INTRODUCTION THE ERA OF CROWDS 導言：群體的時代

The evolution of the present age — The great changes in civilisation are the consequence of changes in National thought — Modern belief in the power of crowds— It transforms the traditional policy of the European states — How the rise of the popular classes comes about, and the manner in which they exercise their power —The necessary consequences of the power of the crowd — Crowds unable to play a part other than destructive — The dissolution of worn-out civilisations is the work of the crowd — General ignorance of the psychology of crowds — Importance of the study of crowds for legislators and statesmen.

THE great upheavals which precede changes of civilisations such as the fall of the Roman Empire and the foundation of the Arabian Empire, seem at first sight determined more especially by political transformations, foreign invasion, or the overthrow of dynasties. But a more attentive study of these events shows that behind their apparent causes the real cause is generally seen to be a profound modification in the ideas of the peoples. The true historical upheavals are not those which astonish us by their grandeur and violence. The only important changes whence the renewal of civilisations results, affect ideas, conceptions, and beliefs. The memorable events of history are the visible effects of the invisible changes of human thought. The reason these great events are so rare is that there is nothing so stable in a race as the inherited groundwork of its thoughts.

The present epoch is one of these critical moments in which the thought of mankind is undergoing a process of transformation.

Two fundamental factors are at the base of this transformation. The first is the destruction of those religious, political, and social beliefs in which all the elements of our civilisation are rooted. The second is the creation of entirely new conditions of existence and thought as the result of modern scientific and industrial discoveries.

The ideas of the past, although half destroyed, being still very powerful, and the ideas which are to replace them being still in process of formation, the modern age represents a period of transition and anarchy.

It is not easy to say as yet what will one day be evolved from this necessarily somewhat chaotic period. What will be the fundamental ideas on which the societies that are to succeed our own will be built up? We do not at present know. Still it is already clear that on whatever lines the societies of the future are organised, they will have to count with a new power, with the last surviving sovereign force of modern times, the power of crowds. On the ruins of so many ideas formerly considered beyond discussion, and to-day decayed or decaying, of so many sources of authority that successive revolutions have destroyed, this power, which alone has arisen in their stead, seems soon destined to absorb the others. While all our ancient beliefs are tottering and disappearing, while the old pillars of society are giving way one by one, the power of the crowd is the only force that nothing menaces, and of which the prestige is continually on the increase. The age we are about to enter will in truth be the ERA OF CROWDS.

Scarcely a century ago the traditional policy of European states and the rivalries of sovereigns were the principal factors that shaped events. The opinion of the masses scarcely counted, and most frequently indeed did not count at all. To-day it is the traditions which used to obtain in politics, and the individual tendencies and rivalries of rulers which do not count; while, on the contrary, the voice of the masses has become preponderant. It is this voice that dictates their conduct to kings, whose endeavour is to take note of its utterances. The destinies of nations are elaborated at present in the heart of the masses, and no longer in the councils of princes.

The entry of the popular classes into political life — that is to say, in reality, their progressive transformation into governing classes — is one of the most striking characteristics of our epoch of transition. The introduction of universal suffrage, which exercised for a long time but little influence, is not, as might be thought, the distinguishing feature of this transference of political power. The progressive growth of the power of the masses took place at first by the propagation of certain ideas, which have slowly implanted themselves in men's minds, and afterwards by the gradual association of individuals bent on bringing about the realisation of theoretical conceptions. It is by association that crowds have come to procure ideas with respect to their interests which are very clearly defined if not particularly just, and have arrived at a consciousness of their strength. The masses are founding syndicates before which the authorities capitulate one after the other; they are also founding labour unions, which in spite of all economic laws tend to regulate the conditions of labour and wages. They return to assemblies in which the Government is vested, representatives utterly lacking initiative and independence, and reduced most often to nothing else than the spokesmen of the committees that have chosen them.

To-day the claims of the masses are becoming more and more sharply defined, and amount to nothing less than a determination to utterly destroy society as it now exists, with a view to making it hark back to that primitive communism which was the normal condition of all human groups before the dawn of civilisation. Limitations of the hours of labour, the nationalisation of mines, railways, factories, and the soil, the equal distribution of all products, the elimination of all the upper classes for the benefit of the popular classes, &c., such are these claims.

Little adapted to reasoning, crowds, on the contrary, are quick to act. As the result of their present organisation their strength has become immense. The dogmas whose birth we are witnessing will soon have the force of the old dogmas; that is to say, the tyrannical and sovereign force of being above discussion. The divine right of the masses is about to replace the divine right of kings.

The writers who enjoy the favour of our middle classes, those who best represent their rather narrow ideas, their somewhat prescribed views, their rather superficial scepticism, and their at times somewhat excessive egoism, display profound alarm at this new power which they see growing; and to combat the disorder in men's minds they are addressing despairing appeals to those moral forces of the Church for which they formerly professed so much disdain. They talk to us of the bankruptcy of science, go back in penitence to Rome, and remind us of the teachings of revealed truth.These new converts forget that it is too late. Had they been really touched by grace, a like operation could not have the same influence on minds less concerned with the preoccupations which beset these recent adherents to religion. The masses repudiate to-day the gods which their admonishers repudiated yesterday and helped to destroy. There is no power, Divine or human, that can oblige a stream to flow back to its source.

There has been no bankruptcy of science, and science has had no share in the present intellectual anarchy, nor in the making of the new power which is springing up in the midst of this anarchy. Science promised us truth, or at least a knowledge of such relations as our intelligence can seize: it never promised us peace or happiness. Sovereignly indifferent to our feelings, it is deaf to our lamentations. It is for us to endeavour to live with science, since nothing can bring back the illusions it has destroyed.

Universal symptoms, visible in all nations, show us the rapid growth of the power of crowds, and do not admit of our supposing that it is destined to cease growing at an early date. Whatever fate it may reserve for us, we shall have to submit to it. All reasoning against it is a mere vain war of words. Certainly it is possible that the advent to power of the masses marks one of the last stages of Western civilisation, a complete return to those periods of confused anarchy which seem always destined to precede the birth of every new society. But may this result be prevented?

Up to now these thoroughgoing destructions of a worn-out civilisation have constituted the most obvious task of the masses. It is not indeed to-day merely that this can be traced. History tells us, that from the moment when the moral forces on which a civilisation rested have lost their strength, its final dissolution is brought about by those unconscious and brutal crowds known, justifiably enough, as barbarians. Civilisations as yet have only been created and directed by a small intellectual aristocracy, never by crowds. Crowds are only powerful for destruction. Their rule is always tantamount to a barbarian phase. A civilisation involves fixed rules, discipline, a passing from the instinctive to the rational state, forethought for the future, an elevated degree of culture — all of them conditions that crowds, left to themselves, have invariably shown themselves incapable of realising. In consequence of the purely destructive nature of their power crowds act like those microbes which hasten the dissolution of enfeebled or dead bodies. When the structure of a civilisation is rotten, it is always the masses that bring about its downfall. It is at such a juncture that their chief mission is plainly visible, and that for a while the philosophy of number seems the only philosophy of history.

Is the same fate in store for our civilisation? There is ground to fear that this is the case, but we are not as yet in a position to be certain of it.

However this may be, we are bound to resign ourselves to the reign of the masses,since want of foresight has in succession overthrown all the barriers that might have kept the crowd in check.

We have a very slight knowledge of these crowds which are beginning to be the object of so much discussion. Professional students of psychology, having lived far from them, have always ignored them, and when, as of late, they have turned their attention in this direction it has only been to consider the crimes crowds are capable of committing. Without a doubt criminal crowds exist, but virtuous and heroic crowds, and crowds of many other kinds, are also to be met with. The crimes of crowds only constitute a particular phase of their psychology. 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. A knowledge 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.

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 simplest. 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 simple 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.

提要：

當今時代的演變——文明之中的巨大變化是國民群體思想變化的結果——它是群體力量之中的現代信仰——它轉變了歐洲各個國家的傳統政策——大眾階級的崛起是如何產生的，以及他們施展自身力量的方式——群體力量必然的結果——群眾除了搞破壞之外，不能扮演任何重要的角色——破碎不堪的文明的分崩離析是群眾作用的產物——對大眾心理學的普遍忽視——研究大眾對于立法者以及政治家的重要性。

那些產生于文化劇變之前的偉大變革，比如羅馬帝國的衰落，以及阿拉伯帝國的建立，初看似乎更像是由政治的轉變，外國勢力的入侵，或是朝代的瓦解決定的。但是，從一項對這些事件進行更加細致的研究中，不難看出在它們的表面現象背后，能夠看到人們的思想所產生的深刻改變。真正的歷史變革，并不是那些以宏偉和暴力的場景令我們震驚的事情。能夠令文化實現偉大復興的唯一重要的變化，是對思想、觀念和信仰產生影響的變化。令人印象深刻的歷史事件只不過是人類思想的無形變化產生的有形結果而已。這些偉大的歷史事件之所以如此非比尋常是在人類這個物種當中，沒有什么要比代代遺傳的思維根基更加穩固。

當今的時代正是這種人類的思維正在經歷一場轉變的過程的關鍵時期之一。

在這樣的轉變基礎下，存在兩個基本的因素。第一個因素是宗教、政治和社會信仰的破壞，而我們文明當中的所有因素都植根于此；第二個因素是通過現代科學和工業的探索發現，創造全新的存在和思維條件。

盡管，過去的思想已經被破壞得面目全非，但是它仍舊是非常強大的，那些準備取代它們的想法仍舊在形成的過程當中，當今的時代代表著過渡和無政府狀態的混亂時期。

這個不可避免的混亂時期究竟會演變成什么樣子，還都不好做出結論。那個替代我們現有社會的社會究竟會產生什么樣的基本觀念呢？我們現在還不得而知。不過，我們已經清楚的是，不管未來的社會是按照哪種路線進行組織的，它們都將要考慮一種全新的力量，一種能幸存到最后，現代至高無上的力量，那就是群眾的力量。在過去被看作是沒有討論余地，在現在已經衰敗或者正在衰敗的許多思想的廢墟之上，在成功的革命摧毀許多權威來源的廢墟之上，這種依靠自身的能力崛起的力量，似乎很快就要注定同其他的力量融合在一起。當我們所有來自古代的信仰開始消失的時候，當社會的古老石柱開始一根接著一根倒塌的時候，群體的力量就成為唯一不受到任何挑戰的力量，而且，它的威望將會繼續提升。沒錯，我們將要步入的時代就是群體的時代。

就在差不多一個世紀以前，歐洲各個國家的傳統政策和至高無上統治權的對抗是形成眾多事件的主要因素。大眾的建議很少能夠受到重視，甚至完全得不到重視。現在，這種被政治所接受的傳統，個人的喜好傾向，以及統治者的對抗變得不再重要了；與之相反的是，大眾的聲音卻開始占據壓倒性的優勢。這種聲音會把他們的舉動口述給君主，令他們的言行竭力去注意那些聲音。現在，造就民族使命的地方，存在于群眾的內心里，它不再存在于公子王侯的委員會議上。

普通群眾的階層進入政治生活——也就是說，在現實生活中，這種普通群眾的階層逐漸向統治階層的轉變——是我們這個轉變的紀元最引人注目的特征之一。普選權的引入在很長的一段時間里都沒有產生什么影響力，它并不是我們想的那樣成為政治力量轉移能夠加以辨別的特點。群眾力量的逐漸增長，首先是由于一些思想的宣傳所致，這些思想緩慢地植入了人們的思維當中，隨后，個人逐步成為社團，并且力圖實現理論的概念。正是在社團的幫助下，群體開始獲得與他們的興趣相符的想法，盡管這些想法并不是特別的公正，卻有著非常清晰的分界線，并且意識到了他們自身的力量。群眾開始創立各種聯合組織，令一個又一個的權威跪拜在它的面前；他們還建立了工會聯盟，置一切的經濟法律于不顧，試圖管理勞動環境和薪金水平。他們來到了掌控著政府的委員會，代表們完全缺乏積極性和獨立性，大多數人甚至墮落到成為那些選出他們的委員會的發言人。

在今天，廣大群眾要求的定義正變得越來越清晰，就像是要把現有的這個社會給徹底破壞掉一樣，持有的想法和原始共產主義緊密聯系在一起，這就是所有的人類團體在文化迎來曙光之前的正常狀態。對勞動時間的限定，煤礦、鐵路、工廠以及土地的國有化，所有商品的平等分配，清除所有的上等階級，為人民群眾階級謀利益等等——這就是群眾要求的內容。

群眾則恰恰相反，他們不善于論證，卻急于求成。他們現在所身處的組織給予了他們無窮無盡的力量。我們親眼見證的那些新生的教條很快就會擁有古老教條的力量；也就是說，無須討論的殘暴且至高無上的力量。廣大群眾的神圣權利將會取代國王的神權。

那些與我們這些中產階級不謀而合的作家，他們用最好的方式呈現出了這些階級相對狹隘的思想，死板的觀點，膚淺的懷疑主義，以及時而表現出來的過度的自我主義，當他們看到這種全新的力量正在日益壯大時，他們表現出了極為驚恐的神情；為了對抗人們混沌的思想，他們向那些在以前被他們諷刺蔑視的道德力量發出了絕望的懇求。他們向我們闡述了科學的破產，深表懺悔的轉回羅馬，提醒我們被揭露的真相的教義。這些新來的皈依者忘記了，現在已經太晚了。即使他們已經被神祇所感動，與此相類似的行動也不會對思想產生相同的影響力，因為他們不大關注那些令最近皈依宗教的人全身心投入的事情。今天的人民群眾摒棄了他們的訴說者在昨天就已經摒棄并且加以摧毀的眾神。這里沒有哪種力量，無論是在神界，還是在人間，能夠驅使一條小河逆流回它的源泉。

科學沒有破產，它并沒有步入當今這種理性的無政府狀態，在這種混亂狀態中誕生的全新力量也并非是由它所產生出來的。科學向我們承諾過真相，或者，至少是我們的智慧所能理解的一些涉及種種關系的知識，但是它從未向我們承諾過和平或是快樂。它對我們的情感漠不關心，對我們的哀怨閉耳不聞。這只能靠我們自己盡力同科學生活在一起，因為沒有任何事物可以挽回本就被摧毀的幻覺。

在所有的國家里，普遍的跡象都是清晰可見的，它向我們展示了群眾力量的快速成長，它不愿承認我們認為它注定很快就會停止增長。不管為我們保留的命運會是什么，我們都應該去屈從于它。所以與它相對抗的論證都只不過是徒勞的話語戰爭。的確，將群眾的力量說成是西方文明最后階段的標志是可能的，它可能退回到那些混亂的無政府狀態時期，而這似乎是每個全新社會誕生的先決條件。但是，這樣的結果能否得到阻止呢？

直到現在，徹底摧毀一個破碎不堪的文明，已然成為群眾最為明確的任務。它的確不是只有在今天才可以有跡可循。歷史告訴我們，當擁有道德力量的文明失去了它們的力量的時候，那么它的最終瓦解就是由那些沒有意識形態、粗魯的群眾所造成的，用足夠道德的話說，他們就是野蠻人。能夠創造并且引領文明的只能是那些為數不多的達官貴族，而不是群眾。群眾只有強大的破壞力。他們的統治永遠都等同于野蠻人的階段。一個有著雜亂無章的規則制度，從本能的心理狀態步入能夠深謀遠慮的理性的心理狀態的文明屬于文明的高級階段——群眾不約而同地展示出，單靠他們自身的力量，這些事情都是無法實現的。

因為群體的力量具有純粹的破壞性的特性，因而他們的行為就像是加速虛弱的人或是死去的人解體的細菌。當一個文明的構造開始被腐蝕，那么群眾往往會將它傾倒。只有在這樣的生死關頭，人們才能清晰地看到他們主要的使命，而在此時此刻，大量的哲學原則似乎成為唯一的歷史理念。

在我們的文明之中是不是也保留有相同的命運呢？這樣的恐懼是有理論依據的，但是現在的情況是，我們還沒有身處在能夠明確地作出答復的位置之上。

不管情況如何，我們都要順從于群眾的統治，正是由于群眾狹隘的視野，令讓它循規蹈矩的所有障礙都逐一被消除了。

我們對于這些在一開始就被視為爭論的對象的群體知之甚少。那些專門研究心理學的學生們的生活同他們相差甚遠，那些學生總是忽視他們，以至于當他們到后來把自己的注意力轉到這個方向上的時候，就認為能夠展開探究的只有那些犯罪群體。毋庸置疑，犯罪群體是存在的，但是，與之共存的還有道德，英雄群體，以及許許多多其他的群體。群體犯罪只是他們特殊的一種心理階段。單純靠對他們罪行的研究是不能了解這些群體的，這就好比不能僅僅通過對一個人所犯下的罪行的描述來了解這個人一樣。

但是，從事實的觀點看，這個世界上所有的統治者、所有宗教或是帝國的創立者、所有信仰的使徒們、出類拔萃的政治家，甚至用更謙遜的話講，一小群人里面的首領，都是些毫無意識形態的心理學家，他們對群體的特點擁有發自本能卻非常確信的理解，正是他們這種對于這個特點準確的理解讓他們能夠非常輕易地建立他們自己的領導地位。拿破侖對他所統治的國家群眾的心理學有著驚人的見解，但是他有時對屬于其他種族的群體心理學卻又缺乏了解；[2]正是因為他對于群體心理的誤解，致使他入侵西班牙，尤其是俄羅斯，陷入了令自己的力量受到嚴重打擊的矛盾之中，這樣的行為注定會讓他在轉瞬之間被摧毀。在今天，對于那些不想統治群體，（它正在變成一件困難的事情）只希望別太受群眾控制的政治家來說，群體的心理學成為他們最后的資源。

我們只有通過獲得群體心理學的一些見解，才能夠理解法律和體系對他們施加的影響是多么的微乎其微，才能夠理解他們只能持有被別人強加的想法，對于維護自己的意見顯得那么無能為力，我們并不能通過建立在純粹平等的理論上的規則來領導他們，而是通過尋找那些能夠給他們帶來深刻的印象，并且誘使他們的產物。舉個例子，一個立法官想要征收一種新型的稅，他應該選擇從理論上看最為公平公正的方式嗎？他可不會采用這樣的方法。實際上，那些最不公平公正的方式，對于廣大的群眾來說往往是最好的。只有在最不顯著的同時，又能擔負最少的負擔，才能算是最容易被忍受的。正是因為這個原因，一個間接稅，無論有多高，它都總會被群眾所接受，因為，每天為日常生活消費支付一小部分，并不會干擾到群眾的生活習慣，它可以在未被察覺的情況下進行。用薪水的比例稅制或是其他形式的收入替代它，采用一次性付款的方式，從理論上來看，這樣的新型征收方案所要承受的負擔只是其他的征收方案的十分之一，但它仍會引起群眾的一致抗議。造成這一結果的真相是，一筆相對來說巨額的錢，看起來是無限多的，能夠引發人們幻想的錢，已經被不易察覺的微額稅金替換了。新型的稅看起來很輕，其實，它是一點一點交的，但是這種經濟秧序涵蓋了對未來的洞察力，這些是群眾所不具備的。

這是最為簡單的例子。它的適用性很容易被人理解。它并沒有擺脫心理學家拿破侖的注意力，但是，我們現在的立法者們卻對群眾的特征一無所知，不能夠去理解這些。經驗并沒有讓他們足夠地認識到，人類永遠都不能按照純粹理性的教誨采取行動。

群眾心理學還有許多其他的實用性用途。關于這一類的科學知識給為數眾多的歷史和經濟現象帶來了最為栩栩如生的曙光。而拋開這一學科，它們將會是完全不能被理解的。我將有機會說明，為什么當代最為出色的歷史學家泰納并沒有準確地理解偉大的法國資產階級革命事件的原因，因為他從來都沒有想要研究群眾的特征。在這個紛繁復雜的時期，他把自然學家所慣用的描述方法作為自己的指導；但是在自然學家想要研究的現象當中，卻又往往找尋不到道德力量的蹤影。然而，就是這些道德力量構成了真正的歷史主脈。

因此，僅僅從實用的方面去觀察，群眾心理學的研究就很值得去嘗試。如果僅是對它產生了純粹的好奇心，那么它也值得受到重視。破譯人類行為的動機，就如同決定一處礦產或是一個星球的特征一樣有趣。我們對于群眾特征的研究，只能夠被認為是一個簡短的綜合體，它是我們調查研究的一個簡單的總結。除了提出一些具有啟發性的觀點之外，不要對它要求過多。其他的人會給它打下更加徹底的基礎。今天，我們只是接觸了一片土壤尚未開墾的處女地的表面而已。