《乌合之众·第三编·不同群体的分类与描述·选举群体》第5节
With respect to the influence that may be exerted by reasoning on the minds of electors, to harbour the least doubt on this subject can only be the result of never having read the reports of an electioneering meeting. In such a gathering affirmations, invectives, and sometimes blows are exchanged, but never arguments. Should silence be established for a moment it is because some one present, having the reputation of a "tough customer," has announced that he is about to heckle the candidate by putting him one of those embarrassing questions which are always the joy of the audience. The satisfaction, however, of the opposition party is shortlived, for the voice of the questioner is soon drowned in the uproar made by his adversaries. The following reports of public meetings, chosen from hundreds of similar examples, and taken from the daily papers, may be considered as typical:-- "One of the organisers of the meeting having asked the assembly to elect a president, the storm bursts. The anarchists leap on to the platform to take the committee table by storm. The socialists make an energetic defence; blows are exchanged, and each party accuses the other of being spies in the pay of the Government, &c. . . . A citizen leaves the hall with a black eye.
注释摘要
在这一段里，勒庞要证明的是一个贯穿全书的核心主张：群体没有推理能力，选举集会便是最鲜活、最极端的例证。他之所以选择这个例子，并不仅是因为它戏剧性强，更因为在名义上，选举是公民进行理性选择的时刻，是民主程序的核心环节。如果连这一环节都找不到推理的踪迹，那么“群体无推理”的论断便获得了最彻底的证明。勒庞告诉读者，在这些集会上，人们交换的是断言、谩骂，有时甚至是…