the psychology of revolution-第3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！



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

illusion；　by　proving　to　him　that　the　books　which　recount　the

history　of　the　Revolution　contain　in　reality　a　mass　of　legends

very　remote　from　reality。



These　legends　will　doubtless　retain　more　life　than　history

itself。　　Do　not　regret　this　too　greatly。　　It　may　interest　a　few

philosophers　to　know　the　truth；　but　the　peoples　will　always

prefer　dreams。　　Synthetising　their　ideal；　such　dreams　will　always

constitute　powerful　motives　of　action。　　One　would　lose　courage

were　it　not　sustained　by　false　ideas；　said　Fontenelle。　　Joan　of

Arc；　the　Giants　of　the　Convention；　the　Imperial　epicall　these

dazzling　images　of　the　past　will　always　remain　sources　of　hope　in

the　gloomy　hours　that　follow　defeat。　　They　form　part　of　that

patrimony　of　illusions　left　us　by　our　fathers；　whose　power　is

often　greater　than　that　of　reality。　　The　dream；　the　ideal；　the

legendin　a　word；　the　unrealit　is　that　which　shapes　history。





PART　I



THE　PSYCHOLOGICAL　ELEMENTS　OF　REVOLUTIONARY　MOVEMENTS







BOOK　I



GENERAL　CHARACTERISTICS　OF　REVOLUTIONS



CHAPTER　I



SCIENTIFIC　AND　POLITICAL　REVOLUTIONS



1。　　Classification　of　Revolutions。



We　generally　apply　the　term　revolution　to　sudden　political

changes；　but　the　expression　may　be　employed　to　denote　all　sudden

transformations；　or　transformations　apparently　sudden；　whether　of

beliefs；　ideas；　or　doctrines。



We　have　considered　elsewhere　the　part　played　by　the　rational；

affective；　and　mystic　factors　in　the　genesis　of　the　opinions　and

beliefs　which　determine　conduct。　　We　need　not　therefore　return　to

the　subject　here。



A　revolution　may　finally　become　a　belief；　but　it　often　commences

under　the　action　of　perfectly　rational　motives：　the　suppression

of　crying　abuses；　of　a　detested　despotic　government；　or　an

unpopular　sovereign；　&c。



Although　the　origin　of　a　revolution　may　be　perfectly　rational；　we

must　not　forget　that　the　reasons　invoked　in　preparing　for　it　do

not　influence　the　crowd　until　they　have　been　transformed

into　sentiments。　　Rational　logic　can　point　to　the　abuses　to　be

destroyed；　but　to　move　the　multitude　its　hopes　must　be　awakened。　

This　can　only　be　effected　by　the　action　of　the　affective　and

mystic　elements　which　give　man　the　power　to　act。　　At　the　time　of

the　French　Revolution；　for　example；　rational　logic；　in　the　hands

of　the　philosophers；　demonstrated　the　inconveniences　of　the

ancien　regime；　and　excited　the　desire　to　change　it。　　Mystic

logic　inspired　belief　in　the　virtues　of　a　society　created　in　all

its　members　according　to　certain　principles。　　Affective　logic

unchained　the　passions　confined　by　the　bonds　of　ages　and　led　to

the　worst　excesses。　　Collective　logic　ruled　the　clubs　and　the

Assemblies　and　impelled　their　members　to　actions　which　neither

rational　nor　affective　nor　mystic　logic　would　ever　have　caused

them　to　commit。



Whatever　its　origin；　a　revolution　is　not　productive　of　results

until　it　has　sunk　into　the　soul　of　the　multitude。　　Then　events

acquire　special　forms　resulting　from　the　peculiar　psychology　of

crowds。　　Popular　movements　for　this　reason　have　characteristics

so　pronounced　that　the　description　of　one　will　enable　us　to

comprehend　the　others。



The　multitude　is；　therefore；　the　agent　of　a　revolution；　but　not

its　point　of　departure。　　The　crowd　represents　an　amorphous　being

which　can　do　nothing；　and　will　nothing；　without　a　head　to　lead

it。　　It　will　quickly　exceed　the　impulse　once　received；　but　it

never　creates　it。



The　sudden　political　revolutions　which　strike　the　historian　most

forcibly　are　often　the　least　important。　　The　great　revolutions

are　those　of　manners　and　thought。　　Changing　the　name　of　a

government　does　not　transform　the　mentality　of　a　people。　　To

overthrow　the　institutions　of　a　people　is　not　to　re…shape　its

soul。



The　true　revolutions；　those　which　transform　the　destinies　of　the

peoples；　are　most　frequently　accomplished　so　slowly　that　the

historians　can　hardly　point　to　their　beginnings。　　The　term

evolution　is；　therefore；　far　more　appropriate　than　revolution。



The　various　elements　we　have　enumerated　as　entering　into　the

genesis　of　the　majority　of　revolutions　will　not　suffice　to

classify　them。　　Considering　only　the　designed　object；　we　will

divide　them　into　scientific　revolutions；　political　revolutions；

and　religious　revolutions。



2。　　Scientific　Revolutions。





Scientific　revolutions　are　by　far　the　most　important。　　Although

they　attract　but　little　attention；　they　are　often　fraught　with

remote　consequences；　such　as　are　not　engendered　by　political

revolutions。　　We　will　therefore　put　them　first；　although　we

cannot　study　them　here。



For　instance；　if　our　conceptions　of　the　universe　have　profoundly

changed　since　the　time　of　the　Revolution；　it　is　because

astronomical　discoveries　and　the　application　of　experimental

methods　have　revolutionised　them；　by　demonstrating　that

phenomena；　instead　of　being　conditioned　by　the　caprices　of　the

gods；　are　ruled　by　invariable　laws。



Such　revolutions　are　fittingly　spoken　of　as　evolution；　on　account

of　their　slowness。　　But　there　are　others　which；　although　of　the

same　order；　deserve　the　name　of　revolution　by　reason　of　their

rapidity：　we　may　instance　the　theories　of　Darwin；

overthrowing　the　whole　science　of　biology　in　a　few　years；　the

discoveries　of　Pasteur；　which　revolutionised　medicine　during　the

lifetime　of　their　author；　and　the　theory　of　the　dissociation　of

matter；　proving　that　the　atom；　formerly　supposed　to　be　eternal；

is　not　immune　from　the　laws　which　condemn　all　the　elements　of　the

universe　to　decline　and　perish。



These　scientific　revolutions　in　the　domain　of　ideas　are　purely

intellectual。　　Our　sentiments　and　beliefs　do　not　affect　them。　

Men　submit　to　them　without　discussing　them。　　Their　results　being

controllable　by　experience；　they　escape　all　criticism。





3。　　Political　Revolutions。





Beneath　and　very　remote　from　these　scientific　revolutions；　which

generate　the　progress　of　civilisations；　are　the　religious　and

political　revolutions；　which　have　no　kinship　with　them。　　While

scientific　revolutions　derive　solely　from　rational　elements；

political　and　religious　beliefs　are　sustained　almost　exclusively

by　affective　and　mystic　factors。　　Reason　plays　only　a　feeble　part

in　their　genesis。



I　insisted　at　some　length　in　my　book　Opinions　and　Beliefs　on

the　affective　and　mystic　origin　of　beliefs；　showing　that　a

political　or　religious　belief　constitutes　an　act　of　faith

elaborated　in　unconsciousness；　over　which；　in　spite　of　all

appearances；　reason　has　no　hold。　　I　also　showed　that　belief　often

reaches　such　a　degree　of　intensity　that　nothing　can　be　opposed　to

it。　　The　man　hypnotised　by　his　faith　becomes　an　Apostle；　ready　to

sacrifice　his　interests；　his　happiness；　and　even　his　life　for　the

triumph　of　his　faith。　　The　absurdity　of　his　belief　matters

little；　for　him　it　is　a　burning　reality。　　Certitudes　of　mystic

origin　possess　the　marvellous　power　of　entire　domination　over

thought；　and　can　only　be　affected　by　time。



By　the　very　fact　that　it　is　regarded　as　an　absolute　truth　a

belief　necessarily　becomes　intolerant。　　This　explains　the

violence；　hatred；　and　persecution　which　were　the　habitual

accompaniments　of　the　great　political　and　religious　revolutions；

notably　of　the　Reformation　and　the　French　Revolution。



Certain　periods　of　French　history　remain　incomprehensible　if　we

forget　the　affective　and　mystic　origin　of　beliefs；　their

necessary　intolerance；　the　impossibility　of　reconciling　them　when

they　come　into　mutual　contact；　and；　finally；　the　power　conferred

by　mystic　beliefs　upon　the　sentiments　which　place　themselves　at

their　service。



The　foregoing　conceptions　are　too　novel　as　yet　to　have　modified

the　mentality　of　the　historians。　　They　will　continue　to　attempt

to　explain；　by　means　of　rational　logic；　a　host　of　phenomena　which

are　foreign　to　it。



Events　such　as　the　Reformation；　which　overwhelmed　France　for　a

period　of　fifty　years；　were　in　no　wise　determined　by　rational

influences。　　Yet　rational　influences　are　always　invoked　in

explanation；　even　in　the　most　recent　works。　　Thus；　in　the

General　History　of　Messrs。　Lavisse　and　Rambaud；　we　read　the

following　explanation　of　the　Reformation：



‘‘It　was　a　spontaneous　movement；　born　here　and　there　amidst　the

people；　from　the　reading　of　the　Gospels　and　the　free　individual

reflections　which　were　suggested　to　simple　persons　by　an

extremely　pious　conscience　and　a　very　bold　reasoning　power。''



Contrary　to　the　assertion　of　these　historians；　we　may　say　with

certainty；　in　the　first　place；　that　such　movements　are　never

spontaneous；　and　secondly；　that　reason　takes　no　part　in　their

elaboration。



The　force　of　the　political　and　religious　beliefs　which　have　moved

the　world　resides　precisely　in　the　fact　that；　being　born　of

affective　and　mystic　elements；　they　are　neither　created　nor

directed　by　reason。



Political　or　religious　beliefs　have　a　common　origin　and　obey　the

same　laws。　　They　are　formed　not　with　the　aid　of　reason；　but　more

often　contrary　to　all　reason。　　Buddhism；　Islamism；　the

Reformation；　Jacobinism；　Socialism；　&c。；　seem　very　different

forms　of　thought。　　Yet　they　have　identical　affective　and　mystic

bases；　and　obey　a　logic　that　has　no　affinity　with　rational　logic。



Political　revolutions　may　result　from　beliefs　established　in　the

minds　of　men；　but　many　other　causes　produce　them。　　The　word

discontent　sums　them　up。　　As　soon　as　discontent　is　generalised　a

party　is　formed　which　often　becomes　strong　enough　to　struggle

against　the　Government。



Discontent　must　generally　have　been　accumulating　for　a　long　time

in　order　to　produce　its　effects。　　For　this　reason　a　revolution

does　not　always　represent　a　phenomenon　in　process　of　termination

followed　by　another　which　is　commencing　but　rather　a　continuous

phenomenon；　having　somewhat　accelerated　its　evolution。　　All　the

modern　revolutions；　however；　have　been　abrupt　movements；

entailing　the　instantaneous　overthrow　of　governments。　　Such；　for

example；　were　the　Brazilian；　Portuguese；　Turkish；　and　Chinese

revolutions。



To　the　contrary　of　what　might　be　supposed；　the　very　conservative

peoples　are　addicted　to　the　most　violent　revolutions。　　Being

conservative；　they　are　not　able　to　evolve　slowly；　or　to　adapt

themselves　to　variations　of　environment；　so　that　when　the

discrepancy　becomes　too　extreme　they　are　bound　to　adapt

themselves　suddenly。　　This　sudden　evolution　constitutes　a

revolution。



Peoples　able　to　adapt　themselves　progressively　do　not　always

escape　revolution。　　It　was　only　by　means　of　a　revolution　that　the

English；　in　1688；　were　able　to　terminate　the　struggle　which　had

dragged　on　for　a　century　between　the　monarchy；　which　sought　to

make　itself　absolute；　and　the　nation；　which　claimed　the　right　to

govern　itself　through　the　med