the psychology of revolution-第2章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



of　ancestral　influences；　the　laws　which　rule　the　actions　of　the

crowd；　data　relating　to　the　disaggregation　of　personality；　mental

contagion；　the　unconscious　formation　of　beliefs；　and　the

distinction　between　the　various　forms　of　logic。



To　tell　the　truth；　these　applications　of　science；　which　are

utilised　in　this　book；　have　not　been　so　utilised　hitherto。　

Historians　have　generally　stopped　short　at　the　study　of

documents；　and　even　that　study　is　sufficient　to　excite　the　doubts

of　which　I　have　spoken。





The　great　events　which　shape　the　destinies　of　peoples

revolutions；　for　example；　and　the　outbreak　of　religious　beliefs

are　sometimes　so　difficult　to　explain　that　one　must　limit　oneself

to　a　mere　statement。



From　the　time　of　my　first　historical　researches　I　have　been

struck　by　the　impenetrable　aspect　of　certain　essential　phenomena；

those　relating　to　the　genesis　of　beliefs　especially；　I　felt

convinced　that　something　fundamental　was　lacking　that　was

essential　to　their　interpretation。　　Reason　having　said　all　it

could　say；　nothing　more　could　be　expected　of　it；　and　other　means

must　be　sought　of　comprehending　what　had　not　been　elucidated。



For　a　long　time　these　important　questions　remained　obscure　to　me。　

Extended　travel；　devoted　to　the　study　of　the　remnants　of　vanished

civilisations；　had　not　done　much　to　throw　light　upon　them。



Reflecting　upon　it　continually；　I　was　forced　to　recognise　that

the　problem　was　composed　of　a　series　of　other　problems；　which　I

should　have　to　study　separately。　　This　I　did　for　a　period　of

twenty　years；　presenting　the　results　of　my　researches　in　a

succession　of　volumes。



One　of　the　first　was　devoted　to　the　study　of　the　psychological

laws　of　the　evolution　of　peoples。　　Having　shown　that　the

historic　racesthat　is；　the　races　formed　by　the　hazards　of

historyfinally　acquired　psychological　characteristics　as　stable

as　their　anatomical　characteristics；　I　attempted　to　explain　how　a

people　transforms　its　institutions；　its　languages；　and　its　arts。　

I　explained　in　the　same　work　why　it　was　that　individual

personalities；　under　the　influence　of　sudden　variations　of

environment；　might　be　entirely　disaggregated。



But　besides　the　fixed　collectivities　formed　by　the　peoples；　there

are　mobile　and　transitory　collectivities　known　as　crowds。　　Now

these　crowds　or　mobs；　by　the　aid　of　which　the　great　movements　of

history　are　accomplished；　have　characteristics　absolutely

different　from　those　of　the　individuals　who　compose　them。　　What

are　these　characteristics；　and　how　are　they　evolved？　　This　new

problem　was　examined　in　The　Psychology　of　the　Crowd。



Only　after　these　studies　did　I　begin　to　perceive　certain

influences　which　had　escaped　me。



But　this　was　not　all。　　Among　the　most　important　factors　of

history　one　was　preponderantthe　factor　of　beliefs。　　How　are

these　beliefs　born；　and　are　they　really　rational　and　voluntary；

as　was　long　taught？　　Are　they　not　rather　unconscious　and

independent　of　all　reason？　　A　difficult　question；　which　I　dealt

with　in　my　last　book；　Opinions　and　Beliefs。



So　long　as　psychology　regards　beliefs　as　voluntary　and　rational

