jim.shamlin.com

Introduction: The Revision Of History

Le Bon characterizes the early twentieth century as a epoch of discovery, but also one in which previous knowledge is being called into question. The principles once considered to be certain are being disproven and replaced, and knowledge itself is being reinvented. This changes not merely thought, but the very manner of thinking.

As such, the consequences have been more than matters of curiosity, but have had transformative effects on the fabric of society. The French revolution, in particular, seems to precipitate from this age of intellectual upheaval.

The revolution, slightly more than a century prior to the writing of this book, has been considered from various perspectives - and given that evidence from that era is incomplete and specious, it is difficult to place faith in those who pronounce firm conclusions with an air of certainty.

While the drama of warfare stirs the imagination and people are fond of heroic narrative, it is an exaggeration to suggest that the warfare and violence established a new way of thinking. Rather then new way of thinking required warfare to break from the old ways. And even that may be an exaggeration, as war is not required - it stands to reason that the change in society would have taken place naturally, without violence, albeit over a longer period of time.

The tenor of analysis of that period in history has changed. Time calms passions, additional information arises, and historians take a more informed and sober approach. But it is perhaps modern psychology that has been most influential in the way in which we consider things - it enables us to more carefully understand men and their motives. This leads to a deeper and more profound understanding of the influences that lead to uprising and revolt.

It is by these methods that Le Bon intends to reconsider the facts of the revolution, and what can be found in this example are principles that are more broad in their implications. That is to say, they are not unique to The French Revolution but applicable to revolution in general, independent of the culture or time frame in which it took place.

He speaks of his research, study, and contemplation over the course of some twenty years - as the problem is highly convoluted. A brief and succinct explanation is not possible, as there is a convoluted snarl of issues, each impaction the others.

It is furthermore difficult to comprehend the way in which societies, or groups of men, are motivated to act because a group has a different nature than an individual in terms of its psychology, and one which is difficult to understand in moments of solitary repose. As such, understanding historical events requires understanding the psychology of the crowd, not of a man, and as such is more difficult to assess.

There is also the difference between philosophy and psychology. The former considers the thoughts that motivate man to act to be voluntary and rational, whereas the latter has proven that they are very often involuntary and irrational. Hence the application of sound reason and formal logic to explain the actions of those whose reason is unsound and who fail to apply logic is bound to provide an imperfect answer, and in fact often must concede that certain things are inexplicable.

And as such, it seems inevitable that a great number of historical events cannot be comprehended because historians attempt to interpret them in light of a logic that had very little to do with the cause of actual events. This is the reason Le Bon often turns to psychology rather than logic to examine the events of the revolution. Which is to say, it led him to consider the psychology of revolution in a broader and more general sense.

In considering any period in history, it is insufficient to extract certain events and consider them independently, because the events that occur in any society are any time the consequence of the confluence of simultaneous but independent phenomena. Moreover, the actions that have been recorded are merely the manifestations of their motivations, and if the motivations of an individual are difficult to assess, the difficulty is compounded when aggregating the separate motivations of many.

Moreover, the historical record is by no means an objective reflection of fact, but the reflections of the individual who wrote it, often the product of an attempt to impose reason upon the irrational or at least the semi=rational because the majority of men, the majority of the time, plan their actions based upon their logic - though this is not reliable of all men in all things.

The perception of man is not flawless - we act not on what is known to be true, but believed to be true. Hence even when we have attempted to apply perfect reason, our rationale remains imperfect for those beliefs we hold that are false, in addition to all that is not known and not considered.

Thus there are vehement disagreements among historians, each interpreting history according to his beliefs, shaped in part by his reason. There can be no agreement upon facts, as facts are facts regardless of whether they are recognized, but only a negotiation among men with beliefs.

Those who participate in history are likewise guided by beliefs, dogmatically so, to guide their actions. A revolution may well be supported by rational elements, but it is effected through the negotiation of beliefs that is as likely to be foreign to reason itself.

The events of history and of the present can therefore be likened to religion, as men negotiate their beliefs to a common set - or fail to do so but assume consent to the terms they imagine on the part of others. The events of a revolution, which is more than a mere reaction but seeks to reform the world distinct from what it had previously been, are particularly prone to irrational beliefs.

Neither is any act of revolution complete: it may begin with the intent to change society but remains rooted in the traditions of the past. This is the reason the reformers of the French Revolution seemed to mimic the traditions of the monarchy that proceeded them - even to the point of exaggerating centralization and autocracy - and, as some have argued, did little to depart from the past.

The gospel of "equality, fraternity, and liberty" was never realized. The first overpowered the second, and gave rise to socialism and the evolution of modern collectivistic ideologies. What was propaganda became legend, more fiction than fact, and subject to romanticism of the past. The dream, ideal, and legend of the revolution was and is, simply stated, a work of fiction.