Chapter 17 4. The range of variation in the beliefs and opinions of crowds

Summary: (1) A firm belief.Certain universal beliefs are not easily changed/they are the prevailing trend of civilization/it is very difficult to eradicate them/the philosophical absurdity of a belief does not prevent its spread. (2) Changeable group opinions.Opinion not from general belief is extremely variable/Diversity of ideas and beliefs during the last hundred years/The real limit of this diversity/Things affected by diversity/Confusion of the press has produced the variability of opinion. (1) Firm belief that there are close similarities between the anatomical and psychological features of living things.Among these anatomical features, we will see some factors that are not easy to change or only slightly change, and their changes need to be calculated in geological time.

In addition to these stable, indestructible features, there are also some highly variable features that can be easily changed by livestock and horticultural techniques, sometimes even blinding the observer to those basic elements. feature. The same phenomenon can be seen in moral characteristics.In addition to the immutable psychological characteristics of a race, it can also be seen that it has some variable factors.In studying the beliefs and opinions of a people, therefore, it is always possible to observe, upon a firm foundation, some opinions grafted on to them, as changeable as quicksand on a rock.

The opinions and beliefs of crowds, therefore, may be divided into two very distinct classes.On the one hand we have important and enduring beliefs which remain unchanged for hundreds of years on which entire civilizations may be based.For example, feudalism, Christianity and Protestantism in the past have nationalist principles and contemporary ideas of democracy and socialism in our time.Then there are ephemeral and changeable opinions, which are usually the product of some general doctrine that comes and goes in each age, examples of which are theories that have influenced the arts of literature, such as those that gave birth to Romanticism, Naturalism, or Mysticism. doctrine theory.These opinions are often superficial and as changeable as fashion.They resemble the ripples that continually appear and disappear on the surface of a deep pool of water.

The great general beliefs are very limited in number.Their rise and fall are remarkable events in the history of every civilized race.They form the very basis of civilization. It is not difficult to influence the minds of the masses with a momentary opinion, but it is extremely difficult to make a belief take root in it for a long time.Once the belief is established, however, it is equally difficult to eradicate it.They can usually be reformed only by violent revolution.Even when faith has almost lost its grip on men's minds, there is revolution.In this case the function of the revolution is to make the final cleanup of what has been all but abandoned, because the forces of habit prevent men from abandoning them altogether.The beginning of a revolution is actually the end of a belief.

It's easy to spot the exact moment when a belief begins to die—that's when its value begins to be called into question.All general belief is but a fiction whose only condition of existence is that it cannot be scrutinized. But even when a belief has faltered, the institutions built upon it retain their strength and fade very slowly.In the end, when a belief loses all its power, everything built on it soon begins to crumble.No nation has hitherto been able to convert its religion without the determination to destroy all elements of its civilization.The nation will continue this process of transformation until it stops to accept a new general belief, and until then it will remain in a state of anarchy.General beliefs are the indispensable pillars of civilization, and they determine every tendency of thought.Only they can inspire faith and create a sense of responsibility.

Nations have always been aware of the advantages of acquiring general beliefs, and they know instinctively that the disappearance of such beliefs is a sign of their decline.The belief that enabled the Romans to conquer the world was their cult of Rome; and when that belief died, Rome was doomed.As for the barbarians who destroyed Roman civilization, this could only be done if they had some common belief which gave them a certain unity and escaped from anarchy. There is obviously good reason for the intolerant attitude of nations in defense of their opinions.This intolerant attitude towards philosophical criticism represents the most necessary quality in the life of a people.In the Middle Ages, it was for the search for or adherence to universal beliefs that so many innovators were burned at the stake, and if they escaped martyrdom, they inevitably died of despair.And it is in defense of these beliefs that the most terrible chaos is often staged in the world, and thousands of people are killed or will die there.

The road to general belief is difficult, but once it has established itself, it is long and invincible, and however absurd it may appear philosophically, it enters the most sane minds.Haven't the peoples of Europe held for 1,500 years that religious myths as barbaric as Morlock's were indisputable?For more than a dozen centuries, no one has recognized the absurdity of the myth of a god who exacted vengeance on his own creation for disobedient animals by subjecting his son to horrific torture.It never occurred to men of extraordinary talent, such as Galileo, Newton, or Leibniz, that the truth of this teaching could be doubted.Nothing is more typical of the hypnotic effect of popular belief, and nothing more definitively demonstrates the shameful limitations of our reason.

Once a new dogma takes root in the mind of a crowd, it becomes a source of inspiration from which institutions, arts, and ways of life develop.In this environment, it exercises absolute control over people. The man of action is bent on making this universal belief a reality, the legislator is bent on putting it into practice, the philosopher, the artist, and the man of letters are all interested in expressing it in various ways, and nothing else he thinks. Ephemeral ideas may be derived from fundamental beliefs, but they always bear the imprint of those beliefs.The civilization of Egypt, the civilization of Europe in the Middle Ages, the civilization of the Muslims in the Arab world, are all products of a few religious beliefs, and in these civilizations, even the most insignificant things have left their immediately recognizable imprint.

