7 minute read
Reflections on the growth of Nationalism in 21st century politics
Why does the analysis of crowd psychology matter in politics?
Eleanor Wilson – Lower Sixth, Gloucester
Donald Trump’s presidency began with an argument over a simple number. The New York Times posted the number of people at his inauguration as being only a third of that of Obama’s, which sparked a great emotional reaction from Trump, including various Twitter rants. The White House secretary at the time, Sean Spicer, accused the media of seeking to ‘minimise the enormous support’ which Trump had managed to win in his election victory. Sean Spicer also lied about the number at the inauguration, stating that it was ‘the biggest audience ever’, leading to simplistic emotions of the crowd, which then in turn leads to the most primitive forms of expression.
Deindividuation theory is largely based on the ideas of Gustave Le Bon and argues that in typical crowd situations, factors such as anonymity, group unity, and arousal can weaken personal controls (e.g. guilt, shame, self-evaluating behaviour) by distancing people from their personal identities and reducing their concern for social evaluation. This lack of restraint increases individual sensitivity to the environment and lessens rational forethought, which can lead to antisocial behaviour. More recent theories have stated that deindividuation hinges upon a person being unable, due to a situation, to have strong awareness of their self as an object of attention. This lack of attention frees the individual from the necessity of normal social behavior. This means that for instance, one could be deindividuated as a KKK member, which would lead to higher levels of unacceptable behaviour, and therefore, greater levels of social decay. This explains why crowds can be so powerful, as individuality is forgone, and anonymity is placed at the forefront, it leads to a sense of there being a ‘safety net’ and a mob mentality that politicians can use to their advantage.
To further this, we as human beings are so heavily dependent on social cues, that a crowd can be a very effective way of convincing someone of a view. Research has shown that people tend to trust the opinion of a large group, whether it comes from a liberal or a conservative. Essentially, as a crowd is such a compact group of people, with social cues being displayed every second, the infiltration of an opinion becomes very rapid, as the effect of social cues snowballs. Freud also suggests that crowds serve to unlock the unconscious mind, and that in a crowd, the moral centre of consciousness is displaced by a larger crowd and is replaced by a charismatic group leader. Moscovici hypothesised that this effect was extremely powerful in relation to political indoctrination, and that autocratic leaders such as Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong used the utilisation of crowds in this way in order to effectively maintain their cult of personality.
Some argue that where politics becomes infused by the logic of crowds, it becomes less about peaceful political representation, and more about mobilisation, and who can mobilise the most people. Crowds matter to politicians as they represent a profound depth of feeling that comes with having so many people in one place at one time. Essentially, crowds allow people to become a part of something that is so much larger than themselves. This needn’t be a bad thing, but it certainly does carry risks.
Should the UK abolish the monarchy?
Luca Hatwell – Lower Sixth, Surrey
THE DEBATE OVER WHETHER THE UK SHOULD STILL HAVE A MONARCH IN THE CURRENT DAY IS ONE THAT DIVIDES MANY PEOPLE. ALTHOUGH THE POLITICAL CLIMATE OF THE UK HAS EVOLVED SO THAT THE MONARCH NOW HAS NO REAL POLITICAL AUTHORITY, THERE ARE STILL PROBLEMS, WITH THE MAIN CRITICISM BEING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THE ROYAL FAMILY COSTS THE TAXPAYER, AND SOME PEOPLE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE POSITIVES OUTWEIGH THE NEGATIVES.
Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State, although today, her role in politics is just a formality for the sake of tradition, as she opens parliament and gives a speech every year, although this is written by the Prime Minister, not by her. She is also responsible for signing every bill into law, but once again, she has no real political power to veto a law, as parliament is sovereign. She must approve every law that has been passed through the House of Commons, the elected legislative, and ratified by the Lords. The Queen is also the Head of the Church of England, the armed forces, and the justice system, although all her actions must be based on advice from the people who are at the heads of these organisations.
There is substantial support for the abolition of the monarchy, especially in the younger generation, as seen in a YouGov survey that indicates that at least 41% of people aged 18-24 preferred an elected Head of State as compared to 31% who wanted a King or Queen. There are many reasons for this point of view, one being that the British sovereign is the most expensive in Europe – £69.4 million was spent on the Royal Family in 2020, according to the Sovereign Grant accounts, and this is without taking hidden costs into account, such as an additional £13 million to renovate Buckingham Palace last year. This figure has risen exponentially in recent years, as they received only £47.4 million in 2018.
Another reason as to why some believe the monarchy should be abolished is because they question the fact that the Head of State is chosen not because of their achievements, experiences, or skills, but due to who their parents are, meaning they may not be well suited to the role. More recent arguments for the abolition of the monarchy are seen in the light of allegations from The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Harry and Meghan, which include alleged racist comments from family members, as well as the links between Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein, both of which suggest the UK Royal Family is an outdated institution.
Others support the UK monarchy because the Queen is seen as a nonpolitical figure that symbolises Britishness and national values and is the figurehead of our country seen by the rest of the world, and the monarchy is a traditional British institution that has evolved over the years to cater to modern society. A useful function of the Queen is that her positive image helps to secure trade deals, especially after a Royal visit, and on top of this, her role as Head of The Commonwealth means she is a vital figure in upholding the bond we have with the 53 other countries in this group. The Royal Family is also responsible for heading numerous charities, with their popularity helping the cause of the charity, examples include the Duke of Edinburgh Award and the Prince’s Trust, both of which are charities that play a vital role in the UK.
The abolition of the monarchy would not necessarily save money, as the alternative would be a President, which is also expensive, as seen in France, where £90.4 million was spent on President Macron in 2019. The idea that the monarchy costs the UK taxpayer too much is also a flawed one as although they cost a lot of money, they bring in a lot more money through tourism, as seen in 2016, where more than 2.7 million tourists visited Buckingham Palace and other royal sites such as Windsor Castle and the Palace of Holyrood, which brought in around £550 million.
Therefore, the abolition of the UK monarchy is not necessary, as it would destroy a traditional, positive part of British culture. Although it costs a lot of money, this is not a problem as it also attracts tourism, which generates even more money. On top of this, the alternative to the Royal Family would be equally as expensive but there would not be the positive features of charity work and the healthy link with the commonwealth, that are given to us solely by the Royal Family.
