The “Great People Theory”
Without the existence of certain individuals, the history of the world would certainly be different. The “Great People Theory” is a theory that aims to explain history by the impact of “great people,” either male or female. These people are known as highly influential individuals, from personal charisma, intellect, or great political impact. The “Great People” of history doesn’t necessary mean they were virtuous or “good” people; it simply means that the overall history of the world would be strikingly different had they not been a key part of it.
This is not to discount the prevalence and immense influence of broader social and political forces, which indeed have great influence upon the general direction of societies and political structures, but it is vital to note that the broader movement is not along sufficient to alter the overall direction of history. Broader social and political movements, such as reforms, restorations, and revolutions, are necessary conditions for change, but it is ultimately the “Great People” who serve as the hammer to the nail – the catalyst in the system.
The Renaissance and Reformation period was a time of social and political tumult and a time of intellectual expansion. It is hard to imagine the same renaissance and reformation without key figures such as Protestant reformationist Martin Luther, or the founder of the realist paradigm, Niccolo Machiavelli. Likewise, during the 1880s, it is nearly impossible to imagine a unified Germany without Otto Von Bismarck. The conditions for these movements were, no doubt, made possible by the larger social and political discourse of the respective times; however, without the contribution of these particular individuals, the ultimate direction and results of these movements would be drastically different. Look at it this way: the larger social and political movement fertilizes the soil and makes it fertile for growth. The individual person, or the Great Person, is the seed, which is planted. Different seeds yield different crop; much in the same way, different social and political leaders would yield different social and political histories.
Taken from an American perspective, how would American international discourse have looked if leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were absent from the scene? Teddy Roosevelt is seen as the first American president to exercise the nation’s foreign policy largely in the name of American national interest, with a keen eye for world power. Woodrow Wilson’s moralist movement, in the words of Henry Kissinger, “grasped the mainsprings of American motivation” and have remained, despite harsh criticism, “the bedrock of American foreign-policy thinking.” Without these two men, America’s history, and the history of the world, would have taken a different course.
How would the outcome of World War II have differed, minus the amazingly resilient and awe-inspiring Winston Churchill? Would America have remained isolationist too long, or ever so, without the deft political maneuvering of Franklin Roosevelt? Imagine a post-War international system without the insular, cold-hard calculator, Joseph Stalin. It would be politically and socially inaccurate to suggest that the “Soviet Bloc” would have behaved in a similar way with or without Stalin at the reigns.
The chance of a new international order towards the end of the 1980s was becoming a more likely and seriously considered phenonmenon. However, without the unique characters of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the fusion of glasnost and perestroika with American optimism is likely to have either occurred at a different — perhaps more belligerent — rate, or maybe never at all.
If the connection is still somewhat unclear or doubtful, consider it this way: imagine an Israelite history without Abraham or Moses; or try to fathom Christianity without Christ. The latter example provides an excellent example of the Great People Theory, because, to be frank, without Jesus there is no Christianity; without the rise and reign of certain individuals, some things simply would not have happened, or would have happened in an entirely different way.
History, as a whole, is prodded along by intangible, omniscient social and political forces; that much is granted. However, history, as we understand it, is defined and directed by “Great People.” What will the historical footprint of President George W. Bush reveal about the direction of the U.S. and the world? Although it’s hard to say definitely what the contribution of Bush’s 8 years in office will have overall. It is fair to say that at some point in the future social scientists will look back at Bush and say one of two things: either, Bush, contrary to many contemporary critics, pioneered a new, more peaceful world order or that Bush was an irresponsible and frivolous ideologue who destabilized world order and endangered many peoples.
Regardless of praise or folly, “Great People” throughout history make our history what it is.
I think, Steve, the latter.
Bush failed to realize that the real war against terror, ie. Al Quida, was on the border of P and A, not in I.
Second, he underestimated the power and influence of Iran in the Middle East.
He has not gained an inch in America’s interests in the seven years since 2001.
He might have been a “Great Man” in Midland, TX, not on the World’s stage.
Oh, he’ll more than likely be a part of the “Great Men” of history, just not in the good way. It could work well for America, in the end, though. The follies of American Exceptionalism are sometimes more explicit than at other times. I think American policy makers, for the next decade, are going to depend less on American Unilateralism and more on international consensus — although, I could be wrong, especially with McCain still in the mix.
Imagine Christianity without Paul…
Less sexist? Probably; but biblical text would have been edited to ensure the cultural norm stays “the norm.”
I agree that we cannot completely discount the contributions of a few unique individuals; however, I think you and many others probably overestimate their contribution to the overall macro trends of history. Of course the world would be different if certain individuals had not lived. The question is “how much different?”
It is easy to understand why the “Great Person” approach to history is so appealing; everybody wants a hero. People are more interesting to study than economics and macro social trends. But just because it is more fun doesn’t mean that it is true.
While individuals sometimes make unique contributions to the flow of history, they are much more often just riding a wave much larger than themselves. Major events in history (the American Revolution, World War II, etc.) are driven by huge economic and ideological forces. It may be the famous leaders who end up with their faces on stamps and dollar bills, but most of the major outcomes would probably have been the same on the large scale.
Perhaps your seed analogy could be modified to be more accurate. Maybe individuals could be represented by the seed, since they often do become the focal points for major events. But more importantly is the planter. Society as a whole is the planter of seeds. There are always seeds that represent the current fringe of thought and potentially groundbreaking shifts; the issue is whether or not society is willing to plant those seeds and if the conditions are right for the seeds’ ideas to take root.
If I drive past a corn field, I sure don’t think about how different it would be if the corn seeds had decided to be apple seeds instead. I think about how the farmer and the conditions led to the crop being what it is (I don’t really contemplate agriculture like this, it’s just an illustration).
Society makes space but doesn’t ensure any inevitable action. There are, however, some exceptions. The issue of slavery is one; or the issue of war on continental Europe, Post-WWI. However, even in these examples the manner in which the movement or action is carried out is very dependent upon the individual who is largely responsible for the nurturing of the available social or political capital.
Examples of social or political movements, minus a great person: Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge.
Examples of great people altering the discourse of history: Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.
Are you to tell me that Germany would have been united and Europe would have prospered from 45+ years of peace in the 1800s with or without Otto Von Bismarck? That just isn’t possible. The biggest reason Europe fell from a harmonious balance of power was the departure of Bismarck.
Perhaps a better illustration is the battlefield allegory. Certain conditions may beckon tanks and their commanders. The direction and outcome is very dependent upon who is commanding. Mr. Klaus is no Erwin Rommel or Heinz Guderian.
No so-called “great person” could be great if he/she did not have thousands or millions of “little people” there to do the actual work or fighting or whatever makes the “great person” great! Most truly “great” people acknowledge that fact. Others seem to think they did “greatness” alone and without anyone’s assistance. Greatness and humility are partners!
Denney, your argument about Bismarck has some merit, but it was Bismarck who is responsible for laying the groundwork for the most disastrous war in human history. If Bismarck had dealt with France the way he did with Austria after defeating them and hadn’t taken Alsace-Lorraine, France would have been more accommodating of German unification. Instead, he ignored his own instincts and allowed Moltke and the generals to completely humiliate France and impose burdens on them equal to those imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles (1919) and occupied Paris until those obligations were met. He was able to control the generals in Austria, why not France?
Also, how do you figure 45+ years of peace? Second Schleswig War, 1864, Austro-Prussian War, 1866, Franco-Prussian War 1870-71, as well as many other wars throughout Europe during the intervening years such as the Serbo-Bulgarian War, 1885 and the two Balkan Wars, 1912-1913. Even if there was a long period of peace during the Nineteenth Century, it is most commonly referred to as the Pax Britannica, not a Pax Germanica.
Others seem to think they did “greatness” alone and without anyone’s assistance.
I don’t think I said anything like that.
it was Bismarck who is responsible for laying the groundwork for the most disastrous war in human history.
I would content that Bismarck patched the groundwork that led to the most disastrous war in human history. It was the administrators that followed him that destroyed his “balance of power.”
If Bismarck had dealt with France the way he did with Austria after defeating them and hadn’t taken Alsace-Lorraine, France would have been more accommodating of German unification.
Moltke and his generals insisted that it was needed to keep France defensive. Bismarck opposed the annexation because he did not wish to make a permanent enemy of France; however, his judgment was not heeded and the generals got their way.
Also, how do you figure 45+ years of peace? Second Schleswig War, 1864, Austro-Prussian War, 1866, Franco-Prussian War 1870-71, as well as many other wars throughout Europe during the intervening years such as the Serbo-Bulgarian War, 1885 and the two Balkan Wars, 1912-1913. Even if there was a long period of peace during the Nineteenth Century, it is most commonly referred to as the Pax Britannica, not a Pax Germanica.
Since Germany wasn’t unified until 1871 (my point of calculation), exclude the Schleswig War and the Austro-Prussian War. The latter two conflicts are not considered major European conflicts, since they didn’t involve any of the Great Powers directly (unless you include the Ottoman Empire as a Great Power). The Balkan Wars were between the Ottoman Empire and the Balkan League (Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, and Montenegro). The Serbo-Bulgarian War was between the two named countries.
Let me rephrase it then to avoid nuanced dissection (Kyle): After Bismarck unified Germany, continental Europe enjoyed the spoils of an unprecedented amount of peace, relative to the the last 400 years.
1914-1871 = 43 years.
Kyle, listen, I know the statement “peace on continental Eruope” isn’t absolute; it’s about relativity. Without the balance of Europe in the latter half of the 19th century, continental war would have certainly been imminent.
Do you think that Pax Britannica is made possible without a stable Europe?
Bismarck? You mean this guy?
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html
Great? yeah like Great Depression, immense, extreme,
Just think modern progressive conservatism i.e. licolnian totalitarianism. lol.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393312569
“The impulse to unification was strong in the nineteenth century . . . and if we would grasp the significance of the Civil War in relation to the history of our time, we should consider Abraham Lincoln in connection with the other leaders who have engaged in similar tasks.
The chief of these leaders have been Bismarck and Lenin. They with Lincoln have presided over the unifications of the three great new modern powers . . . . Each established a strong central government over hitherto loosely coordinated peoples. Lincoln kept the Union together by subordinating the South to the North; Bismarck imposed on the German states the cohesive hegemony of Prussia; Lenin . . . began the work of binding Russia . . . in a tight bureaucratic net.”
“Taken from an American perspective, how would American international discourse have looked if leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were absent from the scene?”
We’d most likely be a lot better off.
War is the health of the state as Randolph Bourne so eloquently noted. WWI was just the beginning of something terrible.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0313251320/
There are great people all over the place. They can influence many people or one person. And there are many ways to do it. Whether by criminal, benevolent, of unintentional measures. I have oft heard mention of the person who invented the paperclip. “What a way to make a milllion dollars.” Pretty handy too! Disposable razors were invented by a man who despised capitalism if you can believe it. LoL.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-03/ff_free
Right, Jesse. Being a “Great Person” in the context of the “Great Person Theory” doesn’t mean you were necessarily great in a good, benevolent type of way.
Stalin, Hitler… these were “Great Men” because of their immense and unique contribution to the history of the world.
Would we be better off had T.R. not existed? Maybe. We’d certainly be different.
here’s one for music lovers!!
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/246
We have men and women in the history of Africa and u dont use to write their name.MANDELA,OBAFEMI AWOLOWO, FELA,IDIAMI OF UGADA AND LOT MORE.thanks