Preface

Psychology largely considers the behavior and characteristics of an individual person in isolation, but gives little to the attention the behavior and characteristic of the behavior of a group. It is obvious enough that a group is made up of individuals, but the behavior of the group is not merely the amalgamation or averaging of the characteristics of its constituents. Instead, people in groups behave differently than they behave as individuals, sometimes to a very considerable degree.

There is also a great deal of mythology regarding crowd psychology - theories and beliefs that are rather fantastic, and which considers the crowd to be an entity unto itself. The author finds this unsatisfactory and rather counterproductive, and has endeavored to set aside the mythology to observe the actual behavior of crowds so that it might be better understood.

In terms of a society, it is more greatly impacted by the actions of groups than the actions of individuals - and as such considering the individual in isolation does little to enlighten us as to the behavior of societies. And being enlightened is likely the extent of his hope in this study.

The notion of being able to control the behavior of crowds is hubris. History has ample proof that those who have attempted to change the course of a mob are more likely to be trampled by it. In that sense, crowd psychology is likened to a force of nature: we seek to understand a thunderstorm that we may be better prepared to react when one approaches - but we do not presume to have control over it.

I can be observed that not all organizations are crowds - the difference between the two being a matter of organization itself. Though very often, an individual who proposes to assemble an organization often finds that it evolves away from his desires, and becomes an unruly mob with a will all its own.

Neither can one speak with great certainty in matters related to psychology. The individual human mind is far too complex a phenomenon, so varied and idiosyncratic that any statement that constitutes a general observation is often likely to be wrong on the level of a single individual. We can observe common tendencies, but cannot proclaim absolute and universal truths. As academics, we are likened to grammarians - who note down the practices that seem to govern language, whereas men who use language shape it to their needs and desires.

All of this said, Le Bon means to attempt to understand the psychology of crowds, but means of observation rather than vague conjecture and hypothesis, and always with the acknowledgement that we have limited understanding, and limited ability to understand, such phenomena.