Thanks to these general beliefs, therefore, men of every age have grown up in a basic environment of similar traditions, opinions, and habits from which they cannot escape.Men's behavior is governed first of all by their beliefs, and also by the habits formed by those beliefs.These beliefs regulate the most insignificant actions of our lives, and the most independent mind cannot escape their influence.The tyranny that rules men's minds unconsciously is the only real tyranny, because you cannot fight it.It is true that Tiberius, Genghis Khan and Napoleon are terrible tyrants, but Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad who lie deep in the tomb exercise a more profound autocratic rule over human beings.A tyrant can be overthrown by conspiracy, but what use is there against firm belief?In the violent confrontation with Roman Catholicism, it was the French Revolution that finally succumbed, even though the sympathies of crowds were clearly on its side, despite the ruthless methods of destruction it employed like the Inquisition.The only true tyrants men have ever known have been their nostalgia for the dead or the fantasies they have spun for themselves.

The philosophical absurdity of common beliefs has never been an obstacle to their triumph. Nor, of course, would these beliefs prevail if they lacked the condition of offering a certain magical absurdity. So the apparent flaws in today's socialist beliefs have not prevented them from winning over the masses.The corollary of this kind of thinking is that, compared with all religious beliefs, it can only be regarded as an inferior belief, because the ideal of happiness provided by the former can only be realized in the afterlife, and it cannot be refuted. The ideal of happiness was to be fulfilled in this world, and as soon as anyone tried to realize it, the hollowness of its promises would be exposed, and the new faith would be ruined.Its power, therefore, grows only so far as it triumphs and begins to realize itself.For this reason, the new religion, although, like all religions of the past, started out with a destructive effect, it will not be able to play a creative role in the future.

(2) Changeable group opinions Above we have expounded the power of firm beliefs, but on the surface of this foundation, some opinions, concepts and ideas that are constantly coming and going will grow.Some of them may live and die, and the more important ones will not outlive a generation.We have already pointed out that such changes of opinion are sometimes only superficial, and that they are always influenced by some racial consciousness.For example, when evaluating the French political system, we showed that the political parties appeared to be very different—Reservists, Radicals, Imperialists, Socialists, etc., but they all had an ideal that was absolutely consistent, and this ideal was completely consistent. Determined by the spiritual structure of the French nation, since in other nations some quite opposite ideals are to be found under the same name.Neither the names given to those opinions, nor their deceitful usage, alter the nature of the matter.The people of the age of the Revolution, educated by Latin literature, had their eyes fixed on the Roman Republic, adopted its laws, its tokens, its laws, but they did not become Romans, because the latter was in the Under the rule of an empire of great historical significance.It is the task of the philosopher to inquire into what sustains ancient beliefs behind their apparent changes, to find in the changing opinions what is determined by general beliefs and racial peculiarities. Without this philosophical test, one would think that the masses often change their political or religious convictions at will.All history, whether political, religious, artistic, or literary, seems to prove that this is the case.As an illustration, let's look at a very brief period in French history, the thirty years from 1790 to 1820, which also happened to be one generation.During this time, we see groups that were initially royalists becoming very revolutionary, then extreme imperialists, and finally supporters of the monarchy.On matters of religion they swayed during this time from Catholicism to atheism, then to Deism, and finally back to the most staunchly Catholic position.These changes occur not only among the masses, but also among their leaders.We were surprised to find that some dignitaries in the National Convention, sworn enemies of the king, who believed neither in God nor in their masters, could become Napoleon's obedient servants, and walked piously with candles in their hands under Louis XVIII. In the middle of the religious team. In the years that followed, the opinions of the masses changed countless times.At the turn of the century the "perfidious Briton" became an ally of France under Napoleon's successors.Russia, twice invaded by France, watched with satisfaction France's retreat, and became her friend too. In literature, art, and philosophy, the subsequent changes in opinion were more rapid.Romanticism, naturalism, mysticism, etc., appear in turn, come and go.Artists and writers who were praised yesterday will be scolded tomorrow. But what do we find when we drill down to all these superficial changes?Everything that is in line with the general beliefs and emotions of the nation has no staying power, and the upstream will soon return to the main river. Nothing to do with any general beliefs or sentiments of the race, so that there can be no stable opinion, but to be at the mercy of chance, or--if there is any merit in its description--change according to surrounding circumstances.They can only be a temporary phenomenon formed under the influence of suggestion and infection.They ripen in a hurry and disappear in a hurry, like sand dunes blown by the wind on the beach by the sea. Currently, there are more volatile opinions in groups than ever before, and there are three distinct reasons for this. First, the beliefs of the past are increasingly losing their influence, so that they are no longer capable of forming the ephemeral opinions of the time as they used to be.The decline of general beliefs provides the site for a mass of accidental opinions with neither history nor future. The second reason is that the power of the masses is constantly growing, and this power is becoming less and less powerful to check and balance.The great changeability of the ideas of crowds, which we have come to know, can be expressed without restraint. Finally, a third reason is the recent development of the press, which continually brings diametrically opposed opinions before the masses.The suggestion produced by each individual opinion is soon destroyed by that of the opposing opinion.The result is that it is difficult for any opinions to be popularized, and they all become passing clouds.Today, an opinion dies before it is accepted by enough people to become the general opinion. These different causes produced a phenomenon entirely new in the history of the world, which is the most striking feature of this age.I am referring here to the government's inability to lead public opinion. In the past, not so long ago, government measures, the influence of a few writers and a few newspapers were the real reflectors of public opinion, whereas today writers have no influence and newspapers reflect only opinion. For politicians, they are not to mention guiding various opinions, and they are afraid that it will be too late to catch up with them.Their fear of opinion, which sometimes turns into fear, leads them to take extremely erratic lines of action. The opinion of crowds, therefore, tends more and more to become the supreme guiding principle of politics.It has grown to the point where it is able to force alliances between states, such as the recent Franco-Russian alliance, which is almost entirely the product of a mass movement.It is a strange ailment at the moment that popes, kings and emperors are seen agreeing to be interviewed, as if they, too, are willing to submit their views on an issue to the judgment of the masses.It may have been true in the past to say that there should be no emotion in political matters, but it can be said again when politics is more and more governed by the capricious impulses of the masses, who are not influenced by reason but by emotion ? As for the press, which used to guide opinion, it, like the government, has become condescending before the power of the masses.Of course, it still has a considerable influence, but only because it only reflects the opinion of the masses and its constant changes.Now that the press has become a mere informative branch, it has given up trying to bring about an idea or doctrine.It drifts with the shifts of public thought, and it can only do so out of competitive necessity, for fear of losing its readers.The steady and influential newspapers of the past, such as the Constitution, the Tribune or the Agee, regarded by the previous generation as purveyors of wisdom, have either disappeared or become typical modern newspapers , the most valuable news is sandwiched between various light topics, social gossip and financial lies.No newspaper today is rich enough to allow its writers to spread their opinions, for such opinions are of little value to readers who want only news and who doubt all thoughtful assertions.Even critics can no longer safely say that a book or a play has been a success.They can slander but cannot provide service.Newspapers knew very well that there was nothing useful in forming criticism or personal opinion, so they took the position of suppressing criticism, limiting themselves to mentioning the title of the book and adding two or three "flattering words".In another year's time, the same fate may befall theater critics. Today, paying close attention to opinions has become a top priority for newspapers and governments.They need to know the effect of an event, an act, or a speech without any intermediary.This is no easy task, for nothing is more changeable than the minds of crowds, and nothing is more common today than the crowds lash out at things they praised yesterday. The absence of any power to direct opinion, combined with the destruction of general beliefs, has the net result of a belief in extreme differences in all order, and in the growing indifference of the masses to all things which do not expressly touch their immediate interests. .The problem with a creed like socialism is that it prevails only among very uneducated classes of workers in mines and factories, and that lower members of the middle class, and workers with some education, don't become outright skeptics. , that is, holding extremely unstable opinions. The pace of evolution in this direction over the past 25 years has been staggering.In the preceding period, though not too distant from ours, there was still a general tendency in the opinions of men, which arose out of the acceptance of basic beliefs.Just by the mere fact that someone is a monarchist, it can be concluded that he holds certain definite views of history and science; by the mere fact that someone is a republican, he can be said to have quite the opposite view.Monarchists are well aware that man did not come from monkeys, and republicans are equally well aware that the ancestors of man were monkeys.Monarchists have a duty to speak for the Crown, republicans must speak with reverence for the Revolution.Some names, such as Robespierre and Marat, must be mentioned with religious piety in the tone, and some names, such as Caesar, Augustus or Napoleon, must never be mentioned when they are mentioned. severely condemned.This naive way of understanding history prevailed even in the Sorbonne in France. All opinions are at present discredited by discussion and analysis; their character quickly degenerates, and their duration is too short to arouse our enthusiasm.Modern man is becoming more and more insensible. There is no need to be too sad about the decline of ideas.Indisputably, it is a symptom of the decay of the life of a people. Of course, great men, men of vision, apostles, and leaders of the people—in short, those who are sincere and of strong conviction—can do more than the negative, critical, or insensitive. However, we must not forget that, with the great power now possessed by the masses, if one opinion acquires enough popularity to enable itself to be generally accepted, it will soon have such a powerful despotic power that all Everything submits to it, and the age of free discussion is long lost.The crowd is occasionally a master of leisurely gait, like Heliogabal and Tiberius, but they are also violent and capricious.When a civilization has the upper hand of the masses, it has little chance of continuing.If anything can postpone its own ruin, it is the extreme instability of popular opinion, and its insensitivity to all general beliefs.