Customer Reviews

The Crowd A Study of the Popular Mind

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Many readers of this 1895 book will be intrigued by the notion that 20th century dictators allegedly based their regimes on it. The false inference that this book promotes totalitarianism is an unfortunate result. Not only does Le Bon remain scientific and neutral with regard to the applications of his study, but so too does this book offer us great insight into the psychology of crowds that could help us achieve the kind of liberal democracy we supposedly strive for today.

The book's scientific tone is unmistakable. One almost wishes for more tangential philosophy to better realize the ideas, but one cannot argue with Le Bon's style, which very successfully accomplishes his aims, limited as they are: describing the characteristics of crowds. The reader is also thankful for the author's precise method when he indulges popular prejudices of his day stemmed from social Darwinism. Le Bon subscribes to the notion that the world's population is made of different `races,' for instance, and attributes differences in behavior to this fiction. The reader is usually able to substitute `race' for `culture' in these cases in order to read his meaning in a more modern capacity.

Le Bon was obviously a great student of Spencer and, as such, emphasizes a Positivist worldview, stressing evolution and individual liberty as paths to the good. But he is objective throughout--again proving his dedication to science--never failing to note the good things that crowds have accomplished, even as functions of religion or socialist states.

It is only then that the reader is compelled to object. Crowd psychology, as it is described in these pages, is an evil in itself because the individuals that make up the crowd lose their ability to reason. This, no matter what the outcome of the crowd's action is, makes the phenomenon abhorrent in itself. One that favors the intellect, even the neutral, scientific brand (one might even argue especially the neutral, scientific brand), should thoroughly disapprove.

And so even the fundamental legacy of this book is countered. The assumption about `The Crowd' is that it systematically disparages herds because of their stupidity and recklessness. At least one reader wishes this were more the case.