the psychology of revolution-第4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!
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