《Crowds: A Study of the Popular Mind》[Fr.] Gustave Le Bon / author, Feng Keli / translator, Zhongyang Bianyi Press, 2004.1
This book, written in 1895, was judged by Freud to be “a truly great work” and “an exquisitely detailed description of the collective mentality”; the great American social psychologist Allport went even further, calling it the most “influential” work in the field of psychology to date.
And yet this book has also drawn an enormous amount of controversy and refutation. Clearly, it is a book full of prejudice, but that cannot erase its profound insights and far-reaching influence.
Le Bon points out that once an individual enters a group, his personality is obliterated, and the behavior of the group always appears emotional, irrational, and stupid! Many of his views are extremely extreme, but I agree with some of Le Bon’s opinions.
Indeed, the will of a group does not, as many imagine, arise as a synthesis and balance of individual wills, and thus appear calm and rational. On the contrary, groups very rarely display rationality and wisdom; the will of a group is hard to be peaceful, and groups are often easily stirred up, incited, confused, and suggested into extremity—impulsive, fickle, and impatient! In fact, on the one hand there is the saying, “With two monks there is water to carry; with three monks there is no water to drink,” meaning that the larger the group, the more disputes there are; but on the other hand, the larger the group, the more likely it is to appear more unified! For example, if only two or three people with differing opinions are together, it is hard to reach unified action, whereas when tens of thousands or millions gather together, they are more likely to appear as one. Clearly, in this tendency toward unity, it is hard to find the trace of a rational individual; groups are also more easily incited. Compared with one-on-one communication, a speaker’s address before tens of thousands of people is more persuasive, because groups are often more credulous and more easily receptive to suggestion and mutual suggestion! There are many psychological experiments that can be cited here. For example, if a group of people watches a certain video and then retells it, when several disruptors mixed in among them deliberately mention scenes that never existed, the others in the group are often influenced by them and likewise retell those nonexistent scenes, as if they had seen them with their own eyes. And often the larger the group, the more credulous it becomes—of course, the number of skeptics will also increase as the group grows, but the growth of skeptical strength is far outpaced by the growth of the group’s unconscious force. Imagine Group A consists of 1 disruptor, 2 credulous people, and 1 skeptic, while Group B consists of 3 disruptors, 6 credulous people, and 3 skeptics. Then, if we examine group behavior, which group is more likely to be credulous? In A, the disruptor cannot make much headway alone; the credulous people may think, “It was just one disruptor who remembered wrong,” or they may think, “It was both the skeptic and me who remembered wrong,” and in a 1:2 ratio, obviously the latter choice is more likely, so the whole group is harder to incite. But B has 3 disruptors. Since disruptors are always more inclined to speak out proactively, while skeptics often can only respond passively, and many skeptics are not enthusiastic about publicizing their rebuttals in the form of speeches to the public, then in most cases the influence of disruptors will spread faster and farther within the group. Suppose a certain credulous person, when exposed to 3 disruptors, is exposed to only 1 skeptic, or perhaps none at all. Then, between the two choices—“three people who often appear very authoritative and very confident are wrong” and “I, who am not confident, and another person who seems rather unreliable are wrong”—the ratio is 3:2, and the credulous person will easily lean toward the former. The more serious problem is that once a credulous person falls to the side of the disruptors, he himself becomes a new disruptor, and thus the force of disruption will increase exponentially, whereas skeptics can rarely enlarge their own ranks effectively! So it can be imagined that the larger the group, the more irrational it often becomes! There are also plenty of real-world examples of group irrationality. Leaving the distant past aside, take World War II: Hitler and Mussolini came to power on the support of the masses, and public support for Japan’s war of aggression was also over 99%. This shows how easily a group’s fanatical impulse can be stirred up! Of course, as Le Bon pointed out, this is not to say that groups are always inclined toward moral depravity. Le Bon wrote: “If by ‘morality’ we mean the persistent respect of certain social conventions, and the continual repression of self-interested impulses, then it is obviously possible to say that, because groups are too impulsive and too changeable, they cannot be moral. On the contrary, if we count certain qualities shown for the moment—such as self-abnegation, self-sacrifice, disregard for fame and profit, dedication, and the desire for equality—as part of ‘morality,’ then we may say that groups often display a very high moral level.” (P38)
What are the direct factors that influence group opinion? “Reasoning and argument cannot defeat certain words and catchphrases. They go on the market together with the crowd in grand style. The moment people hear them, everyone becomes solemn and stands with head bowed. …… They evoke magnificent and grandiose visions in people’s minds, and it is precisely their vagueness that gives them their mysterious power.” (P83) For instance, words like “democracy,” “socialism,” “freedom,” and “equality”: these are the most vague and indeterminate terms, and different cultures and different individuals understand them in radically different ways. And yet these very words are the powerful forces that govern this whole world! Think about how today’s America runs roughshod over the world: it doesn’t need to bother with excess logic or reasoning; it only needs to wave the flags of “democracy” and “freedom” from time to time, and it can make masses upon masses of people firmly believe that America is the best country in the world……
I very much agree with some of Le Bon’s insights on political systems. Le Bon points out: “Each nation is governed by its own character, and any model that does not accord with this character is nothing more than a borrowed garment, a temporary disguise. There is no doubt that bloody wars have always been, and will continue to be, fought in order to forcibly establish certain institutions. People treat these institutions as they would the relics of saints, attributing to them supernatural powers that create happiness.” (P70~71) Institutions cannot fundamentally control a group. Le Bon gives the example: “Some countries, such as the United States, achieved great prosperity under democratic institutions, whereas others, such as those Spanish-American republics, live in a state of miserable chaos under extremely similar institutions.” (P70) —This example from more than a hundred years ago can today be cited word for word! Many people worship democracy, worship universal suffrage, or worship socialism, endowing those words with sacred meaning, but what they worship and what they become fanatical about is precisely the “words” themselves; what governs the group is also precisely the “words” themselves, not the institutions.
Seeing today’s many young people in China enthusiastically chasing after Western freedom and democracy, they often sigh and lament that China lacks democracy and freedom, and I often sigh and lament for them as well…… I do not mean that China’s current system is better than the West’s; a system has only suitability, not good or bad. What I want to point out is that democracy is by no means a万能药! Are universal suffrage and direct elections, and the like, necessarily a good thing? I think not necessarily! As mentioned above, the larger the group, the more likely it is to appear irrational, impulsive, and easily incited, while wisdom and long-term strategy are easily obliterated within the group. Of course, I am not denying the significance of the masses, nor do I mean to deny the rights of the masses—even if Le Bon may have had such thoughts. Moreover, I think a group only “very likely” appears more impulsive, which does not exclude the possibility that a group may sometimes also serve as a stabilizing force. In a civilized social system, the masses should provide appropriate supervision and constraint over decision-makers, but one must not overdepend on, or even worship, the power of the group.
In addition, it must be pointed out that saying a “group” lacks rationality does not mean that the “masses” lack rationality. In Le Bon’s words: “All collectives, regardless of who their members are, suffer from intellectual inferiority. In a group, people always tend toward mediocrity; on general questions, the vote of 40 academicians would be no wiser than the vote of 40 water sellers.” (P156) I think Le Bon’s view here appears too extreme, but one must also admit that this statement is not without reason: no matter how rational an individual is, once his behavior and personality are obliterated by the group, there is nothing outstanding left.
We say that philosophers are always lonely, and this does not mean that philosophers must turn their backs on the mortal world, live in seclusion, and have no friends—it is not like that. Philosophers are lonely because they must do their utmost to avoid being influenced by the will of the group, to keep themselves from being obliterated by the group. 2005-07-31
tt
2008-05-11 21:28:57 Anonymous 221.205.233.148 [reply]
You didn’t understand the book. Think it over carefully.
古雴
2008-05-11 22:04:51 [reply]
That was more than three years ago; back then I was still quite green, though I’m not much better now. But at the time I wasn’t really writing a review aimed at Le Bon’s views anyway—I was mainly just elaborating my own impressions.
Of course, I welcome advice; I’ve always been hoping for someone to challenge me. But spare me that kind of mere expression of contempt~
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply