Abstract ‘Riots’ and ‘mobs’ are closely connected concepts. But do ‘mobs’ really exist as such? Some of us have our doubts. This chapter offers a brief history and analysis of the concept of the ‘mob’. The term first acquired its modern English meaning in the period of reaction following the English Revolution, and I suggest that it remains essentially antidemocratic in its dominant range of use even today. The discourse of the ‘mob’ has at least three parts. First, it conflates the prospect of popular sovereignty with the prospect of ‘mob rule’. Second, it ties these concerns to gender (the word originally meant ‘sex worker’). Third, it often involves fantasies about Indigenous violence. I propose that all three parts extend across the term’s history, offering examples from one of Thomas Hobbes’ frontispieces, Edmund Burke’s response to the French Revolution, responses to the #metoo movement, and the 2021 pro-Trump ‘Capitol Riots’. Finally I turn to the anomalous case of Australia, which is one of the only places in the English-speaking world where the term ‘mob’ has acquired a strongly positive meaning, especially among Indigenous peoples. To show the texture of this, I turn to Bundjalung/Australian writer Melissa Lucashenko, suggesting that if we want to unlearn the anti-democratic discourse of the ‘mob’, then an Indigenous, pro-democratic, and strongly positive use of the term might be just what we need.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.