‘Deny, Defend, Depose: To What Extent can Luigi Mangione be considered as a modern day ‘social bandit’?’
On December 4th, 2024, an American health insurance CEO was shot and killed in the early hours of the morning in Midtown Manhattan, New York – what seemed at first a simple murder case quickly became a divisive topic once more and more details were uncovered and released. The victim, fifty-year-old Brian Thompson, was CEO of UnitedHealthcare (UHC), one of America’s largest health insurance providers, and already a dividing figure on his own – since his instalment as CEO in April 2021, Thompson had only improved the company’s profits, seeing an increase from $12 billion in 2021 to $16 billion in 2023, as well as taking home a salary of $10 million per annum. While Thompson increased the company’s profits, 33% of UHC claims were denied (ValuePenguin.com, 2024).
The division created by Thompson’s murder only increased once the alleged killer was arrested and revealed – Luigi Mangione, a twenty-six-year-old Ivy League graduate, was arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania, five days after the incident occurred. Upon his arrest, police revealed that among his possessions were a 3D printed gun and suppressor, a fake ID and a handwritten manifesto. Despite seemingly damning evidence against him, Mangione was quickly elevated to folk hero status, with strong and positive reactions to him and his alleged crime spanning across social media and the globe. At the time of writing, Mangione’s official defence fund stands at $702,981 (GiveSendGo.com, 2025).
The reaction and response to Mangione can be likened to Eric Hobsbawm’s theory of social banditry, wherein criminal individuals, whether alleged or convicted, receive praise and support from the public alongside condemnation from authority figures such as the government and police (Primitive Rebels, 1959; Bandits, 1969). Through the use of historical examples, this essay will explore Hobsbawm’s theory and Mangione’s place within it. To do this, the essay will use a range of historical and contemporary sources, focussing on Hobsbawm’s model of social banditry, and the academic discourse around this through contributions made by Anton Blok (The Peasant and the Brigand: Social Banditry Reconsidered,1972) as well as through use of the Robin Hood principle as created by Graham Seal (2009), to establish the creation of the folk hero from the folklorist perspective, and finally through modern media – this essay will apply the following definitions to media used: formal media, which applies to ‘official’ bodies such as the BBC, Fox News, CNN, and others in working in an official capacity, and informal media, which will refer to the use of social media, and the spread of information from ‘unofficial’ capacities, such as TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and Reddit.
The model of social banditry was birthed due to Hobsbawm’s realisation that across Europe, similar stories and mythologies were told about folk heroes and bandits, cementing them as figures of justice, and social retribution (Hobsbawm, 2000, p.IX). In the fourth revised edition of ‘Bandits’, released in 2000, Hobsbawm cited three reasons for the release: first, that the history of banditry still holds interest. He noted that since 1981, there have been significant releases of new, major works on banditry across the globe (such as Social Banditry Revisited: The Case of Bai Lang, a Chinese Brigand, E.J. Perry, 1983; Peasants, Heroes, and Brigands: The Problems of Social Banditry in Early Nineteenth-Century South China, R.J. Antony,1989). Second, Hobsbawm noted the rapid disintegration of state power and administration across many parts of the world and the decline of law and order developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries which he argued led to the refamiliarisation of populations with ‘historical conditions’ leading to the rise of endemic banditry. In light of the recent events in Chechnya (the first and second wars which saw Chechnya reincorporated into Russian territory), we may read stories of Mediterranean banditry in the late sixteenth century differently to how they were interpreted in the 1960s (Hobsbawm, 2000, p.X). Finally, Hobsbawm’s third reason was himself.He argued that if his work continues to be subject to debate, he must continue to revise it.
Despite this, the question remains: who can be a social bandit? The social bandit is described by Hobsbawm as being a noble robber, a Robin Hood-esque figure who robs the rich to give to the poor (Wagner, 2007, p.353). Using this description, this portion of the essay will look at historical examples of social banditry from within the United Kingdom, specifically touching on Robin Hood and Dick Turpin before discussing criticisms presented by Anton Blok (The Peasant and the Brigand: Social Banditry Reconsidered,1972), Richard. W. Slatta (Eric J. Hobsbawm’s Social Bandit: A Critique and Revision, 2004), Kim. A. Wagner (Thuggee and Social Banditry Reconsidered, 2007) and Graham Seal (The Robin Hood Principle: Folklore, History, and the Social Bandit, 2009) before finally touching on social banditry within modern examples.
As mentioned above, social banditry has many opportunities for historical application, and the chosen examples this paragraph will touch on are Robin Hood and Dick Turpin. These examples were chosen to reflect the response to a fictional hero, and a tangible, debatable ‘hero’. Though Turpin will be discussed, Robin Hood will be the main focus due to the impact his legacy, however fictional, has had on the discussion of banditry and the actions of those deemed as bandits. Hood has been described as a noble robber and thus has become the face of social banditry, highlighted by Hobsbawm as a reflection of the political climate he was created in (Hobsbawm, 2000, p.153) under the reign of King John, facing high taxation and excommunication from the Catholic Church.
Hobsbawm describes the ‘Robin Hood legend’, a status which is acquired by bandits when their actions target those who receive disapproval from the public (Hobsbawm, 2000, p.154) with contemporary public opinion reflecting a willingness to focus on the socially commendable aspects of bandit activity and turn a blind eye to the less desirable aspects. Hobsbawm has considerably less to say about Turpin, mentioning him only twice in ‘Bandits’, but he is still a figure worth discussing, however briefly. Under Hobsbawm’s model of social banditry, Turpin can be categorised as a ‘criminal robber’, a classification which, Hobsbawm noted, emerges where social banditry fails to flourish – under this failure, criminal robbers may take the place of the Robin Hood figure and will receive the idealisation and attributes of Robin Hood, especially if the criminal robbers actions involve holding up merchants, rich travellers and others who may have profited from the poor (Hobsbawm, 2000, p.45)
Despite this, Hobsbawm is not without his share of criticism. The chief critics of his model that this essay will focus on are Blok (1972), Slatta (2004), Wagner (2007) and Seal (2009). Blok’s critiques are noted by the three latter authors as significant critiques of Hobsbawm’s model, namely that Hobsbawm failed to account for the complexities of different types of banditry, and also suggests that Hobsbawm obscures these due to his insistence of new data being interpreted through the original model. This is also evident through Blok’s critique that class consciousness within explanations of banditry have received ‘undue emphasis’ (Blok, 1972, p.496) and argues that Hobsbawm fails to account for urban bandits and urban robbers.
Additionally, Slatta (2004) and Wagner (2007) write that Hobsbawm based his interpretations on fictional sources (i.e. ballads, poetry, folk tales), and therefore created an interdisciplinary study which Wagner describes as ‘never resolved or sufficiently explored’ (Wagner, 2007, p.355) while Slatta suggests that while Hobsbawm acknowledges the dangers of using ‘tricky historical source’ (Slatta, 2004, p.23), he overexaggerated the tie between peasants and bandits and ignored the fact that often peasants would aid in arresting bandits (Slatta, 2004, p.29).
Finally, while presenting the Robin Hood principle, Seal (2009) writes that a large number of historians and anthropologists have argued that bandits, regardless of whether they are noble or not, ultimately helped subvert the status quo through collusion with the ruling classes and powerful elite (Seal, 2009, p.67-68).
Through these criticisms, we can argue that, although Hobsbawm continued to revise his work, he still failed to acknowledge the possibility of negative relationships between the peasantry and the banditry, and did not consider outcomes such as bandits gaining the support of the peasant class in order to avoid violence, vandalism or destruction. However, despite criticism, it remains an influential academic concept and has been applied to modern examples successfully.
As mentioned in the introduction, this essay will focus on the alleged murderer Luigi Mangione and his status as a social bandit, but first we will briefly touch on some other modern examples to help place Hobsbawm’s theory within the modern world. To do this, the examples this essay will discuss will be the Black Lives Matter protests which took place in 2020 in Chicago, USA, and former Colombian drug lord, narcoterrorist and politician Pablo Escobar. These contemporary examples will help lead into discussions of Mangione, and the ways in which groups, individuals and activities can be interpreted depending on the group perceiving it and them.
