1: Individual Variations of Character in Revolution
Transformations of Personality
Le Bon summarizes his theory of character from another (unnamed) source:
Every individual possess a "habitual mentality" that tends to be constant, which is a neutral state that perpetuates unless and until something in his environment provokes him to act in an unusual manner.
Even then, man strives for equilibrium, and prefers to maintain his habits in spite of circumstances - so it takes a dramatic event to sway him from his customary habits. His behavior in these situations is unusual, and he is either aware at the moment or shortly after the situation has subsided that it is thus, and he then seeks to return to equilibrium.
This is not to say that personality is permanent, merely resistant to change. A personality may change over a long period of time or as the result of a dramatic event.
In terms of revolution, the actions of the state are merely environmental factors to which men are largely indifferent so long as they are not impeded in the practice of their customs and habits. And even when the circumstances are an impediment, a man will abide a little inconvenience for a long time or a great inconvenience for a short one.
He also acknowledges that a man may have a number of personalities in given situations - his personality varies depending on the situation, and when there are multiple environments (his home, his workshop, and so on) in which an individual is engaged, he demonstrates a number of personalities.
In an unusual situation, he adopts an unusual personality for the duration of the situation. If the situation becomes permanent, the unusual personality becomes one of his regular personalities.
Political strife may require a man to deviate from his habits. When he has had quite enough, he reacts to this strife in rebellion or revolution. And when the revolution effects a permanent change, rather than merely returning the environment to the way it was before, his personality undergoes a transformation in the same manner and degree.
Elements of Character Predominant in Time of Revolution
As a means to preserve equilibrium in our daily lives, we are inclined to repress certain emotions - but under duress, their restrain is not only unnecessary but counterproductive to our interests.
The commonality of constraints among men in interacting with one another defines their group identity - the emotions common to a people who, as a result of their commonality, share a group identity. We are a member of a group (a society, culture, or race) because we maintain behavior within the same constraints - and the culture exists so long as the constraints are amenable to all.
Collectively, these constraints are understood as law, morality, and tradition. They are not always completely abandoned, not permanently abandoned, but merely excluded from our motivation to take certain actions during a certain period of time.
An act of revolution seeks to redefine a society, and in the period between the initial act of rebellion of the old regime and the institution of the new, a period of time exists when the constrains of the old group are set aside and those of the new have not yet been adopted. Tradition is abandoned, law is ignored, and morality is set aside.
In particular, Le Bon is interested in a few emotional states that are particularly germane to the time of revolution.
Hatred
It is obvious that the revolutionary has a hatred of persons, institutions, and things that he feels support the existing regime, but it is also evident that there is often a great deal of hatred among their own ranks, whether individuals and factions who are attempting to gain power by declaring others to be corrupted, traitors, boasters, or spies.
This is another problem in political and religious revolutions' rejection of reason: even the members of a group cannot negotiate to a common agreement, but must become entrenched in positions with which others may only agree or disagree. Those who disagree cannot be reasoned with because those who demand their agreement are themselves irrational. And because they cannot reason with one another, their only recourse is hatred.
Le Bon cites a number of historical incidents in which in-fighting destroyed the unity of a revolutionary movement, or which caused there to be a very violent struggle for power among "allies" after the victory had been won.
Hatred is a very productive tool for those who incite others to violence - provide that their support can be gained for an irrational set of beliefs, then their hatred of anyone who does not espouse the same beliefs is inevitable, and they can easily be moved to violence because they have abandoned reason.
Fear
Le Bon maintains that "fear plays almost as large a part in revolutions as hatred," though he generally attributes it to the existing regime, whose "collective cowardice" make it so easy for the rebel faction to overwhelm the defenses of the state.
He does mention that men can maintain their composure, when facing the scaffold. By the time this occurs, their fate is certain and they have accepted the inevitable. But during the time of insurrection, when their fate had not yet been decided, their utter lack of conviction and courage facilitates their overthrow.
(EN: This matches with the more modern conception of the emotion of fear as being more related to anxiety caused by uncertainty and the possibility of undesirable outcomes rather than dread of the certain but undesirable. It's been suggested that fear and bravery are the same, and the only difference is a sense of certainty in the outcome.)
Ambition and Jealousy
In normal times, an individual's desire to achieve a given position in society is characterized by diligence and patience: the soldier understands that he may one day become a general if he applies himself skillfully to his profession.
But in times of revolution, the social hierarchy is being reshaped and the methods by which a person earns himself a position are suspended. Anyone may reach the upper ranks almost immediately, such that ambition becomes "violently aroused" and any person in the lowest ranks feels himself fitted for the highest employments, believing that he will be considered fit, such as he is, for the upper echelons of the new society.
Such ambition also gives rise to great jealousies, particularly to those who hold high stations in the existing regime. If the regime be dysfunctional than it stands to reason that it is run by incompetent men who do not deserve their rank. Meanwhile, those who are subject to their command have been unjustly denied the power and esteem they deserve.
This combination of "wounded self-love and jealousy" shapes the attitude of those who aspire to leadership in the new order. To paraphrase Napoleon, it is vanity that creates revolutions - any higher motive is merely pretense.
Enthusiasm
Where men employ reason, there is very seldom any passion in their discourse: what is plainly true is not exciting, and sufficiently compelling for it to be quietly accepted. Where men are irrational, there is very often passion in their discourse: what is plainly untrue must be sold by stirring the emotions.
It can this be seen that the founders of a political revolution have a character that parallels the apostles of a new religious faith, which has not basis in reason and can only be spread by fervor. In political debate, reason may be pretended, but it is the speaker who can most stir the emotions of the audience that wins their support.
Reasonable men are not typically violent, as they can count upon the strength of their ideas to gain acceptance. Irrational men are typically violent, because they cannot. It is for this reason that enthusiasm for an irrational idea quickly turns to violence.
It can also be remarked that enthusiasm fades quickly - which is the reason that most successful revolutions take place very rapidly. Where supporters pause to consider the rationale, their passions cool and they consider whether the validity of the ideas they are being asked to support, and lose their enthusiasm for the cause.