Does the Great Man approach to history still have use?

[Angrboda]

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”
Isaac Newton

It's not clear where the dividing line is. The great man theory seems to propose that the alleged great men are ones of a few who could have played the role that they did, whether due to genetics or environment or temperament. But it's not clear whether it's men possessing the right stuff are rare, or that rather there are rare opportunities to play such roles and given nature, the supply of people with the right stuff is plentiful, it's the rarity of such roles that produces the effect that these men are in any sense exceptional.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”
Isaac Newton

It's not clear where the dividing line is.  The great man theory seems to propose that the alleged great men are ones of a few who could have played the role that they did, whether due to genetics or environment or temperament.  But it's not clear whether it's men possessing the right stuff are rare, or that rather there are rare opportunities to play such roles and given nature, the supply of people with the right stuff is plentiful, it's the rarity of such roles that produces the effect that these men are in any sense exceptional.

This why only a handful of modern professional historians still subscribe to this rubbish. Hero worship isn’t always a bad thing (although always a childish one), but as a theory of history, it’s been pretty well done away with by the advent of actual social sciences.

Boru

[The Magic Pudding.]

I think everyone, when they talk of the great man of our time, should refer to him as "The Great Man Trump"

[FrustratedFool]

What would be your argument for history not being best understood as the consequences rhat arise from peculiar people be?

much of what any great men can do is rigidly circumscribed by what the pervailing economic, technological, sociological and ethnological conditions collectively wrought by the masses.

That doesn't seem to go against the idea that many changes hinge upon the actions of peculiar minds, constrained though they may be.

[FrustratedFool]

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”
Isaac Newton

It's not clear where the dividing line is. The great man theory seems to propose that the alleged great men are ones of a few who could have played the role that they did, whether due to genetics or environment or temperament. But it's not clear whether it's men possessing the right stuff are rare, or that rather there are rare opportunities to play such roles and given nature, the supply of people with the right stuff is plentiful, it's the rarity of such roles that produces the effect that these men are in any sense exceptional.

The great man theory, in James version at least, and in mine, would hold that it is both that peculiar people are rare (for example geniuses are uncommon) and that such a person has to have a rare and unlikely set of circumstances. Double rare, so to speak.

[FrustratedFool]

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”
Isaac Newton

It's not clear where the dividing line is.  The great man theory seems to propose that the alleged great men are ones of a few who could have played the role that they did, whether due to genetics or environment or temperament.  But it's not clear whether it's men possessing the right stuff are rare, or that rather there are rare opportunities to play such roles and given nature, the supply of people with the right stuff is plentiful, it's the rarity of such roles that produces the effect that these men are in any sense exceptional.

This why only a handful of modern professional historians still subscribe to this rubbish. Hero worship isn’t always a bad thing (although always a childish one), but as a theory of history, it’s been pretty well done away with by the advent of actual social sciences.

Boru

And yet a handful do subscribe to it, it has intuitive force, and there appears no good argument (here at any rate) against it. Maybe modern egalitarian folk just don't like the idea of some people being so much important and influential than most others, even if it seems obviously true.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I was a great man in 3 of my previous lives.

I was a great woman in 2 of my previous lives.

The other 999,994, not so much.

[Pat Mustard]

The great man assertion has about as much use to history as lipstick does to a pig.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

This why only a handful of modern professional historians still subscribe to this rubbish. Hero worship isn’t always a bad thing (although always a childish one), but as a theory of history, it’s been pretty well done away with by the advent of actual social sciences.

Boru

And yet a handful do subscribe to it, it has intuitive force, and there appears no good argument (here at any rate) against it.  Maybe modern egalitarian folk just don't like the idea of some people being so much important and influential than most others, even if it seems obviously true.

On the contrary, ‘modern egalitarian folk’ are the worst offenders when it comes to hero worship. Informed people know better.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

The Great Man may be more hagiography than history, and it's longevity could be accounted for by the close relationship that hagiography and history had for much of written time.

Alexander was a Great Man. Pan hellenism and conquest. We're told that the first was his fathers dream. It stands to reason that any child of philips would have been raised that way. They would have inherited an army and the conditions in and around macedonia that a military could exploit, as well. He had help there, too. It's not as if Alexander himself personally hacked down every foe or came up with every detail of every battle plan or it's execution. He was supposedly educated by aristotle, we can wonder how many of aristotles students would have been up to the job but..for aristotles cred as a teacher's sake..we can presume it was more than one.

In sum, Alexander was certainly exceptional. Generously, we can allow that he was one of just a few individuals so bred, so raised, so educated - and in that particular time and place with those conditions. That does seem to suggest that even when the individuals are rare, it's the even rarer case of their specific circumstances or opportunities that leads to us knowing these particular names at all. That history made them, even if they liked to write, or have written, that they made history.