Synthesized answer
The text describes crowds as "unconscious" [1] and attributes their power to this very unconsciousness, stating, "it is precisely because they are unconscious that their power can be immense" [1]. This unconsciousness leads to a state where individuals lose their personality and critical judgment, becoming dominated by instinct and suggestion, much like a hypnotized person [2]. This leads to a powerful, unthinking force.
However, the text also characterizes crowds as inherently destructive and incapable of creation. Their actions are driven by impulse rather than foresight [3] and are characterized by a tendency towards "destruction" and "ruin" [5]. They are likened to a destructive force like mold, solely focused on decomposition [5]. The passages do not fully reconcile the duality of powerful unconsciousness with an inherently destructive nature beyond stating that this unconsciousness allows for immense, unthinking action. The text does not explicitly suggest a role for crowds in societal evolution, beyond their destructive capacity to overturn existing structures and civilizations [5].
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
必極審愼。決不徒恃論理學之方式以爲論斷矣。 此外又有一原因。足令論者知所審愼。蓋以社會中之事物。如是其複雜。苟欲洞悉靡遺。全體了然。勢已有所不能。若欲於其相互之結果。洞燭機先。則益無其事矣。無他。蓋吾人可見可聞之事物。至有限量。而吾人之所不見不聞。或無由見無由聞者。眞不啻恒河沙數。且社會現象而爲吾人所可見者。皆原因於淵深浩漫不可捉摸之作用而來。而爲吾人所無由硏究分析者也。譬猶汪洋巨浸。吾人但見其表面之波濤洶洶而已。至其波濤之所以洶洶。實由其千尋海底洪流往復之故。而爲吾人所無由見無由知者。以羣衆行爲之大部分而論。其心意程度之低下。誠不待論。顧於其他之行爲。又常有不可思議之勢力導之而趨。此實爲先人所定吾人之運命。而爲古代遺音之所寄者。吾人雖不能識其存在。然亦不容忽視也。譬如語文。其尤爲複雜巧妙之一例乎。除於不知不覺中習用以外。有能知其所從來者乎。縱有積學之士。文法名家。除記述語文上之規律而外。亦不能有所創造。卽以偉人哲士之思想而論。謂之全然出諸其人之腦力可乎。雖其思想之創造。不能不謂由於其人之潛思默識。然使無羣衆之精神。以爲其憑藉。譬猶植物而無恆河沙數之泥沙。以助其潛滋暗長。其能有所成就者乎。…
世心理學界之各種發明。不可不知。吾人知今日固有施術者用其法術。能使受之者失其自動之知覺。而惟施術者之命令是從。以致演成反其本性之行爲者矣。吾人苟熟思詳察之。足以證明凡個人一涉羣衆旋渦之中。經若干之時日。自視其地位。頓覺與昔有異。其爲感受羣衆之電磁力之作用耶。抑別有吾人所未知之原因在耶。吾爲擬之。殆一如被催眠者之受術時然。一一惟施術者之意是從。當此之時。其人腦髓之動作。已麻木不可得見。凡所舉動。皆爲脊髓動作之効果。而施術者可以任意左之右之者也。且其人自覺之心已消失。意志與辨別力亦亡去。而其所有之感覺與觀念。施術者因得而驅使之矣。 當個人聯而爲衆時亦然。其所作爲。自己亦冥然罔覺。一似被催眠者然。當此之時。其人之某種官能或全失其功用。而某種之官能則增高繼長。一受暗示之鼓動。遂輕率躁進以赴其所事。然羣衆之輕率躁進。其度實遠過於受催眼者。蓋羣衆中之各個人所受之暗示雖同。第以互相反應之故。其勢遂洶洶而莫之能禦。雖羣衆中不無自信力較强者。足以與此暗示相抗。無如數少勢孤。欲以之砥柱中流。蓋戛戛乎其難矣。至終或以暗示之不同。而其衆遂生派別。是故羣衆之中苟一部分有懽忻之表示。卽足以阻止他一部分流血之慘劇矣。…
界刺戟力之如何而爲轉移。吾故曰、羣衆者乃全受外界刺戟力之作用。而百變其動作。以呈其反映。卽謂之爲外界刺戟力之奴隸亦可也。雖離羣索居之個人。亦未嘗不感受外界之種種刺戟。然其天君尚在。固尚能決其從違。藉曰否則否之矣。故獨處之個人尚足以轄治一切之反映舉動。而羣衆則反是。試按諸心理學。固一一不可誣也。 夫羣衆之行爲。必有其衝動之性以驅使之。其性質雖有仁暴勇怯之殊。莫不隨其刺戟之原因而變易。且其爲力甚大。凡個人之利害安危。均不暇計及焉。夫刺戟之原因。至爲繁縟。而羣衆對之。惟有降伏不違之一道。故其結果。羣衆之性爲極易變動之一物。能於俄頃之際。由凶殘慘酷之行徑。忽變而爲慈祥豪俠之舉動。易於爲殺人之兇徒。亦易成殉道之烈士。古來之種種宗教。種種主義。藉流血而得勝利者。俱羣衆之功也。其例不必遠稽夫古昔。卽如近世有某將軍者。其徒衆均爲好亂之暴徒。一旦某將軍得其衆心。彼數千萬人者。一聆將軍之令。莫不肯爲之効死。此其例也。 由此觀之。羣衆之行爲。祗有臨事之張皇。而無先機之熟慮。苟有術以反復鼓舞之。雖與本性相反。亦無不應之如響。殆如枯葉遇疾風。升之墜之。散之四方。均無不可。羣衆感情之易變。於下章論革命之羣衆時。其例尤屢見之.
