The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

How does intense frustration make people susceptible to the appeals of mass movements? Do you agree with Hoffer’s depiction of frustration and which types make one more likely to be a true believer? What other potential factors do you believe might also play a role?

Hoffer argues that all mass movements are basically the same regardless of doctrine. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this argument? Do you find it convincing? Why or why not?

After joining a mass movement, how and why does a true believer’s fanatical commitment to the movement deepen over time? What tactics and/or experiences, if any, could lessen a true believer’s commitment, in your view?

Offer an analysis of the “men of words” and “men of action” whom Hoffer mentions as preceding and following the active phase of the true believer. How do they differ from the true believer? What role can they play in perpetuating or curbing fanaticism?

Hoffer argues that poverty is not always linked to fanaticism, yet he credits the relative lack of mass movements in much of the West to its material affluence. In your opinion, what is the relationship between material circumstances and mass movements?

How does Hoffer depict the typical leader of a mass movement? Choose some mass leaders—such as Hitler, Stalin, or a modern-day dictator—and analyze them according to Hoffer’s rubric. In what ways do these leaders conform to or diverge from Hoffer’s assumptions?

Consider Hoffer’s analysis of propaganda. Do you agree with his assessment of its role (or lack thereof) in keeping mass movements together? Why or why not?

How does Hoffer use specific examples of historical mass movements to bolster his argument for the interchangeability of mass movements? What are the advantages and disadvantages of his approach?