What do you think?
Rate this book
L'Opinion et la foule
« Non seulement la foule est attirante et appelle irrésistiblement son spectateur, mais son nom exerce un prestigieux attrait sur le lecteur contemporain, et certains écrivains sont trop portés à désigner par ce mot ambigu toutes sortes de groupements humains. »
Gabriel Tarde
Gabriel Tarde
182 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1901
5 people are currently reading
75 people want to read
About the author
Gabriel Tarde
94 books25 followersJean-Gabriel de Tarde, writing as Gabriel Tarde was a French sociologist, criminologist and social psychologist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
Read
January 30, 2026FOUR HOURS OF MY LIFE I WILL NEVER GET BACK :
THIS BOOK IS A FUCKING JOKE. IM NOT EVEN EXAGGERATING THIS MIGHT BE THE MOST PRETENTIOUS WASTE OF PAPER IVE EVER HAD THE MISFORTUNE OF READING. FIRST OF ALL LETS TALK ABOUT WHAT THIS BOOK ACTUALLY IS. ITS NOT A BOOK. TARDE LITERALLY TOOK FOUR MAGAZINE ARTICLES HE WROTE BETWEEN 1892 AND 1899 SLAPPED THEM TOGETHER AND PUBLISHED THEM AS A BOOK IN 1901. YOU KNOW WHAT WE CALL THAT TODAY. A CASH GRAB. THIS IS THE 19TH CENTURY EQUIVALENT OF A BEST OF COMPILATION EXCEPT NONE OF IT WAS GOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM STARTS RIGHT FROM HIS DEFINITION OF OPINION. THIS CLOWN DECIDES THAT OPINION IN ITS CORRECT FORM IS A COLLECTIVE THING A GROUP OF JUDGMENTS GENERAL WILL AND DESIRES. EXCUSE ME. WHO GAVE YOU THE AUTHORITY TO REDEFINE WHAT A WORD MEANS. OPINION IS AN INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENT. THATS WHAT IT MEANS IN ARABIC IN FRENCH IN EVERY LANGUAGE. BUT TARDE JUST HIJACKS THE TERM TO FIT HIS THESIS AND THEN BUILDS HIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS FRAUDULENT FOUNDATION. ITS LIKE SAYING ACTUALLY A CHAIR IN ITS CORRECT FORM IS A TABLE AND THEN WRITING 200 PAGES ABOUT FURNITURE BASED ON THAT BULLSHIT. AND WHAT IS HIS GRAND CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIOLOGY. PEOPLE IMITATE EACH OTHER. WOW. GROUNDBREAKING. REVOLUTIONARY. NEXT YOULL TELL ME THAT WATER IS WET. BUT INSTEAD OF STATING THIS OBVIOUS FACT IN ONE SENTENCE HE DEDICATES HUNDREDS OF PAGES TO CIRCLING AROUND THIS SINGLE IDEA DRESSING IT UP IN NEEDLESSLY COMPLICATED LANGUAGE GIVING IT FANCY NAMES AND PRETENDING HE DISCOVERED THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF HUMAN SOCIETY. THE ENTIRE BOOK IS FILLED WITH OBSERVATIONS THAT ANYONE WITH A FUNCTIONING BRAIN ALREADY KNOWS. HELL SPEND PAGES EXPLAINING THAT PEOPLE COMMUNICATE THROUGH SPEECH THAT WE DRINK WATER THROUGH OUR MOUTHS THAT NEWSPAPERS SPREAD INFORMATION. IM NOT JOKING THE LEVEL OF INSIGHT HERE IS GENUINELY INSULTING. ITS LIKE HES EXPLAINING THE MOST BASIC FACTS OF HUMAN EXISTENCE AS IF THEYRE PROFOUND PHILOSOPHICAL REVELATIONS. BECAUSE THIS BOOK IS JUST FOUR SEPARATE ARTICLES FRANKENSTEINED TOGETHER ITS INCREDIBLY REPETITIVE. THE SAME POINTS GET