Edmund Leach is quoted in his 1977 book ‘Custom, Law and Terrorist Violence’ as describing action which is seen as ‘disorderly and criminally offensive’ by one group may in fact be seen as the ‘epitome of heroic virtue’ by another; he also writes that when such differing groups exist within the same space, such as the same society, irresolvable conflict may result (Leach, 1977).
Hobsbawm’s theory of social banditry can be imposed onto modern, contemporary examples with current academic theory suggesting that individuals may feel the need to intervene if they feel the ‘rational formal, bureaucratic justice of the state’ fails to reflect what are considered ‘popular conceptions of justice’ (Ali, 2022). In her article ‘” Social Bandits”: Criminals or Heroes?’ Ali uses Hobsbawm’s theory of social banditry to explain the example of looting during the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests which took place in Chicago, USA, in 2020. She writes that current academic thought highlights a correlation between poverty and the hardships of earning a living and a turn to banditry – an argument which she further evidences’ through responses to acts of looting during the BLM protests as recorded by author Kimberly Jones in her interview ‘How Can We Win’. Jones urges people to consider why many individuals felt that looting was the only chance they had to get the things they needed (Jones, 2020).
Through Hobsbawm’s model, it could be argued that looters during the BLM protests were elevated to bandit status due to the support they received from members of society, such as Jones, due to the economic subjugation of Black Americans across roughly 450 years of history (Ali, 2022).
The second brief example is Pablo Escobar, who, it can be argued, possessed the dual identities for the application of a modern day Robin Hood figure. Escobar is the receiver of differing interpretations; to some, he is an evil murderer and terrorist, while to others he is viewed as a benevolent, charitable figure who cared for the poor of Colombia (Bowley, 2013, p.10).
It is important to note that Escobar was incredibly wealthy, and incredibly skilled at marketing himself, so it could be argued that for figures like Escobar, the Robin Hood label is one that is earned through material generosity, rather than through good deeds in the way of historical banditry; that is, no longer robbing the rich to give to the poor, and instead using one’s own wealth to improve the conditions of the poor. This move could also signify a change in society towards technological development and industrial development, in that now substantial effort must be made in order to qualify as a Robin hood – esque bandit.
Hobsbawm’s theory, despite being an older one, is still relevant and can be applied to modern examples. In this case, alleged murderer Luigi Mangione. It should also be noted that due to the current and ongoing nature of this case, many non-academic sources will be used in this discussion.
Graham Seal’s Robin Hood principle can be used to understand both Mangione and the attention he has received, primarily focusing on the afterlife of folk heroes.With Mangione currently alive, we will focus primarily on his ideas surrounding charisma, tradition & circumstance and cultural scripts.Seal’s principle does not seek to address the conditions that may give way to banditry, instead it aims to focus on the cultural imperatives that are involved in the representation of outlaws and bandits (Seal, 2009, p.68). Before applying the above ideas to Mangione, we must first briefly outline them:
1) Charisma, Seal writes, is seemingly the foundation of the ‘outlaw hero’ mantle, without it, without ‘some level of wit, style or sympathy’, the outlaw does not stand distinguished from the common criminal, or from the crowd (Seal, 2009, p.75); he also argues that charisma is something earned and expanded on across time and mythologisation; that is, the further removed we are from an individual, the more romanticised they become.
2) Tradition and circumstance indicate the ways in which an outlaw figure can arise, with Seal suggesting that outlaws heroes ‘arise when one or more social, cultural, ethnic or political groups believe themselves to be oppressed and unjustly treated by one or more groups that wield greater power’ (Seal, 2009, p.70); furthermore, argues that the specifics of time, place and situation can be conditioned by forces such as socio-political and economic conditions
3) Finally, cultural script – Seal references Stephen Knight who argues that the history and mythology of outlaw heroes can be condensed into a script wherein the hero, antagonists and sympathisers all seem to move through seemingly premeditated actions which produce predictable consequences (Seal, 2009, p.79; Knight, 1994, p.58).
