The Crowd: A Study Of The Popular Mind By Gustave

Le Bon

A Review by David Edwards

Gustav Le Bon's key 1895 text on mass psychology has long been
cited as an important work in terms of shaping sociology in the early
twentieth century. His thesis has contributed to studies of the effects
of media on public opinion, and in helping to shape the attitudes of
public relations gurus such as Freud's nephew Edward Bernays.

Whilst the Le Bon's study is mostly disparaging of "psychological

crowds", and the ease with which they can be apparently motivated
by simplistic images, maxims and concepts, it cannot escape the
readers notice that his observations are largely based on
generalisations themselves. The lack of empirical data to back up his
assertions, however compelling, leads to the assumption that "The
Crowd" is largely a book designed for consumption by the very thing
it criticises, the popular masses.

Even with this paradox in mind, the book still provides some cohesive
insight into the psychology of populism and mass appeal, arguably a
major driver of society that is still so very prevalent today. The
difficulty of attaining empirical data on the unconscious workings of
large groupings of people is a major factor to bear in mind, and a
consideration to concede to when criticising Le Bon's methodology.

"The substitution of the unconscious actions of crowds for the

conscious activity of individuals is one of the principal characteristics
of the present age."

The author's intention could be theorised as one of populist appeal,

hence the generalised aspects of his observation, or an attempt at a
form of autonomous warning, attesting to the dangers of allowing
oneself and one's rationality to be drawn into the numbing effects of
the horde. To either of these considerations I cannot give a definitive
answer beyond the realm of speculation. On the note of speculation,
upon reading of this book, one can certainly reach a tentative
conclusion that is through the mass permeation of the speculative,
that pack mentality within a crowd rapidly spreads.

"The unreal has almost as much influence on them as the real. They
have an evident tendency not to distinguish between the two. ...
... It is not ... the facts in themselves that strike the popular
imagination, but the way in which they take place and are brought
under notice. ...
... To know the art of impressing crowds is to know at the same time
the art of governing them."

Le Bon asserts frequently, from his time of writing, at the turn of the
twentieth century, that the mass psychology of the crowd was a force
that was gaining in political power with the passage of time.

"The opinion of crowds tends, ... more and more to become the
supreme guiding principle in politics."

The twentieth century has frequently been referred to by many

historians as the century that saw a surge in popularity of cults, in
conjunction with the steady increase in mass communications media,
from radio, to television and the internet today. The methods of
forming a collective consensus on an issue, topic, belief system or
ideology are now potentially almost instantaneous. The ease with
which to weaponise such collectivism in our era, can also be
coordinated with ease, as I have discussed before.

Le Bon's focus is primarily on the factors and attitudes that lead to

the formation of heterogeneous crowds, such as those of street
mobs, and other forms of "collectivities" which spring up in more
spontaneous fashion than homogeneous crowds, such as those
groupings of people formed around sects or castes.

"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."

There are of course similarities in terms of forming factors and traits

between the two distinctions, such as belief systems, the former with
more trend based and transient beliefs, such as artistic and populist
sentiments, and the latter with more rigid generalised beliefs, such as
race, national ideologies, and established and unifying religious
beliefs.

"Nations have always been conscious of the utility of acquiring

general beliefs, and have instinctively understood that their
disappearance would be the signal for their own decline."
Heterogeneous crowds tend to form more reactively, but can take on
a form of transitory homogeneity through the manipulation of a skilled
leader, or an ongoing situation to rail against.

Le Bon's focus on heterogeneous collective groupings serves to

illustrate the growth of their political power in undermining
generalised beliefs, ultimately leading to societal apathy and
indifference, where the masses become easily swayed by short-lived
fads, shifting opinions and platitudinal sentiments, as opposed to
lasting philosophies, and levels of deep critical reasoning faculties.

"An opinion nowadays dies out before it has found a sufficiently wide
acceptance to become general. ...

... At the present day, as the result of discussion and analysis, all
opinions are losing their prestige; their distinctive features are rapidly
worn away, and few survive capable of arousing our
enthusiasm. The man of modern times is more and more prey to
indifference. ...

... A civilisation, when the moment has come for crowds to acquire a
high hand over it, is at the mercy of too many chances to endure for
long."

There is an air of elitism in Le Bon's work, particularly his many

disdainful references to the spread of socialist ideas amongst
the "uneducated" throughout "public houses", and also in his
comparison of communism to a regressive form of "primitivism". In
the context of a sociological treatise observing the workings of mob
mentality, the reduction of such radical concepts to pack mentality,
regarding the potential governing of the fate of nations, seems to be
justified.

"... an entire nation, though there may be no visible agglomeration,

may become a crowd under the action of certain influences."

The role of the press, even back in 1895, is credited by Le Bon as a

major factor in the growth of mass opinion and populism. By
extension one could apply the rise of the information age in the
endless watering down of mass opinion to levels of nihilistic apathy.
"In the past, and in no very distant past, the action of governments
and the influence of a few writers and a very small number of
newspapers constituted the real reflectors of public opinion. ...

... As to the press, which formerly directed opinion, it has had like
governments, to humble itself before the power of crowds. It wields,
no doubt, a considerable influence, but only because it is exclusively
the reflection of of the opinions of crowds and of their incessant
variations. Become a mere agency for the supply of information, the
press has renounced all endeavour to enforce an idea or doctrine. It
follows all the changes of public thought, obliged to do so by the
necessities of competition under pain of losing its readers."

It would seem that the illusion of choice afforded by the plethora of

opinions and counter-opinions to which we are subjected in a variety
of media nowadays, is ultimately reducing public opinion to
meaninglessness. The fashion now, when attempting to present
factual based evidence to demonstrate one's point, is frequently
dismissed as merely opinion, in a frustrating form of brushing off any
further discussion.

"According to the chances of the moment, a crowd will come under

the influence of one of the various ideas stored up in its
understanding, and is capable, in consequence, of committing the
most dissimilar acts. Its complete lack of critical spirit does not allow
of its perceiving these contradictions."

Le Bon's elitism, is revealed again, when he observes the effects of

dogma on the sentiments of crowds. These effects are seen as an
influential force in creating the initial structure of a society as a whole,
refined, of course, from their mass inception by an elite class of
thinkers.

"As soon as a new dogma is implanted in the mind of crowds it

becomes the source of inspiration whence are evolved its institutions,
arts, and mode of existence. The sway it exerts over men's minds
under these circumstances is absolute. Men of action have no
thought beyond realising the accepted belief, legislators beyond
applying it, while philosophers, artists, and men of letters are solely
preoccupied with is expression under various shapes."

Le Bon does concede that ideologies can permeate social strata,

both in an upwards contagion as well as downwards. His
observations on mass psychology are not merely confined to low
social classes, but on the dominating effects that mass populism can
have over all peoples.

"The tyranny exercised unconsciously on men's minds is the only real

tyranny, because it cannot be fought against."

The decentralised nature of the mind of a crowd, means that it

usually works around a form of unanimous belief system; indeed the
author notes the parallels to religious belief systems.

"The convictions of crowds assume those characteristics of blind

submission, fierce intolerance, and the need of violent propaganda
which are inherent in the religious sentiment, and it is for this reason
that it may be said that all their beliefs have a religious form. ...

... The crowd demands a god before everything else."

In what I feel is a very astute and prophetic observation, Le Bon

theorises that even a popular dogma railing against a pre-existing
religious belief, when spread through mass dissemination via crowds,
is likely to take on the same characteristics of religious zealotry and
dogma.

"Were it possible to induce the masses to adopt atheism, this belief

would exhibit all the intolerant ardour of a religious sentiment, and in
its exterior forms would soon become a cult."

Sentimental appeals seem to have the most effect on crowds, and

their behaviour as a result can be unpredictable, and in a way similar
to the spread of ideology, can easily flare up into violence by
contagion throughout them.

The comparison of the mind of a group to the functions of an

organism, or microbial cell division, is a useful metaphoric device by
Le Bon, which demonstrates in turn his expertise at applying his own
methods of mass psychology to his thesis.

"Ideas, sentiments, emotions, and beliefs possess in crowds a

contagious power as intense of that of microbes. ...

... Contagion is so powerful a force that even the sentiment of

personal interest disappears under its action."
The driving forces that aid this contagion of ideas and emotions
throughout crowds are affirmation by leaders that the dogma, cause
or outrage has validity, usually with little debate or inquiry amongst
the mass; and repetition of such affirmations. The resulting effect is
the contagion of the desired motivating factor, spreading through the
mob or herd with little critical opposition. In mass movements, facts
seem to matter little, and hysteria is easy to generate.

This ease of contagion, is largely due to a major aspect, that the

overall intellect of crowds usually adheres to a lowest common
denominator principle, it is very difficult to raise this level of cognitive
ability in a mob situation. In short, the crowd will always defer to
some primal, unconscious level of intellectual capacity, responding to
basic concepts and stimuli, usually in a knee jerk fashion.
"In certain cases there is more truth in the unreal than in the real. ...

... Crowds, doubtless, are always unconscious, but this very

unconsciousness is perhaps one of the secrets of their strength. ...

... 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. ...

... Little adapted to reasoning, crowds ... are quick to act.

... The characteristics of the reasoning of crowds are the

association of dissimilar things possessing a merely apparent
connection between each other, and the immediate
generalisation of particular cases. ...

... The laws of logic have no action on crowds"

This is a factor that makes mob mentality very easy to manipulate if

one chooses to do so. It is also why the concept of populist politics
can have dangerous effects, as such movements tend to operate on
this pack mentality. Coupling the overall adherence to a low level of
intellectual cognition with the anonymity that attaching oneself to a
crowd affords, whether a physical or psychological crowd, and often
increases the likelihood of a violent or destructive set of actions
strongly occurring.

"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. ... It forms a single
being, and is subjected to the law of the mental unity of crowds. ...

... In the collective mind the intellectual aptitudes of the individuals,

and in consequence their individuality, are weakened. The
heterogeneous is swamped by the homogenous, and the
unconscious qualities obtain the upper hand. ...

... 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. ...

... An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand amid other grains of

sand, which the wind stirs up at will. ...

... The violence of the feelings of crowds is also increased,

especially in heterogeneous crowds, by the absence of all sense
of responsibility."

Individuals in such a situation may find the bravado to do things in

the heat of the moment that they would never even consider when
isolated as an individual, such as smashing up property, or in beating
a perceived "enemy of the people" to death.

"The notion of impossibility disappears for the individual in a

crowd. An isolated individual knows well enough that alone he
cannot set fire to a palace or loot a shop, and should he be tempted
to do so, he will easily resist the temptation. Making part of a crowd,
he is conscious of the power given him by number, and it is sufficient
to suggest to him ideas of murder or pillage for him to yield
immediately to temptation. An unexpected obstacle will be destroyed
with frenzied rage."

These are visions which come to mind when one thinks of rioting or
revolutionary political movements, such as the "reign of terror" in
France from September of 1793 to July of 1794, itself an example
from history of the horrors to which mob mentality can be harnessed
through manipulation.

"However indifferent it may be supposed, a crowd, as a rule, is in a

state of expectant attention, which renders suggestion easy. The first
suggestion formulated which arises implants itself immediately by a
process of contagion in the brains of all assembled, and the identical
bent of the sentiments of the crowd is immediately an accomplished
fact."

The author does offer opprobrium to the few positive instances of

crowds, but merely in passing, mentioning their potential for "great
heroism". However, the larger function of the book seems to be a
critique of the negative aspects of mass groupings, particularly their
potential for criminality.

"The usual motive of the crimes of crowds is a powerful suggestion,

and the individuals who take part in such crimes are afterwards
convinced that they have acted in obedience to duty, which is far
from being the case with the ordinary criminal."

Le Bon states that it is very hard for an individual to sway the mind of
a crowd with a reasoned and dialectical approach to argumentation,
as crowds largely respond to rhetorical discourse, due to the
emotional and simplistic concepts it easily conveys. Crowds are not
interested in being reasoned with, or being asked to logically to
consider the truth, as in many forms of structured dialectical
arguments, they merely want an easy concept to get behind.

"A crowd scarcely distinguishes between the subjective and the

objective. It accepts as real the images evoked in its mind, though
they must often have only a very distant relation with the observed
fact. ...

... It is easy to imbue the mind of crowds with a passing opinion, but
very difficult to implant therein a lasting belief. However, a belief of
this latter description once established, it is equally difficult to uproot
it."

Images are usually the most effective means of use, coupled with
language that evokes such imagery.

"From the dawn of civilisation onwards crowds have always

undergone the influence of illusions. ...

... The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from
evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error
seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their
master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their
victim."
The use of language is problematic too, as words frequently change
to suit the kinds of images they are attempting to evoke. The notion
of "democracy", for example, has vastly different meanings
throughout different cultures, dependent on a variety of remote
factors.

"it is is precisely the words most often employed by the masses

which among different peoples possess the most different
meanings."

As well as immediate factors, such as the active persuasion of

crowds, and the contagion of emotion in the heat of the moment,
such as the impulse to violent action, remote factors are attributed by
the author to also have a powerful influence on the beliefs and
opinions of crowds: the three of the most important are portrayed to
be race, traditions, and education.

On the topic of race, Le Bon largely uses the comparison between

Latin cultures and anglo-saxon ones, comparing anecdotes about
how identical sets of circumstances involving national scandals were
met with rioting in Italy, and in turn a more muted outrage in
England. He also asserts that Anglo-Saxon forms of democratic
government, which seem to have worked so well in the United States
and Britain, did not translate well to countries such as Spain in the
1800s. He claims this was due to differences in the racial
temperament of the peoples, and thus that unifying political principles
do not necessarily have universal application. On this point, the
exportation of "Western democracy" by force, one of the often stated
underlying objectives of the modern "War On Terror" crusade, might
give its proponents pause for thought as to its effectiveness as a
global strategy.

Of course ideological unity can take the place of racial unity in the
mind of a crowd, in that its defining factor is the de-individuation of a
perceived subjective enemy, in the form a great "other" can cement
the consensus of a group will. A current example would be the
disdain and vitriol that extreme political left wing causes hold for
extreme political right wing causes, and vice versa. The relative ease
with which groupings of both congeal themselves into in direct
opposition to each other as their defining raison d'etre is a case in
point.

Traditions, Le Bon asserts, are ingrained to how a people,

inextricably represented by their race, define themselves and their
hierarchical structures of governance. Traditions form an
overwhelming guiding influence on the evolution of a people and their
nation. When traditions are abandoned, that periods of mass social
upheaval occur.

"A people is an organism created by the past, and, like every other
organism, it can only be modified by slow hereditary accumulations."

In a sense, Le Bon sees the psychology of crowds in this sense as

heralding the death of a traditionally entrenched civilisation, to be
replaced by a new society that takes its place after this violent
death. However, despite the desire to abandon and replace these
old traditions, Le Bon notes that frequently the traditions will establish
themselves, largely due to the value that crowds tend to
unconsciously attribute to them, despite outward appearances. One
could say that the cyclical nature of revolutions enacted by mobs and
crowds, merely establishes an apparently new set of traditions that
bear an uncanny resemblance to the ones they are supposed to
have replaced.

There has been much speculation as to the motives behind the mass
displacement of people into Europe over the past year. Much of this
has centred around a weaponised policy to destroy European
civilisation to enact a phoenix like rebirth of a new European order
from the ashes. Perhaps the European political elite are hoping that
the incoming population will move from a heterogeneous mass to
affect a larger homogeneity within European populations with the
passage of time, thus cementing a greater European unity.

If so, these bureaucrats have paid little attention to the ideas of

Rousseau, whom Le Bon dedicates much of his scathing criticism of
socialism at. In Rousseau's work, "The Social Contract", he
repeatedly states that the larger an area, and the larger the volume
of people in it, the harder it is to maintain social cohesion through
governance. It would seem that the technocratic elite of Europe
would do well to consider this point of observation with regards to the
superstate. Then again, Le Bon is particularly illustrative of the
tyranny which emerges in committees.

"Committees under whatever name, clubs, syndicates, etc.,

constitute perhaps the most redoubtable danger resulting from the
power of crowds. They represent in reality the most impersonal and,
in consequence, the most oppressive form of tyranny. The leaders
who direct the committees being supposed to speak and act in the
name of a collectivity, are freed from all responsibility, and are in a
position to do just as they choose."

The author asserts that education without outcome or ready

application can breed resentment, and provide seeds from which
revolution springs. In effect, an overeducated population, with no
prospect of applying it in terms of employment leads to mass
discontent, in turn leading to the formation of a mob mentality to
remedy the situation.

