The mental constitution of crowds is not to be learnt merely by a study of their crimes, any more than that of an individual by a mere description of his vices.
However, in point of fact, all the world's masters, all the founders of religions or empires, the apostles of all beliefs, eminent statesmen, and, in a more modest sphere, the mere chiefs of small groups of men have always been unconscious psychologists, possessed of an instinctive and often very sure knowledge of the character of crowds, and it is their accurate knowledge of this character that has enabled them to so easily establish their mastery.Napoleon had a marvellous insight into the psychology of the masses of the country over which he reigned, but he, at times, completely misunderstood the psychology of crowds belonging to other races;[1] and it is because he thus misunderstood it that he engaged in Spain, and notably in Russia, in conflicts in which his power received blows which were destined within a brief space of time to ruin it.Aknowledge of the psychology of crowds is to-day the last resource of the statesman who wishes not to govern them--that is becoming a very difficult matter--but at any rate not to be too much governed by them.
[1] His most subtle advisers, moreover, did not understand this psychology any better.Talleyrand wrote him that "Spain would receive his soldiers as liberators." It received them as beasts of prey.A psychologist acquainted with the hereditary instincts of the Spanish race would have easily foreseen this reception.
It is only by obtaining some sort of insight into the psychology of crowds that it can be understood how slight is the action upon them of laws and institutions, how powerless they are to hold any opinions other than those which are imposed upon them, and that it is not with rules based on theories of pure equity that they are to be led, but by seeking what produces an impression on them and what seduces them.For instance, should a legislator, wishing to impose a new tax, choose that which would be theoretically the most just? By no means.In practice the most unjust may be the best for the masses.Should it at the same time be the least obvious, and apparently the least burdensome, it will be the most easily tolerated.It is for this reason that an indirect tax, however exorbitant it be, will always be accepted by the crowd, because, being paid daily in fractions of a farthing on objects of consumption, it will not interfere with the habits of the crowd, and will pass unperceived.Replace it by a proportional tax on wages or income of any other kind, to be paid in a lump sum, and were this new imposition theoretically ten times less burdensome than the other, it would give rise to unanimous protest.This arises from the fact that a sum relatively high, which will appear immense, and will in consequence strike the imagination, has been substituted for the unperceived fractions of a farthing.The new tax would only appear light had it been saved farthing by farthing, but this economic proceeding involves an amount of foresight of which the masses are incapable.
The example which precedes is of the ******st.Its appositeness will be easily perceived.It did not escape the attention of such a psychologist as Napoleon, but our modern legislators, ignorant as they are of the characteristics of a crowd, are unable to appreciate it.Experience has not taught them as yet to a sufficient degree that men never shape their conduct upon the teaching of pure reason.
Many other practical applications might be made of the psychology of crowds.A knowledge of this science throws the most vivid light on a great number of historical and economic phenomena totally incomprehensible without it.I shall have occasion to show that the reason why the most remarkable of modern historians, Taine, has at times so imperfectly understood the events of the great French Revolution is, that it never occurred to him to study the genius of crowds.He took as his guide in the study of this complicated period the descriptive method resorted to by naturalists; but the moral forces are almost absent in the case of the phenomena which naturalists have to study.Yet it is precisely these forces that constitute the true mainsprings of history.
In consequence, merely looked at from its practical side, the study of the psychology of crowds deserved to be attempted.Were its interest that resulting from pure curiosity only, it would still merit attention.It is as interesting to decipher the motives of the actions of men as to determine the characteristics of a mineral or a plant.Our study of the genius of crowds can merely be a brief synthesis, a ****** summary of our investigations.Nothing more must be demanded of it than a few suggestive views.Others will work the ground more thoroughly.
To-day we only touch the surface of a still almost virgin soil.
