Antoine Dresse (“Ego Non”) explains how José Ortega y Gasset saw the rise of the "mass-man"—an average, unqualified individual—as a threat to civilization.
What José Ortega y Gasset overlooked is how a small minority can manipulate that collective instinct of the mediocre and give it a trajectory. This is not too difficult to do when 90% of the population is literate, and that small minority has disproportionate, and sometimes total control of the means of information. That minority not only can manipulate the masses, but also make leadership in a democracy dependent on those who control the money and information.
It seems to me a misunderstanding to suggest Ortega “overlooked” media manipulation. The Revolt of the Masses was never meant as a treatise on propaganda or political strategy. His subject was of another order: the emergence of a new type of human being, the “mass-man,” and the consequences of his triumph for European civilization.
What concerned Ortega was not who manipulates the masses, but the fact that the masses no longer feel the need for guidance at all. The modern “average man” believes himself self-sufficient, takes the fruits of science and culture as natural givens, and rejects the authority of excellence. That is why Ortega speaks of a “vertical invasion of the barbarians”: the danger is not manipulation from above, but the internal collapse of standards when mediocrity proclaims itself the measure of all things.
To fault him for not discussing money or media control is to expect him to have written a different book. His philosophical insight lies elsewhere: in showing how the mentality of the mass, once it dominates, destabilizes the very foundations of civilization.
"......................the danger is not manipulation from above, but the internal collapse of standards when mediocrity proclaims itself the measure of all things"
Mediocrity proclaiming itself the measure of all things was not an organic development, but the consequence of dumbing down the population to make it easier to manipulate.
"What concerned Ortega was not who manipulates the masses, but the fact that the masses no longer feel the need for guidance at all."
I doubt that the masses ever felt a need for guidance. Ignoring those who manipulate the masses and only addressing the consequences of that manipulation was a mistake
"...........the danger is not manipulation from above, but the internal collapse of standards when mediocrity proclaims itself the measure of all things."
As I said, mediocre proclaiming themselves to be the measure of all things did not happen organically or in a vacuum. Manipulation from above is the danger indeed.
yes, manipulation from above is real. History is full of deliberate efforts to shape public opinion, lower educational standards, and manufacture consent. But Ortega’s insight was that by the early 20th century, such manipulation was no longer strictly necessary. The “mass-man” emerges not because he is brainwashed into mediocrity, but because he feels no need for anything higher than himself. Whether this was accelerated by elites or media is another debate — but Ortega’s focus was philosophical: what happens to civilization when self-sufficiency without excellence becomes the dominant mentality.
In other words: propaganda can certainly produce mass behavior, but Ortega’s point is that once the mass type exists, propaganda becomes almost redundant. The mass welcomes it because it flatters his sense of sufficiency. That is why Ortega calls the process a “vertical invasion of the barbarians” — the danger is not only what is imposed from above, but what is abdicated from within.
QUESTION: Can you please compare between the concepts in Ortega's this specific book and the phenomenon of "mob psychology", e.g., when a bunch of people all wanting to take a shortcut of some sorts, they semi-accidentally bundle into a group and ignore existing laws, whether it is traffic light, no trespassing, or no smoking?
In theory, the many "don't do this" in a society are usually constructed by a few supposedly wise people at the top of the social hierarchy, if not always the political hierarchy, for some reasons. Not always good reasons when viewed from a hundred years later, but usually with some justification at the time of establishing such rules. There will always be some people, in some circumstances, feel inconvenienced by these rules, and hence make their own judgment, and take a left turn at the red light, for example. Most people are easily convinced of the necessity for traffic laws, but are not always strict in abiding by such laws.
Then we have issues of more ambiguities, like whether marijuana should be legalized. Many say this weed does not cause obvious and immediate damages. Others argue about its role as the "gateway" drug and enabling many users to graduate into much more potent narcotics. When there are few users, police and social commentators pound on the offenders. When there are many users, individual states lead the way to legalize the use of marijuana. Conventional wisdom, even medical proof of the damage caused by using marijuana, are all brushed aside. Then maybe the federal government will jump in to set new rules for the whole nation.
Do you think a sunset mechanism forcing authorities to systematically review every such restrictions, laws, and standard procedures, would help the older system to adapt and avoid the vertical invasion of barbarians?
That’s a thoughtful question. Ortega’s Revolt of the Masses and the tradition of “mob psychology” (Le Bon, Freud, Tarde) overlap but are not identical. Mob psychology looks at the dynamics of crowds in the moment: how individuals in a group lose inhibitions, imitate one another, and behave differently than they would alone. Ortega, by contrast, is describing not the temporary psychology of a crowd, but the emergence of a permanent type of man — the “mass-man” — who carries that mentality into every domain of life, even when alone.
In your example of ignoring traffic lights or collectively normalizing marijuana, the “mob psychology” lens would explain it as contagion, imitation, and group dynamics: the short-term suspension of rational calculation. Ortega would interpret it differently: as a symptom of a broader cultural shift in which individuals no longer acknowledge any higher authority, tradition, or excellence beyond their own immediate will. The rules, whether wise or not, are no longer felt as binding because the mass-man does not recognize any superior instance that justifies them.
Your idea of a sunset mechanism — periodically reviewing laws and standards so they don’t fossilize — actually fits well into Ortega’s concern. He feared the opposite: that the mass would simply discard standards without creating new, demanding ones. A systematic renewal of laws would preserve the sense that norms are not arbitrary, but grounded in reasoned deliberation. That helps avoid the “vertical invasion of the barbarians,” where mediocrity destroys civilization by refusing standards altogether.
In my personal experience, I see that small degradation happens first as examples of various "mob psychology" stereotypes. Over time, when there is no consistent coercion to change such behavior, the "bad behavior" once only triggered in certain circumstances and with other external factors, becomes "internalized" -- changing people's morality and value system.
Chinese have a proverb: when a kid steals a peach and is not caught and punished, he might grow up stealing other people's property. By extension, if the society overall does not have a strict sense of right vs wrong, then why not steal the entire nation? Say, by stealing the mass media first. I think I have also seen real-world examples of Ortega's warning against "mass man". That apprehension severely challenges all my confidence in the so-called "democracy", especially the one-person-one-vote democracy.
When my wife took courses in Concurrent American Education Theories, she told me a critique of the so-called "minimal competency tests" (which I still believe in), that the original threshold on the lower side (minimal competency) will always become the "maximal competency" ever achieved. I suspect maybe this is one of the systemic forces we create and inadvertently morph our social systems into a system for the "mass man".
What José Ortega y Gasset overlooked is how a small minority can manipulate that collective instinct of the mediocre and give it a trajectory. This is not too difficult to do when 90% of the population is literate, and that small minority has disproportionate, and sometimes total control of the means of information. That minority not only can manipulate the masses, but also make leadership in a democracy dependent on those who control the money and information.
It seems to me a misunderstanding to suggest Ortega “overlooked” media manipulation. The Revolt of the Masses was never meant as a treatise on propaganda or political strategy. His subject was of another order: the emergence of a new type of human being, the “mass-man,” and the consequences of his triumph for European civilization.
What concerned Ortega was not who manipulates the masses, but the fact that the masses no longer feel the need for guidance at all. The modern “average man” believes himself self-sufficient, takes the fruits of science and culture as natural givens, and rejects the authority of excellence. That is why Ortega speaks of a “vertical invasion of the barbarians”: the danger is not manipulation from above, but the internal collapse of standards when mediocrity proclaims itself the measure of all things.
To fault him for not discussing money or media control is to expect him to have written a different book. His philosophical insight lies elsewhere: in showing how the mentality of the mass, once it dominates, destabilizes the very foundations of civilization.
"......................the danger is not manipulation from above, but the internal collapse of standards when mediocrity proclaims itself the measure of all things"
Mediocrity proclaiming itself the measure of all things was not an organic development, but the consequence of dumbing down the population to make it easier to manipulate.
"What concerned Ortega was not who manipulates the masses, but the fact that the masses no longer feel the need for guidance at all."
I doubt that the masses ever felt a need for guidance. Ignoring those who manipulate the masses and only addressing the consequences of that manipulation was a mistake
"...........the danger is not manipulation from above, but the internal collapse of standards when mediocrity proclaims itself the measure of all things."
As I said, mediocre proclaiming themselves to be the measure of all things did not happen organically or in a vacuum. Manipulation from above is the danger indeed.
yes, manipulation from above is real. History is full of deliberate efforts to shape public opinion, lower educational standards, and manufacture consent. But Ortega’s insight was that by the early 20th century, such manipulation was no longer strictly necessary. The “mass-man” emerges not because he is brainwashed into mediocrity, but because he feels no need for anything higher than himself. Whether this was accelerated by elites or media is another debate — but Ortega’s focus was philosophical: what happens to civilization when self-sufficiency without excellence becomes the dominant mentality.
In other words: propaganda can certainly produce mass behavior, but Ortega’s point is that once the mass type exists, propaganda becomes almost redundant. The mass welcomes it because it flatters his sense of sufficiency. That is why Ortega calls the process a “vertical invasion of the barbarians” — the danger is not only what is imposed from above, but what is abdicated from within.
QUESTION: Can you please compare between the concepts in Ortega's this specific book and the phenomenon of "mob psychology", e.g., when a bunch of people all wanting to take a shortcut of some sorts, they semi-accidentally bundle into a group and ignore existing laws, whether it is traffic light, no trespassing, or no smoking?
In theory, the many "don't do this" in a society are usually constructed by a few supposedly wise people at the top of the social hierarchy, if not always the political hierarchy, for some reasons. Not always good reasons when viewed from a hundred years later, but usually with some justification at the time of establishing such rules. There will always be some people, in some circumstances, feel inconvenienced by these rules, and hence make their own judgment, and take a left turn at the red light, for example. Most people are easily convinced of the necessity for traffic laws, but are not always strict in abiding by such laws.
Then we have issues of more ambiguities, like whether marijuana should be legalized. Many say this weed does not cause obvious and immediate damages. Others argue about its role as the "gateway" drug and enabling many users to graduate into much more potent narcotics. When there are few users, police and social commentators pound on the offenders. When there are many users, individual states lead the way to legalize the use of marijuana. Conventional wisdom, even medical proof of the damage caused by using marijuana, are all brushed aside. Then maybe the federal government will jump in to set new rules for the whole nation.
Do you think a sunset mechanism forcing authorities to systematically review every such restrictions, laws, and standard procedures, would help the older system to adapt and avoid the vertical invasion of barbarians?
That’s a thoughtful question. Ortega’s Revolt of the Masses and the tradition of “mob psychology” (Le Bon, Freud, Tarde) overlap but are not identical. Mob psychology looks at the dynamics of crowds in the moment: how individuals in a group lose inhibitions, imitate one another, and behave differently than they would alone. Ortega, by contrast, is describing not the temporary psychology of a crowd, but the emergence of a permanent type of man — the “mass-man” — who carries that mentality into every domain of life, even when alone.
In your example of ignoring traffic lights or collectively normalizing marijuana, the “mob psychology” lens would explain it as contagion, imitation, and group dynamics: the short-term suspension of rational calculation. Ortega would interpret it differently: as a symptom of a broader cultural shift in which individuals no longer acknowledge any higher authority, tradition, or excellence beyond their own immediate will. The rules, whether wise or not, are no longer felt as binding because the mass-man does not recognize any superior instance that justifies them.
Your idea of a sunset mechanism — periodically reviewing laws and standards so they don’t fossilize — actually fits well into Ortega’s concern. He feared the opposite: that the mass would simply discard standards without creating new, demanding ones. A systematic renewal of laws would preserve the sense that norms are not arbitrary, but grounded in reasoned deliberation. That helps avoid the “vertical invasion of the barbarians,” where mediocrity destroys civilization by refusing standards altogether.
Very well said, Than You.
In my personal experience, I see that small degradation happens first as examples of various "mob psychology" stereotypes. Over time, when there is no consistent coercion to change such behavior, the "bad behavior" once only triggered in certain circumstances and with other external factors, becomes "internalized" -- changing people's morality and value system.
Chinese have a proverb: when a kid steals a peach and is not caught and punished, he might grow up stealing other people's property. By extension, if the society overall does not have a strict sense of right vs wrong, then why not steal the entire nation? Say, by stealing the mass media first. I think I have also seen real-world examples of Ortega's warning against "mass man". That apprehension severely challenges all my confidence in the so-called "democracy", especially the one-person-one-vote democracy.
When my wife took courses in Concurrent American Education Theories, she told me a critique of the so-called "minimal competency tests" (which I still believe in), that the original threshold on the lower side (minimal competency) will always become the "maximal competency" ever achieved. I suspect maybe this is one of the systemic forces we create and inadvertently morph our social systems into a system for the "mass man".
Hello there fellow writer, I’ve been on Substack for around a month now.
I find your content quite interesting, and it appears on my feed often, so I thought you may like one of my articles.
This one is about Giants, and the evidence in early newspapers:
https://open.substack.com/pub/jordannuttall/p/giants-in-newspapers?r=4f55i2&utm_medium=ios