Though Mangione has not yet been tried, reactions to him and his alleged crimes have already firmly divided opinions, with a recent poll finding that 41% of 18 – 29-year-olds believe the murder of Brian Thompson is acceptable (Coombes, 2025), it is clear that this will not be a case that fades into obscurity, regardless of whether Mangione is found guilty or not guilty.
As defined in the introduction, this essay will refer to formal and informal media, with formal media taking the form of official news bodies, such as CBC, the Independent, and Varsity, and informal media referring to the spread of information through social media. Contemporary formal media sites have been fascinated with the reaction to Mangione, with many trying to understand exactly why so many are offering him support.
On December 15th, 2024, six days after Mangione’s arrest, CBC published an article titled ‘3 Reasons behind the unsettling glorification of Luigi Mangione’; putting forward arguments from Professor George Bonanno (a clinical psychologist from Columbia University’s Teachers College) that a disdain for health insurers, Thompson being an easy villain, and even Mangione himself were factors that were ‘festering in plain sight’, with Bonanno quoted as believing the response to Mangione is ‘straightforward […] almost to the point of being obvious’ (Schmunk, 2024). Similar to Hobsbawm and Seal’s ideas regarding banditry, the idea that this crime is a response to oppression and unjust treatment is one that Bonanno shares, suggesting that if people are ‘treated unjustly by the health-care system’, there is no recourse, and that that feeling can lead to feelings of helplessness and anger, and the desire to take action amongst the disenfranchised of American society, and then ‘this guy comes along and does it’, as Bonanno goes on to say, it’s very Robin Hood-y (Schmunk, 2024).
Some journalists, such as Olivia Petter of the Independent, write that ‘hot men can get away with anything – even murder’ (Petter, 2025), with suggestions of hybristophilia, a term introduced in 1986 by sexologist John Money to explain a trend of people sexually and romantically interested in criminals, being levelled out in order to explain the intense reaction to Mangione..
This accusation is not entirely misplaced, with information, footage and ‘edits’ spreading across social media – it is clear to see that Mangione has been placed on a folk hero pedestal, and has become a public figure for sexualisation, and romanticisation. It is through informal media that these ‘edits’ are spread, with popular app TikTok taking the lead, with edits that romanticise, sexualise and invade Mangione’s privacy through use of formerly private photographs and videos, Mangione has become ‘the internet’s boyfriend’ – a term defined by Glamour as a ‘famous or semi famous male person whom your entire Twitter (now X) feed has a crush on at the same time’ (Rosa, 2019).
The response to Mangione, alongside our understanding of the Robin Hood principle and Hobsbawm’s model outlined in Bandits, allows us to answer the question of the extent Mangione can be considered a modern-day social bandit, or at least attempt to answer it. While Mangione has rocketed to folk hero status online, due to the ongoing nature of his trial, and the fact he is still alive, it is difficult to place him amongst historic examples. It would be unrealistic to gauge the lasting legacy of Mangione, but based on the response he has received so far, with the donations his legal fund has received, and how this case will mark the rest of his life, whether he remains in custody, or is found not guilty and released; Mangione has become the image of a dissatisfied and disenfranchised group of people, his image as a defender of the people has expanded beyond America, beyond the healthcare system.
It is important to remember, however, that social bandits are perceived differently depending on who is reading, writing or talking about them, and so we cannot ever truly know an unbiased account. For example, a government may label an individual as an outlaw or criminal for their actions, but others who share the same views and values may label them as heroes – for these groups, the bandit is seen as sharing a common enemy and therefore is seen as a champion trying to right the wrongdoings of the state. The danger of this, using Mangione as an example, is that we may never fully know why an action was undertaken, and so it can be dangerous to assume someone’s views or beliefs without them being explicitly mentioned. We do not know why Mangione allegedly killed Brian Thompson, and we do not know his views or who he is as a person beyond this one instance and beyond what information has been found about him online, which only represents a snapshot in time, and so labelling him as a hero of the left wing when this may not be the case could create a false legacy, and a false narrative.