MADE FIVE OR SIX TIMES BECAUSE THEY WERE ORIGINALLY SEPARATE PIECES. THERES NO COHERENT STRUCTURE IT JUMPS RANDOMLY BETWEEN CROWD PSYCHOLOGY CRIMINOLOGY JOURNALISM AND PHILOSOPHICAL TANGENTS. HE CLEARLY DID ZERO EDITORIAL WORK TO TURN THESE ARTICLES INTO AN ACTUAL BOOK. AND LETS TALK ABOUT HIS ACTUAL AGENDA HERE. TARDES WHOLE FRAMEWORK IS DESIGNED TO SAY THAT CROWDS REGULAR PEOPLE GATHERING ARE BAD IRRATIONAL AND DANGEROUS WHILE PUBLICS EDUCATED ELITES READING NEWSPAPERS ARE GOOD RATIONAL AND ENLIGHTENED. HE LITERALLY ARGUES THAT TRUE PUBLIC OPINION COMES FROM PHILOSOPHERS SCIENTISTS LEGAL EXPERTS AND ASSEMBLIES CONVENIENTLY ALL THE INSTITUTIONS THAT EXCLUDED WORKING PEOPLE. THE MASSES IN THE STREETS. DANGEROUS MOB. RICH PEOPLE READING NEWSPAPERS. ENLIGHTENED PUBLIC DISCOURSE. THIS ISNT SOCIOLOGY ITS CLASS WARFARE DISGUISED AS SCHOLARSHIP. HIS RESEARCH METHOD IS ALSO A COMPLETE DISASTER. WHILE HIS CONTEMPORARY DURKHEIM WAS ACTUALLY COLLECTING DATA AND DOING SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS TARDE WAS JUST SITTING AROUND WRITING ESSAYS BASED ON HIS FEELINGS. NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE NO RIGOROUS METHODOLOGY NO SYSTEMATIC DATA COLLECTION. JUST A FRENCH MAGISTRATE WITH TOO MUCH FREE TIME MAKING SHIT UP AND CALLING IT SOCIOLOGY. THE BEAUTIFUL IRONY. TARDE LOST. DURKHEIM DESTROYED HIM IN THEIR DEBATES. TARDES VAGUE THEORIES ABOUT IMITATION WERE RIDICULED AND FORGOTTEN FOR DECADES. THE ONLY REASON ANYONE REMEMBERS HIM NOW IS BECAUSE POSTMODERN ACADEMICS NEEDED A CONTRARIAN FIGURE TO CITE. HES HAVING A RENAISSANCE NOT BECAUSE HIS IDEAS WERE GOOD BUT BECAUSE HES ACADEMICALLY USEFUL FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CRITIQUE DURKHEIM. WHAT REALLY MAKES ME ANGRY IS THAT THIS BOOK COULD HAVE BEEN A 20 PAGE ESSAY AT MOST. HIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT THAT PEOPLE IMITATE EACH OTHER AND THAT CREATES SOCIAL PATTERNS COULD BE EXPLAINED IN A SINGLE ARTICLE. INSTEAD IT GOT PADDED OUT INTO THIS BLOATED REPETITIVE MESS THAT SAYS ALMOST NOTHING OF VALUE. I READ THE ARABIC TRANSLATION AND HONESTLY THAT MADE IT EVEN WORSE. THE TRANSLATOR HAD TO RENDER TARDES ALREADY POMPOUS VICTORIAN FRENCH INTO ARABIC WHICH MEANS OVERCOMPLICATED SENTENCES WEIRD TERMINOLOGY AND CULTURAL REFERENCES THAT MAKE NO SENSE. I GOT SCAMMED MULTIPLE LAYERS DEEP A TRANSLATION OF RECYCLED MAGAZINE ARTICLES FULL OF OBVIOUS OBSERVATIONS WRITTEN BY AN ELITIST WHO LOST THE ACADEMIC DEBATE IN HIS OWN TIME. DONT WASTE YOUR TIME WITH THIS. IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND PUBLIC OPINION READ WALTER LIPPMANN. IF YOU WANT CROWD PSYCHOLOGY READ ACTUAL MODERN RESEARCH. IF YOU WANT SOCIOLOGY READ DURKHEIM. THE ONLY REASON TO READ TARDE IS IF YOURE FORCED TO FOR A CLASS IN WHICH CASE YOU HAVE MY DEEPEST SYMPATHIES. THIS BOOK WASTED FOUR HOURS OF MY LIFE. ZERO INTELLECTUAL VALUE GAINED. MAXIMUM RAGE GENERATED. ABSOLUTELY DO NOT RECOMMEND.
THIS BOOK IS A FUCKING JOKE. IM NOT EVEN EXAGGERATING THIS MIGHT BE THE MOST PRETENTIOUS WASTE OF PAPER IVE EVER HAD THE MISFORTUNE OF READING. FIRST OF ALL LETS TALK ABOUT WHAT THIS BOOK ACTUALLY IS. ITS NOT A BOOK. TARDE LITERALLY TOOK FOUR MAGAZINE ARTICLES HE WROTE BETWEEN 1892 AND 1899 SLAPPED THEM TOGETHER AND PUBLISHED THEM AS A BOOK IN 1901. YOU KNOW WHAT WE CALL THAT TODAY. A CASH GRAB. THIS IS THE 19TH CENTURY EQUIVALENT OF A BEST OF COMPILATION EXCEPT NONE OF IT WAS GOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM STARTS RIGHT FROM HIS DEFINITION OF OPINION. THIS CLOWN DECIDES THAT OPINION IN ITS CORRECT FORM IS A COLLECTIVE THING A GROUP OF JUDGMENTS GENERAL WILL AND DESIRES. EXCUSE ME. WHO GAVE YOU THE AUTHORITY TO REDEFINE WHAT A WORD MEANS. OPINION IS AN INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENT. THATS WHAT IT MEANS IN ARABIC IN FRENCH IN EVERY LANGUAGE. BUT TARDE JUST HIJACKS THE TERM TO FIT HIS THESIS AND THEN BUILDS HIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON THIS FRAUDULENT FOUNDATION. ITS LIKE SAYING ACTUALLY A CHAIR IN ITS CORRECT FORM IS A TABLE AND THEN WRITING 200 PAGES ABOUT FURNITURE BASED ON THAT BULLSHIT. AND WHAT IS HIS GRAND CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIOLOGY. PEOPLE IMITATE EACH OTHER. WOW. GROUNDBREAKING. REVOLUTIONARY. NEXT YOULL TELL ME THAT WATER IS WET. BUT INSTEAD OF STATING THIS OBVIOUS FACT IN ONE SENTENCE HE DEDICATES HUNDREDS OF PAGES TO CIRCLING AROUND THIS SINGLE IDEA DRESSING IT UP IN NEEDLESSLY COMPLICATED LANGUAGE GIVING IT FANCY NAMES AND PRETENDING HE DISCOVERED THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF HUMAN SOCIETY. THE ENTIRE BOOK IS FILLED WITH OBSERVATIONS THAT ANYONE WITH A FUNCTIONING BRAIN ALREADY KNOWS. HELL SPEND PAGES EXPLAINING THAT PEOPLE COMMUNICATE THROUGH SPEECH THAT WE DRINK WATER THROUGH OUR MOUTHS THAT NEWSPAPERS SPREAD INFORMATION. IM NOT JOKING THE LEVEL OF INSIGHT HERE IS GENUINELY INSULTING. ITS LIKE HES EXPLAINING THE MOST BASIC FACTS OF HUMAN EXISTENCE AS IF THEYRE PROFOUND PHILOSOPHICAL REVELATIONS. BECAUSE THIS BOOK IS JUST FOUR SEPARATE ARTICLES FRANKENSTEINED TOGETHER ITS INCREDIBLY REPETITIVE. THE SAME POINTS GET MADE FIVE OR SIX TIMES BECAUSE THEY WERE ORIGINALLY SEPARATE PIECES. THERES NO COHERENT STRUCTURE IT JUMPS RANDOMLY BETWEEN CROWD PSYCHOLOGY CRIMINOLOGY JOURNALISM AND PHILOSOPHICAL TANGENTS. HE CLEARLY DID ZERO EDITORIAL WORK TO TURN THESE ARTICLES INTO AN ACTUAL BOOK. AND LETS TALK ABOUT HIS ACTUAL AGENDA HERE. TARDES WHOLE FRAMEWORK IS DESIGNED TO SAY THAT CROWDS REGULAR PEOPLE GATHERING ARE BAD IRRATIONAL AND DANGEROUS WHILE PUBLICS EDUCATED ELITES READING NEWSPAPERS ARE GOOD RATIONAL AND ENLIGHTENED. HE LITERALLY ARGUES THAT TRUE PUBLIC OPINION COMES FROM PHILOSOPHERS SCIENTISTS LEGAL EXPERTS AND ASSEMBLIES CONVENIENTLY ALL THE INSTITUTIONS THAT EXCLUDED WORKING PEOPLE. THE MASSES IN THE STREETS. DANGEROUS MOB. RICH PEOPLE READING NEWSPAPERS. ENLIGHTENED PUBLIC DISCOURSE. THIS ISNT SOCIOLOGY ITS CLASS WARFARE DISGUISED AS SCHOLARSHIP. HIS RESEARCH METHOD IS ALSO A COMPLETE DISASTER. WHILE HIS CONTEMPORARY DURKHEIM WAS ACTUALLY COLLECTING DATA AND DOING SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS TARDE WAS JUST SITTING AROUND WRITING ESSAYS BASED ON HIS FEELINGS. NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE NO RIGOROUS METHODOLOGY NO SYSTEMATIC DATA COLLECTION. JUST A FRENCH MAGISTRATE WITH TOO MUCH FREE TIME MAKING SHIT UP AND CALLING IT SOCIOLOGY. THE BEAUTIFUL IRONY. TARDE LOST. DURKHEIM DESTROYED HIM IN THEIR DEBATES. TARDES VAGUE THEORIES ABOUT IMITATION WERE RIDICULED AND FORGOTTEN FOR DECADES. THE ONLY REASON ANYONE REMEMBERS HIM NOW IS BECAUSE POSTMODERN ACADEMICS NEEDED A CONTRARIAN FIGURE TO CITE. HES HAVING A RENAISSANCE NOT BECAUSE HIS IDEAS WERE GOOD BUT BECAUSE HES ACADEMICALLY USEFUL FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CRITIQUE DURKHEIM. WHAT REALLY MAKES ME ANGRY IS THAT THIS BOOK COULD HAVE BEEN A 20 PAGE ESSAY AT MOST. HIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT THAT PEOPLE IMITATE EACH OTHER AND THAT CREATES SOCIAL PATTERNS COULD BE EXPLAINED IN A SINGLE ARTICLE. INSTEAD IT GOT PADDED OUT INTO THIS BLOATED REPETITIVE MESS THAT SAYS ALMOST NOTHING OF VALUE. I READ THE ARABIC TRANSLATION AND HONESTLY THAT MADE IT EVEN WORSE. THE TRANSLATOR HAD TO RENDER TARDES ALREADY POMPOUS VICTORIAN FRENCH INTO ARABIC WHICH MEANS OVERCOMPLICATED SENTENCES WEIRD TERMINOLOGY AND CULTURAL REFERENCES THAT MAKE NO SENSE. I GOT SCAMMED MULTIPLE LAYERS DEEP A TRANSLATION OF RECYCLED MAGAZINE ARTICLES FULL OF OBVIOUS OBSERVATIONS WRITTEN BY AN ELITIST WHO LOST THE ACADEMIC DEBATE IN HIS OWN TIME. DONT WASTE YOUR TIME WITH THIS. IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND PUBLIC OPINION READ WALTER LIPPMANN. IF YOU WANT CROWD PSYCHOLOGY READ ACTUAL MODERN RESEARCH. IF YOU WANT SOCIOLOGY READ DURKHEIM. THE ONLY REASON TO READ TARDE IS IF YOURE FORCED TO FOR A CLASS IN WHICH CASE YOU HAVE MY DEEPEST SYMPATHIES. THIS BOOK WASTED FOUR HOURS OF MY LIFE. ZERO INTELLECTUAL VALUE GAINED. MAXIMUM RAGE GENERATED. ABSOLUTELY DO NOT RECOMMEND.
August 19, 2024
L’analyse est très pertinente sur certains points mais reste périmée sur d’autres. Il faut transposer à notre temps les différentes idées, qui s’appliquent toujours bien, juste différemment.
April 22, 2015
L'opinion Et La Foule
by Gabriel de Tarde (1901) :
"J'ai à peine besoin de faire remarquer, tant la chose me paraît évidente, que l'évolution de la conversation se conforme aux lois de l'imitation, notamment à celle de l'imitation du supérieur par l'inférieur réputé tel et se réputant tel lui-même. On verra aussi la confirmation que notre sujet apporte à l'idée sur laquelle j'ai insisté plusieurs fois, que les capitales, donc les démocraties, jouent le rôle des aristocraties avant elles. C'est longtemps de la Cour, élite aristocratique, imitée par les hôtels des grandes villes et les châteaux, puis par les maisons de la bourgeoisie, qu'émanaient les nouvelles formes et les nouveaux sujets de conversation. C'est maintenant de Paris, imité par les grandes villes, les moyennes, les petites jusqu'au dernier village où sont tues les feuilles publiques, soit parisiennes, soit écho télégraphique des informations parisiennes, que se répandent partout le ton et le menu de la conversation du jour.
On a la preuve de cette dérivation, notamment par la diffusion de l'accent de Paris jusqu'au fond du Midi. Aussi bien à l'étranger que chez nous, l'accent de la capitale s'est répandu dans les provinces et jamais l'inverse ne s'est vu, là du moins où la capitale est vraiment jugée telle. Si la capitale de la France eût été Bordaux, toute la France gasconnerait."
by Gabriel de Tarde (1901) :
"J'ai à peine besoin de faire remarquer, tant la chose me paraît évidente, que l'évolution de la conversation se conforme aux lois de l'imitation, notamment à celle de l'imitation du supérieur par l'inférieur réputé tel et se réputant tel lui-même. On verra aussi la confirmation que notre sujet apporte à l'idée sur laquelle j'ai insisté plusieurs fois, que les capitales, donc les démocraties, jouent le rôle des aristocraties avant elles. C'est longtemps de la Cour, élite aristocratique, imitée par les hôtels des grandes villes et les châteaux, puis par les maisons de la bourgeoisie, qu'émanaient les nouvelles formes et les nouveaux sujets de conversation. C'est maintenant de Paris, imité par les grandes villes, les moyennes, les petites jusqu'au dernier village où sont tues les feuilles publiques, soit parisiennes, soit écho télégraphique des informations parisiennes, que se répandent partout le ton et le menu de la conversation du jour.
On a la preuve de cette dérivation, notamment par la diffusion de l'accent de Paris jusqu'au fond du Midi. Aussi bien à l'étranger que chez nous, l'accent de la capitale s'est répandu dans les provinces et jamais l'inverse ne s'est vu, là du moins où la capitale est vraiment jugée telle. Si la capitale de la France eût été Bordaux, toute la France gasconnerait."
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews