The Crowd: A Study of The Popular Mind by Gustave Le Bon (1896)

Preface

The following work is devoted to an account of the characteristics of crowds.

The whole of the common characteristics with which heredity endows the individuals of a race constitute the genius of the race. When, however, a certain number of individuals are gathered together in a crowd for purposes of action, observation proves that, from the mere fact of their being assembled, there result certain new psychological characteristics, which are added to the racial characteristics and differ from them at times to a very considerable degree.

Organized crowds have always played an important part in the life of people, but this part has never been of such moment as at present. The substitution of the unconscious action of crowds for the conscious activity of individuals is one of the principal characteristics of the present age.

I have endeavoured to examine the difficult problem presented by crowds in a purely scientific manner - that is, by making an effort to proceed with method, and without being influenced by opinions, theories, and doctrines. This, I believe, is the only mode of arrving at the discovery of some few particles of truth, espically when dealing, as is the case here, with a question that is the subject of impassioned controversy. A man of science bent on veryifying phenomenon is not called upon to concern himself with the interests his verifications may hurt. In a recent publication an eminent thinker, m. Goblet d'Aviela, made the remark that, belonging to none of the contemporary schools, I am occasionally found in opposition of sundry of the conclusions of all of them. I hope this new work will merit a similiar observation. To belong to a school is necessarily to espouse its prejudices and preconceived opinions.

Still I should explain to the reader why he will find me draw conclusions from my investigations which it might be thought at first sight they do not bear; why, for instance, after noting the extreme inferiority of the crowds, picked assemblies included, I yet affirm it would be dangerous to meddle with their organisation, notwithstanding this inferiroity.

The reason is, that the most attentive observations of the facts of history has invariably demostrated to me that social organisms being every whit as complicated as those of all beings, it is in no wise in our power to force them to undero on a sudden far-reaching transformations. Nature has recourse at times to radical measures, but never after our fashion, which explains how it is that nothing is more fatal to a people than the mania for great reforms, however excellent these reforms may appear theoretically. They would only be useful were it possible to change instantaneously the genius of nations. This power, however, is only possessed by time. Men are ruled by ideas, sentiments, and customs - matters which are of the essence of ourselves. Institutions and laws are the outward manifestation of our character, the expression of its needs. Being its outcome, institutions and laws cannot change this character.

The study of social phenomena cannot be seperated from that of the peoples among whom they have come into existence. From the philosophic point of view these phenomena may have an absolute value; in practice they have only a relative value.

It is neccessary, in consequence, when studying a social phenomenon, to consider it successively under two very different aspects. It will then be seen that the teachings of pure reason are very often contrary to those of practical reason. There are scarcely any data, even physical, to which this distinction is not applicable. From the point of view of absolute truth a curve or a circle are invariable geometrical figures, rigorously defined by certain formuals. From the point of view of the impression they make on our eye these geometrical figures may assume very varied shapes. By perspective the cube may be transformed into a pyramid or a sqaure, the circle into an elipse or a straight line. Moreover, the consideration of these fictitious shapes is far more improtant than that of the real shapes, for it is they and they alone that we see and that can be reproduced by photography or in pictures. In certain cases there is more truth in the unreal than in the real. To present objects with their exact geometrical forms would be to distort nature nad render it unrecognisable. If we imagine a world whose inhabitant could only copy or photograph objects, but were unable to touch them, it would be very difficult for such persons to attain to an exact idea of their form. Moreover, the knowledge of this form, acessible only to a small number of learned men, would present but a very minor interest.

The philospher who studies social phemomena should bear in mind that side by side with their theoretical value they possess a practical value, and that this latter, so far as the evolution of civilisation is concerned, is alone of importance. The recognition of this fact should render him very curcumspect with regard to the conclusions that logic would seem at first to enforce upon him.

There are motives that disctate to him a like reserve. The complexity of social facts is such, that it is impossible to grasp them as a whole and to forsee the effects of their reciprocal influence. It seems, too, that behind the visible facts are hidden at times thousands of invisible causes. Visible social pehnomena appear to be the result of an immense, unconscious working, that as a rule is beyond the reach of our analysis. Perciptible phenomena may be compared to the waves, which are the expression on the surface of the ocean of deep-lying disturbances of which we know nothing. So far as the majority of their acts are considered, crowds display a singularly inferior mentality; yet there are other acts in which they appear to be guided by those mysterious forces which the ancients denominated destiny, nature, or providence, which we call the voices of the dead, and whose power it is impossible to overlook, although we ignore their essence. It would seem, at times, as if there were latent forces in the inner being of nations which serve to guide them. What, for instance, can be more complicated, more logical, more marvellous than language? Yet whence call this admirably organizsed production have arisen, except it be the outcome of the unconscious genius of crowds? The most learned academics, the most esteemed grammarians can do no more than note down the laws that govern languages; they would be utterly incapable of creating them. Even with respect ot the ideas of great men are certain that they are exclusively the offspring of their brains? No doubt such ideas are created by solitary minds, but is it not the genius of crowds that has furnished the thousands of grains of dust froming the soil in which they have spring up?

Crowds, doubtless, are always unconscious, but this very unconsciousness is perhaps one of the secrets of their strength. In the natural world beings exclusively governed by instinct accomplish acts whose marvellous complexity astounds us. Reason is an attribute of humanity of too recent date and still too imperfect to revel to us the laws of the uncnscious, and still more to take its palce. The part palyed by the unconscious in all our acts is immense, and that played by reason very small. The unconscious acts like a force still unknown.

If we wish, then, to remain within the narrow but safe limits within which science can attain to knowledge, and not to wander in the domain of vague conjecture and vain hypothesis, all we must do is simply to take note of such phenomena as are accessible to us, and confine outselves to their consideration. Every conclusion drawn from our observation is as a rule, premature, for behind the phenomena whcih we see clearly are other phenomena that we see indistinctly, and perhaps behind these latter, yet others which we do not see at all.

Download: The Crowd: A Study of The Popular Mind by Gustave Le Bon (.pdf)

Tags: Psychology

For information on the various file formats in this section visit the Info/File Formats page.

This page may have a talk page ?.