Ideology, Individuality and Groupthink

[Tahuti]

Yeah, the "Great Man" is somebody who forces their way into history through sheer force of personality, and for all Kaiserguard's denial, he's essentially advancing a more conservative version of the same idea, with extraordinary acts in the place of extraordinary personalities: Great Deeds rather than Great Men.

I'd rather call it Black Swan Histology, after Nassim Taleb's concept. No can predict in advance the discovery of black swans, or a political assassination for that matter, yet both examples have appreciable consequences. And they do not have be brought about necessarily by people, but can be brought about by nature events as well.

At the same time, I do think Special Events Histology can be reconciled with Cyclical views of history, provided it takes into the account the possibility for divergence by the aforementioned great events. For instance, intellectual frameworks (Enlightenment vs. Marxism vs. Scholasticism vs. Humanism vs. Classical thought) change extremely slowly and are relatively insulated from sudden events other than wholesale suppression by political forces. The Sokal affair for instance did not significantly alter the humanities who supported Postmodernism; as a matter fact, these still do.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd rather call it Black Swan Histology, after Nassim Taleb's concept. No can predict in advance the discovery of black swans, or a political assassination for that matter, yet both examples have appreciable consequences. And they do not have be brought about necessarily by people, but can be brought about by nature events as well.

That an event is unexpected does not make it extra-historical, which is what you're arguing. The significance of an assassination or even a natural disaster is realised within the terms of existing cultural orders, even if and as they challenge and change that order. The assassination of a king is significant because there is a social, political and cultural order which lends one individual the attribute "king", and attaches special significance to it. It's unexpected, but it's also entirely predicated on what has gone before.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Isn't it possible that without Lenin there wouldn't have been a Soviet Union? Or one that would have been severely distinct from the one we got?

What Lenin did he may have only been able to do because of the time he was born in. But he still may have mattered grafely.

I don't understand great-man or great-deed-approaches as operating under the assumption that people acted independent of circumstances, basically likes gods. That is an utmost silly assumption, isn't it. Does anyone really argue so? Baffling.
What I would understand them as saying is simply that single people can have vast effects on how human history proceeds. That putting another human in the very same position would mean a huge huge difference. And that seems like a good enough assumption to me.

 

[Traitorfish]

Isn't it possible that without Lenin there wouldn't have been a Soviet Union? Or one that would have been severely distinct from the one we got?

What Lenin did he may have only been able to do because of the time he was born in. But he still may have mattered grafely.

I don't understand great-man or great-deed-approaches as operating under the assumption that people acted independent of circumstances, basically likes gods. That is an utmost silly assumption, isn't it. Does anyone really argue so? Baffling.
What I would understand them as saying is simply that single people can have vast effects on how human history proceeds. That putting another human in the very same position would mean a huge huge difference. And that seems like a good enough assumption to me.

The problem isn't the argument that individuals can have a major impact on history. Gavrilo Princip put a bullet through Franz-Ferdindan, triggering the events which lead to the First World War. If he had followed his co-conspirators and botched or bottled, things would have unfolded differently. The problem is that this is not a purely individual significance. Princip did not act as a person apart from history. He acted in the context of millions of others actors, and the politicians and generals who transformed his act into a war acted in the context of millions of other actors- most immediately, of Princip and each other.

If Princip has not shot Franz-Ferdinand, the First World War would not have unfolded as it did. But if Franz-Ferdinand's driver had not taken a wrong turn, it would not have unfolded as it did. If Franz-Ferdinand had ended his tour early, it would not have unfolded as it did. If the politicians and generals had reacted differently, had made different decisions and sent different messages, it would not have unfolded as it did. If the socialist parties had stuck to their convictions and called a general strike against the war, the war would not have unfolded as it did. The process by which a gunshot turned into a war was not the act of one person, but of hundreds of millions of people.

The problem for Kaiserguard isn't that individuals don't have an impact on history, rather, it's precisely that they do, all of them, all at once, and that's where his Great Deed history falls entirely to pieces. Individual has a place in history, but they all have a place in history, not just the ones with silly hats and their assassins.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Ah hm, I see what you mean.

Though, still, the vast majority of people seems pretty irrelevant to me all by themselves. If I just right now look at everyone I know personally, I am quit confident to say that humanity has no stake in their existence either way.

So I think we still can distinguish between people of great importance and people of only 'local' or 'small' or 'in the big picture irrelevant' roles to play.
Just that we neither can hope to account for the entirety of people of great importance, nor must the execution of their importance be glorious or great in itself. But can be mundane and trivial. Like the guy who drove the car of Prince Ferdinand.
A great man then perhaps is a person of great importance who is also aware of that importance and can to some degree intend and plan for the great effects of his or her deeds.

 

[Tahuti]

Individual has a place in history, but they all have a place in history, not just the ones with silly hats and their assassins.

Actually, that is exactly what I meant. It is not only sudden events that are clearly visible, but also movements that were made by individual events that are itself not noticed yet work towards a critical mass that can effect change. This makes history even more unpredictable than great men or great deed history.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Actually, that is exactly what I meant. It is not only sudden events that are clearly visible, but also movements that were made by individual events that are itself not noticed yet work towards a critical mass that can effect change.

Have you read Ian Kershaw?

 

[Flying Pig]

Would you mind summarising the relevant parts for those of us who haven't? (Incidentally, would you recommend him?)

 

[Mouthwash]

The problem isn't the argument that individuals can have a major impact on history. Gavrilo Princip put a bullet through Franz-Ferdindan, triggering the events which lead to the First World War. If he had followed his co-conspirators and botched or bottled, things would have unfolded differently. The problem is that this is not a purely individual significance. Princip did not act as a person apart from history. He acted in the context of millions of others actors, and the politicians and generals who transformed his act into a war acted in the context of millions of other actors- most immediately, of Princip and each other.

If Princip has not shot Franz-Ferdinand, the First World War would not have unfolded as it did. But if Franz-Ferdinand's driver had not taken a wrong turn, it would not have unfolded as it did. If Franz-Ferdinand had ended his tour early, it would not have unfolded as it did. If the politicians and generals had reacted differently, had made different decisions and sent different messages, it would not have unfolded as it did. If the socialist parties had stuck to their convictions and called a general strike against the war, the war would not have unfolded as it did. The process by which a gunshot turned into a war was not the act of one person, but of hundreds of millions of people.

The problem for Kaiserguard isn't that individuals don't have an impact on history, rather, it's precisely that they do, all of them, all at once, and that's where his Great Deed history falls entirely to pieces. Individual has a place in history, but they all have a place in history, not just the ones with silly hats and their assassins.

There's a consequentialist argument to be made that one should act as if you and the external world are two agents, of equal import (notwithstanding the world's overwhelming complexity). So, if someone kidnapped some hostages and threatened to send you their heads if there wasn't enough money in his Swiss bank account, and you refuse, you are as culpable for killing those people as the blackmailer himself.

Princip is the smallest reference point that we can make out in the events that led to WWI. Why shouldn't we see his actions as unique?

 

[Traitorfish]

There's a consequentialist argument to be made that one should act as if you and the external world are two agents, of equal import (notwithstanding the world's overwhelming complexity). So, if someone kidnapped some hostages and threatened to send you their heads if there wasn't enough money in his Swiss bank account, and you refuse, you are as culpable for killing those people as the blackmailer himself.

I don't subscribe to consequentialism.

Princip is the smallest reference point that we can make out in the events that led to WWI. Why shouldn't we see his actions as unique?

They were unique. But they weren't sufficient to cause a war. That's what I'm getting at, that it required deliberate (if not always fully aware; Clark's metaphor of "sleepwalkers" is a pretty good one) action on the part of thousands and ultimately millions of other people. If Kaiserguard wants to return the individual to history, he has to return all of them to history, and it's not really clear how he imagines this would result in histories very different from that already been written.

 

[Tahuti]

If Kaiserguard wants to return the individual to history, he has to return all of them to history, and it's not really clear how he imagines this would result in histories very different from that already been written.

Basically, it would mean the ultimate rejection of systematic theories. And it would mean that short personal stories of everyone involved become highly important. I'd say history as a discipline would become significantly richer.

 

[Traitorfish]

How do you see that working out, in scholarly terms? How would we go about producing non-systematic histories that still explained or even simply described historical processes, rather than just anthologies of micro-biography?

 

[Mouthwash]

I don't subscribe to consequentialism.

I'm not sure if it really requires consequentialism. It's just a similar line of thinking.

They were unique. But they weren't sufficient to cause a war. That's what I'm getting at, that it required deliberate (if not always fully aware; Clark's metaphor of "sleepwalkers" is a pretty good one) action on the part of thousands and ultimately millions of other people. If Kaiserguard wants to return the individual to history, he has to return all of them to history, and it's not really clear how he imagines this would result in histories very different from that already been written.

You're not refuting anything I said. If you argue that WWI wasn't contingent upon Franz Ferdinand catching a bullet, that's an empirical claim. Doesn't have anything to do with this.

 

[Traitorfish]

The First World War, as it occurred, was contingent upon the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand inadvisable. But it was contingent upon a lot of other stuff, too. The assassination was simply the most dramatic single event.

 

[Mouthwash]

The First World War, as it occurred, was contingent upon the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand inadvisable. But it was contingent upon a lot of other stuff, too. The assassination was simply the most dramatic single event.

Would the other stuff have been able to happen if Ferdinand hadn't been killed?

 

[Traitorfish]

Would the assassination have occurred if a particular bunch of stuff didn't set the stage for it? Would we be talking about the assassination if a particular bunch of stuff hadn't happened afterwards?

Attributing Princip and Franz-Ferdinand a significance outside of their historical context turns them into mythical rather than historical figures.

 

[Mouthwash]

Would the assassination have occurred if a particular bunch of stuff didn't set the stage for it? Would we be talking about the assassination if a particular bunch of stuff hadn't happened afterwards?

If Princip had decided to eat at another cafe, would a world war have been kicked off? No? Then what criteria are you trying to satisfy? Wring this out enough and it becomes tautological: the universe isn't completely different from the way it is because of everything that's happened in it. We're taking an interest in this particular segment of events because we can relate to it.

 

[Takhisis]

The Archduke's death was only the trigger. Everyone was looking for a cassus belli by then and all the popualtions had been brainwashed into believing they were destined to eternal glory to be gained by bloodshed. If it wasn't that, it would have been some other small spark.

 

[Traitorfish]

If Princip had decided to eat at another cafe, would a world war have been kicked off? No? Then what criteria are you trying to satisfy?

Explanation, probably. If history isn't explanative, it's not really history, it's just chronicling. Recounting the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand and its immediate aftermath does not explain the outbreak of the First World War, so to produce a history of the outbreak of the war, we have to move beyond the high drama of the assassination and study the actual politics of Europe in the summer of 1914. More broadly, we have to look beyond specific significant events and persons to the social, political and cultural contexts that made allowed them to be significant in the first place.

 

[Mouthwash]

Explanation, probably. If history isn't explanative, it's not really history, it's just chronicling. Recounting the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand and its immediate aftermath does not explain the outbreak of the First World War, so to produce a history of the outbreak of the war, we have to move beyond the high drama of the assassination and study the actual politics of Europe in the summer of 1914. More broadly, we have to look beyond specific significant events and persons to the social, political and cultural contexts that made allowed them to be significant in the first place.

Fair enough. But then should Great Men be judged by ability, rather than the fact that they farted their way into the history books? It seems clear, at least, that no conceivable developments in mid-fourth century Greece would have allowed one to predict a Greek-ruled empire from the Hellespont to the Indus; it was entirely contingent on Alexander. Yes, his actions were made possible by the long arm of history, but the world he inherited was intentionally altered by his actions alone. In 99% of scenarios Macedonian phalanxes would have had their main use against other Macedonians, or the southern city-states. Any concerted invasion of Persia would've been considered a spectacular success if it managed to take Asia Minor.