The Value of Great Men
The idea of Great Men imprinting their desires and wishes on
History is one that prevails and inspires in our world. However Thomas
Carlyle’s assertion that ‘The History of the World is but the Biography of
Great Men’ might be overstepping the mark. There is value in studying the
‘Great Men’ of History, it is inspiring to think what one person can
accomplish, and we shouldn’t play down the effect some people have had on the
course of history. However we must examine the potential problems of ‘Great Men’
History;
Great Women?
The Great Women branch of history is somewhat more unknown,
to put it mildly. I might bet that when asked to think of 10 Great Men of
History the list would conjure up many candidates, but that of Great Women
might have more difficulty. The fact that many of the ‘top ten’ lists of Great
Women are particularly inconsistent, and sometimes contain women who are often
wives of Great Men should tell us something of a Historical bias.
Surprisingly the Great Men approach of history marginalises
women. But hopefully points to the patriarchal nature of society, or history,
or both? I wonder what Amazonian historiography would have looked like?
Consider also the marital status of Great Women such as Elizabeth I, the virgin
queen, or Catherine the Great, who had to suffer the accusation of having sex
with a horse for her greatness. Another Great Woman, Florence Nightingale,
opens up the charge of having her greatness constructed around her – which
brings me to my next problem...
Can we trust ‘Great
Men’ ?
Many Great men have been built up by others, many have taken
steps to cover themselves. Churchill was keen to write his own version of
history which, perhaps unsurprising to cynics, has been widely influential on
Second World War Historiography. Many dictators and despots clearly controlled
much of what was written about them through force. It is difficult to ascertain
how much of a Great Man is mythical or reality. But on the other hand, Great
Men in the spotlight often have official documents and public papers showcasing
all of their actions, therefore allowing for a more objective route of inquiry.
How certain people, perhaps fans of the Great Men or Great Men themselves, use
this evidence is another matter.
How much agency can
be ascribed to Great men?
It was Herbert Spencer who criticised the Great Man theory
in his The Study of Sociology; he
believed that the idea of Great Men shaping history was in principle
unscientific, and that Great men are products of their society. “You must admit
that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex
influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social
state into which that race has slowly grown.”
How much control do men and women have over history? Anyone
who has studied a Great Man has seen the limitations of imposing their will.
Marx has been invoked to both criticise and champion the cause of individual
actions in History; “Men make their own history, but not of their own free
will; not under circumstances they themselves have chosen but given and
inherited circumstances with which they are directly confronted.”
The Greatness of Great Men and Women can be seen as their
ability to interact with the limitations and opportunities that fall upon them.
Fundamentally though, I agree with Herbert Spencer on the Great Man, that
“before he can remake his society, his society must make him.”
Kit Buchanan, 01/04/2012
I must say I agree. The ‘Great men’ have been elevated beyond all reason by the kindness of historians. I remember what Neil Oliver wrote in his excellent book ‘A history of Ancient Britain’:
ReplyDelete‘For Fernand Braudel human lives were ephemeral flecks of foam riding upon the waves of a deep ocean. We are therefore powerless and inconsequential in the unfolding of that longue durée – the long term- subject always to the impossibly languid motion of time’
Without wishing to sound too existential, it could be argued that there is no such thing as ‘free will’ at all- whether for great men or anyone. We are, after all, only made of atoms. So are all our actions merely the result of random ‘swervings’ (bad word, I know) at a subatomic level, over which we have absolutely no control?
If this is true (which, admittedly, is a long shot), then the true author of ‘history’ is the universe at large. Humanity is merely one of the mediums through which it operates.
Perhaps, then, all we can do is to try and (accurately) record the story of the universe as it unfolds within us and without.
Bearing this in mind, I think perhaps such questions of the ‘greatness’ or the ‘influence’ of certain individuals shouldn’t even be asked. Such questions merely raise more questions, and can never get any closer to ‘truth’ or ‘fact’. They merely divert us from our proper purpose (or, at least, what I think it should be) - to record the passing of events. To present all the facts we have about a moment/era of time, with opinion/conjecture kept to a bare minimum- a lot like the very best ‘on-the-spot’ news reporting.
Best wishes,
Phil Booth
(starting BA History at Derby next month)
P.S. Just stumbled across this blog, but glad I did!