This book comes from this link.
Today's excerpt begins on page 2 .
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CROWDS
In its ordinary sense the word 'crowd' means a gathering of individuals of whatever nationality, profession, or sex, and whatever be the chances that have brought them together.
From the psychological point of view the expression " crowd " assumes quite a different signification.
Under certain given circumstances, and only under those circumstances, an agglomeration of men presents new characteristics very different from those of the individuals composing it.
The sentiments and ideas of all the persons in the gathering take one and the same direction, and their conscious personality vanishes.
A collective mind is formed, doubtless transitory, but presenting very clearly defined characteristics.
The gathering has thus become what, in the absence of a better expression, I will call an organised crowd, or, if the term is considered preferable, a psychological crowd.
It forms a single being, and is subjected to the law of the mental unity of crowds.
It is evident that it is not by the mere fact of a number of individuals finding themselves accidentally side by side that they acquire the character of an organised crowd.
A thousand individuals accidentally gathered in a public place without any determined object in no way constitute a crowd from the psychological point of view.
To acquire the special characteristics of such a crowd, the influence is necessary of certain predisposing causes of which we shall have to determine the nature.
The disappearance of conscious personality and the turning of feelings and thoughts indefinite direction, which are the primary characteristics of a crowd about to become organised, do not always involve the simultaneous presence of a number of individuals on one spot.
Thousands of isolated individuals may acquire at certain moments, and under the influence of certain violent emotions — such, for example, as a great national, event — the characteristics of a psychological crowd.
It will be sufficient in that case that a mere chance should bring them together for their acts to at once assume the characteristics peculiar to the acts of a crowd.
At certain moments half a dozen men might constitute a psychological crowd, which may not happen in the case of hundreds of men gathered together by accident.
On the other hand, an entire nation, though there may be no visible agglomeration, may become a crowd under the action of certain influences.
A psychological crowd once constituted, it acquires certain provisional but determinable general characteristics.
To these general characteristics there are adjoined particular characteristics which vary according to the elements of which the crowd is composed, and may modify its mental constitution.
Psychological crowds, then, are susceptible of classification ; and when we come to occupy ourselves with this matter, we shall see that a heterogeneous crowd — that is, a crowd composed of disimilar elements — presents certain characteristics in common with homogeneous crowds — that is, with crowds composed of elements more or less akin (sects, castes, and classes) — and side by side with these common characteristics particularities which permit of the two kinds of crowds being differentiated.
But before occupying ourselves with the different categories of crowds, we must first of all examine the characteristics common to them all.
We shall set to work like the naturalist, who begins by describing the general characteristics common to all the members of a family before concerning himself with the particular characteristics which allow the differentiation of the genera and species that the family includes.
It is not easy to describe the mind of crowds with exactness, because its organisation varies not only according to race and composition, but also according to the nature and intensity of the exciting causes to which crowds are subjected.
The same difficulty, however, presents itself in the psychological study of an individual.
It is only in novels that individuals are found to traverse their whole life with an unvarying character.
It is only the uniformity of the environment that creates the apparent uniformity of characters.
I have shown elsewhere that all mental constitutions contain possibilities of character which may be manifested in consequence of a sudden change of environment.
This explains how it was that among the most savage members of the French Convention were to be found inoffensive citizens who, under ordinary circumstances, would have been peaceable notaries or virtuous magistrates.
The storm past, they resumed their normal character of quiet, law-abiding citizens.
Napoleon found amongst them his most docile servants.
It being impossible to study here all the successive degrees of organisation of crowds, we shall concern ourselves more especially with such crowds as have attained to the phase of complete organisation.
In this way we shall see what crowds may become, but not what they invariably are.
It is only in this advanced phase of organisation that certain new and special characteristics are superposed on the unvarying and dominant character of the race ; then takes place that turning already alluded to of all the feelings and thoughts of the collectivity in an identical direction.
It is only under such circumstances, too, that what I have called above the psychological law of the mental unity of crowds comes into play.
Among the psychological characteristics of crowds there are some that they may present in common with isolated individuals, and others, on the contrary, which are absolutely peculiar to them and are only to be met with in collectivities.
It is these special characteristics that we shall study, first of all, in order to show their importance.
The most striking peculiarity presented by a psychological crowd is the following:
Whoever be the individuals that compose it, however like or unlike be their mode of life, their occupations, their character, or their intelligence, the fact that they have been transformed into a crowd puts them in possession of a sort of collective mind which makes them feel, think, and act in a manner quite different from that in which each individual of them would feel, think, and act were he in a state of isolation.
There are certain ideas and feelings which do not come into being, or do not transform themselves ; into acts except in the case of individuals forming a crowd.
The psychological crowd is a provisional being formed of heterogeneous elements, which for a moment are combined, exactly as the cells which constitute a living body form by their reunion a new being which displays characteristics very different from those possessed by each of the cells singly.
Contrary to an opinion which one is astonished to find coming from the pen of so acute a philosopher as Herbert Spencer, in the aggregate which constitutes a crowd there is in no sort a summingup of or an average struck between its elements.
What really takes place is a combination followed by the creation of new characteristics, just as in chemistry certain elements, when brought into contact — bases and acids, for example — combine to form a new body possessing properties quite different from those of the bodies that have served to form it.
It is easy to prove how much the individual forming part of a crowd differs from the isolated individual, but it is less easy to discover the causes of this difference.
To obtain at any rate a glimpse of them it is necessary in the first place to call to mind the truth established by modern psychology, that unconscious phenomena play an altogether preponderating part not only in organic life, but also in the operations of the intelligence.
The conscious life of the mind is of small importance in comparison with its unconscious life.
The most subtle analyst, the most acute observer, is scarcely successful in discovering more than a very small number of the unconscious motives that determine his conduct.
Our conscious acts are the outcome of an unconscious substratum created in the mind in the main by hereditary influences.
This substratum consists of the innumerable common characteristics handed down from generation to generation, which constitute the genius of a race.
Behind the avowed causes of our acts there undoubtedly lie secret causes that we do not avow, but behind these secret causes there are many.
Others more secret still which we ourselves ignore.
The greater part of our daily actions are the result of hidden motives which escape our observation.
It is more especially with respect to those unconscious elements which constitute the genius of a race that all the individuals belonging to it resemble each other, while it is principally in respect to the conscious elements of their character — the fruit of education, and yet more of exceptional hereditary conditions — that they differ from each other.
Men the most unlike in the matter of their intelligence possess instincts, passions, and feelings that are very similar.
In the case of everything that belongs to the realm of sentiment — , religion, politics, morality, the affections and antipathies, — the most eminent men seldom surpass the standard of the most ordinary individuals.
From the intellectual point of view an abyss may (exist between a great mathematician and his bootmaker, but from the point of view of character the difference is most often slight or non-existent.
It is precisely these general qualities of character, governed by forces of which we are unconscious, and possessed by the majority of the normal individuals of a race in much the same degree — it is precisely these qualities, I say, that in crowds become common property.
In the collective mind the intellectual aptitudes of the individuals, and in consequence their individuality, are weakened.
The heterogeneous is swamped by the homogeneous, and the unconscious qualities obtain the upper hand.
This very fact that crowds possess in common ordinary qualities explains why they can never accomplish acts demanding a high degree of intelligence.
The decisions affecting matters of general interest come to by an assembly of men of distinction, but specialists in different walks of life, are not sensibly superior to the decisions that would be adopted by a gathering of imbeciles.
The truth is, they can only bring to bear in common on the work in hand those mediocre qualities which are the birthright of every average individual.
In crowds it is stupidity and not mother-wit that is accumulated.
It is not all the world, as is so often repeated, that has more wit than Voltaire, but assuredly Voltaire that has more wit than all the world, if by "all the world" crowds are to be understood.
If the individuals of a crowd confined themselves to putting in common the ordinary qualities of which each of them has his share, there would merely result the striking of an average, and not, as we have said is actually the case, the creation of new characteristics.
How is it that these new characteristics are created?
This is what we are now to investigate.
Different causes determine the appearance of these characteristics peculiar to crowds, and not possessed by isolated individuals.
The first is that the individual forming part of a crowd acquires, solely from numerical considerations, a sentiment of invincible power which allows him to yield to instincts which, had he been alone, he would perforce have kept under restraint.
He will be the less disposed to check himself from the consideration that, a crowd being anonymous, and in consequence irresponsible, the sentiment of responsibility which always controls individuals disappears entirely.
The second cause, which is contagion, also intervenes to determine the manifestation in crowds of their special characteristics, and at the same time the trend they are to take.
Contagion is a phenomenon of which it is easy to establish the presence, but that it is not easy to explain.
It must be classed among those phenomena of a hypnotic order, which we shall shortly study.
In a crowd every sentiment and act is contagious, and contagious to such a degree that an individual readily sacrifices his personal interest to the collective interest.
This is an aptitude very contrary to his nature, and of which a man is scarcely capable, except when he makes part of a crowd.
A third cause, and by far the most important, determines in the individuals of a crowd special characteristics which are quite contrary at times to those presented by the isolated individual.
I allude to that suggestibility of which, moreover, the contagion mentioned above is neither more nor less than an effect.
To understand this phenomenon it is necessary to bear in mind certain recent physiological discoveries.
We know today that by various processes an individual may be brought into such a condition that, having entirely lost his conscious personality, he obeys all the suggestions of the operator who has deprived him of it, and commits acts in utter contradiction with his character and habits.
The most careful observations seem to prove that an individual immersed for some length of time in a crowd in action soon finds himself — either in consequence of the magnetic influence given out by the crowd, or from some other cause of which we are ignorant — in a special state, which much resembles the state of fascination in which the hypnotised individual finds himself in the hands of the hypnotiser.
The activity of the brain being paralysed in the case of the hypnotised subject, the latter becomes the slave of all the unconscious activities of his spinal cord, which the hypnotiser directs at will.
The conscious personality has entirely vanished ; will and discernment are lost.
All feelings and thoughts are bent in the direction determined by the hypnotiser.
Such also is approximately the state of the individual forming part of a psychological crowd.
He is no longer conscious of his acts.
In his case, as in the case of the hypnotised subject, at the same time that certain faculties are destroyed, others may be brought to a high degree of exaltation.
Under the influence of a suggestion, he will undertake the accomplishment of certain acts with irresistible impetuosity.
This impetuosity is the more irresistible in the case of crowds than in that of the hypnotised subject, from the fact that, the suggestion being the same for all the individuals of the crowd, it gains in strength by reciprocity.
The individualities in the crowd who might possess a personality sufficiently strong to resist the suggestion are too few in number to struggle against the current.
At the utmost, they may be able to attempt a diversion by means of different suggestions.
It is in this way, for instance, that a happy expression, an image opportunely evoked, have occasionally deterred crowds from the most bloodthirsty acts.
We see, then, that the disappearance of the conscious personality, the predominance of the unconscious personality the turning by means of suggestion and contagion of feelings arid ideas in an identical direction, the tendency to immediately transform the suggested ideas into acts ; these, we see, are the principal characteristics of the individual forming part of a crowd.
He is no longer himself, but has become an automaton who has ceased to be guided by his will.
Moreover, by the mere fact that he forms part of an organised crowd, a man descends several rungs down the ladder of civilisation.
Isolated, he may be a cultivated individual ; in a crowd, he is a barbarian — that is, a creature acting by instinct.
He possesses the spontaneity, the violence, the ferocity and also the enthusiasm and heroism of primitive beings, whom he further tends to resemble by the facility with which he allows himself to be impressed by words and images — which would be entirely without action on each of the isolated individuals composing the crowd — and to be induced to commit acts contrary to his most obvious interests and his best-known habits.
An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand amid other grains of sand, which the wind stirs up at will.
It is for these reasons that juries are seen to deliver verdicts of which each individual juror would disapprove, that parliamentary assemblies adopt laws and measures of which each of their members would disapprove in his own person.
Taken separately, the men of the Convention were enlightened citizens of peaceful habits.
United in a crowd, they did not hesitate to give their adhesion to the most savage proposals, to guillotine individuals most clearly innocent, and, contrary to their interests, to renounce their inviolability and to decimate themselves.
It is not only by his acts that the individual in a crowd differs essentially from himself.
Even before he has entirely lost his independence, his ideas and feelings have undergone a transformation, and the transformation is so profound as to change the miser into a spendthrift, the sceptic into a believer, the honest man into a criminal, arid the coward into a hero..
The renunciation of all its privileges which the nobility voted in a moment of enthusiasm during the celebrated night of August 4, 1789, would certainly never have been consented to by any of its members taken singly.
The conclusion to be drawn from what precedes is, that the crowd is always intellectually inferior to the isolated individual, but that, from the point of view of feelings and of the acts these feelings provoke, the crowd may, according to circumstances, better or worse than the individual.
All depends on the nature of the suggestion to which the crowd is exposed.
This is the point that has been completely misunderstood by writers who have only studied crowds from the criminal point of view.
Doubtless a crowd is often criminal, but also it is often heroic.
It is crowds rather than isolated individuals that may be induced to run the risk of death to secue the triumph of a creed or an idea, that may be fired with enthusiasm for glory and honour, that are led on — almost without bread and without arms, as in the age of the Crusades — to deliver the tomb of Christ from the infidel, or, as in '93, to defend the fatherland.
Such heroism is without doubt somewhat unconscious, but it is of such heroism that history is made.
Were peoples only to be credited with the great actions performed in cold blood, the annals of the world would register but few of them.
This series of posts will insure that these free thinkers' works live on in living memory.
If only a few.
There is a reason these books are not taught in the modern skools.
Setting rewards to burn only burns the author portion of the payout.
If you think this type of content should be eligible for author rewards, make your voice heard in this community:
created/hive-104940