衆又以厭倦凌亂無秩序之故。漸漸變爲服從之狀態矣。當拿破崙專制極盛之時。法人之自由。剝奪殆盡。威權赫赫。處處運用其鐵腕。而爲之歌功頌德者非他人。乃卽前此桀傲不撓之甲谷(Jacobins)黨員。是亦一證也。吾人苟不能洞燭夫羣衆實蓄有深邃之保守性。卽不足與論歷史。而於革命之事蹟爲尤然。何則。羣衆之於制度。每好變更其名稱。欲其名稱之變更。每不憚訴諸暴烈之革命行爲。雖然。民族有一制度。卽有其根本之要素。此要素乃基於民族遞演以來所必需者。彼等雖欲排除之。而勢終有所不能。故曰、革命中種種設施。不過表面上之一番影響而已。質言之。羣衆之保守性。其堅牢不易摧除。與原始人民無異。社會上一切遺傳之迷信。無由破其藩籬。苟有一二新奇舉動發生。或足以變更其生存之狀況者。則其根性上所潛伏之恐怖心必立時隨之而起焉。向使今日羣衆所具之勢力。於文化未大啓之時。已極進步。則欲求所謂汽機鐵路以及種種之新發明。一一見諸事實。吾恐戛戛乎其難矣。否則亦惟以革命流血之代價以購得之耳。然則今日羣衆新勢力之存在。適在一切學術工藝大發明之後。斯豈非文化進步之大幸乎哉。 第五節 羣衆之道德 编辑 夫所謂道德者何物耶。若必須循禮克己始可謂之道德。則羣衆者固以易動善變爲性。以此期之。固屬不易。若謂無我、敢死、任俠、慕義、諸性質之表現於一時者。亦可稱爲道德。則羣衆者固能發揮而廣大之者也。 世之硏究羣衆心理者。每從羣衆犯罪之一方面討論。述其發見…
注其力於政治中心之國會。而知選出若干代議士焉。此類代議士一惟選舉者之命是從。完全成爲選舉者之喉舌矣。 今日羣衆之要求。漸有具體可言者。幾欲將現存社會根本推翻。而返諸原始共產制度之狀態。如文明未啓時然。例如勞動時間之制限。鑛產鐵路工廠土地之國有。物產之平均分配。上流階級之破除。一以普利平民爲旨。此皆彼輩要求之要點也。 夫羣之爲物。喻之以理則難。鼓之以動則易。依現今之種種聯合。而羣衆之力乃日增其武斷橫行之風。此風之始。吾儕均親見之。今則幾與往日之暴君權力相伯仲。然暴君之專橫。現已不足論列。而神聖之君權。乃一變而爲神聖之民權矣。 一國之中。每有一部分之文人學士。夙爲中流社會所推崇。其思想則拘。其見解則迂。而又益之以懷疑性。輔之以利己心。若而人者。實足以代表一般中流社會。彼輩猝見夫民衆勢力之日增。每驚疑無措。或思乞靈於平昔所鄙棄之教會道德。以冀挽回人心之凌亂。居恆言曰。是乃科學之惡果也。當自悔自懺而束身於宗教。然而晚矣。夫民衆今所厭棄之神道。卽往昔彼輩所厭棄而攻擊之者也。嗟夫。大勢如是。滔滔如江河之奔放。無論人力與神權。均不爲功矣。…
More questions about this book
- The text introduces a distinction between a "national spirit" and "new psychological characteristics" that emerge in a crowd. How does the author explain the mechanism by which individuals' psychology transforms within a crowd, and why does he consider this distinction "critical" for understanding modern society?
- The author claims that "laws and institutions are merely superficial expressions of our character" and cannot change it, while also emphasizing the prevalence of "unconscious actions." How do these two ideas together explain the author's skepticism regarding the efficacy of rapid, top-down social reforms?
- Using the analogy of geometric shapes appearing differently when perceived, the text states that "the truth contained in illusory appearance is even greater than in true appearance" in practical matters. What does this profound statement imply about the most effective way for scholars and politicians to study and interact with social phenomena?
- Considering the author's views on the profound influence of unobservable, unconscious forces and inherited "ancient echoes" on human behavior, what specific challenges does this perspective pose for conducting purely scientific research into crowd phenomena, and how does he propose overcoming them?