What do you think?
Rate this book
Multitudes: How Crowds Made the Modern World
In praise of collective what happens when we come together?
Modern history is the history of the crowd. But why are we so frightened of what happens when we come together? Philosophers, politicians and psychologist pronounce that they are dangerous and need to be controlled. In contrast, Hancox argues that they are the harbinger of and a force for change, the bringer of joy and conviviality.
In the 1870s, following the Paris Commune, Gustave Le Bon was the first to claim that the crowd was a dangerous animal that consumed individuals. Since then his thinking has influenced city building, policing, criminology and politics. From scenes of the Nuremburg Rally to the January 6 insurrection on the Capitol, the contagion of mob violence is palpable. They can be dangerous. But the crowd can also be a place of liberation, passion, collective joy. The politicians are so afraid of what happens that they will do whatever they can to keep us apart.
In Multitudes, Dan Hancox celebrates the history of the crowd. The crowd is the human embodiment of democracy. It is a testament to the incredible things that happen when we gather with strangers in pursuit of a common goal - whether that is to throw a rave, or overthrow a dictator. We will see how crowds have the power to change history, and how joining crowds changes us for the better, too.
Modern history is the history of the crowd. But why are we so frightened of what happens when we come together? Philosophers, politicians and psychologist pronounce that they are dangerous and need to be controlled. In contrast, Hancox argues that they are the harbinger of and a force for change, the bringer of joy and conviviality.
In the 1870s, following the Paris Commune, Gustave Le Bon was the first to claim that the crowd was a dangerous animal that consumed individuals. Since then his thinking has influenced city building, policing, criminology and politics. From scenes of the Nuremburg Rally to the January 6 insurrection on the Capitol, the contagion of mob violence is palpable. They can be dangerous. But the crowd can also be a place of liberation, passion, collective joy. The politicians are so afraid of what happens that they will do whatever they can to keep us apart.
In Multitudes, Dan Hancox celebrates the history of the crowd. The crowd is the human embodiment of democracy. It is a testament to the incredible things that happen when we gather with strangers in pursuit of a common goal - whether that is to throw a rave, or overthrow a dictator. We will see how crowds have the power to change history, and how joining crowds changes us for the better, too.
- GenresNonfictionUrbanism
272 pages, Kindle Edition
Published October 22, 2024
5 people are currently reading
275 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
November 13, 2024
A blast against the pseudo-science of 'the madness of crowds' and in praise of their many and distinct types (protest crowds, carnival crowds, football crowds, moshpit crowds, being a flaneur poncing aloofly in a crowd). I felt at the end, in the very brief swipe at the notion of 'twitter mobs', that there could be a lot more on how the egging-each-other-on thrill of a crowd at its best can flip nastily - in places it seems anything good happening in a crowd is group enthusiasm and solidarity, and anything bad in one is just individuals doing bad things. But this is great and timely stuff, with its erudition and experience worn lightly.
March 17, 2025
The central premise of how Victorian era pseudo scientists created the idea of individuals loosing autonomy in crowds was executed quite well. He continually drew relevant comparisons to emphasize how pervasive this understanding of the crowd mentality remains today and how it is weaponized against social movements- namely police crowd control methods like kettling, and how these have worked to suppress collective action. It’s pieces like these that help us recognize the political value of the social and fight against the oppressors
October 16, 2025
Overall, this is just a poorly organized book that left me learning nothing and I feel deeply frustrated because I do agree with much of the author but they just did a terrible job of making their case.
The central thesis is that crowds of people are good and attempts to disrupt these crowds are bad. They take a look at something like the burning of Paris in the 1870s as a false idea of crowds and says the commune of Paris was a great project. They don't mention how the wide streets of Paris were designed by Haussman and Napoleon to make it easy for the army to march through it.
The author gaslights the reader multiple times. The fires in Paris were what convinced a writer of the mob mentality that can develop from crowds. The author then says this mentality has been disproven. But they do not provide this proof.
The author says that in a crowd a person is not a mindless node in a system but retain their individuality. Then they spent the rest of the book bouncing between saying crowds make you a mindless node or remain an individual depending on the specific point they're trying to make.
When I think of mob mentality from crowds, I think of the violence that comes from mobs like the French Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, or the Nazis. The author spends time talking about January 6th and Nazis and claims that these were not 'crowds' but some other sort of thing that... the author goes on and on but somehow conclude that the Nazi rallies were not valid crowds in a very specific way that they define so that crowds are always good.
Another issue with crowds are during large events when people can get trampled. The author looks at research for crowds in music events and says that a crowd is a collection of mindless nodes which move to prevent trampling. A bit later they acknowledge that sometimes people can suffocate at music events.
They complain about the forces that try to create space around crowds to prevent trampling and suffocation and other deaths from crowds while all the ideas they offer still implicitly admit that crowds are not these perfect collections of people.
Crowds can be great. It's great to listen to a band together, or just being in a city that feels alive. Yet when there are problems, crowds can also lead to problems. Crowds can turn into riots. Crowds can be led to political crises. Crowds can be violent or unorderly.
If the author had tried to thread a needle, to discuss the psychology of crowds, of mobs, of riots, and how they may happen and may all be different, that would be an interesting book. If they had given examples outside of their own narrow world, that would be interesting.
