第2章

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CROWDS —PYSCHOLOGICAL LAW OF THEIR MENTAL UNITY 群体的一般特征——群体思想一致的心理学法则

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 群体的思想

提要：

从心理学的观点看一个群体的构成——数量众多的个人凝聚并不足以建立一个群体——群体心理的特征——群体中个人固有的想法和情感的转变，以及他们自身性格的消失——群体总是被那些无意识的因素所控制——大脑活动的消失和脊髓活动的优势——智力水平的降低和情感的完整转变——经过转变的情感，既可以对由群体所组成的个人情感更好，也可以更糟糕——群体既可以表现得勇敢、大无畏，亦可以犯罪。

一般看来，“群体”这个词的意思是个人聚集在一起形成的团体，他们不分国籍、职业或是性别，也不论是什么原因将他们聚集在一起。从心理学的观点来看，“群体”的表达却有着截然不同的意义。在某些特定的情况之下，并且只能在这些情况之下，一群人会表现出组成这个群体的个人的完全不同的全新的特点。那个群体里面的所有人的情感和想法都指向了同一个方向，他们那些有意识的个性消失了。一个集体的思维形成了，毫无疑问，它是暂时的，但是，它却非常清晰地呈现了确切的特点。这个集体走入了一种状态，在没有更好的表达方式的情况下，我会称它为有组织的群体，或是，用一种被认为是更合适的称谓，一个心理群体。它构成了一个独特的存在，并且受群体精神一致法则的约束。

很显然，一群人不经意地发现他们肩并肩地挨着，并不能说明他们已经拥有了一个有组织性的群体的特点。从心理学的观点来看，一千个个人在没有任何确切目标的情况下，偶然在一个公共的地点聚集在一起，并不能算作是一个群体。想要获得一个群体的特殊特征，必须要让某些因素提前产生影响，我们还要对它们的性质进行判定。

有意识的个性的消失以及情感和想法向一个确切的方向的转变，是将要变成有组织性的群体的首要特征，它并不总是涉及一群个人同时出现在一个地点，在某种暴力情绪的影响下，例如一个国家事件，上千个被孤立的个人能够获得一个心理群体的特点。在这样的条件下，一个独立的机遇就足以让他们行动起来，凝聚在一起。从而一次性获得一个群体行动特有的特征。在某些特定的情况下，四五个人就能组成一个心理群体，这种现象在上百人偶然聚在一起的情况下是不可能发生的。从另一方面看，一个国家，尽管这里或许没有可见的人群凝聚，但仍旧可以在具有影响力的行为下成为一个群体。

一个心理群体一旦形成，它就会获得某些暂时的却又确切的一般特征。除了这些一般的特征之外，它还有一些附带的特别的特征，它会因组成群体的不同而有所差异，并且有可能会改变它的道德结构。因此，对心理群体进行分类是份简单的差事。当我们全身心致力于这件事情的时候，我们应该能够看到，一个多种多样的群体——也就是说，一个由完全不同的元素组成的群体——体现出某些与同性质群体相一致的特点——即由大致相同的元素组成的群体（宗教、等级和阶级组成的群体）——除了这些普遍的特点之外，还有一些自身的特征，使得这两种群体能够被区分开来。

但是当我们置身于不同的群体种类之中时，我们必须首先检验这些群体普遍具有的特点。我们应该像自然学家那样开始工作，他一开始会描述一个族系里所有成员都具有的普通特点，接下来再研究那些令这个族系所涉及的种类之间区分开来的具体特征。

用非常精确的话语去描述群体的思想是件非常困难的事情，因为它的组织并不仅仅因为种族和构成的不同而不同，还会因为受约束的群体的刺激因素的性质和强度的不同而不同。但是，对个人心理的研究呈现出了同等程度的困难。个人用一种一成不变的性格走完他的整个人生，这样的情况只能在小说中看到。只有环境的一致性才能产生性格明显的一致性。我之前在其他的书中指出，所有的道德构成都包括，在突然的环境改变之下映现出来的性格的可能性。这样的现象解释了为什么法国议会中最为残暴的成员都是些善意的公民，他们在平常的情况之下，就是平和的司法人员或是道德高尚的地方官员。当暴风过去之后，他们就会重新变回正常的具有安静性格，遵纪守法的好公民。拿破仑被发现是在他们当中最温顺的人民公仆。

想要对群体实力强弱具有差异的组织进行有深度的研究是不可能的，所以我们应该更多地研究那些已经完成组织阶段的群体。通过这种方法，我们能够看出这样的群体能够变成什么样子，而不是看到它们是怎么的一成不变。只有在这种高级的组织阶段下，才能发现某些叠加在种族不变的、占据统治地位的特征之上的全新、特殊的特点；此时，所有的感觉和思想就会发生改变，朝向相同的方向。也正是只有在这样的情况之下，我在之前所提出的群体道德一致性的心理法则才会开始发挥作用。

在群体的心理特点之中，有一些或许同那些被隔离的个人们展现出来的一样，而有些恰恰相反，是他们所特有的，而且只能在群体下看到。为了体现它们的重要性，首先，我们要研究这些特殊的心理特点。

由一个心理群体呈现出来的最为引人注目的特质如下：无论是什么样的人构成了这个群体，不管他们的生活模式、职业、性格或是智商相同与否，他们转变成了一个群体的事实让他们拥有了一种集体的思想，这样的思想能够让他们去感受，思考，并且用与个人的所做所想，表现出被孤立的状态截然不同的方式行动。如果凝聚在一起的个人不能形成一个群体，想法和感受就不会产生，或是不能转变成实际行动。心理群体是一种用不同的元素组成的暂时的群体，它们在一定的条件下，会结合在一起，就像是组成一个鲜活生命的细胞，会呈现出某些特征，它们同每一个单独的细胞都不尽相同。

同尖酸刻薄的赫伯特·斯宾塞笔下发现的描述令人惊讶的思想不同，在形成一个群体的过程中，完全没有元素的总和或是它们的平均值。真正所呈现出来的是在新的特点的诞生之下形成的组合，就好比化学里面的某些元素一样，当它们进行接触的时候——举个例子，如碱和酸——会混合在一起形成一种全新的物质，它所拥有的特质和之前那两个组成它的物质的特质完全不同。

想要证明个人组成一个群体和被孤立的个人之间的差异到底有多大是非常简单的，但是，要想探寻造成这种差异的原因可就没有那么容易了。

想要或多或少了解一些原因，首先清楚由现代心理学建立的真相是非常有必要的，无意识的现象不仅仅在有机体的生活中，而且在智力活动中，起到了压倒性的作用。有意识的思想生活的重要性同无意识的生活相比较会显得不那么重要。最敏感的分析家，最敏锐的观察者，都极少能够成功发现决定他人的行动，数量极少的无意识动机。我们的有意识行动就是在受到遗传影响的思想下创造出来的无意识基础的产物。这种基础包括代代相传，数不胜数的普遍特点，这种共有的特点构成了一个种族的特性。毫无疑问，在我们公开宣布的行为原因的背后，隐藏着我们所没有公开的秘密因素，但是，隐藏在这些秘密因素背后的还有许多我们所忽视的秘密。我们的日常活动都是那些逃离我们的观察，隐藏起来的动机所产生的结果。

无意识的元素构成了种族的本性特质，特别是在这一方面，属于这个部族的所有个人之间是极其相似的，这主要是关于他们特点的有意识元素——教育的产物，更加超乎寻常的遗传条件。虽然，他们彼此之间的智商存在着差异，但是，他们智商中所具有的直觉、情感和感受却是非常近似的。在所有属于情感领域的事物中——宗教、政治、道德、爱心以及同情心，等等——最为出众的人也很少能够极大超越最为普通的个人。从智力的观点来看，一个伟大的数学家和给他制造靴子的人之间或许存在着巨大的差异，但是，从性格的角度来看，他们之间的差异就不那么明显，或是压根不存在。

准确地说，这些普遍的性格特点，受我们的无意识的力量所控制，一个种族里的大多数正常的个人在同等的程度上都具有这样的特点——我是说，这些性格特点在群体里会成为共有的特性。在集体思维中，个人的智力倾向，以及他们的个人特征是十分微弱的。特征的多样化陷入了同性质的特征之中，无意识的性格特点占据了制高点。

群体拥有普遍的性格特征，这一事实能够解释为什么他们永远也无法实现要求高度智慧的行动。能够影响到普遍利益的决定都是由卓越的人组成的委员会做出的，不过，那些来自不同领域的专家所采纳的决定并不会比一群傻子的优越多少。事实是，他们只能用每一个普通的个人生来就具备的平庸特点去开展手头的工作。在群体里，累积起来的不是智慧而是愚蠢。如果整个世界就是群体，那么它就不会像人们经常重复说的那样，与其说是整个世界都要比伏尔泰更加聪慧，我们不妨说伏尔泰要比整个世界聪明。

如果一个群体里的个人将他们共同享有的普通特性积聚在一起的话，那么，这些特性所带来的还是平庸，而不是我们所说的那样，产生新的特点。这些全新的特点是怎么被创造出来的？这样的问题就是我们现在要去调查的。

不同的原因能够对群体中独特的、被所孤立的个人占有的特点起到决定性的作用。首先，如果只从数量上去权衡和考虑的话，那么组成一个群体的个人也能够感受到一种战无不胜的情感，它能够让他产生本能的渴望，当他只身一人的时候，他要迫使自己竭力限制这些渴望。他不大可能控制自己的情绪不去产生那些想法；群体都是匿名的，因此，也不必承担责任，那些总是控制个人的责任感会完全消失殆尽。

第二个原因是，传染的现象，对群体的特殊特点起着决定性的作用，与此同时，还决定着他们的倾向。传染是一种现象，它很容易证明自己的存在，但是，想要解释它却很难。我们必须将其视为一种催眠的状态，对这些现象进行分类，这样的方法我们会在稍后进行学习。在一个群体里面，每一种情感和行为都是具有传染性的，传染性的程度可以达到一个个人愿意将他自身的利益奉献给群体利益的程度。这是一种和他的天性截然相反的倾向，一个正常人很难具备这样的能力，除非他是一个群体的成员。

第三个原因，也是到目前为止最为重要的，它决定着与孤立的个人所呈现出来的特征完全不同的特殊的特点。我想要指出的是易于接受暗示的表现，这就是我们在前面提到的互相产生作用的传染的结果。

要想了解这一现象，将最近的心理探索发现牢记于脑中是非常有必要的。今天，我们知道通过各种各样的进程，一个个人或许会被带入到一种状态之中，在该状态中他将会完全失去他的人格意识，他会完全听命于将他的个性剥夺的操纵者的全部暗示，并且承认那些同他的性格和习惯截然矛盾的行为。最为细致的观察证明，一个长期将自己融入一个群体行动的个人很快就会发现他自己——要么是在由群体释放的具有磁性的影响力的作用下，要么受到一些我们所忽视的其他因素的影响下——令自己进入了一种特殊的状态之中，它同令人着魔的状态很相似，在那种状态之下，被催眠的个人会发现他置身于催眠者的手掌之中。在催眠物体的作用之下，他的大脑活动彻底瘫痪，而他将会成为他的脊髓神经中受催眠师任意操控的所有无意识的行动的奴隶，整个有意识的个性完全消失了。他丧失了意愿和识别力，所有的感受和想法全都在催眠师的掌控之下。

从整体来看，组成一个心理群体的个人也处在这样的状态之下。他不再具有意识到自己的行为的能力。他在被催眠物体操控的情况下，身体的某些官能被摧毁了，而与此同时，他体内其他的能力却被大幅度地提升了。在一个暗示的影响下，他会用不可抗拒的冲力肩负起完成某些行动的使命。这样的冲力要比在被催眠物体控制的案例中的冲力更加难以抵挡。究其原因是因为这样的暗示对群体中的所有个人具有相同的效果，它会在相互作用的情况下增强自身的力量。一个拥有足够强大的个性去抵抗暗示的群体的个性特征是极其稀少的，在对抗逆流面前显得寡不敌众。他们最多也就是能够依靠不同的暗示来改变方向。举个例子，正因为这样，有时候往往一个甜美的言语表达，一个被适当唤醒的形象，就能够制止群体最残忍的行为。

然后，我们看到有意识的个性的消失，无意识的个性的显著优势，思想的传染、想法通过暗示和相互的作用来指向相同的方向，在一瞬间将被暗示的想法转变成行动的倾向；我们看到的这些就是构成一个群体的个人的主要特点。他不再是他自己，而是成为停止用自己的意愿作为指导的机器人。

而且，姑且只看他组成了一个有组织性的群体这一事实，就足以让一个人在文明的梯子上下降好几个阶梯。他或许是一个有教养的个人，但是他在一个群体里被孤立了，他是一个野蛮人——一个靠本能行动的生物。他具有自发性、生性暴躁、残忍，还同样拥有原始物种所具有的满腔热情和英雄主义，令他同原始物种更加相像的是，他愿意让自己被言语和形象所影响——这样的言语和形象在组成群体的个人孤立存在的情况下，不会产生任何的效果——他被诱使去做一些同他最为明显的利益和他最被熟知的习惯格格不入的行动。一个群体里的一个人，就是其他沙子粒当中的一粒沙子，可以任意被大风吹动。

这就是为什么陪审团做出的裁决会被每一位陪审员否定，在每一位议会成员看来，议会委员会所接受的法律和措施都应予以否决。议会成员如果被分开来看，他们人人都是拥有良好习惯的好市民。当他们团结在一起形成一个群体的时候，他们会毫不犹豫地支持最为恶劣的提议，把最无辜的人们推上断头台，并且与他们的利益大相径庭，放弃他们神圣不可侵犯的权利，开始互相残杀。

并不单单是他的行为让他同群体里面的个人之间产生差异。即使是在这以前，他也已经完全失去了自己的独立性，他的思想和他的感受已经经历了一次转变，这样的转变非常深刻，就好像将一个智者变成一个挥霍无度的人，将一个怀疑论者变成一个有信仰的人，将一个诚实的人变成一个罪犯，将一个懦夫变成一个英雄一样。在1789年8月4日那个欢聚的夜晚，那些有名望的人在一时兴起的情况下，投票放弃所有的特权，很显然，如果让他们这些成员单个做决定，他们谁都不会同意这样做。

从上面的讨论中我们可以得出这样的结论，从智慧的层面上看，群体总是要比被孤立的个人的水平低，不过从感受，以及被这些感受驱使的行动来看，群体的表现要比个人表现得更好或者更糟糕。这都要看具体的环境是怎么样的。所有的一切都依赖于群体所要遭受的暗示的特性。这样的观点已经被那些只从罪犯的观点研究群体的作家完全误解了。毋庸置疑，一个群体往往是犯罪群体，但它也经常是英雄主义的群体。只有群体而不是被孤立的个人，会被诱使冒着生命危险，带着为了光荣和荣誉的热情去保卫一个教条或是一个想法的胜利成果，会导致——在十字军东征的时候，在几乎没有粮食和武器的情况下——朝异教徒讨要基督徒的墓地，或是在1793年那样，誓死保卫我们的祖国。毫无疑问，类似这样的英雄主义多多少少有点给人无意识的感觉，但是，正是这样的英雄主义一手缔造了历史。如果人们只用冷酷的方式做出轰轰烈烈的事情来，世界的历史上将不会保留太多关于他们的记录。