Regardless of this, it is easy to see that Mangione has gripped the hearts of the people, and the minds, and the bodies, whether it is in support or in condemnation. Mangione has placed American health insurance on the tip of the tongue, and so his place as a social bandit and outlaw hero will remain only to serve the test of time, and whether he fades into obscurity, or whether he remains a viable figure of change and, for some, admiration, Mangione has caused intense and interesting conversations and debates across the globe.
Bibliography:
Alaimo, Kara. 2024. “The Internet Missed the Point on Luigi Mangione.” TIME. Time. December 13. https://time.com/7201952/luigi-mangione-internet-myths-essay/.
Blok, Anton. 1972. “The Peasant and the Brigand: Social Banditry Reconsidered.” Comparative Studies in Society and History14 (4): 494–503. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0010417500006824.
Coombes, Rebecca. 2025. “Make America Healthy Again? A Moment of Reckoning for Healthcare.” BMJ, January, r87–87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r87.
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1969) 2000. Bandits. 4th ed.
Klapp, Orrin E. 1949. “The Folk Hero.” The Journal of American Folklore 62 (243): 17. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/536852.
Lubitsh, Ben. 2025. “Gen Z’s (Not So) Unlikely Hero.” Varsity Online. February. https://www.varsity.co.uk/comment/28790.
“LUIGI MANGIONE BECOMES VIRAL ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT SYMBOL.” 2024. Daily Telegraph NZ. December 22. https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/world/luigi-mangione-becomes-viral-anti-establishment-symbol/.
Mac Donald, Heather. 2024. “Luigi Mangione and America’s Broken Moral Compass.” City Journal. December 24. https://www.city-journal.org/article/luigi-mangione-unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson.
McKay, Gabriel. 2024. “Luigi Mangione Is an Accused Murderer - and the Internet Loves Him.” The Herald. December 11. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24786847.luigi-mangione-accused-murderer---internet-loves/.
Panetta, Alexander. 2024. “Will a Shocking Crime Spur Change in U.S. Health Care? Don’t Count on It.” CBC. December 13. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/health-care-us-analysis-1.7409425.
Raglan, F.R.S. 1975. The Hero: A Study in Tradition, Myth and Drama.
“Romanticizing Luigi Mangione? This Fascination with a Murder Suspect Could Point to a Psychological Condition.” 2024. The Times of India. Times of India. December 27. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/etimes/trending/romanticizing-luigi-mangione-this-fascination-with-a-murder-suspect-could-point-to-a-psychological-condition/articleshow/116727905.cms.
Scalco, Laura. 2024. “Luigi Mangione: The Rise of an Unlikely Internet Icon | DDW.” Don’t Die Wondering. December 24. https://www.dontdiewondering.com/luigi-mangione-the-rise-of-an-unlikely-internet-icon.
Schmunk, Rhianna. 2024. “3 Reasons behind the Unsettling Glorification of Luigi Mangione.” CBC. December 15. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/luigi-mangione-tiktoks-glorification-explanation-1.7410769.
Seal, Graham. 2009. “The Robin Hood Principle: Folklore, History, and the Social Bandit.” Journal of Folklore Research: An International Journal of Folklore and Ethnomusicology 46 (1): 67–89. doi:https://doi.org/10.2979/jfr.2009.46.1.67.
Slatta, R. W. 2004. “View of Eric J. Hobsbawm’s Social Bandit: A Critique and Revision.” Ncsu.edu. https://acontracorriente.chass.ncsu.edu/index.php/acontracorriente/article/view/45/3.
Wagner, Kim, A. 2007. “Thuggee and Social Banditry Reconsidered.” The Historical Journal 50 (2): 353–76. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x07006103.
Wex, Sabina. 2024. “From Thirst Edits to Nihilism, What’s behind the Online Response to the CEO Murder?” CBC. December 10. https://www.cbc.ca/arts/commotion/from-thirst-edits-to-nihilism-what-s-behind-the-online-response-to-the-ceo-murder-1.7406626.