No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Charismatic Leadership and the Formation of Hate Groups
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 October 2020
Abstract
As of 2019, there were 940 hate groups known to be active in the United States. Previous examinations of hate groups have assumed formation. This paper uses simulation modeling to test Weber’s 1947 socio-political theory of charismatic leadership. Simulation modeling creates a computer simulation that simplifies people and their interactions to mimic a real-world event or phenomena. Three models of hate group formation were created to test this theory. These experiments test the importance of personal and societal levels of hate in group formation and the influence of charismatic leadership. These experiments also tested hypotheses regarding the number of groups that form, the speed of formation, and group size. Data were collected from 13,000 model iterations to test these hypotheses. All models successfully generated hate groups. Hate groups formed at all levels of societal hate. An in-depth understanding of how hate groups form may assist in slowing the proliferation of these groups and decreasing their appeal.
Abstracto
A partir de 2019, había 940 grupos de odio activos en los Estados Unidos. Exámenes previos de grupos de odio han asumido la formación. Este documento utiliza modelos de simulación para probar la teoría sociopolítica de Weber (1947) sobre el liderazgo carismático. El modelado de simulación crea una simulación por computadora que simplifica a las personas y sus interacciones para imitar un evento o fenómeno del mundo real. Se crearon tres modelos de formación de grupos de odio para probar esta teoría. Estos experimentos prueban la importancia de los niveles personales y sociales de odio en la formación de grupos y la influencia del liderazgo carismático. Estos experimentos también probaron hipótesis con respecto al número de grupos que se forman, la velocidad de formación y el tamaño del grupo. Se recopilaron datos de trece mil iteraciones del modelo para probar estas hipótesis. Ambos modelos generaron con éxito grupos de odio. Grupos de odio formados en todos los niveles de odio social. Una comprensión profunda de cómo se forman los grupos de odio puede ayudar a frenar la proliferación de estos grupos y disminuir su atractivo.
Abstrait
En 2019, il y avait 940 groupes haineux connus pour être actifs aux États-Unis. Les examens antérieurs des groupes haineux ont supposé une telle formation. Cet article utilise la modélisation par simulation pour tester la théorie socio-politique de Weber (1947) sur le leadership charismatique. La modélisation de simulation crée une simulation informatique qui simplifie les personnes et leurs interactions pour imiter un événement ou des phénomènes du monde réel. Trois modèles de formation de groupes haineux ont été créés pour tester cette théorie. Ces expériences testent l’importance des niveaux personnels et sociétaux de haine dans la formation du groupe et l’influence du leadership charismatique. Ces expériences ont également testé des hypothèses concernant le nombre de groupes qui se forment, la vitesse de formation et la taille des groupes. Des données ont été collectées à partir de 13 000 itérations du modèle pour tester ces hypothèses. Les deux modèles ont réussi à générer des groupes haineux. Des groupes haineux se sont formés à tous les niveaux de haine sociétale. Une compréhension approfondie de la formation des groupes haineux peut contribuer à ralentir la prolifération de ces groupes et à diminuer leur attrait.
抽象
截至2019年，已知有940个仇俨团体活跃于美国。先凿对仇俨团体的检查已㿇定已繿形憿。本文使用仿真模型俥检验韦伯（1947)的魅力型领导力的社会政治忆论。仿真建模创建了一个计算机仿真，该仿真简化了人们㿊其交互以模仿现实世界中的事件或现象。创建了三个仇俨群体形憿模型俥验譿这一忆论。这些实验测试了个人和社会仇俨水平在群体形憿中的酿褿性以㿊超凡领导力的影呿。这些实验还测试了关于形憿的组数，形憿速度和组大宿的㿇设。从一万三㿃个模型迭代中收集了数修以检验这些㿇设。两祿模型㿇憿功生憿了仇俨组。仇俨团体形憿于社会仇俨的㿄个层翢。深入了解仇俨团体的形憿方庿㿯能有助于兿缓这些团体的扩散并闿低其㿸引力。
نبذة مختصرة
اعتبارًا من عام 2019 ، كان هناك 940 مجموعة كراهية معرو ة بنشاطها ي الولايات المتحدة. ا ترضت ال حوصات السابقة لجماعات الكراهية مثل هذا التكوين. تستخدم هذه الورقة نمذجة المحاكاة لاختبار نظرية ويبر (1947) الاجتماعية تقر للقيادة الكاريزمية. تقوم نماذج المحاكاة محاكاة كمبيوتر تبسط الأشخاص وت اعلاتهم لتقليد حدث أو ظاهرة ي العالم الحقيقي. تم إنشاء ثلاثة نماذج لتشكيل مجموعات الكراهية لاختبار هذه النظرية. تختبر هذه التجارب أهمية الممارسات الشخصية والمجتمعية من الكراهية ي تكوين المجموعة وتأثير القيادة الالهامية. اختبرت هذه التجارب أيضًا ال رضيات المتعلقة بعدد المجموعات التي تتشكل ، وسرعة التكوين ، وحجم المجموعة. تم جمع البيانات من ثلاثة عشر أل نموذج تكرار لاختبار هذه ال رضيات. نجح كلا النموذجين ي إنشاء مجموعات كراهية. تشكلت مجموعات الكراهية على جميع مستويات الكراهية المجتمعية. إن ال هم المتعمق لكي ية تشكيل مجموعات الكراهية قد تساعد ي إبطاء انتشار هذه الجماعات وتقليل جاذبيتها.
Keywords
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2020 International Society of Criminology
References
Adams, G. and Markus, H. R.. 2004. “Toward a Conception of Culture Suitable for a Social Psychology of Culture.” Pp. 335–60 in The Psychological Foundations of Culture, edited by Schaller, M. and Crandall, C. S.. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Agar, M. 2005. “Agents in Living Color: Towards Emic Agent-Based Models.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 8(1):1–19.Google Scholar
Aoki, K., Wakano, J. Y., and Feldman, M. W.. 2005. “The Emergence of Social Learning in a Temporally Changing Environment: A Theoretical Model.” Current Anthropology 46(2):334–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, M., Nicolson, C., Kofinas, G., Tetlichi, J., and Martin, S.. 2004. “Adaptation and Sustainability in a Small Arctic Community: Results of an Agent-Based Simulation Model.” Arctic 57(4):401–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brauer, M., Judd, C. M., and Jacquelin, V.. 2001. “The Communication of Social Stereotypes: The Effects of Group Discussion and Information Distribution on Stereotypic Appraisals.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81:463–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, D. and Wilson, I. D.. 2007. “Ethnicizied Violence in Indonesia: Where Criminals and Fanatics Meet.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 13:367–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, G. 2000. “Information Exchange in Virtual Communities: A Typology.” Information Research 5(4):82.Google Scholar
Carroll, William K. and Ratner, R. S.. 1996. “Master Framing and Cross-Movement Networking in Contemporary Social Movements.” Sociological Quarterly 37(4):601–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, D. M. 1987. Hooded Americanism: The History of the Ku Klux Klan, third edition. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doreian, P. 2001. “Causality in Social Network Analysis.” Sociological Methods & Research 30(1):81–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, J. M. 2007. Generative Social Science: Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ezekiel, R. S. 2002. “An Ethnographer Looks at Neo-Nazi and Klan Groups. The Racist Mind Revisited.” American Behavioral Scientist 46(1):51–71
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flache, A. and Macy, M. W.. 2002. “Stochastic Collusion and The Power Law of Learning: A General Reinforcement Learning Model of Cooperation.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 46:629–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Robert S. and Thompson, Nancy C.. 2002. The Silent and the Damned: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank. Lanham, MD: First Cooper Square Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, D. and McAdam, D.. 1992. “Collective Identity and Activism: Networks, Choices, and the Life of a Social Movement.” Pp. 156–73 in Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited by Morris, A., Mueller, D., and McClurg, C.. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fritzsche, P. 2008. Life and Death in the Third Reich. Boston, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gellately, R. 2001. Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, J. and Wilcox, L.. 1996. American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists, & Others. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Gilbert, N. and Troitzsch, K. G.. 2005. Simulation for the Social Scientist, 2nd edition. New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Goldhagen, D. J. 1996. Hitler’s Willing Executioners. Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Gotts, N. M., Polhill, J. G., and Law, A. N. R.. 2003. “Agent-Based Simulation in The Study of Social Dilemmas.” Artificial Intelligence Review 19(1):3–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumerman, G. J., Swedlund, A. C., Dean, J. S., and Epstein, J. M.. 2003. “The Evolution of Social Behavior in The Prehistoric American Southwest.” Artificial Life 9:435–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamm, M. S. 1994a. American Skinheads: The Criminology and Control of Hate Crime. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Hamm, M. S. 1994b. “A Modified Social Control Theory of Terrorism: An Empirical and Ethnographic Assessment of American Neo-Nazi Skinheads.” Pp. 105–49 in Hate Crime: International Perspectives on Causes and Control, edited by Hamm, M. S.. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Hamm, M. S. 2004. “Apocalyptic Violence: The Seduction of Terrorist Subcultures.” Theoretical Criminology 8:323–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamm, M. S. 2007. Terrorism as Crime: From Oklahoma City to Al-Qaeda and Beyond. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Hastie, R. and Stasser, G.. 2000. “Computer Simulation Methods for Social Psychology.” Pp. 85–116 in Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology, edited by Reis, H. T. and Judd, C. M.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heider, F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, D. 2015. “Quantifying and Qualifying Charisma: A Theoretical Framework for Measuring the Presence of Charismatic Authority in Terrorist Groups.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 38(9):710–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, J. M. 1988. “Two Faces of Charisma: Socialized and Personalized Leadership in Organizations.” Pp. 213–36 in Charismatic Leadership, edited by Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N.. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Howell, Jane M. and Avolio, Bruce J.. 1992. “The Ethics of Charismatic Leadership: Submission or Liberation?” The Executive 6(2):43–54.Google Scholar
