Leaders and Their Means of Persuasion
Having considered the mental characteristics of crowds and the methods by which they can be motivated, Le Bon now turns to consider how these motives may be leveraged to result in action by certain individuals, who by this skill become leaders.
The Leaders of Crowds
In the case of a crowd, a "leader" is often nothing more than an agitator, but within that context he holds considerable influence because a crowd is a servile flock that is incapable of doing anything without a master.
The leaders of crowds are very different to those whom we consider to be leaders in organizations - and virtually the only thing they have in common is that men choose to follow them.
We frequently speak of leaders as being men of vision, but they are very often men of action whose vision is superficial. It is debatable whether an agitator is someone who has consciously chosen to take control, or merely a person who was swept up in the emotion of the crowd, and is acting hypnotically. Whether his leadership takes the form of utterances that goad action, or merely acting in a way that others imitate, he provides those who surround him with a directive to act.
In a crowd situation, leaders are often "morbidly nervous, excitable, half-deranged persons who are bordering on madness." They do not have the restraint to prevent themselves from thinking or action, nor the integrity to act alone - they need the encouragement of others, as much as others need theirs. They are not often strong-willed persons, but those easily goaded by others to be the first to take action.
Those who seek intentionally to take leadership of crowds are often manipulative individuals who are seeking their own personal interests or entertaining their base instincts. They take action under the camouflage of a crowd, hoping to be invisible or indemnified, as if the action they took was done by the entire crowd.
The leaders of crowds are often highly capricious and irresponsible. They are in a position of authority without responsibility, which is always a dangerous combination. Worse still, they are thrilled with their newfound power, and curious to see how far they can press others, making them all the more despotic and unpredictable in their demands.
A crowd can be returned to its original state (collectivity without cohesion or purpose) by the "removal" of those who emerge as leaders within it. There is some fear of martyrdom, but in practical experience this is not generally the case: a crowd is quite cowardly, and if its agitators are removed it offers little resistance unless new leaders emerge to replace them immediately.
While the authority of leaders of crowds is "a force to be reckoned with" in the heat of the moment, their leadership is transitory and very seldom outlasts the excitement of the moment. When the crowd disperses and people return to their ordinary course of life, their heroes return to their unremarkable lives. Most agitators are individuals with "the most astonishing weakness of character" who are directionless and uninspired in their normal lives, such that it seems incredible they had ever been able to lead others.
We recognize that certain leaders have an enduring strength of will, and the longevity and strength of their influence is more sustained. Such men tend to be intelligent but narrow-minded, focused on a course of action without much consideration of the consequences, and gifted in their ability to manipulate others. The greatest figures of history have shown this ability, but they are rare and in most instances a crowd is led by an impulsive and weak-minded person who has no long-term vision nor the ability to command the obedience, or even the respect, of others.
Le Bon reflects on the leaders whom history remembers, and they have been men of prolonged influence - but often for a rather short period of time. Great men are often revered for their actions during a brief period of their lives, during which they accomplished little else but that one undertaking.
The Means of Action of the Leaders
The leader of a crowd commands it to undertake an immediate and short-term action - to pillage a building, to murder a person, to defend a barricade, or the like. It is a short and succinct suggestion that the crowd can understand without analyzing, accept without evaluating, and obey without thinking.
Once the leader has decided what he wishes the crowd to do, which may require little more than an impulse, he uses three tools to communicate his command to the crowd: affirmation, repetition, and contagion.
Affirmation
A simple affirmation "free of all reasoning and all proof" is the surest means of communicating an idea to the mind of a crowd. The crowd has no reasoning ability, cannot decipher subtlety, or thing through cause and effect. Military commanders and religious leaders leverage such statements regularly. The more concise a statement is, the more likely it is to be heard and understood: "attack the enemy" is sufficient, and any additional details will not be heard, or the directive will be lost in their context.
Repetition
An affirmation, stated once, may arouse curiosity and nothing more - but if it is repeated multiple times, it gains a sense of authority. The crowd accepts a command not because it is sensible, but because it has been said many times in many voices. It is for this reason that chants are so common among crowds, immediately preceding their eruption into violence.
Repetition has been seen to have power, even over the most enlightened minds: the words are heard and understood, and repeated before the mind has the ability to consider them and formulate a counter-argument. By interrupting the process of thought, it prevents a person from thinking about any other course of action.
Le Bon refers specifically to advertising, which also leverage repetition: "When we have read a hundred or a thousand times that X brand chocolate is the best, we imagine we have heard it said in many quarters and we end by acquiring the certitude that such is the fact." Likewise, when we have heard gossip from multiple people, or read the same assertion in a number of newspapers, we become convinced that this is truth - simply because it has been repeated.
Contagion
Contagion is often observed among herd animals: a panic that has seized on a few sheep will soon extend to the entire flock. The original sheep were panicked because of something they sensed, but the remainders are panicking just because others are expressing panic.
It is mindless imitation of the emotional expression without knowing the cause that causes sentiments to become contagious - but at the same time, this contagion is unfocused: people who feel strong emotions such as fear or anger desire to act on them to relieve themselves of the unpleasantness and return to calmness - but without direction, they do not know what to do, and are likely to act upon any suggestion (which is where a simple affirmation, with repetition, can be highly motivating).
Le Bon also surmises that imitation is a "natural tendency" of mankind. It is the way in which all of our behavior is learned: we mimic the actions of others with only a vague sense, if any at all, of their purpose. A child learns to speak, to stand, to walk, and to interact with objects in his environment by imitating his parents. And it is not limited to simple actions, as an apprentice or intern learns his trade by observing and imitating a master, whether it be masonry or medicine.
Contagion is most common among peers: the upper classes of a society will automatically accept an idea if it is popular among their fellows, but will just as automatically reject an idea if it comes from the lower classes. However, this is by no means permanent. Voltaire observed that the christian religion was "embraced only by the vilest riff-raff" for almost a thousand years before it took root among the ruling classes of society.
(EN: This should consider the nature of revolution in societies. In essence, a revolution replaces the ruling class, and often members of the lowest ranks of society replace them. So I'm not so certain that the ideas "spread" across class divisions, but the new ruling class brings with them the ideas they already held before they assumed power.)
To return to the analogy to other herd animals, it is generally recognized that what panics the rabbit will not panic the wolf. But it can also be seen that some species are sensitive - what panics the sheep will panic the cows. And per the pattern of contagion, the first few cows will be panicked because the sheep are panicked, but the remainder of the herd will respond to the panic among their fellow cows.
(EN: Le Bon previously asserted that crowds have a leveling effect, such that a respectable attorney and a contemptible beggar are equals in the mob. If that is accepted, than contagion of ideas within crowds do not need to cross "species" of men, as all are the same within the herd.)
Prestige
The word "prestige" connotes respectability and greatness, but as a concept it remains very poorly defined. It is an alloy of admiration, respect, and fear, that most often is ascribed to things we have never experienced: historical figures and mythical ones are more likely to be considered prestigious than the people we meet in our own lives.
Prestige is, in practice, a kind of domination - we subordinate ourselves to prestigious people, things, and ideas. The ruling power of kings is often more in reverence to their prestige than in fear of their actual powers. No god, hero, general, or king ever ruled for long without prestige.
Le Bon distinguishes between acquired and personal prestige. Acquired prestige is a respect for name, rank, or fortune - the things a person may obtain or be assigned. Personal prestige is entirely individual, and derives from the character and reputation of a specific person, often deriving from its demonstration in their actions, past and present.
Acquired prestige is artificial, and as such it is more common but weaker than personal prestige. It is recognized as a display of personal worth that the bearer may not have earned, and it is also the most fragile. When we learn that a person is an officer or a judge, we recognize that he has been granted prestige that he may not have earned - and there is always a distrust of the validity of the character of a person who has acquired prestige.
(EN: Here, it strikes me that brands have replaced titles and decorations in the present day. People remain impressed by job titles and other distinctions, but are most immediately impressed by the brand of car they drive or the clothing they wear. It is believed that a person who has fine things has earned them by merit - but at the same time, base and vulgar individuals purchase brands with the intent of obtaining a prestige they have not earned.)
Thus far, prestige has been considered in the context of people, but it may also be applied to things. Science and the arts grant prestige to objects and ideas that are held up to be superior to others for adoration. In some instances, this prestige is earned by the craftsmanship or soundness of an item or idea, but in others prestige is merely a matter of popularity, and objects and ideas gain a sort of glamor, even though they are botched and flawed, simply because they are widely admired.
He switches back to the notion of personal prestige, which is likewise subject to be granted for the character of a man or the nobility of his deeds, but just as likely for his popularity among other men.
However a person gains prestige, it becomes a quality that causes others to be attracted to them. This is not a functional attraction, in the way that a master is attracted to having slaves or a criminal is attracted to a victim, but an attraction based on awe and admiration, without a functional purpose or a sense of the manner in which a person can be used. It is an admiration that becomes a fascination, which places the person with prestige on a pedestal above his admirers.
The great personages of history have the quality of prestige before they were illustrious, and le Bon avers that they would never have become so without it." In other instances, historical figures that were not well-known during their lifetime accrued prestige after their death - they are not so much remembered by history as romanticized by historians.
There are various reasons an individual becomes prestigious: success and valor are chief among them, though people who are less grandiose may attain prestige for qualities or characteristics that seem unusual, for better or for worse. And, of course, there can be reasons a person accrues prestige that have nothing to do with them at all, but derive from complete fictions made up by others about them.
Prestige and admiration lead others to imitate the deeds of a prestigious person, sometimes without realizing they are doing so. Consider the manner in which artists will mimic certain elements of the style of other artists who have achieved prestige - this is not always the conscious mimicry of a master, but merely in having been influenced by seeing their work.
Distance is also a factor in prestige. Those who know a man intimately are aware of his many flaws, and this balances against their few notable qualities or successes. It is easier to romanticize someone who is remote, and whom one may never have met or even seen. The intimate details of a person's life vulgarize them, which is one of the reasons that their critics, in a bitter attempt to detract from their prestige, will use such details to denigrate the acclaim of an admired person.