"The acquisition of knowledge for which no use can be found is a

sure method of driving a man to revolt."

I do find it interesting that in 2011 in the UK, there were large scale
student demonstrations over the implementation of fees for higher
education, which does seem somewhat antithetical to Le Bon's
argumentation, but then of course the laws of logic are difficult to
apply to crowds.

"It is in part by instruction and education that the mind of the masses
is improved or deteriorated."

If everyone is educated to a high level of qualification, who's going to

do the necessary grunt work? This is usually where the importation
of a new working class comes into effect with immigration. This in
turn, challenges a nations homogeneity, as a direct affront to the
racial unity of the people, which in turn can lead to the formation of
heterogeneous crowds, and back to the destructive stage the nation
goes. Le Bon closes his observation with such a sentiment in mind.

"With the progressive perishing of its ideal the race loses more and
more the qualities that lent it cohesion, its unity, and its strength. ...

... With the definite loss of its old ideal the genius of the race entirely
disappears; it is a mere swarm of isolated individuals and returns to
its original state - that of a crowd. Without consistency and without a
future, it has all the transitory characteristics of crowds. Its
civilisation is now without stability, and at the mercy of every
chance. The populace is sovereign, and the tide of barbarism
mounts."

It is usually in such times of social degeneration that a leader of the

listless crowd emerges to manipulate and steer its will. Leaders with
a strong will, can in many cases dominate the collectively weakened
will of the individuals comprising a crowd. In fact the crowd willingly
allows this to happen, falling under the collective spell of a leaders
prestige, his passion and his simple rhetoric.

"...The special characteristic of prestige is to prevent us seeing things

as they are and to entirely paralyse our judgement. ...

... The multitude is always ready to listen to the strong-willed man,

who knows how to impose himself upon it. Men gathered in a crowd
lose all force of will, and turn instinctively to the person who
possesses the quality they lack. ...

... It is not the need of liberty but of servitude that is always

predominant in the soul of crowds. They are so bent on obedience
that they instinctively submit to whoever declares himself their
master. ..."

Towards the close of the book, Le Bon notes similar aspects to

heterogeneous or "psychological" crowds in more homogeneous
groupings such as juries, electorates and even
parliaments. However, he concludes his overall observation that
such long established traditional institutions present a buffer to the
tyranny of anarchistic mob rule.

Naturally with those traditions come a form of pre-existing,

established order, and an aristocracy in control of such order. It is
clear that Le Bon's message was directed to such an aristocratic
class, in that they needed to be well versed in the methods of
understanding and controlling the potentially unruly, reactive and
irrational masses.

It would seem that collectivised human thought can have either

positive attributes, or negative ones, depending on whether
individuals composing their ranks have surrendered their individual
responsibilities to the will of a mob under the assumptive will of a
leader. It is tempting to apply the label of mob rule to concepts such
as the modern democratic process, and the large scale corruption of
interconnected methods of communication, such as the one you are
reading this review through.

I would posit an addendum to Le Bon's book, that in our current era,

heterogeneous crowds and the temptation to group ourselves into
them are entirely possible in the virtual world as well as the
physical. It's easy to get caught up in mobs in both worlds. It would
be prudent then to consider this: if you see a mob forming in any
capacity, it's probably a good idea to head in the other direction.

With the above considerations of Le Bon’s book in mind, I am

reminded of a conversation with a friend, who once suggested that I
should “dumb down” the approach on my website to net a larger
audience. I remember being perplexed, as the conversations we
have engaged in have largely centred on the fact that one of the
major societal issues facing the world today is the issue of large
scale cultural appeal to some form of lowest common denominator.
This in turn brings the collective intellectual faculties of the masses
down to the level of this lowest common denominator. What is all the
more worrying is that this is happening right under our nose. Take a
look around when you are next in a city, and just take in what you
see; I can guarantee you will notice just how much the masses have
turned in on themselves, running away from logic and individuality,
and accepting the open invitation to unite with those around them,
regardless of whether or not their views are shared. It is right there,
but still only noticeable if you take a moment to stop and actually
look. Be warned however, the reality of it is very troubling, and it is
very real.