they　will　remain　inexplicable。　　Having　proved　that　they　are

usually　irrational　and　always　involuntary；　I　was　able　to　propound

the　solution　of　this　important　problem；　how　it　was　that　beliefs

which　no　reason　could　justify　were　admitted　without

difficulty　by　the　most　enlightened　spirits　of　all　ages。



The　solution　of　the　historical　difficulties　which　had　so　long

been　sought　was　thenceforth　obvious。　　I　arrived　at　the　conclusion

that　beside　the　rational　logic　which　conditions　thought；　and　was

formerly　regarded　as　our　sole　guide；　there　exist　very　different

forms　of　logic：　affective　logic；　collective　logic；　and　mystic

logic；　which　usually　overrule　the　reason　and　engender　the

generative　impulses　of　our　conduct。



This　fact　well　established；　it　seemed　to　me　evident　that　if　a

great　number　of　historical　events　are　often　uncomprehended；　it　is

because　we　seek　to　interpret　them　in　the　light　of　a　logic　which

in　reality　has　very　little　influence　upon　their　genesis。





All　these　researches；　which　are　here　summed　up　in　a　few　lines；

demanded　long　years　for　their　accomplishment。　　Despairing　of

completing　them；　I　abandoned　them　more　than　once　to　return　to

those　labours　of　the　laboratory　in　which　one　is　always　sure　of

skirting　the　truth　and　of　acquiring　fragments　at　least　of

certitude。



But　while　it　is　very　interesting　to　explore　the　world　of　material

phenomena；　it　is　still　more　so　to　decipher　men；　for　which　reason

I　have　always　been　led　back　to　psychology。



Certain　principles　deduced　from　my　researches　appearing　likely　to

prove　fruitful；　I　resolved　to　apply　them　to　the　study　of　concrete

instances；　and　was　thus　led　to　deal　with　the　Psychology　of

Revolutionsnotably　that　of　the　French　Revolution。



Proceeding　in　the　analysis　of　our　great　Revolution；　the

greater　part　of　the　opinions　determined　by　the　reading　of　books

deserted　me　one　by　one；　although　I　had　considered　them

unshakable。



To　explain　this　period　we　must　consider　it　as　a　whole；　as　many

historians　have　done。　　It　is　composed　of　phenomena　simultaneous

but　independent　of　one　another。



Each　of　its　phases　reveals　events　engendered　by　psychological

laws　working　with　the　regularity　of　clockwork。　　The　actors　in

this　great　drama　seem　to　move　like　the　characters　of　a　previously

determined　drama。　　Each　says　what　he　must　say；　acts　as　he　is

bound　to　act。



To　be　sure；　the　actors　in　the　revolutionary　drama　differed　from

those　of　a　written　drama　in　that　they　had　not　studied　their

parts；　but　these　were　dictated　by　invisible　forces。



Precisely　because　they　were　subjected　to　the　inevitable

progression　of　logics　incomprehensible　to　them　we　see　them　as

greatly　astonished　by　the　events　of　which　they　were　the　heroes　as

are　we　ourselves。　　Never　did　they　suspect　the　invisible　powers

which　forced　them　to　act。　　They　were　the　masters　neither　of　their

fury　nor　their　weakness。　　They　spoke　in　the　name　of　reason；

pretending　to　be　guided　by　reason；　but　in　reality　it　was　by　no

means　reason　that　impelled　them。



‘‘The　decisions　for　which　we　are　so　greatly　reproached；''　wrote

Billaud…Varenne；　‘‘were　more　often　than　otherwise　not　intended　or

desired　by　us　two　days　or　even　one　day　beforehand：　the　crisis

alone　evoked　them。''



Not　that　we　must　consider　the　events　of　the　Revolution　as

dominated　by　an　imperious　fatality。　　The　readers　of　our　works

will　know　that　we　recognise　in　the　man　of　superior　qualities　the

role　of　averting　fatalities。　　But　he　can　dissociate　himself

only　from　a　few　of　such；　and　is　often　powerless　before　the

sequence　of　events　which　even　at　their　origin　could　scarcely　be

ruled。　　The　scientist　knows　how　to　destroy　the　microbe　before　it

has　time　to　act；　but　he　knows　himself　powerless　to　prevent　the

evolution　of　the　resulting　malady。





When　any　question　gives　rise　to　violently　contradictory　opinions

we　may　be　sure　that　it　belongs　to　the　province　of　beliefs　and　not

to　that　of　knowledge。



We　have　shown　in　a　preceding　work　that　belief；　of　unconscious

origin　and　independent　of　all　reason；　can　never　be　influenced　by

reason。



The　Revolution；　the　work　of　believers；　has　seldom　been　judged　by

any　but　believers。　　Execrated　by　some　and　praised　by　others；　it

has　remained　one　of　those　dogmas　which　are　accepted　or　rejected

as　a　whole；　without　the　intervention　of　rational　logic。



Although　in　its　beginnings　a　religious　or　political　revolution

may　very　well　be　supported　by　rational　elements；　it　is　developed

only　by　the　aid　of　mystic　and　affective　elements　which　are

absolutely　foreign　to　reason。



The　historians　who　have　judged　the　events　of　the　French

Revolution　in　the　name　of　rational　logic　could　not　comprehend

them；　since　this　form　of　logic　did　not　dictate　them。　　As　the

actors　of　these　events　themselves　understood　them　but　ill；　we

shall　not　be　far　from　the　truth　in　saying　that　our

Revolution　was　a　phenomenon　equally　misunderstood　by　those

who　caused　it　and　by　those　who　have　described　it。　　At　no　period

of　history　did　men　so　little　grasp　the　present；　so　greatly　ignore

the　past；　and　so　poorly　divine　the　future。





。　。　。　The　power　of　the　Revolution　did　not　reside　in　the

principleswhich　for　that　matter　were　anything　but　novelwhich

it　sought　to　propagate；　nor　in　the　institutions　which　it　sought

to　found。　　The　people　cares　very　little　for　institutions　and　even

less　for　doctrines。　　That　the　Revolution　was　potent　indeed；　that

it　made　France　accept　the　violence；　the　murders；　the　ruin　and　the

horror　of　a　frightful　civil　war；　that　finally　it　defended　itself

victoriously　against　a　Europe　in　arms；　was　due　to　the　fact　that

it　had　founded　not　a　new　system　of　government　but　a　new　religion。



Now　history　shows　us　how　irresistible　is　the　might　of　a　strong

belief。　　Invincible　Rome　herself　had　to　bow　before　the　armies　of

nomad　shepherds　illuminated　by　the　faith　of　Mahommed。　　For　the

same　reason　the　kings　of　Europe　could　not　resist　the

tatterdemalion　soldiers　of　the　Convention。　　Like　all　apostles；

they　were　ready　to　immolate　themselves　in　the　sole　end　of

propagating　their　beliefs；　which　according　to　their　dream　were　to

renew　the　world。



The　religion　thus　founded　had　the　force　of　other　religions；　if

not　their　duration。　　Yet　it　did　not　perish　without　leaving

indelible　traces；　and　its　influence　is　active　still。





We　shall　not　consider　the　Revolution　as　a　clean　sweep　in

history；　as　its　apostles　believed　it。　　We　know　that　to

demonstrate　their　intention　of　creating　a　world　distinct　from　the

old　they　initiated　a　new　era　and　professed　to　break　entirely　with

all　vestiges　of　the　past。



But　the　past　never　dies。　　It　is　even　more　truly　within　us　than

without　us。　　Against　their　will　the　reformers　of　the　Revolution

remained　saturated　with　the　past；　and　could　only　continue；　under

other　names；　the　traditions　of　the　monarchy；　even　exaggerating

the　autocracy　and　centralisation　of　the　old　system。　　Tocqueville

had　no　difficulty　in　proving　that　the　Revolution　did　little　but

overturn　that　which　was　about　to　fall。



If　in　reality　the　Revolution　destroyed　but　little　it　favoured　the

fruition　of　certain　ideas　which　continued　thenceforth　to　develop。



The　fraternity　and　liberty　which　it　proclaimed　never　greatly

seduced　the　peoples；　but　equality　became　their　gospel：　the　pivot

of　socialism　and　of　the　entire　evolution　of　modern　democratic

ideas。　　We　may　therefore　say　that　the　Revolution　did　not　end　with

the　advent　of　the　Empire；　nor　with　the　successive　restorations

which　followed　it。　　Secretly　or　in　the　light　of　day　it　has　slowly

unrolled　itself　and　still　affects　men's　minds。





The　study　of　the　French　Revolution　to　which　a　great　part　of　this

book　is　devoted　will　perhaps　deprive　the　reader　of　more　than　one

illusion；　by　proving　to