Great Man Theory

[Neonanocyborgasm]

What do you think of this traditional theory of history? It says that the course of history is mainly shaped by peculiar individuals who wield great influence (Hitler, Washington, Jesus, Stalin, Einstein, Helen of Troy, etc).

I think the traditional Great Man Theory has more going for it. I actually favor a third kind of theory but since it is not mainstream among historians, I'll leave it out. What do you all think?

I subscribe more to the materialist school of historical thought, that the material world influences history and the people of it. Great people do occasionally arise and make shifts in history, but they are more often like opportunists. If conditions had been different, some great men would've never been able to have the impact that they did. In fact, you could see those very same people in history. Akhenaton was an Egyptian pharaoh who tried to introduce monotheism, and was laughed out of the room. Yet, thousands of years later, Jesus (if you believe in such a historical figure) appears and suddenly, a monotheistic religion takes dramatic hold. Furthermore, while great men may have the influence that they do, their contributions are often over-rated. There is plenty of social, economic, and technological development going on without the benefit of any great man.

 

[HalfBadger]

HalfBadger, Mrs. Parks was a woman with courage and with all rights on her side to start to destroy the racism. However she only acted because she felt it was injustice. She was the first to sit to stay up. But she was indeed made by the environment. If she didn´t do it, another would have done it.Adler

I think I didn't make the end of my post clear. What I meant was, yes another probably would have done somethign similar to what Rosa Parks did and started the civil rights movement. However how much longer would it have taken days, weeks, months, etc? Assuming time frames would be about the same, from the movement to law etc, if Rosa helped ppl be unsuppressed for a week, month etc compared to when the next person would have started the movement, I think the speeding up of things makes her great.

For example, if the next person who would have potentially started the movement, wouldn't have done so for a month after Rosa did, then that's approximately a month where ppl weren't suppressed because of Rosa, making her great.

 

[Yellowbelly]

Having cast my vote, i'd like to stick in my two cents' worth. I feel that there are two kinds of 'Great Men." One is a response to his environment - Rosa Parks, as discussed above, is a perfect example of such. The other kind arises 'de novo' as a cause, not a result of events - the example I choose here is Gengis Khan (in all the glory of his alternative spellings) as per sydhe's post (#5 on 10/23/05). My vote was, therefore, 50%.

 

[Adler17]

But also Genghis Khan was a product of his time. However you´re right in so far as some people seem to have more impact resulting on their own as some others resulting in the environment. Nevertheless they all are products of their environment, even Temujin aka Genghis Khan.

Adler

 

[josephstalin]

Hm, probably about 70%. Crowd still is composed of individual.

 

[Yellowbelly]

Adler17

That's my point! Temujin was NOT a product of his time! Oh, yes he was a Mongol of the twelfth and thirteenth centries, but the Mongols of that era were herdsmen with no tradition of empire-building and with an inheritance-system which mitigated against the accunulation of wealth and/or power. Temujin simply doesn't fit! From this society, an illiterate, fratricidal barbarian created the greatest contiguous empire of all history! No, Temujin was a unique event and not just a product of the times.

 

[Zany]

I'd just like to say something, that last poll option is hilarious. No wonder 6 people voted for that.