GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CROWDS —PYSCHOLOGICAL LAW OF THEIR MENTAL UNITY 群體的一般特征——群體思想一致的心理學法則

BOOK I THE MIND OF CROWDS

What constitutes a crowd from the psychological point of view — A numerically strong agglomeration of individuals does not suffice to form a crowd — Special characteristics of psychological crowds — The turning in a fixed direction of the ideas and sentiments of individuals composing such a crowd, and the disappearance of their personality — The crowd is always dominated by considerations of which it is unconscious — The disappearance of brain activity and the predominance of medullar activity — The lowering of the intelligence and the complete transformation of the sentiments — The transformed sentiments may be better or worse than those of the individuals of which the crowd is composed — A crowd is as easily heroic as criminal.

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 in a definite 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 dissimilar 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 summing-up 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 every thing that belongs to the realm of sentiment — religion, politics, morality, the affections and antipathies, etc. — 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 boot maker, 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 to-day 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 immerged 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 and 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 in 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, and 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, he 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 secure 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.

第一卷 群體的思想

提要：

從心理學的觀點看一個群體的構成——數量眾多的個人凝聚并不足以建立一個群體——群體心理的特征——群體中個人固有的想法和情感的轉變，以及他們自身性格的消失——群體總是被那些無意識的因素所控制——大腦活動的消失和脊髓活動的優勢——智力水平的降低和情感的完整轉變——經過轉變的情感，既可以對由群體所組成的個人情感更好，也可以更糟糕——群體既可以表現得勇敢、大無畏，亦可以犯罪。

一般看來，“群體”這個詞的意思是個人聚集在一起形成的團體，他們不分國籍、職業或是性別，也不論是什么原因將他們聚集在一起。從心理學的觀點來看，“群體”的表達卻有著截然不同的意義。在某些特定的情況之下，并且只能在這些情況之下，一群人會表現出組成這個群體的個人的完全不同的全新的特點。那個群體里面的所有人的情感和想法都指向了同一個方向，他們那些有意識的個性消失了。一個集體的思維形成了，毫無疑問，它是暫時的，但是，它卻非常清晰地呈現了確切的特點。這個集體走入了一種狀態，在沒有更好的表達方式的情況下，我會稱它為有組織的群體，或是，用一種被認為是更合適的稱謂，一個心理群體。它構成了一個獨特的存在，并且受群體精神一致法則的約束。

很顯然，一群人不經意地發現他們肩并肩地挨著，并不能說明他們已經擁有了一個有組織性的群體的特點。從心理學的觀點來看，一千個個人在沒有任何確切目標的情況下，偶然在一個公共的地點聚集在一起，并不能算作是一個群體。想要獲得一個群體的特殊特征，必須要讓某些因素提前產生影響，我們還要對它們的性質進行判定。

有意識的個性的消失以及情感和想法向一個確切的方向的轉變，是將要變成有組織性的群體的首要特征，它并不總是涉及一群個人同時出現在一個地點，在某種暴力情緒的影響下，例如一個國家事件，上千個被孤立的個人能夠獲得一個心理群體的特點。在這樣的條件下，一個獨立的機遇就足以讓他們行動起來，凝聚在一起。從而一次性獲得一個群體行動特有的特征。在某些特定的情況下，四五個人就能組成一個心理群體，這種現象在上百人偶然聚在一起的情況下是不可能發生的。從另一方面看，一個國家，盡管這里或許沒有可見的人群凝聚，但仍舊可以在具有影響力的行為下成為一個群體。

一個心理群體一旦形成，它就會獲得某些暫時的卻又確切的一般特征。除了這些一般的特征之外，它還有一些附帶的特別的特征，它會因組成群體的不同而有所差異，并且有可能會改變它的道德結構。因此，對心理群體進行分類是份簡單的差事。當我們全身心致力于這件事情的時候，我們應該能夠看到，一個多種多樣的群體——也就是說，一個由完全不同的元素組成的群體——體現出某些與同性質群體相一致的特點——即由大致相同的元素組成的群體（宗教、等級和階級組成的群體）——除了這些普遍的特點之外，還有一些自身的特征，使得這兩種群體能夠被區分開來。

但是當我們置身于不同的群體種類之中時，我們必須首先檢驗這些群體普遍具有的特點。我們應該像自然學家那樣開始工作，他一開始會描述一個族系里所有成員都具有的普通特點，接下來再研究那些令這個族系所涉及的種類之間區分開來的具體特征。

用非常精確的話語去描述群體的思想是件非常困難的事情，因為它的組織并不僅僅因為種族和構成的不同而不同，還會因為受約束的群體的刺激因素的性質和強度的不同而不同。但是，對個人心理的研究呈現出了同等程度的困難。個人用一種一成不變的性格走完他的整個人生，這樣的情況只能在小說中看到。只有環境的一致性才能產生性格明顯的一致性。我之前在其他的書中指出，所有的道德構成都包括，在突然的環境改變之下映現出來的性格的可能性。這樣的現象解釋了為什么法國議會中最為殘暴的成員都是些善意的公民，他們在平常的情況之下，就是平和的司法人員或是道德高尚的地方官員。當暴風過去之后，他們就會重新變回正常的具有安靜性格，遵紀守法的好公民。拿破侖被發現是在他們當中最溫順的人民公仆。

想要對群體實力強弱具有差異的組織進行有深度的研究是不可能的，所以我們應該更多地研究那些已經完成組織階段的群體。通過這種方法，我們能夠看出這樣的群體能夠變成什么樣子，而不是看到它們是怎么的一成不變。只有在這種高級的組織階段下，才能發現某些疊加在種族不變的、占據統治地位的特征之上的全新、特殊的特點；此時，所有的感覺和思想就會發生改變，朝向相同的方向。也正是只有在這樣的情況之下，我在之前所提出的群體道德一致性的心理法則才會開始發揮作用。

在群體的心理特點之中，有一些或許同那些被隔離的個人們展現出來的一樣，而有些恰恰相反，是他們所特有的，而且只能在群體下看到。為了體現它們的重要性，首先，我們要研究這些特殊的心理特點。

由一個心理群體呈現出來的最為引人注目的特質如下：無論是什么樣的人構成了這個群體，不管他們的生活模式、職業、性格或是智商相同與否，他們轉變成了一個群體的事實讓他們擁有了一種集體的思想，這樣的思想能夠讓他們去感受，思考，并且用與個人的所做所想，表現出被孤立的狀態截然不同的方式行動。如果凝聚在一起的個人不能形成一個群體，想法和感受就不會產生，或是不能轉變成實際行動。心理群體是一種用不同的元素組成的暫時的群體，它們在一定的條件下，會結合在一起，就像是組成一個鮮活生命的細胞，會呈現出某些特征，它們同每一個單獨的細胞都不盡相同。

同尖酸刻薄的赫伯特·斯賓塞筆下發現的描述令人驚訝的思想不同，在形成一個群體的過程中，完全沒有元素的總和或是它們的平均值。真正所呈現出來的是在新的特點的誕生之下形成的組合，就好比化學里面的某些元素一樣，當它們進行接觸的時候——舉個例子，如堿和酸——會混合在一起形成一種全新的物質，它所擁有的特質和之前那兩個組成它的物質的特質完全不同。

想要證明個人組成一個群體和被孤立的個人之間的差異到底有多大是非常簡單的，但是，要想探尋造成這種差異的原因可就沒有那么容易了。

想要或多或少了解一些原因，首先清楚由現代心理學建立的真相是非常有必要的，無意識的現象不僅僅在有機體的生活中，而且在智力活動中，起到了壓倒性的作用。有意識的思想生活的重要性同無意識的生活相比較會顯得不那么重要。最敏感的分析家，最敏銳的觀察者，都極少能夠成功發現決定他人的行動，數量極少的無意識動機。我們的有意識行動就是在受到遺傳影響的思想下創造出來的無意識基礎的產物。這種基礎包括代代相傳，數不勝數的普遍特點，這種共有的特點構成了一個種族的特性。毫無疑問，在我們公開宣布的行為原因的背后，隱藏著我們所沒有公開的秘密因素，但是，隱藏在這些秘密因素背后的還有許多我們所忽視的秘密。我們的日常活動都是那些逃離我們的觀察，隱藏起來的動機所產生的結果。

無意識的元素構成了種族的本性特質，特別是在這一方面，屬于這個部族的所有個人之間是極其相似的，這主要是關于他們特點的有意識元素——教育的產物，更加超乎尋常的遺傳條件。雖然，他們彼此之間的智商存在著差異，但是，他們智商中所具有的直覺、情感和感受卻是非常近似的。在所有屬于情感領域的事物中——宗教、政治、道德、愛心以及同情心，等等——最為出眾的人也很少能夠極大超越最為普通的個人。從智力的觀點來看，一個偉大的數學家和給他制造靴子的人之間或許存在著巨大的差異，但是，從性格的角度來看，他們之間的差異就不那么明顯，或是壓根不存在。

準確地說，這些普遍的性格特點，受我們的無意識的力量所控制，一個種族里的大多數正常的個人在同等的程度上都具有這樣的特點——我是說，這些性格特點在群體里會成為共有的特性。在集體思維中，個人的智力傾向，以及他們的個人特征是十分微弱的。特征的多樣化陷入了同性質的特征之中，無意識的性格特點占據了制高點。

群體擁有普遍的性格特征，這一事實能夠解釋為什么他們永遠也無法實現要求高度智慧的行動。能夠影響到普遍利益的決定都是由卓越的人組成的委員會做出的，不過，那些來自不同領域的專家所采納的決定并不會比一群傻子的優越多少。事實是，他們只能用每一個普通的個人生來就具備的平庸特點去開展手頭的工作。在群體里，累積起來的不是智慧而是愚蠢。如果整個世界就是群體，那么它就不會像人們經常重復說的那樣，與其說是整個世界都要比伏爾泰更加聰慧，我們不妨說伏爾泰要比整個世界聰明。

如果一個群體里的個人將他們共同享有的普通特性積聚在一起的話，那么，這些特性所帶來的還是平庸，而不是我們所說的那樣，產生新的特點。這些全新的特點是怎么被創造出來的？這樣的問題就是我們現在要去調查的。

不同的原因能夠對群體中獨特的、被所孤立的個人占有的特點起到決定性的作用。首先，如果只從數量上去權衡和考慮的話，那么組成一個群體的個人也能夠感受到一種戰無不勝的情感，它能夠讓他產生本能的渴望，當他只身一人的時候，他要迫使自己竭力限制這些渴望。他不大可能控制自己的情緒不去產生那些想法；群體都是匿名的，因此，也不必承擔責任，那些總是控制個人的責任感會完全消失殆盡。

第二個原因是，傳染的現象，對群體的特殊特點起著決定性的作用，與此同時，還決定著他們的傾向。傳染是一種現象，它很容易證明自己的存在，但是，想要解釋它卻很難。我們必須將其視為一種催眠的狀態，對這些現象進行分類，這樣的方法我們會在稍后進行學習。在一個群體里面，每一種情感和行為都是具有傳染性的，傳染性的程度可以達到一個個人愿意將他自身的利益奉獻給群體利益的程度。這是一種和他的天性截然相反的傾向，一個正常人很難具備這樣的能力，除非他是一個群體的成員。

第三個原因，也是到目前為止最為重要的，它決定著與孤立的個人所呈現出來的特征完全不同的特殊的特點。我想要指出的是易于接受暗示的表現，這就是我們在前面提到的互相產生作用的傳染的結果。

要想了解這一現象，將最近的心理探索發現牢記于腦中是非常有必要的。今天，我們知道通過各種各樣的進程，一個個人或許會被帶入到一種狀態之中，在該狀態中他將會完全失去他的人格意識，他會完全聽命于將他的個性剝奪的操縱者的全部暗示，并且承認那些同他的性格和習慣截然矛盾的行為。最為細致的觀察證明，一個長期將自己融入一個群體行動的個人很快就會發現他自己——要么是在由群體釋放的具有磁性的影響力的作用下，要么受到一些我們所忽視的其他因素的影響下——令自己進入了一種特殊的狀態之中，它同令人著魔的狀態很相似，在那種狀態之下，被催眠的個人會發現他置身于催眠者的手掌之中。在催眠物體的作用之下，他的大腦活動徹底癱瘓，而他將會成為他的脊髓神經中受催眠師任意操控的所有無意識的行動的奴隸，整個有意識的個性完全消失了。他喪失了意愿和識別力，所有的感受和想法全都在催眠師的掌控之下。

從整體來看，組成一個心理群體的個人也處在這樣的狀態之下。他不再具有意識到自己的行為的能力。他在被催眠物體操控的情況下，身體的某些官能被摧毀了，而與此同時，他體內其他的能力卻被大幅度地提升了。在一個暗示的影響下，他會用不可抗拒的沖力肩負起完成某些行動的使命。這樣的沖力要比在被催眠物體控制的案例中的沖力更加難以抵擋。究其原因是因為這樣的暗示對群體中的所有個人具有相同的效果，它會在相互作用的情況下增強自身的力量。一個擁有足夠強大的個性去抵抗暗示的群體的個性特征是極其稀少的，在對抗逆流面前顯得寡不敵眾。他們最多也就是能夠依靠不同的暗示來改變方向。舉個例子，正因為這樣，有時候往往一個甜美的言語表達，一個被適當喚醒的形象，就能夠制止群體最殘忍的行為。

然后，我們看到有意識的個性的消失，無意識的個性的顯著優勢，思想的傳染、想法通過暗示和相互的作用來指向相同的方向，在一瞬間將被暗示的想法轉變成行動的傾向；我們看到的這些就是構成一個群體的個人的主要特點。他不再是他自己，而是成為停止用自己的意愿作為指導的機器人。

而且，姑且只看他組成了一個有組織性的群體這一事實，就足以讓一個人在文明的梯子上下降好幾個階梯。他或許是一個有教養的個人，但是他在一個群體里被孤立了，他是一個野蠻人——一個靠本能行動的生物。他具有自發性、生性暴躁、殘忍，還同樣擁有原始物種所具有的滿腔熱情和英雄主義，令他同原始物種更加相像的是，他愿意讓自己被言語和形象所影響——這樣的言語和形象在組成群體的個人孤立存在的情況下，不會產生任何的效果——他被誘使去做一些同他最為明顯的利益和他最被熟知的習慣格格不入的行動。一個群體里的一個人，就是其他沙子粒當中的一粒沙子，可以任意被大風吹動。

這就是為什么陪審團做出的裁決會被每一位陪審員否定，在每一位議會成員看來，議會委員會所接受的法律和措施都應予以否決。議會成員如果被分開來看，他們人人都是擁有良好習慣的好市民。當他們團結在一起形成一個群體的時候，他們會毫不猶豫地支持最為惡劣的提議，把最無辜的人們推上斷頭臺，并且與他們的利益大相徑庭，放棄他們神圣不可侵犯的權利，開始互相殘殺。

并不單單是他的行為讓他同群體里面的個人之間產生差異。即使是在這以前，他也已經完全失去了自己的獨立性，他的思想和他的感受已經經歷了一次轉變，這樣的轉變非常深刻，就好像將一個智者變成一個揮霍無度的人，將一個懷疑論者變成一個有信仰的人，將一個誠實的人變成一個罪犯，將一個懦夫變成一個英雄一樣。在1789年8月4日那個歡聚的夜晚，那些有名望的人在一時興起的情況下，投票放棄所有的特權，很顯然，如果讓他們這些成員單個做決定，他們誰都不會同意這樣做。

從上面的討論中我們可以得出這樣的結論，從智慧的層面上看，群體總是要比被孤立的個人的水平低，不過從感受，以及被這些感受驅使的行動來看，群體的表現要比個人表現得更好或者更糟糕。這都要看具體的環境是怎么樣的。所有的一切都依賴于群體所要遭受的暗示的特性。這樣的觀點已經被那些只從罪犯的觀點研究群體的作家完全誤解了。毋庸置疑，一個群體往往是犯罪群體，但它也經常是英雄主義的群體。只有群體而不是被孤立的個人，會被誘使冒著生命危險，帶著為了光榮和榮譽的熱情去保衛一個教條或是一個想法的勝利成果，會導致——在十字軍東征的時候，在幾乎沒有糧食和武器的情況下——朝異教徒討要基督徒的墓地，或是在1793年那樣，誓死保衛我們的祖國。毫無疑問，類似這樣的英雄主義多多少少有點給人無意識的感覺，但是，正是這樣的英雄主義一手締造了歷史。如果人們只用冷酷的方式做出轟轟烈烈的事情來，世界的歷史上將不會保留太多關于他們的記錄。