Life Science: Strengths and Weaknesses of Contagion Theories (Essay Sample)

Strengths and Weaknesses of Contagion Theories
Name
Institution
Strengths and Weaknesses of Contagion Theories
Contagion theories pursue to explain systems as channels for “infectious” behaviors and attitudes. Contagion theories are related to some theories like the Symbolic Interaction, Network, and Gatekeeping among others (Monge & Contractor 2003). These arguments all focus on the different aspects of the social construction process. The initial proponent of the contagion theory of crowd behavior was Gustave Le Bon. Notably, the ideas not only serve as an explanation of group phenomena but also help aggravate the mass politics of the twentieth century. Indeed, Le Bon influenced a surplus of tyrants and agitators, precisely, Goebbels, Hitler, and Mussolini. The power of contagion theory was an expression of Le Bon’s objectives. He frequently admonished modern establishment figures to employ his ideologies to use the power of multitude for, rather than against, the state. His perception matched the worries of the age in their totality: panic and fascination in equal measure; disparagement of the mutual intelligence, the yoking of group energy. The theory represents the core concept of submergence and therefore for Le Bon it marked the transition from individual psychology to crowd psychology. Notably, the paper focuses on the strengths and weaknesses of the contagion theory of group behavior.
Notably, the contagion theories have a myriad of strengths. When people are together, they gain a sense of substantial power due to their numbers (Stephenson & Fielding 2008).. It is no wonder that the idea of democracy has become the most popular form of governance in the world today. The voice of a group is imperative when it comes to airing or agitating for their collective good than when alone. The isms of the contagion theory have occasionally been applied to the world history where proponents of human liberation have gathered support from the crowd to achieve the common good. For example, the emancipation of the people of color in the American history was achieved was achieved through joint efforts of the people. The critics of the theories argue that the theory is responsible for social unrest the legacy it bears in the history of liberation cannot be scorned.
Not only does the theories of contagion tend to cultivate the power of the people nut they also instigate a sense of social responsibility among the people. Indeed at times people may become more generous and more affectionate to others under deindividuated conditions (Mann, Newton, & Innes, 2010). Social cohesion and accountability brought about by the unity of the crowd are imperative in bringing people to closer and passionate about the welfare of others in the society. Notably, the critics of the contagion theories argue that by advocating social responsibility the theories deny individuals to practice the personal responsibility. However, the benefits accrued from working as a group are so enormous that they cannot be disregarded.
Importantly, the theories of contagion do not alienate individuals from practicing their free will as the cynics draw. As long as people commit to the typical course, they always have time to fulfill their person calls. Moreover, their unity as a people is an open platform where they can share their diverse minds and grow their ideas for a common course (Stephenson & Fielding 2008). In fact, it is the power of shared ideas, not individual knowledge that builds and transforms the society. For example, sharing and interaction between Socrates and the youths of Greece led to the transformation of the Roman society. Irrefutably, the power of the society rests on the strong knowledge held by the shared experience of its members without which it will fragment.
The theory possesses some ground upon which contemporary psychologists predicate their ideas. Even if Le Bon’s reputation has fallen into some dishonor, his intellectual tradition continues to have a strong influence on modern behaviorists’ scholars (Mann, Newton, & Innes, 2010). Notably, the isms of the theories are more implicit, but the ideas can still exemplify benevolent power. Notably, there are dangers when people act under the influence of the crowd thinking, but the advantages associated with the same cannot be scorned. Therefore, the theories provide a perfect platform for latter psychologists to delve on crowd action something that is worth the credit (Steimer & Mata, 2016).
Nonetheless, there are fundamental weaknesses that can be made from the ideas of the contagion theories. Firstly; individual identity and the capability to control behavior disappear (Mann, Newton, & Innes, 2010). Therefore, the crowd members become subject to contagion. That is, they are incapable of resisting any passing idea. More predominantly, individual intellect is obliterated by any passing emotion. The situation may render the crowd members to ransom their personal interests, which is a further sign of absurdity. Nonetheless, contagion is an effect of susceptibility. That is, the concepts and sentiments which swing unrestricted through the crowd descend primarily from the unconscious. The unconscious awakens an awkward substrate which triggers our sensible disposition and which is exposed when the conscious placement is flounced away (Steimer & Mata, 2016). Therefore, the primitivism of insensible is reflected in the personality of crowd conduct.
Notably, on an artistic level, contagion theories are squarely decontextualized. The mass is lifted from both the distal and the proximal settings in which it arises and acts. Arguably, if Le Bon's anxiety was with the working class crowds of late nineteenth century France, no sense is given of the gripes and political skirmishes which led angry protestors to amass. The lack of contextualization leads to reification and generalization (Stephenson & Fielding 2008).. Behaviors that recount to the situation are seen as intrinsic features of the crowd. Therefore, there is an assumption that the behavior arises everywhere regardless of setting. Moreover, by obfuscating the conventional bases of behavior, the group action is rendered mindless and worthless. Thus, Le Bon’s crowd psychology breaks the link both between society and the self and between the person and behavior (Steimer & Mata, 2016).
By ignoring the issue of power, contagion models also ignore the potential of crowds and their transformative possibilities. By abhorring the individualistic notion of identity, the t...