A crowd is well known to be emotional， irrational and suppressive of individuality：
democracy， being the rule of the crowd， will show the same traits.
The psychology of crowds has been treated at length by Sighele， [1] Le Bon [2] and other authors who， having made a specialty of the man in the throng， are perhaps (150) somewhat inclined to exaggerate the degree in which he departs from ordinary personality. The crowd mind not， as is sometimes said， a quite different thing from the of the individual (unless by individual is meant the higher self)， but is merely a collective mind of a low order which stimulates and unifies the cruder impulses of its members. The men are there but they "descend to meet." The loss of rational control and liability to be stampeded which are its main traits are no greater than attend almost any state of excitement梩he anger， fear， love and the like， I of the man not in the crowd.
And the intimidating effect of a throng on the individual 梩he stage-fright， let us say， of an inexperienced speaker 梚s nothing unique， but closely resembles that which we have all felt on first approaching an imposing person； seeming to spring from that vague dread of unknown power which pervades all conscious life. And like the latter， it readily wears off， so that the practiced orator is never more self-possessed than with the crowd before him.
The peculiarity of the crowd-mind is mainly in the readiness with which any communicable feeling is spread and augmented. Just as a heap of firebrands will blaze when one or two alone will chill and go out， so the units of a crowd " inflame each other by mutual sympathy and mutual consciousness of it." [3] This is much facilitated by the circumstance that habitual activities are usually in abeyance， the man in a throng being like one fallen overboard in that he is removed from his ordinary surroundings and plunged into a strange and alarming element. At once excited and intimidated， he readily takes on a sug-(151)- gested emotion梐s of panic， anger or self-devotion？and proceeds to reckless action.
It must be admitted that modern conditions enable such contagion to work upon a larger scale than ever before， so that u wave of feeling now passes through the people， by the aid of the newspaper， very much as if they were physically a crowd條ike the wave of resentment， for instance， that swept over America when the battle-ship Maine was destroyed in Havana harbor. The popular excitement over athletic contests is a familiar example. During the foot-ball season the emotion of the crowd actually present at a famous game is diffused throughout the country by prompt and ingenious devices that depict the progress of the play； and， indeed， it is just to get into this excitement， and out of themselves and the humdrum of routine， that thousands of people， most of whom know next to nothing of the game， read the newspapers and stand about the bulletin boards. And when a war breaks out， the people read the papers in quite the same spirit that the Roman populace went to the arena， not so much from any depraved taste for blood， as to be in the thrill. Even the so-called "individualism" of our time， and the unresting pursuit of " business，" are in great part due to a contagion of the crowd.
People become excited by the game and want to be in it， whether they have any definite object or not； and once in they think they must keep up the pace or go under.
Is democracy， then， the rule of the crowd， and is there a tendency in modern times toward the subjection of so~ ciety to an irrational and degenerate phase of the mind (152) This question， like others relating to the trend of modern life， looks differently according to the points of view from which it is approached. In general we may say that the very changes which are drawing modern populations together into denser wholes bring also a discipline in organization and self-control which should remove them further and further from the mob state.
It is agreed by writers on the crowd that men are little likely to be stampeded in matters regarding which they have a trained habit of thought梐s a fireman， for instance， will be apt to keep his head when the fire-alarm sounds. And it is just the absence of this that is the mark of a crowd， which is not made by mere numbers and contiguity， but by group excitability arising from lack of stable organization.
A veteran army is not a crowd， however numerous and concentrated； and no more perhaps is a veteran democracy， though it number twenty million voters.
A healthy democracy is indeed a training in judgment and self-control as applied to political action； and just as a fireman is at home on trembling ladders and amidst choking fumes， so the free citizen learns to keep his head amid the contending passions and opinions of a "fierce democratic." Having passed safely through many disturbances， he has acquired a confidence in cool judgment and in the underlying stability of things impossible to men who， living under a stricter control， have had no such education. He knows well how to discount superficial sentiment and "the spawn of the press on the gossip of the hour." It is， then， the nature of ordered freedom to train veterans of politics， secure against the wild impulses of a rabble梥uch as made havoc in Paris at the close of (153) the Franco-Prussian war梐nd in modern times， when power cannot be kept away from the people， such a training is the main guaranty of social stability.