviour in general and crowd behaviour in particular. How does a large number of ordinary men become insane and genocidal? How do they become an easy participant of a repugnant act? How do such acts of violence are being tolerated by others? These are some of the questions which need to be answered in order to dissect the sick behaviour of men involved in the mass frenzy against a single woman.
Gustave Le Bon in his seminal work “The Crowd and the Psychology of Revolution” argues that anonymous nature of an individual within a crowd diminishes personal responsibility and responsibility becomes shared. Hence each individual is protected by the shroud of anonymity within the crowd or group activity. Aligned with the idea of anonymity is the group thinking. The concept of group thinking was developed by psychologist Irving Janis in 1970s. He describes it as a mode of thinking in which each member is deeply ingrained in cohesive in-group. When members strive for unanimity in the in-group, they override their motivation to realistically appraise realistic courses of actions. Sociologist Georg Simmel further points out that the desire to remain a firm member of the group is further cemented by the member of the group by outcasting any undesirable element or to hate the other group of people.
Stanley Milgram in his experiments also exhibited through his work that men usually led to killings because they are following blindly the group behaviour. Milgram was highly influenced by the Holocaust and ordinary Germans’ involvement in it. Conformity within the group behaviour is further aggrandized when a proper justification is attached, when a narrative is built. Professional women are characterless or women using TikTok are lecherous are amongst few common notions prevalent within Pakistani society to justify male-group thinking against women. This male-group thinking is all around the corner before Aurat March in Pakistan; when, instead of issues, attention invariably is on slogans, placards and social background of participants.
Another feature associated is the role of authority and domination to further group thinking in crowds. In fascist and totalitarian regimes of 20th century, mass propaganda was an instrument to control masses. The masses were regarded as a singular group formed on basis of Us versus Them. The ‘Them’ is always a nemesis worthy of being death or torture justifying violence by the ‘Us’. In 21st century, when medium has become the message, the concept of gatekeeper is important in this regard. People like Khalil-ur-Rehman Qamar, Orya Maqbool Jan and their ilk have become gatekeepers of moral order based on masculinity and patriarchy.
Until and unless the discourse against women is changed through culture industry, such events are bound to occur time and again.
Justification or rationalization of violent acts of terror are used by particular social or political group to rationalize their irrational acts. Carl Jung in his work on mass psychosis concludes that when a particular group begets certain notions against another social or political group, then those notions, without having any rational calculations or conclusions, become an instrument of utilization on wider social scale. Women are bound to remain in home; Islam forbids women to go out of their homes; women are stockpile of reproduction etc. are some of misconceptions against the women inculcated by larger section of Pakistani society. When such notions become popular through culture industry, their popularity becomes a justification in themselves to carry out war against women.
The societies and political cultures developed on ‘Us versus Them’ dichotomy incubates binary formations in every social and political affairs at large. They succumb the Otherization of gender relationship. The discourse is built for the Other. In case of male-female relationship, specific contours of discourse is developed on the basis discursive formations like women are fragile, they are prone to be engaged in physical relationship with other men, they are made for household duties, they are bound to make men lecherous once they step outside their homes, working women are frightening figures etc. When such discourses are aligned with religious ideology, they become lethal. Religion is used as a shield to attack the Other as a kind of holy duty. That’s why victim blaming is common due to prevalent discourse under the cover of misconceived religious ideology against women.
Given the complexity of crowd behaviour in male group against women, the incident at Greater Iqbal Park justifies its obscene behaviour. Until and unless the discourse against women is changed through culture industry, such events are bound to occur time and again. For this purpose, the state should shred off its lethargic role as a bystander in the development of this mindset and begin to sort out a comprehensive agenda to humanize the male group.
Contributed by Hammad Raza
