第1章
INTRODUCTION THE ERA OF CROWDS 导言：群体的时代
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：
当今时代的演变——文明之中的巨大变化是国民群体思想变化的结果——它是群体力量之中的现代信仰——它转变了欧洲各个国家的传统政策——大众阶级的崛起是如何产生的，以及他们施展自身力量的方式——群体力量必然的结果——群众除了搞破坏之外，不能扮演任何重要的角色——破碎不堪的文明的分崩离析是群众作用的产物——对大众心理学的普遍忽视——研究大众对于立法者以及政治家的重要性。
那些产生于文化剧变之前的伟大变革，比如罗马帝国的衰落，以及阿拉伯帝国的建立，初看似乎更像是由政治的转变，外国势力的入侵，或是朝代的瓦解决定的。但是，从一项对这些事件进行更加细致的研究中，不难看出在它们的表面现象背后，能够看到人们的思想所产生的深刻改变。真正的历史变革，并不是那些以宏伟和暴力的场景令我们震惊的事情。能够令文化实现伟大复兴的唯一重要的变化，是对思想、观念和信仰产生影响的变化。令人印象深刻的历史事件只不过是人类思想的无形变化产生的有形结果而已。这些伟大的历史事件之所以如此非比寻常是在人类这个物种当中，没有什么要比代代遗传的思维根基更加稳固。
当今的时代正是这种人类的思维正在经历一场转变的过程的关键时期之一。
在这样的转变基础下，存在两个基本的因素。第一个因素是宗教、政治和社会信仰的破坏，而我们文明当中的所有因素都植根于此；第二个因素是通过现代科学和工业的探索发现，创造全新的存在和思维条件。
尽管，过去的思想已经被破坏得面目全非，但是它仍旧是非常强大的，那些准备取代它们的想法仍旧在形成的过程当中，当今的时代代表着过渡和无政府状态的混乱时期。
这个不可避免的混乱时期究竟会演变成什么样子，还都不好做出结论。那个替代我们现有社会的社会究竟会产生什么样的基本观念呢？我们现在还不得而知。不过，我们已经清楚的是，不管未来的社会是按照哪种路线进行组织的，它们都将要考虑一种全新的力量，一种能幸存到最后，现代至高无上的力量，那就是群众的力量。在过去被看作是没有讨论余地，在现在已经衰败或者正在衰败的许多思想的废墟之上，在成功的革命摧毁许多权威来源的废墟之上，这种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。当我们所有来自古代的信仰开始消失的时候，当社会的古老石柱开始一根接着一根倒塌的时候，群体的力量就成为唯一不受到任何挑战的力量，而且，它的威望将会继续提升。没错，我们将要步入的时代就是群体的时代。
就在差不多一个世纪以前，欧洲各个国家的传统政策和至高无上统治权的对抗是形成众多事件的主要因素。大众的建议很少能够受到重视，甚至完全得不到重视。现在，这种被政治所接受的传统，个人的喜好倾向，以及统治者的对抗变得不再重要了；与之相反的是，大众的声音却开始占据压倒性的优势。这种声音会把他们的举动口述给君主，令他们的言行竭力去注意那些声音。现在，造就民族使命的地方，存在于群众的内心里，它不再存在于公子王侯的委员会议上。
普通群众的阶层进入政治生活——也就是说，在现实生活中，这种普通群众的阶层逐渐向统治阶层的转变——是我们这个转变的纪元最引人注目的特征之一。普选权的引入在很长的一段时间里都没有产生什么影响力，它并不是我们想的那样成为政治力量转移能够加以辨别的特点。群众力量的逐渐增长，首先是由于一些思想的宣传所致，这些思想缓慢地植入了人们的思维当中，随后，个人逐步成为社团，并且力图实现理论的概念。正是在社团的帮助下，群体开始获得与他们的兴趣相符的想法，尽管这些想法并不是特别的公正，却有着非常清晰的分界线，并且意识到了他们自身的力量。群众开始创立各种联合组织，令一个又一个的权威跪拜在它的面前；他们还建立了工会联盟，置一切的经济法律于不顾，试图管理劳动环境和薪金水平。他们来到了掌控着政府的委员会，代表们完全缺乏积极性和独立性，大多数人甚至堕落到成为那些选出他们的委员会的发言人。
在今天，广大群众要求的定义正变得越来越清晰，就像是要把现有的这个社会给彻底破坏掉一样，持有的想法和原始共产主义紧密联系在一起，这就是所有的人类团体在文化迎来曙光之前的正常状态。对劳动时间的限定，煤矿、铁路、工厂以及土地的国有化，所有商品的平等分配，清除所有的上等阶级，为人民群众阶级谋利益等等——这就是群众要求的内容。
群众则恰恰相反，他们不善于论证，却急于求成。他们现在所身处的组织给予了他们无穷无尽的力量。我们亲眼见证的那些新生的教条很快就会拥有古老教条的力量；也就是说，无须讨论的残暴且至高无上的力量。广大群众的神圣权利将会取代国王的神权。
那些与我们这些中产阶级不谋而合的作家，他们用最好的方式呈现出了这些阶级相对狭隘的思想，死板的观点，肤浅的怀疑主义，以及时而表现出来的过度的自我主义，当他们看到这种全新的力量正在日益壮大时，他们表现出了极为惊恐的神情；为了对抗人们混沌的思想，他们向那些在以前被他们讽刺蔑视的道德力量发出了绝望的恳求。他们向我们阐述了科学的破产，深表忏悔的转回罗马，提醒我们被揭露的真相的教义。这些新来的皈依者忘记了，现在已经太晚了。即使他们已经被神祇所感动，与此相类似的行动也不会对思想产生相同的影响力，因为他们不大关注那些令最近皈依宗教的人全身心投入的事情。今天的人民群众摒弃了他们的诉说者在昨天就已经摒弃并且加以摧毁的众神。这里没有哪种力量，无论是在神界，还是在人间，能够驱使一条小河逆流回它的源泉。
科学没有破产，它并没有步入当今这种理性的无政府状态，在这种混乱状态中诞生的全新力量也并非是由它所产生出来的。科学向我们承诺过真相，或者，至少是我们的智慧所能理解的一些涉及种种关系的知识，但是它从未向我们承诺过和平或是快乐。它对我们的情感漠不关心，对我们的哀怨闭耳不闻。这只能靠我们自己尽力同科学生活在一起，因为没有任何事物可以挽回本就被摧毁的幻觉。
在所有的国家里，普遍的迹象都是清晰可见的，它向我们展示了群众力量的快速成长，它不愿承认我们认为它注定很快就会停止增长。不管为我们保留的命运会是什么，我们都应该去屈从于它。所以与它相对抗的论证都只不过是徒劳的话语战争。的确，将群众的力量说成是西方文明最后阶段的标志是可能的，它可能退回到那些混乱的无政府状态时期，而这似乎是每个全新社会诞生的先决条件。但是，这样的结果能否得到阻止呢？
直到现在，彻底摧毁一个破碎不堪的文明，已然成为群众最为明确的任务。它的确不是只有在今天才可以有迹可循。历史告诉我们，当拥有道德力量的文明失去了它们的力量的时候，那么它的最终瓦解就是由那些没有意识形态、粗鲁的群众所造成的，用足够道德的话说，他们就是野蛮人。能够创造并且引领文明的只能是那些为数不多的达官贵族，而不是群众。群众只有强大的破坏力。他们的统治永远都等同于野蛮人的阶段。一个有着杂乱无章的规则制度，从本能的心理状态步入能够深谋远虑的理性的心理状态的文明属于文明的高级阶段——群众不约而同地展示出，单靠他们自身的力量，这些事情都是无法实现的。
因为群体的力量具有纯粹的破坏性的特性，因而他们的行为就像是加速虚弱的人或是死去的人解体的细菌。当一个文明的构造开始被腐蚀，那么群众往往会将它倾倒。只有在这样的生死关头，人们才能清晰地看到他们主要的使命，而在此时此刻，大量的哲学原则似乎成为唯一的历史理念。
在我们的文明之中是不是也保留有相同的命运呢？这样的恐惧是有理论依据的，但是现在的情况是，我们还没有身处在能够明确地作出答复的位置之上。
不管情况如何，我们都要顺从于群众的统治，正是由于群众狭隘的视野，令让它循规蹈矩的所有障碍都逐一被消除了。
我们对于这些在一开始就被视为争论的对象的群体知之甚少。那些专门研究心理学的学生们的生活同他们相差甚远，那些学生总是忽视他们，以至于当他们到后来把自己的注意力转到这个方向上的时候，就认为能够展开探究的只有那些犯罪群体。毋庸置疑，犯罪群体是存在的，但是，与之共存的还有道德，英雄群体，以及许许多多其他的群体。群体犯罪只是他们特殊的一种心理阶段。单纯靠对他们罪行的研究是不能了解这些群体的，这就好比不能仅仅通过对一个人所犯下的罪行的描述来了解这个人一样。
但是，从事实的观点看，这个世界上所有的统治者、所有宗教或是帝国的创立者、所有信仰的使徒们、出类拔萃的政治家，甚至用更谦逊的话讲，一小群人里面的首领，都是些毫无意识形态的心理学家，他们对群体的特点拥有发自本能却非常确信的理解，正是他们这种对于这个特点准确的理解让他们能够非常轻易地建立他们自己的领导地位。拿破仑对他所统治的国家群众的心理学有着惊人的见解，但是他有时对属于其他种族的群体心理学却又缺乏了解；[2]正是因为他对于群体心理的误解，致使他入侵西班牙，尤其是俄罗斯，陷入了令自己的力量受到严重打击的矛盾之中，这样的行为注定会让他在转瞬之间被摧毁。在今天，对于那些不想统治群体，（它正在变成一件困难的事情）只希望别太受群众控制的政治家来说，群体的心理学成为他们最后的资源。
我们只有通过获得群体心理学的一些见解，才能够理解法律和体系对他们施加的影响是多么的微乎其微，才能够理解他们只能持有被别人强加的想法，对于维护自己的意见显得那么无能为力，我们并不能通过建立在纯粹平等的理论上的规则来领导他们，而是通过寻找那些能够给他们带来深刻的印象，并且诱使他们的产物。举个例子，一个立法官想要征收一种新型的税，他应该选择从理论上看最为公平公正的方式吗？他可不会采用这样的方法。实际上，那些最不公平公正的方式，对于广大的群众来说往往是最好的。只有在最不显著的同时，又能担负最少的负担，才能算是最容易被忍受的。正是因为这个原因，一个间接税，无论有多高，它都总会被群众所接受，因为，每天为日常生活消费支付一小部分，并不会干扰到群众的生活习惯，它可以在未被察觉的情况下进行。用薪水的比例税制或是其他形式的收入替代它，采用一次性付款的方式，从理论上来看，这样的新型征收方案所要承受的负担只是其他的征收方案的十分之一，但它仍会引起群众的一致抗议。造成这一结果的真相是，一笔相对来说巨额的钱，看起来是无限多的，能够引发人们幻想的钱，已经被不易察觉的微额税金替换了。新型的税看起来很轻，其实，它是一点一点交的，但是这种经济秧序涵盖了对未来的洞察力，这些是群众所不具备的。
这是最为简单的例子。它的适用性很容易被人理解。它并没有摆脱心理学家拿破仑的注意力，但是，我们现在的立法者们却对群众的特征一无所知，不能够去理解这些。经验并没有让他们足够地认识到，人类永远都不能按照纯粹理性的教诲采取行动。
群众心理学还有许多其他的实用性用途。关于这一类的科学知识给为数众多的历史和经济现象带来了最为栩栩如生的曙光。而抛开这一学科，它们将会是完全不能被理解的。我将有机会说明，为什么当代最为出色的历史学家泰纳并没有准确地理解伟大的法国资产阶级革命事件的原因，因为他从来都没有想要研究群众的特征。在这个纷繁复杂的时期，他把自然学家所惯用的描述方法作为自己的指导；但是在自然学家想要研究的现象当中，却又往往找寻不到道德力量的踪影。然而，就是这些道德力量构成了真正的历史主脉。
因此，仅仅从实用的方面去观察，群众心理学的研究就很值得去尝试。如果仅是对它产生了纯粹的好奇心，那么它也值得受到重视。破译人类行为的动机，就如同决定一处矿产或是一个星球的特征一样有趣。我们对于群众特征的研究，只能够被认为是一个简短的综合体，它是我们调查研究的一个简单的总结。除了提出一些具有启发性的观点之外，不要对它要求过多。其他的人会给它打下更加彻底的基础。今天，我们只是接触了一片土壤尚未开垦的处女地的表面而已。