Different from the Mob: Flash Mobs as Coordinated Chaos
What is the flash mob object? Where exactly do we draw the line between the more ominous mob and the flash mob? To begin, we used Turner and Killian’s “three continuum of crowd dimensions” classification system of crowds to find that flash mobs derive many of the same characteristics as mobs but tend to differ in degrees.
First, flash mobs are solidaristic and not individualistic, meaning they require the “combined and integrated efforts” of the entire group and will fail at any less. One drawback, however, offers two advantages. The power begins with flash mobs being more effective at achieving objectives that are single individuals are unlikely to complete (Barnes 177). Such a power benefits another characteristic of the flash mob - their active rather than expressive intentions, meaning while flash mobs can be hosted for self-enjoyment in a freedom of expression, organizers and participants wish to incite reaction from the audience; the enjoyment comes after seeing the audience react. A second advantage of solidaristic flash mobs comes with flash mobs offering participants the identity of belonging in a group, in any group. This unspecified group identity is extremely crucial to the flash mob and can also offer us insights into the motivations of the population, a topic we will discuss later in our dissertation. Finally, flash mobs are also extremely focused. This is a characteristic where mobs lie on one end, and flash mobs lie on the other. In general, mobs are more focused than pure crowds, yet flash mobs extend even beyond. Flash mob organizers have an exceptionally detailed and “focused orientation with regard to their objective” (178). Participants receive clear and specific instructions and are firmly united by singular objectives.
Some claim that while flash mobs fall under the category of mobs, it is their “purely social” objective that makes them distinct from mobs (Barnes 178). We argue for a different and more complex view proposed by John H. Muse; Muse states that “mobs imply dangerous disorder” while flash mobs are “precisely coordinated chaos” (Muse 14) that do not involve the same threat of violence as mobs.
This is not the first time such orchestrated chaos have happened in history. “From the Italian futurists of the early 20th century through Dada and Surrealism… to the Situationist International and the Yippies of the 1960s to contemporary culture jammers,” various subcultures have hosted their own chaos (Molnár 44). We point out that previous forms of organized, subversive art in the past century have simply been a quieter nature of guerilla pranks. They were invisible, stealthily left in shared spaces for the unwitting public to trod upon. Social and political commentary were left to the heated activities of mobs, or to the more passive aggressions of writers, cartoon artists, and gallery artists. Each had their extremes which proved to be their dysfunctions. Not until performance artists came on the scene in the 1960s and 1970s did people begin to recognize and explore the possibilities of public performances (Molnár 48).
When flash mobs arose in 2003, they offered the advantages of a most publicly visible and accessible art form. The intents of some flash mobs to follow are closely aligned to political protests and are similarly effective, but the flash mob can continue to call itself a nonviolent art form. Flash mobs are not silent acts to be found and noticed; a survey of flash mobs from 2003 to 2009 revealed they are “organized not only in public spaces, such as city squares, parks, train stations, or semipublic settings, mostly stores and shopping malls, but also in subway cars and university campuses” (Molnár 49). Flash mobs are meant to be a live act or prank where performers and audience see face-to-face.
To give you a better idea of what a flash mob is, please watch the video below:
What is the flash mob object? Where exactly do we draw the line between the more ominous mob and the flash mob? To begin, we used Turner and Killian’s “three continuum of crowd dimensions” classification system of crowds to find that flash mobs derive many of the same characteristics as mobs but tend to differ in degrees.
First, flash mobs are solidaristic and not individualistic, meaning they require the “combined and integrated efforts” of the entire group and will fail at any less. One drawback, however, offers two advantages. The power begins with flash mobs being more effective at achieving objectives that are single individuals are unlikely to complete (Barnes 177). Such a power benefits another characteristic of the flash mob - their active rather than expressive intentions, meaning while flash mobs can be hosted for self-enjoyment in a freedom of expression, organizers and participants wish to incite reaction from the audience; the enjoyment comes after seeing the audience react. A second advantage of solidaristic flash mobs comes with flash mobs offering participants the identity of belonging in a group, in any group. This unspecified group identity is extremely crucial to the flash mob and can also offer us insights into the motivations of the population, a topic we will discuss later in our dissertation. Finally, flash mobs are also extremely focused. This is a characteristic where mobs lie on one end, and flash mobs lie on the other. In general, mobs are more focused than pure crowds, yet flash mobs extend even beyond. Flash mob organizers have an exceptionally detailed and “focused orientation with regard to their objective” (178). Participants receive clear and specific instructions and are firmly united by singular objectives.
Some claim that while flash mobs fall under the category of mobs, it is their “purely social” objective that makes them distinct from mobs (Barnes 178). We argue for a different and more complex view proposed by John H. Muse; Muse states that “mobs imply dangerous disorder” while flash mobs are “precisely coordinated chaos” (Muse 14) that do not involve the same threat of violence as mobs.
This is not the first time such orchestrated chaos have happened in history. “From the Italian futurists of the early 20th century through Dada and Surrealism… to the Situationist International and the Yippies of the 1960s to contemporary culture jammers,” various subcultures have hosted their own chaos (Molnár 44). We point out that previous forms of organized, subversive art in the past century have simply been a quieter nature of guerilla pranks. They were invisible, stealthily left in shared spaces for the unwitting public to trod upon. Social and political commentary were left to the heated activities of mobs, or to the more passive aggressions of writers, cartoon artists, and gallery artists. Each had their extremes which proved to be their dysfunctions. Not until performance artists came on the scene in the 1960s and 1970s did people begin to recognize and explore the possibilities of public performances (Molnár 48).
When flash mobs arose in 2003, they offered the advantages of a most publicly visible and accessible art form. The intents of some flash mobs to follow are closely aligned to political protests and are similarly effective, but the flash mob can continue to call itself a nonviolent art form. Flash mobs are not silent acts to be found and noticed; a survey of flash mobs from 2003 to 2009 revealed they are “organized not only in public spaces, such as city squares, parks, train stations, or semipublic settings, mostly stores and shopping malls, but also in subway cars and university campuses” (Molnár 49). Flash mobs are meant to be a live act or prank where performers and audience see face-to-face.
To give you a better idea of what a flash mob is, please watch the video below:
Enabling the Machine: The Time is Ripe for the Flash Mob
Why and how did flash mobs begin in the time and society they did? What was the state and direction of society 2003 that aligned the perfect birthing arrangements for Bill Wasik’s flash mobs, and instigated flash mobs as a response? We will begin by discussing the most obvious opportunity, technological innovation. Then we will move on and discuss how the political situation in society at the turn of the century provided the second opportunity.
Technology
We have mentioned previously that art movements and mobs, which have happened for centuries, can be seen as the earlier evolutionary models of flash mobs. It is undeniable, however, that “the speed and ease of the flash mob separates it from its predecessors” (Walker 7). Many literature on flash mobs discuss how the ease of mobile and online technology enable this ease of producing flash mobs, and many more literature denounce these discussions as tritely unremarkable and already apparent, but we want to distinguish and discuss two points.
First, the flash mob phenomenon brings attention to the society’s ability to continually transmit information on an “effective one-to-many communications channel” (Molnár 52) rather than through a slow one-to-many channel or a bureaucratic pyramid. For practical reasons, this improves the success rates of “precisely organized chaos” by covering last minute changes in venue, for example. It also widens the range of acts available for “precisely organized chaos,” including giving live instructions. Furthermore, the ability to transmit information up to the very second a flash mob begins is instrumental to the success of the flash mob. Many mobs and nonviolent gatherings have been shut down because the government fear non-authorized assemblies. Flash mob organizers soon caught on and eventually flash mob times and locations were not transmitted until a few hours before the start, to prevent police from anticipating and preparing to meet the flash mob.
Finally, we want to point out how flash mobs demonstrate that their society continues to be private and secret in a time when both social experts and civilians maim the loss of privacy due to online media and services. In the modern age, flash mobs are often publicized on social media and the Internet, and interested potential participants can search social media or the Internet for ongoing flash mobs. Despite such international accessibility and visibility, flash mobs are able to be organized in secret, because participants have to search for them. The flash mobs are published on viral media afterwards, but future participants still have to search for the organizers to participate if they are interested. A curious insight we believe this shines on the society of the time is that despite complaints of social media causing loss of privacy, it is more likely individuals are choosing to search for the media that intrude upon others’ privacy, out of individual interest.
Society & Politics
Where do flash mobs fall on the political timescale? Flash mobs appeared in New York City in the 21st century, a time of relative political freedom in the United States. For a flash mob to succeed, the community and society has to accept the unease caused by its “abrupt appearance and disappearance” (Muse). The success of flash mobs, however, by no mean point to a low risk, all-accepting society. Molnár and many other experts caution flash mobs are a “powerful test of the limits of free assembly” (Molnár 50), and recent government usage of police force at nonviolent Ferguson demonstrations (as of November 12, 2014) expose that even in times after the flash mob, free assembly is not a given privilege.
It is surprising, then to recognize that flash mobs appeared at the height of tightened surveillance after the events of 9/11. To understand, we must first establish an objective explanation. Society did express fears toward the flash mob, and society still allowed the flash mobs to happen. People feared unexpected flash mobs not because of the nature of the unexpected, but because at the time, the unexpected have become associated with horrifying events, and “for the first time in over sixty years, Americans lived in fear of outside invaders, and of an enemy who might strike at any moment” (Walker 7). On the contrary people did not fear “the unexpected” at all; they have become accustomed to and “primed by threat-level warnings to expect the unexpected” (Muse 14). Thus it is not difficult to understand why a society would act apprehensively, yet commend flash mobs for their ingenuity in creating unexpected, delightful surprises.
A question that may follow next is, why did we tolerate flash mobs at all, then? The nature of reception towards flash mobs is not singular; the society in which the flash mob appeared is a complicated society with many factors at play. For one, the nature of politics has changed again in the United States for the first time since World War II and the Cold War; this time, the country is being attacked on American soil by an internal hijacking. Protests did not erupt against Americans being sent to action (those came onto the scene in later years). Instead, protests emerged against the heightened and inconvenient surveillance on the American people. Thus society’s greatest oppression became these fears, and participants chose to use flash mobs as a powerful machine to empower themselves against their fears (Walker 4).
Enabling and Creating Culture with a Machine: Users and Usage
The People in the Machine: Their Fluid Identities
When analyzing the cultural intentions and societal usages of a flash mob machine, it is useful to begin with questioning the parties involved. Who are the organizers, participants, and audience in the production process of the flash mob live act? For organizers and participants, we will strictly define them respectively as the people who initiate the flash mob planning and production, and the people who receive the exclusive invitations to participate. We can also argue that unsuspecting witnesses to the flash mobs are participants, and we will touch upon this point in our next discussion on audience.
Audience is the most difficult population to define. According to Muse, the audience ranges “from the strangers [flash mobs] surprise to the authorities they flout, the mainstream media they entertain, the online followers they impress, and the participants themselves” (Muse 10-11). In our research, we uncovered covered a wider and more fluid array of motivations involved in a flash mob, and in continuum, an even greater fluidity of audience. To best illustrate our discoveries, we turn to Bill Wasik’s third mob, where participants were invited to a semi-public location, and given the following sampling of directions:
By 7:02, walk out to 42nd St. and look for the main entrance to the Grand Hyatt.
Enter and take the escalator up one flight to the main lobby. Loiter until 7:07.
At 7:07, start taking the escalator and elevators up one floor, to the wraparound railing overlooking the lobby. Stand around it, looking down. Fan out to cover as much of the railing as possible. If asked why you are there, point down to the lobby and say, “Look.”
At 7:12, begin applauding. Applaud for fifteen seconds, then disperse in an orderly fashion. (Walker)
Wasik’s curious flash mob resulted in a mob of participants gathering around the usually empty lobby of the Grand Hyatt, and thus the main event became the mob of participants themselves. The flash mob was forced to regard itself; thereby, participants found they were no different from unsuspecting audiences. In this case, the lines between participants and audience have crossed.
The People in the Machine: Their Fluid Motivations
We would like to push Muse’s sweeping observation into a tighter claim, we argue that the organizers and participants also have a more vested interest in being the audience than the unsuspecting witnesses themselves. And in turn, organizers and participants are producing the flash mob solely to watch themselves, and to watch the reactions of the unsuspecting witnesses - which sometimes includes the participants, as seen in the previous example. The evidence is documented in eternity; they film themselves, edit and perfect the films, and the release the films online to relish the their triumphs again. Then they watch the view count on youtube rise. To do so, they have turned the flash mob into a machine where organizers and participants are the first and the last audience, and where “the audiences who witness flash mobs without their consent or even their knowledge become unwitting performers who complete and validate the event” (Muse 15).
This desire to relive and re-watch oneself fits one of the three prioritized reasons why organizers and participants create flash mobs. One reason may be to create something meaningful; this is usually the goal of artists and performance artists who wish to memorialize and pay tribute to a cause, or to make a statement on society. The two other reasons are established in a desire to “become viral,” and a desire to be associated with a popular, ingenious, and exclusive production.
Works Cited
Baker, Claudine. "Getting Mobbed." Brand Strategy 206 (2006): 14-15. Business Source Complete. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.
Barnes, Nora Ganim. "Mob It And Sell It: Creating Marketing Opportunity Through The Replication Of Flash Mobs." Marketing
Management Journal 16.1 (2006): 174-180. Business Source Complete. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.
Molnár, Virág. "Reframing Public Space through Digital Mobilization: Flash Mobs and Contemporary Urban Youth Culture." Space and
Culture 17.1 (2014): 43-58. SAGE Journals. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.
Muse, John H. "Flash Mobs and the Diffusion of Audience." Theater 40.3 (2010): 9-23. Web. 25 Oct. 2014.
Flash Flooding: A Burkean Analysis of Culture and Community in the Flash Mob
Baker, Claudine. "Getting Mobbed." Brand Strategy 206 (2006): 14-15. Business Source Complete. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.
Barnes, Nora Ganim. "Mob It And Sell It: Creating Marketing Opportunity Through The Replication Of Flash Mobs." Marketing
Management Journal 16.1 (2006): 174-180. Business Source Complete. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.
Molnár, Virág. "Reframing Public Space through Digital Mobilization: Flash Mobs and Contemporary Urban Youth Culture." Space and
Culture 17.1 (2014): 43-58. SAGE Journals. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.
Muse, John H. "Flash Mobs and the Diffusion of Audience." Theater 40.3 (2010): 9-23. Web. 25 Oct. 2014.
Flash Flooding: A Burkean Analysis of Culture and Community in the Flash Mob