REVIEIVS ■' 555
writer's Psychologic des fouUs (Paris, 1896), which a year or so ago appeared in English under the title of The Crowd. M. Le Bon may be described as an intellectual kodak fiend. His books are filled with snapshots at truth, interesting in themselves, but sadly unconnected, and out of focus. The volume under consideration purports to be merely a summary of conclusions reached in rather exhaustive special studies. It would be unfair, therefore, to criticise too harshly the apparently unsupported dogmatism and finality of judgment which pervade the book.
The argument is briefly this : Each people has a soul, not a mys- tical entity, but a community of sentiments and beliefs which are transmitted by physical and social heredity. These elements, pre- dominantly emotional, constitute the popular character, which deter- mines its political institutions, its arts, its religion. The intellectual life of a people is to be distinguished from its character. The former is easily modified ; the latter relatively permanent. Indeed, the most striking thing about a psychological race is its fixity of character, which remains practically unchanged beneath what seem to be radical modifications of thought, dress, manners, speech, art forms, etc. Intel- lectual changes are, however, very gradually transformed into emo- tional beliefs, which thus slowly become a part of a people's character. There is progress in spite of apparent fixity, but this advance is only achieved by gradual accumulations of minute changes. The decadence of a people is due, not to loss of intellectual power, but to a disaggre- gation of collective character.
It is further asserted that races may be profitably classified only by their psychological character, /. <?., into (i) the primitive, (2) the inferior, (3) the average, (4) the superior. The delightful relativity of these categories is obvious. Again, the superiority of a race depends
ess upon the average it attains than upon the wideness of variation of individuals within it. The progressive races, therefore, are not approaching a Utopian equality, but are being constantly differentiated, and throughout the book M. Le Bon shows the antipathy to demo- cratic institutions and the dread of socialism which are so con- spicuous in The Crowd.
It may be said that this little work recasts into a sort of coherent system a great many opinions which have become commonplaces with philosophical students of history and politics. It says, cleverly enough, that governmental institutions are effects rather than causes;
hat prejudices and emotional beliefs are more potent than rational
