Among the characteristics of the popular mind we must mention that in all peoples and all ages it has been saturated with mysticism.The people will always be convinced that superior beings--divinities, Governments, or great men--have the power to change things at will.This mystic side produces an intense need of adoration.The people must have a fetich, either a man or a doctrine.This is why, when threatened with anarchy, it calls for a Messiah to save it.
Like the crowd, but more slowly, the people readily passes from adoration to hatred.A man may be the hero of the people at one period, and finally earn its curses.These variations of popular opinion concerning political personalities may be observed in all times.The history of Cromwell furnishes us with a very curious example.[5]
[5] After having overthrown a dynasty and refused a crown he was buried like a king among kings.Two years later his body was torn from the tomb, and his head, cut off by the executioner, was exposed above the gate of the House of Parliament.A little while ago a statue was raised to him.The old anarchist turned autocrat now figures in the gallery of demigods.
4.The Role of the Leader in Revolutionary Movements.
All the varieties of crowds--homogeneous and heterogeneous, assemblies, peoples, clubs, &c.--are, as we have often repeated, aggregates incapable of unity and action so long as they find no master to lead them.
I have shown elsewhere, making use of certain physiological experiments, that the unconscious collective mind of the crowd seems bound up with the mind of the leader.The latter gives it a single will and imposes absolute obedience.
The leader acts especially through suggestion.His success depends on his fashion of provoking this suggestion.Many experiments have shown to what point a collectivity may be subjected to suggestion.[6]
[6] Among the numerous experiments made to prove this fact one of the most remarkable was performed on the pupils of his class by Professor Glosson and published in the Revue Scientifique for October 28, 1899.
``I prepared a bottle filled with distilled water carefully wrapped in cotton and packed in a box.After several other experiments I stated that I wished to measure the rapidity with which an odour would diffuse itself through the air, and asked those present to raise their hands the moment they perceived the odour....I took out the bottle and poured the water on the cotton, turning my head away during the operation, then took up a stop-watch and awaited the result....I explained that I was absolutely sure that no one present had ever smelt the odour of the chemical composition I had spilt....At the end of fifteen seconds the majority of those in front had held up their hands, and in forty seconds the odour had reached the back of the hall by fairly regular waves.About three-quarters of those present declared that they perceived the odour.A larger number would doubtless have succumbed to suggestion, if at the end of a minute I had not been forced to stop the experiment, some of those in the front rows being unpleasantly affected by the odour, and wishing to leave the hall.''
According to the suggestions of the leaders, the multitude will be calm, furious, criminal, or heroic.These various suggestions may sometimes appear to present a rational aspect, but they will only appear to be reasonable.A crowd is in reality inaccessible to reason; the only ideas capable of influencing it will always be sentiments evoked in the form of images.
The history of the Revolution shows on every page how easily the multitude follows the most contradictory impulses given by its different leaders.We see it applaud just as vigorously at the triumph of the Girondists, the Hebertists, the Dantonists, and the Terrorists as at their successive downfalls.One may be quite sure, also, that the crowd understood nothing of these events.
At a distance one can only confusedly perceive the part played by the leaders, for they commonly work in the shade.To grasp this clearly we must study them in contemporary events.We shall then see how readily the leader can provoke the most violent popular movements.We are not thinking here of the strikes of the postmen or railway men, in which the discontent of the employees might intervene, but of events in which the crowd was not in the least interested.Such, for example, was the popular rising provoked by a few Socialist leaders amidst the Parisian populace on the morrow of the execution of Ferrer, in Spain.The French crowd had never heard of Ferrer.In Spain his execution was almost unnoticed.In Paris the incitements of a few leaders sufficed to hurl a regular popular army upon the Spanish Embassy, with the intention of burning it.Part of the garrison had to be employed to protect it.Energetically repulsed, the assailants contented themselves with sacking a few shops and building some barricades.
At the same time, the leaders gave another proof of their influence.Finally understanding that the burning of a foreign embassy might be extremely dangerous, they ordered a pacific demonstration for the following day, and were as faithfully obeyed as if they had ordered the most violent riot.No example could better show the importance of leaders and the submission of the crowdThe historians who, from Michelet to M.Aulard, have represented the revolutionary crowd as having acted on its own initiative, without leaders, do not comprehend its psychology.