They never mention being in a crowd in a church and the spiritual benefits around that. They seem to ignore the way that guns in the US can create a different risk model for crowds. They seem to dismiss random acts of violence and terrorism and how those fears can affect both policy and individual psychology. When the Eagles won the super bowl we saw people climbing telephone poles and lighting fires and people were clearly goaded into it while they probably would not have done that in the day on their own.
By being single-minded on defending crowds, they show their lack of interest in actually understanding crowds or persuading others that crowds are good. They complain without understanding the policies being made or the opposition to the author. And so this work is just a guy who is salty and blames everyone else.
The central thesis is that crowds of people are good and attempts to disrupt these crowds are bad. They take a look at something like the burning of Paris in the 1870s as a false idea of crowds and says the commune of Paris was a great project. They don't mention how the wide streets of Paris were designed by Haussman and Napoleon to make it easy for the army to march through it.
The author gaslights the reader multiple times. The fires in Paris were what convinced a writer of the mob mentality that can develop from crowds. The author then says this mentality has been disproven. But they do not provide this proof.
The author says that in a crowd a person is not a mindless node in a system but retain their individuality. Then they spent the rest of the book bouncing between saying crowds make you a mindless node or remain an individual depending on the specific point they're trying to make.
When I think of mob mentality from crowds, I think of the violence that comes from mobs like the French Revolution, the Cultural Revolution, or the Nazis. The author spends time talking about January 6th and Nazis and claims that these were not 'crowds' but some other sort of thing that... the author goes on and on but somehow conclude that the Nazi rallies were not valid crowds in a very specific way that they define so that crowds are always good.
Another issue with crowds are during large events when people can get trampled. The author looks at research for crowds in music events and says that a crowd is a collection of mindless nodes which move to prevent trampling. A bit later they acknowledge that sometimes people can suffocate at music events.
They complain about the forces that try to create space around crowds to prevent trampling and suffocation and other deaths from crowds while all the ideas they offer still implicitly admit that crowds are not these perfect collections of people.
Crowds can be great. It's great to listen to a band together, or just being in a city that feels alive. Yet when there are problems, crowds can also lead to problems. Crowds can turn into riots. Crowds can be led to political crises. Crowds can be violent or unorderly.
If the author had tried to thread a needle, to discuss the psychology of crowds, of mobs, of riots, and how they may happen and may all be different, that would be an interesting book. If they had given examples outside of their own narrow world, that would be interesting.
They never mention being in a crowd in a church and the spiritual benefits around that. They seem to ignore the way that guns in the US can create a different risk model for crowds. They seem to dismiss random acts of violence and terrorism and how those fears can affect both policy and individual psychology. When the Eagles won the super bowl we saw people climbing telephone poles and lighting fires and people were clearly goaded into it while they probably would not have done that in the day on their own.
By being single-minded on defending crowds, they show their lack of interest in actually understanding crowds or persuading others that crowds are good. They complain without understanding the policies being made or the opposition to the author. And so this work is just a guy who is salty and blames everyone else.
November 4, 2024
Very disappointing. Mr. Hancox sells his book as a debunking of the crowd theories of Gustave Le Bon, but he doesn't really do that. I read Mr. Le Bon's book a few years ago. There was much in it that turned me off. He certainly presents the idea of the crowd as an unruly mob in which passions carry people away and turn them into animals. His right-wing authoritarian perspective was not appealing, but he did have some important things to say. We do feel differently when we are in a crowd of people who share a passion and a purpose. Crowds create a context in which people think and act differently. That was an insight for which Mr. Le Bon deserves some credit, and which Mr. Hancox does not refute.
Mr. Hancox would have us believe that often in crowds we act compassionately and rationally. Crowds can become pillars of common strength without becoming unruly mobs. Controlling crowds with strong arm police tactics is the wrong idea and often results in unnecessary injuries and deaths. Fair enough. I think that Mr. Hancox is probably right about this, but he really doesn't offer up anything more than the same sort of bare assertion and gut instincts that were the basis for Mr. Le Bon's arguments. Mr. Hancox refers at several points to findings of contemporary crowd psychologists who support his position, but he offers little in the way of citations or explanations as to what these positions are based on. Sadly, this book is another example of a journalist writing a book for a popular audience without sufficient research and without sufficient analysis to make his arguments convincing.
Mr. Hancox would have us believe that often in crowds we act compassionately and rationally. Crowds can become pillars of common strength without becoming unruly mobs. Controlling crowds with strong arm police tactics is the wrong idea and often results in unnecessary injuries and deaths. Fair enough. I think that Mr. Hancox is probably right about this, but he really doesn't offer up anything more than the same sort of bare assertion and gut instincts that were the basis for Mr. Le Bon's arguments. Mr. Hancox refers at several points to findings of contemporary crowd psychologists who support his position, but he offers little in the way of citations or explanations as to what these positions are based on. Sadly, this book is another example of a journalist writing a book for a popular audience without sufficient research and without sufficient analysis to make his arguments convincing.
July 6, 2025
Honestly a topic which I had read previous literature on and given thought to myself. therefore it was interesting to read Hancox's book on the topic which feels well researched and covers a wide range. would have been very interested to hear about crowds in communist countries and the dynamics in which they had been used in mass rallies - a different form of crowd.
August 7, 2025
great stuff, but would love to see the lord of the flies esque descent of Leeds / Reading fests in the early 2000s analysed under this lens
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews