I wonder if there are studies of how an individual can shape collective behaviour and to what extent. What I mean is the opposite of social influence where a group member obeys collective behaviour, but vice versa how an individual (a politician, a journalist etc.) shapes group behaviour according to his preferences. For example, the capitol riot on 6.01.2021 in Washington and Trump's behaviour -- how Trump manipulated the crowd?
"How can an individual shape the society?" Alexander Osherenko asks.
As history shows us, an individual can shape dramatically the society and even the entire world. What follows are but two examples of individuals who affected our world in a positive or a negative way. Adolfo Hitler is a sad example of an individual who brought about terrible consequences for many people and countries. In contradistinction, Martin Luther King Jr. is a telling example of an individual whose contribution to the betterment of our world will never be forgotten.
https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/indiaaftergandhi.htm#:~:text=Assuming%20leadership%20of%20the%20Indian,barbaric%20practice%20of%20untouchability%20and
Role of Mahatma Gandhi in shaping Indian society can be used here as an apt example
This read offers is a rich resource
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002193477600600304?journalCode=jbsa
Thank you for your answers! Frankly, I don't look for examples of good/bad politicians, but rather interested in how certain actors such as politicians or journalists can shape the social attitude towards a particular matter. Maybe, there are sociological/psychological/linguistic studies exploring the matter.
Every individual shape the society, however minimal it may be, via his/ her thoughts, words, emotions and actions.
Our culture shapes the way we work and play, and it makes a difference in how we view ourselves and others. It affects our values—what we consider right and wrong. This is how the society we live in influences our choices. But our choices can also influence others and ultimately help shape our society.
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-1/introduction
An individual shapes the society either by his/her omissions and commissions. But the inverse is also true. This means that he relation between the individual and his/her society is always reciprocal and never unidirectional .
A society is shaped through self belief and conviction. Any individual in any significant leadership position is able to do this if he or she is visionary, driven and inspirational in making people believe in themselves in striving towards a goal, particularly when they are in a disadvantaged position. Take the case of post world war situations of how many unsung heroes and leaders instilled beliefs in their people to pick up their lives and rebuild their society and nation. Such a leader must also be exemplary and walk the talk in demonstrating their full range of sacrifices and contributions to be emulated by others in their society. A few names come to mind Mahatma Gandhi, Emperor Meiji, Nelson Mandela, Mahathir Mohamed etc.
You have just answered the question. An individual can shape the society depending on who he is by position, social or economic status, political office or influence etc. The Trump example is quite apt. A popular musician, sportsman or actor can. This is the WHO in discourse communication. Whatever the WHO does has great influence and effect on the society. A celebrity is hardly wrong.
Individuals change society for good and bad. Individuals get angry at the system and begin movements to change it. Revolutions start with a single person. Sometimes we know their names - Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, Hitler, Trump* - but mostly we don't.
https://www.quora.com/Does-society-shape-the-individual-or-do-individuals-shape-the-society
Frankly speaking, my question is about crowd manipulation in psychology (here Wikipedia article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_manipulation) and I am very much interested in if somebody is aware of studies hereof.
The Wiki article distinguishes crowd manipulation from propaganda, the latter being understood as a long-term means of enabling crowd manipulation (This distinction between building and utilizing, for example, frames can also be foundin George Lakoff's work.). The Wiki article goes on to discuss classical rhetoric, which focuses on persuasion in a speech. In contrast to the classical rhetoric, the "new rhetorics" (following Kenneth Burke in particular) focus on the formation of social actors & coalitions and more generally conditions of successful speech (as not every speech aims to "only" peacefully persuade and is not formulated solely from the establishment). Maybe the keywords "new rhetorics", "the rhetoric of historical movements / ...of confrontation / ...of agitation" already help?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism