the psychology of revolution-第10节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



presently　show；　there　is　a　danger　that　they　may　form　an　anonymous

State　more　powerful　than　the　official　State。　　France　has　thus

come　to　be　governed　by　heads　of　departments　and　government

clerks。　　The　more　we　study　the　history　of　revolutions　the　more　we

discover　that　they　change　practically　nothing　but　the　label。　　To

create　a　revolution　is　easy；　but　to　change　the　soul　of　a　people

is　difficult　indeed。







CHAPTER　IV



THE　PART　PLAYED　BY　THE　PEOPLE　IN　REVOLUTIONS



1。　　The　stability　and　malleability　of　the　national　mind。



The　knowledge　of　a　people　at　any　given　moment　of　its　history

involves　an　understanding　of　its　environment　and　above　all　of　its

past。　　Theoretically　one　may　deny　that　past；　as　did　the　men　of

the　Revolution；　as　many　men　of　the　present　day　have　done；　but　its

influence　remains　indestructible。



In　the　past；　built　up　by　slow　accumulations　of　centuries；　was

formed　the　aggregation　of　thoughts；　sentiments；　traditions；　and

prejudices　constituting　the　national　mind　which　makes　the

strength　of　a　race。　　Without　it　no　progress　is　possible。　　Each

generation　would　necessitate　a　fresh　beginning。



The　aggregate　composing　the　soul　of　a　people　is　solidly

established　only　if　it　possesses　a　certain　rigidity；　but　this

rigidity　must　not　pass　a　certain　limit；　or　there　would　be　no　such

thing　as　malleability。



Without　rigidity　the　ancestral　soul　would　have　no　fixity；　and

without　malleability　it　could　not　adapt　itself　to　the　changes　of

environment　resulting　from　the　progress　of　civilization。



Excessive　malleability　of　the　national　mind　impels　a　people　to

incessant　revolutions。　　Excess　of　rigidity　leads　it　to

decadence。　　Living　species；　like　the　races　of　humanity；　disappear

when；　too　fixedly　established　by　a　long　past；　they　become

incapable　of　adapting　themselves　to　new　conditions　of　existence。



Few　peoples　have　succeeded　in　effecting　a　just　equilibrium

between　these　two　contrary　qualities　of　stability　and

malleability。　　The　Romans　in　antiquity　and　the　English　in　modern

times　may　be　cited　among　those　who　have　best　attained　it。



The　peoples　whose　mind　is　most　fixed　and　established　often　effect

the　most　violent　revolutions。　　Not　having　succeeded　in　evolving

progressively；　in　adapting　themselves　to　changes　of　environment；

they　are　forced　to　adapt　themselves　violently　when　such

adaptation　becomes　indispensable。



Stability　is　only　acquired　very　slowly。　　The　history　of　a　race　is

above　all　the　story　of　its　long　efforts　to　establish　its　mind。　

So　long　as　it　has　not　succeeded　it　forms　a　horde　of　barbarians

without　cohesion　and　strength。　　After　the　invasions　of　the　end　of

the　Roman　Empire　France　took　several　centuries　to　form　a　national

soul。



She　finally　achieved　one；　but　in　the　course　of　centuries　this

soul　finally　became　too　rigid。　　With　a　little　more　malleability；

the　ancient　monarchy　would　have　been　slowly　transformed　as　it　was

elsewhere；　and　we　should　have　avoided；　together　with　the

Revolution　and　its　consequences；　the　heavy　task　of　remaking　a

national　soul。



The　preceding　considerations　show　us　the　part　of　race　in　the

genesis　of　revolutions；　and　explain　why　the　same　revolutions　will

produce　such　different　effects　in　different　countries；　why；　for

example；　the　ideas　of　the　French　Revolution；　welcomed　with

such　enthusiasm　by　some　peoples；　were　rejected　by　others。



Certainly　England；　although　a　very　stable　country；　has　suffered

two　revolutions　and　slain　a　king；　but　the　mould　of　her　mental

armour　was　at　once　stable　enough　to　retain　the　acquisitions　of

the　past　and　malleable　enough　to　modify　them　only　within　the

necessary　limits。　　Never　did　England　dream；　as　did　the　men　of　the

French　Revolution；　of　destroying　the　ancestral　heritage　in　order

to　erect　a　new　society　in　the　name　of　reason。



‘‘While　the　Frenchman；''　writes　M。　A。　Sorel；　‘‘despised　his

government；　detested　his　clergy；　hated　the　nobility；　and　revolted

against　the　laws；　the　Englishman　was　proud　of　his　religion；　his

constitution；　his　aristocracy；　his　House　of　Lords。　　These　were

like　so　many　towers　of　the　formidable　Bastille　in　which　he

entrenched　himself；　under　the　British　standard；　to　judge　Europe

and　cover　her　with　contempt。　　He　admitted　that　the　command　was

disputed　inside　the　fort；　but　no　stranger　must　approach。''



The　influence　of　race　in　the　destiny　of　the　peoples　appears

plainly　in　the　history　of　the　perpetual　revolutions　of　the

Spanish　republics　of　South　America。　　Composed　of　half…castes；

that　is　to　say；　of　individuals　whose　diverse　heredities　have

dissociated　their　ancestral　characteristics；　these　populations

have　no　national　soul　and　therefore　no　stability。　　A　people　of

half…castes　is　always　ungovernable。



If　we　would　learn　more　of　the　differences　of　political　capacity

which　the　racial　factor　creates　we　must　examine　the　same　nation

as　governed　by　two　races　successively。



The　event　is　not　rare　in　history。　　It　has　been　manifested　in　a

striking　manner　of　late　in　Cuba　and　the　Philippines；　which　passed

suddenly　from　the　rule　of　Spain　to　that　of　the　United　States。



We　know　in　what　anarchy　and　poverty　Cuba　existed　under　Spanish

rule；　we　know；　too；　to　what　a　degree　of　prosperity　the　island　was

brought　in　a　few　years　when　it　fell　into　the　hands　of　the　United

States。



The　same　experience　was　repeated　in　the　Philippines；　which　for

centuries　had　been　governed　by　Spain。　　Finally　the　country　was　no

more　than　a　vast　jungle；　the　home　of　epidemics　of　every　kind；

where　a　miserable　population　vegetated　without　commerce　or

industry。　　After　a　few　years　of　American　rule　the　country　was

entirely　transformed：　malaria；　yellow　fever；　plague　and　cholera

had　entirely　disappeared。　　The　swamps　were　drained；　the　country

was　covered　with　railways；　factories　and　schools。　　In　thirteen

years　the　mortality　was　reduced　by　two…thirds。



It　is　to　such　examples　that　we　must　refer　the　theorist　who　has

not　yet　grasped　the　profound　significance　of　the　word　race；　and

how　far　the　ancestral　soul　of　a　people　rules　over　its　destiny。





2。　　How　the　people　regards　Revolution。





The　part　of　the　people　has　been　the　same　in　all　revolutions。　　It

is　never　the　people　that　conceives　them　nor　directs　them。　　Its

activity　is　released　by　means　of　leaders。



Only　when　the　direct　interests　of　the　people　are　involved　do　we

see；　as　recently　in　Champagne；　any　fraction　of　the　people　rising

spontaneously。　　A　movement　thus　localised　constitutes　a　mere

riot。



Revolution　is　easy　when　the　leaders　are　very　influential。　　Of

this　Portugal　and　Brazil　have　recently　furnished　proofs。　　But　new

ideas　penetrate　the　people　very　slowly　indeed。　　Generally　it

accepts　a　revolution　without　knowing　why；　and　when　by　chance　it

does　succeed　in　understanding　why；　the　revolution　is　over　long

ago。



The　people　will　create　a　revolution　because　it　is　persuaded　to　do

so；　but　it　does　not　understand　very　much　of　the　ideas　of　its

leaders；　it　interprets　them　in　its　own　fashion；　and　this　fashion

is　by　no　means　that　of　the　true　authors　of　the　revolution。　　The

French　Revolution　furnished　a　striking　example　of　this　fact。



The　Revolution　of　1789　had　as　its　real　object　the　substitution　of

the　power　of　the　nobility　by　that　of　the　bourgeoisie；　that　is；

an　old　elite　which　had　become　incapable　was　to　be　replaced

by　a　new　elite　which　did　possess　capacity。



There　was　little　question　of　the　people　in　this　first　phase　of

the　Revolution。　　The　sovereignty　of　the　people　was　proclaimed；

but　it　amounted　only　to　the　right　of　electing　its

representatives。



Extremely　illiterate；　not　hoping；　like　the　middle　classes；　to

ascend　the　social　scale；　not　in　any　way　feeling　itself　the　equal

of　the　nobles；　and　not　aspiring　ever　to　become　their　equal；　the

people　had　views　and　interests　very　different　to　those　of　the

upper　classes　of　society。



The　struggles　of　the　assembly　with　the　royal　power　led　it　to　call

for　the　intervention　of　the　people　in　these　struggles。　　It

intervened　more　and　more；　and　the　bourgeois　revolution　rapidly

became　a　popular　revolution。



An　idea　having　no　force　of　its　own；　and　acting　only　by　virtue　of

possessing　an　affective　and　mystic　substratum　which　supports　it；

the　theoretical　ideas　of　the　bourgeoisie；　before　they　could　act

on　the　people；　had　to　be　transformed　into　a　new　and　very　definite

faith；　springing　from　obvious　practical　interests。



This　transformation　was　rapidly　effected　when　the　people　heard

the　men　envisaged　by　it　as　the　Government　assuring　it　that　it　was

the　equal　of　its　former　masters。　　It　began　to　regard　itself　as　a

victim；　and　proceeded　to　pillage；　burn；　and　massacre；　imagining

that　in　so　doing　it　was　exercising　a　right。



The　great　strength　of　the　revolutionary　principles　was　that　they

gave　a　free　course　to　the　instincts　of　primitive　barbarity　which

had　been　restrained　by　the　secular　and　inhibitory　action　of

environment；　tradition；　and　law。