Hughes, L.A. and Short, J. F. Jr. 2006. “Youth Gangs and Unions: Civil and Criminal Remedies.” Trends in Organized Crime 9(4):43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, Haroro J. 2006. “The Transformative Charisma Phenomenon in Islamic Radicalism and Militancy: Tracing the Evolutionary Roots of Islamic Terrorism.” Pp. 1–15 in Social Change in the 21st Century 2006 Conference Proceedings, edited by Hopkinson, C. and Hall, C.. Brisbane: Centre for Social Change Research, School of Humanities and Human Services, QUT.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., and Butner, J.. 2003. “Dynamical Evolutionary Psychology: Individual Decision Rules and Emergent Social Norms.” Psychological Review 110(1):3–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kershaw, I. 2008. Hitler, the Germans and the Final Solution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kohler, T. A. 2000. “Putting Social Sciences Together Again.” Pp. 1–18 in Dynamics in Human and Primate Societies: Agent-Based Modeling of Social and Spatial Processes, edited by Kohler, T. A. and Gumerman, G. J.. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznar, L. A. and Sedlmeyer, R. L.. 2005. “Collective Violence in Darfur: An Agent-Based Model of Pastoral Nomad/Sedentary Peasant Interaction.” Mathematical Anthropology and Culture Theory 1(4):1–22.Google Scholar
Langer, E. 2003. A Hundred Little Hitlers, The Death of a Black Man, the Trial of a White Racist and the Rise of the Neo-Nazi Movement in America. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
Lansing, J. S. and Miller, J. H.. 2005. “Cooperation, Games, and Ecological Feedback: Some Insights From Bali.” Current Anthropology 46(2):328–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, K., Petrenko, J., Gladden, J., and Johnson, W. A.. 1998. “Emerging Organized Crime in Chicago.” International Review of Law Computers & Technology 12(2):219–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lustick, I. S. 2000. “Agent-Based Modeling of Collective Identity: Testing Constructivist Theory.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 3(1):1–29.Google Scholar
Lustick, I. S., Miodownik, D., and Eidelson, R. J.. 2004. “Secessionism in Multicultural States: Does Sharing Power Prevent or Encourage it?” American Political Science Review 98(2):209–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, A. and Kashima, Y.. 2003. “How Are Stereotypes Maintained Through Communication? The Influence of Stereotype Sharedness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85:989–1005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manson, S. M. 2001. “Calibration, Verification, and Validation (Section 2.4).” In Agent-Based Models of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change, edited by Parker, D. C., Berger, T., Manson, S. M., and McConnell, W. J.. Retrieved June 14, 2011 (http://www.csiss.org/resources/maslucc/ABM-LUCC.pdf).Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. and Page, S. E.. 2007. Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nikolai, Cynthia and Madey, Gregory. 2009. “Tools of the Trade: A Survey of Various Agent Based Modeling Platforms.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 12(2):2.Google Scholar
Oberschall, A. 2004. “Explaining Terrorism: The Contribution of Collective Action Theory.” Sociological Theory 22(1):26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paoli, L. 2004. “Drug Trafficking in Russia, A Form of Organized Crime?” Journal of Drug Issues 22:1007–38.Google Scholar
Popper, M. 2000. “The Development of Charismatic Leaders.” Political Psychology 21(4):729–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sallach, D. L. 2003. “Social Theory and Agent Architectures: Prospective Issues in Rapid-Discovery Social Science.” Social Science Computer Review 21(2):179–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schbley, A. 2003. “Defining Religious Terrorism: A Causal and Anthological Profile.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 26(2):105–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmel, G. 1955. Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Southern Poverty Law Center. 2019. “Southern Poverty Law Center. SPLC.” Retrieved April 19, 2019 (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp).Google Scholar
Southern Poverty Law Center. 2020. “Southern Poverty Law Center. SPLC.” Retrieved June 9, 2020 (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp).Google Scholar
Sun, R. 2001. “Cognitive Science Meets Multi-Agent Systems: A Prolegomenon.” Philosophical Psychology 14:5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulman, R. B. and Abse, D. W.. 1983. “The Group Psychology of Mass Madness: Jonestown.” Political Psychology 4(4):637–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkan, V. D. 1980. “Narcissistic Personality Organization and Reparative Leadership.” International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 30:131–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wade, W.C. 1987. The Ku Klux Klan in America, The Fiery Cross. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilensky, Uri. 1999. “NetLogo.” Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Retrieved September 11, 2020 (http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/).Google Scholar
Wilner, A. R. and Wilner, D.. 1965. “The Rise and Role of Charismatic Leaders.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 358:77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar