Literature review: Herbert Blumer’s Theory of Collective Behaviour and Its Relevance to International Relations
Herbert Blumer’s classic theory of collective behaviour has been influential in analysing social movements, particularly due to its emphasis on the emergent norms and symbolic interaction processes that drive group dynamics. While traditionally applied to understanding crowd behaviours and social movements, Blumer’s framework has significant potential applications in International Relations (IR). In today’s interconnected world, collective behaviour across borders often arises from shared grievances and aspirations communicated through symbolic acts, whether in global protests or transnational movements addressing climate change, human rights, or economic inequality. This literature review reconceptualises Blumer’s work by critically assessing his theory in an IR context, with reference to the analyses by Crossley (2002), Buechler (2004), and McAdam (1999). Additionally, it incorporates insights from more recent research (2019-2024) that discuss Blumer’s concepts in relation to digital, globally networked activism, demonstrating how his ideas resonate in contemporary IR issues.
Key Features of Blumer’s Theory and IR Relevance
Blumer categorises collective behaviour as a symbolic process distinct from regular social interactions. He proposes that it develops through stages, beginning with “milling,” a phase of informal observation and mutual influence among individuals, leading to a shared sense of direction. This initial phase can evolve into “contagion,” where emotions and actions spread rapidly, fostering a unified group response (Blumer, 1969, pp. 168-172). This model provides a valuable lens for IR scholars examining how global movements coalesce, such as the transnational mobilisation witnessed during the Arab Spring or the Fridays for Future climate strikes. Through milling and contagion, diverse groups across nations find a common purpose and collective identity, leveraging shared symbols and language to create a unified front. Blumer’s observation that “the crowd is not simply an aggregation of people but a mode of social existence” (Iqbal, 2023, pp. 167-171) is pertinent in understanding these global alliances, where localised struggles and narratives converge into a collective, symbolic stance with significant IR implications.
Unlike earlier psychological theories that depicted crowds as irrational and uncontrollable, Blumer’s symbolic interactionist approach emphasises the importance of meanings and symbols that develop during group interactions (Blumer, 1969, pp. 180-185). This
2 / 4
perspective aligns with constructivist theories in IR, which posit that global norms and identities are constructed through shared meanings. Blumer’s insights are therefore useful in analysing international phenomena, as they suggest that protests and movements are not merely reactive but are part of a larger process of identity and norm construction. For instance, international responses to climate change are often framed in terms of moral responsibility and collective identity, drawing on symbols like “protecting our planet” that resonate globally and foster collective actions across borders.
Key Themes, Arguments, and IR Implications
Blumer’s theory highlights symbolic interaction as a collective process that drives group dynamics, yet also leaves room for critique in IR contexts. His theory, while insightful, focuses primarily on meaning-making at the expense of structural factors such as political and economic systems that significantly influence collective action. According to Crossley (2002), Blumer’s ideas provide a basis for understanding movement identity and cultural dynamics, noting that collective behaviour is often framed through shared symbols. However, Crossley argues that by prioritising individual agency, Blumer overlooks the broader structural factors that play a crucial role in IR. Crossley’s critique is especially pertinent in IR contexts, where socio-political conditions often serve as triggers for transnational movements (Crossley, 2002, p. 23).
Buechler (2004) similarly criticises Blumer’s approach for its lack of attention to structural dynamics, suggesting that international movements arise from systemic issues, such as global economic inequality or climate injustice (Borch & Schiermer, 2021, pp. 439-465). This critique underscores that while symbols and meanings are instrumental in mobilising people, they are often catalysed by pre-existing structural grievances. In IR contexts, systemic injustices such as income disparity, political repression, and environmental degradation are key factors that drive international collective behaviour. For instance, economic inequality and climate vulnerability disproportionately affect countries in the Global South, and these grievances often catalyse transnational solidarity movements that demand global accountability and structural change.
McAdam (1999) provides a further critique by comparing Blumer’s theory with his own political process model, which emphasises political opportunities, resource mobilisation, and structural constraints. McAdam suggests that while Blumer’s symbolic interactionist approach captures the ideological and identity-based dimensions of collective behaviour, it lacks a comprehensive understanding of structural factors that catalyse and sustain transnational movements (McAdam, 1999, p. 22). McAdam’s political process model is
3 / 4
particularly applicable in IR, where global movements often depend on political opportunities and international support structures. For example, the success of movements such as the global campaign against apartheid in South Africa was partly due to international political pressures and support from allies worldwide. McAdam’s critique reinforces the need for an integrated approach that considers both symbolic and structural factors in explaining international collective behaviour.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Blumer’s Theory in IR Context
· Strengths: Blumer’s theory introduced an innovative perspective by conceptualising collective behaviour as a rational, symbol-driven process, countering the view of crowds as inherently irrational. This focus on agency and individual perspective is particularly relevant in the current era, where digital platforms enable rapid, coordinated, and symbolic actions across borders. Blumer’s concepts of “milling” and “contagion” offer a valuable framework for understanding how digital interactions facilitate solidarity in global protests. In recent years, social media has amplified the speed and reach of contagion, allowing symbols and slogans to go viral, thereby fostering a sense of global identity and shared purpose (Jasny & Lenartowicz, 2022, pp. 1805-1830).
· Weaknesses: A significant limitation of Blumer’s theory is its neglect of structural dynamics, which are crucial in understanding international movements. Scholars such as Buechler (2004) and McAdam (1999) contend that global social movements often respond to structural injustices. Crossley critiques Blumer for oversimplifying the complex factors that drive identity and group formation, especially within the diverse and interconnected landscape of IR. For instance, global migration flows, often driven by structural inequalities, cannot be fully explained through symbolic interaction alone, as they are deeply rooted in geopolitical and economic realities.
Recent Perspectives on Blumer’s Theory and Global Movements
In recent years, scholars have examined Blumer’s concepts in relation to digitally mediated movements, where symbols and hashtags play a central role in building transnational identities. Rentscher and Roggeband, for instance, discuss how contagion—a key concept in Blumer’s theory—applies to social media, which enables rapid mobilisation and solidarity across borders (Smith & Williams, 2021). Lee (2023) further concludes that Blumer’s symbolic interactionism remains valuable for analysing online movements, where hashtags and trending topics foster a sense of global identity around shared causes, supporting IR theories on networked activism (Blumer, 2024, pp. 327-340).
4 / 4
Meanwhile, Johnson (2022) offers a critique of Blumer’s focus on symbolic interactions, arguing that contemporary international movements are driven by both symbolic and structural concerns. Johnson contends that many modern social movements are deeply embedded in complex political and organisational structures, challenging the idea of spontaneous, purely symbolic collective behaviour (Johnson, 2022, p. 45). These critiques suggest that while Blumer’s framework remains useful, it requires adaptation to encompass the structural factors integral to international relations (COLLECTIVE, 2024, p. 327).
Conclusion
Blumer’s theory of collective behaviour provides valuable insights into the formation of transnational movements, particularly through its focus on symbolic interaction and emergent group norms. However, the theory’s limitations—primarily its neglect of structural dynamics—present challenges for its application in IR, where political and economic forces are central drivers of global activism. While Crossley (2002), Buechler (2004), and McAdam (1999) highlight these limitations, recent scholarship suggests that Blumer’s concepts remain relevant, especially in digital contexts where symbols and narratives rapidly mobilise global identities.
For a more comprehensive analysis of international collective behaviour, future research could integrate Blumer’s symbolic interactionism with structural approaches, recognising both the importance of shared meanings and the influence of systemic conditions. By merging these perspectives, scholars can develop a nuanced framework that captures the interplay of symbols and structures in shaping transnational movements, providing a richer understanding of contemporary issues in international relations.
(please write this so it is not AI and and has no plagiarism )