Hypnotism made plain

The important rôle of suggestion in relation to social, religious and political phenomena is only beginning to be generally recognized. Louis Satow has performed a very useful service in emphasizing this aspect of the subject. As he so well points out, “many of the ideas and conceptions which the individual believes himself to have adopted independently and without constraint are no more than the effect of the mass mind, which manifests itself in manners and customs and education. On the other hand, the individual mind, especially that of the leader, investigator or moralist, has a stimulating effect upon the mind of the crowd.”

The mind of the crowd exercises, in certain directions, a beneficial effect upon the progress of civilization, while in many other cases the opinions of the crowd tend to obstruct the development of the more progressively-minded individuals. The modern national arrogance and national egoism, factional exclusiveness, religious bigotry, etc., “once more plainly demonstrate that it will be long indeed before the mass mentality corresponds with the highest humanity and its many-sided intellectual culture.”

Altogether too many individuals, from whom one might reasonably expect better things, fall a prey to mass suggestion—or, less elegantly, “follow the band-wagon.” The better-educated individual, as a member of the crowd, often acts in direct opposition to what are normally his own feelings and opinions.

It is doubtful, however, if persons of real culture ever so far succumb to mob psychology as to join in tar-and-feather parties, assaults upon working-class gatherings, or lynchings and mass atrocities. The power of suggestion in such cases is, no doubt, very strong, especially in its influence upon persons whose moral foundations are not too sound, causing them to be carried away from their moorings by the more or less contagious mob psychology. Men who are, as individuals, naturally cowards, are apt to take advantage of the feeling of invincible power conferred upon them for the moment by the solidarity of the crowd, fused into a psychological unit. In many so-called “civilized” human beings the instincts of the brute lie not very far from the surface, only awaiting an opportunity when it will be safe to release impulses bordering upon the sadistic.

“Merely as a result of the imitative instinct,” remarks Satow, “which is innate in man, and plays a great part even in the animal world, the crowd displays a much greater susceptibility to suggestion than the individual.”

We must admit with Bechterow that, “without knowing it, until we reach a certain level we acquire for ourselves the emotions, superstitious ideas, opinions, tendencies, intentions and even singularities of character of the individuals with whom we most commonly associate.”

The power of the press to produce a desired frame of public mind, merely by the endless repetition of certain carefully chosen phrases, was well illustrated before and during the World War. The masses are inclined to believe anything which is suggested with sufficient force and continued repetition. The principle was well understood by the crafty old politician Cato, who, as is well known, concluded all his public speeches with the phrase, “Delenda est Carthago” (Carthage must be destroyed). Today we are quite familiar with equally effective slogans, endlessly repeated. The mere name of a candidate for political office on the wind-shield of countless automobiles is but a form of suggestion—and it works! It is the device alike of demagogue and plutogogue, of progressive and reactionary. Mass suggestion everywhere; whether in peace or in war; in politics or in religion!

Many phenomena—political, social or religious institutions—can be understood only in the light of suggestion—suggestive compulsion. But here let me quote an eloquent and instructive passage from Satow’s chapter on hypnosis and suggestion in religion (which the reader would find it well worth while to consult):

“From the lowest forms of religion—from the belief in magic [its earliest phase], animism, fetichism, daemons and spirits, by way of polytheism, to monotheism, and even beyond; beneath the embittered spiritual and material conflict between the various religions, confessions, sects and philosophies, an eternally tedious and extremely involved development has taken place, which has often led to the most grievous errors and abuses. But without the omnipotent factors of hypnosis and suggestion the psychological processes of this religious evolution will always be a riddle. But for an insight into the peculiar medley of the spiritual attributes of humanity, which, in addition to, and in spite of, its intelligence exhibits an almost morbid credulity and incapacity to form an independent opinion; but for the hysterical excitability of the nervous system; but for the phenomena of auto-hypnosis and auto-suggestion, mass susceptibility and mass hallucination, religious belief would remain utterly inexplicable. Whether we consider the Indian yogis, the Buddhist priests, the Egyptian, Chinese, or Persian sages, the pagan, or Jewish, or Christian hierarchies, and whether the events in question occurred in a hoary antiquity or only yesterday, the picture is always the same: the masses, by all possible means, are kept in bondage to superstition and ignorance, and then a net of suggestion is dropped over their heads, so that the power of priestcraft may be maintained.... By most people the dangers of ecclesiastical suggestion are either underestimated or are simply not recognized at all.”

Throughout the long history of man’s inhumanity to man, we see in operation the forces of hypnotism and suggestion. Prof. Otto Stoll, while recognizing, for example, that the Crusades had their roots in economic and political, as well as religious, conditions, nevertheless contends that “all the attempts of the historians to point to movements of this character as the logical consequence of the motive forces issuing from the ephemeral but universal conditions of the age, are powerless to explain, in a satisfactory manner, without the all-significant factor of suggestibility, either their extent or the direction which they assumed.”

The direction which the piety of the Crusades at the first capture of Jerusalem took was to tear babes from the breasts of “infidel” mothers and dash their brains out against the walls; to ravish every woman seized; rip open the abdomens of men to see whether they had swallowed any money; drive the Jews into their synagogues and burn them to death; slaughter others even in the churches; and massacre in all 70,000 men, women and children—“for Christ’s sake.” An archbishop chronicles with evident satisfaction: “Surely have these things happened in accordance with the righteous judgment of God.”⁠[7]

Such are the fruits of mass suggestion! Nor need we go back to the Middle Ages for examples. Some of us still remember the Ludlow massacre, the Everett mass-murder, and other exhibitions of “idealism” and “patriotism” under suggestion.

Now comes Mr. William Jennings Bryan reiterating daily through the press and on the platform that the theory of evolution is based upon the “mere unsupported guesses of biologists and psychologists,” and that only men and women who accept “the word of God”—as revealed in the Book of Genesis—are fit to teach in our schools and colleges. By the law of suggestion, acting on minds with as little knowledge of science as is possessed by “the great commoner” himself, a wave of reaction is sweeping the country; and nine states have already made “Bible reading” compulsory in our public schools. The end in view is, of course, to suggest to the rising generation that the so-called Books of Moses are authoritative works of science, derived directly from Jehovah. Meanwhile, Mr. William Sunday has been appealing to a still lower order of intelligence with his assertion that “Charles Darwin is in hell,” and suggesting that all who accept the doctrine of evolution in preference to the legends of the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians and Armenians are destined to join him in a hell quite unknown to these ancient poets and chroniclers.⁠[8]

It has been alleged by many prominent writers of the day that a movement is on foot to arouse a spirit of militarism in the United States, in the interest of imperialist finance, which, it is pointed out, needs a strong army and navy. Can it be that we are being prepared—by suggestion—for the next “war to end war”? Let us hope that this fear is groundless, that “Defense Day” meant only what it was asserted to mean, and not—“Delenda est Carthago”! It would surely be deplorable if a war psychology were permitted to gain even the smallest momentum. Otherwise the few lessons learned from the recent World War would soon be lost in a deluge of suggestive propaganda.

“Over and over again,” truly remarks Satow, “has the question been asked: How was it that the war was so terribly widespread, the armies so enormous? Of course, numerous well-founded reasons have been found—historical, political and economic—but none of them suffices unless we take into account the great, the truly powerful factor: Mass Suggestion!... The partial and exaggerated sense of nationality, national arrogance and national covetousness, on which the mass suggestion thrives so exuberantly, furnish a fruitful soil for the war mentality.”