The Great Man’s Role In History

by Philippa Noble

The theory surrounding the "Great Men" of history suggests one sole person can be culpable for historic events and societal turning points - a common example of this being Adolf Hitler. Nevertheless, references can be made to key figures on both sides, attempting to show full culpability or partial. This, of course, has become the subject of heated debate within the study of Historiography with arguments both for and against.

The argument for is often linked with the “masterminds” of terrible events in the 20th century. Hitler and Stalin are the most commonly referenced examples, potentially pushing us away from grappling with how an entire society could potentially be responsible for the Holocaust or any number of Stalin’s brutal regimes. These examples often look to pass blame onto the seemingly “most responsible person”, and still in the public’s view it seems reasonable that Hitler was fully culpable for the Holocaust. After all, it’s what we’ve always been taught: from a young age history has been simplified to key figures. Even in later life, biographies one of the most common ways of communicating historical knowledge to the masses, reinforcing in our minds once again that history revolves around “Great” individuals.

There are two main reasons why this belief is furthered into academic circles. First, the existence of conscious agency, proposed in Ron Rosenbaum’s “Explaining Hitler”, proves that these great leaders knew what they were doing. Of course, this cannot be denied: we all have choices to make and, with "Great Men" often being concentrated in positions of great power (for instance established monarchy or dictatorships), it becomes evermore unrealistic to avoid the role of the figurehead. In the specific example of Hitler, to disagree to such an extent that he becomes nothing more than a function of others’ aims is to attempt to excuse his part in the Holocaust and the millions of murders that took place within it.

Second, a less extreme belief in "Great Men" would reason that they are in fact “harnessers” of society. There may be public belief or societal values behind a cause, but it can be argued that it takes a certain personality to hold enough power to command change. Here, charisma that is apparent in the powerful leaders of the 20th century is explained as the reigns with which the “Great Man” controls the nation. This belief is easier to agree with: charisma is a known characteristic of the typical "Great Men" (if they do in fact exist), and this fits again with the running example of Hitler. During his rise to power, change and action was brought about by his persuasiveness, personality, and charisma. He was the enthusiasm the German population believed they needed.

Looking to a different example, Deng Xiaoping is a more positive representation of “Great Men”. Having inherited immense power from Mao (although lacking the same title, he was supported by various prominent generals), his courage and morality brought about a truly revolutionary change in China’s politics. Deng moved himself out of power, introducing the collective government that has continued to check China’s leaders until very recently. His legacy will surely go down in history, no matter how short-lived it will prove to be, influencing Chinese politics and bringing the nation to the world’s forefront by opening it up to capitalism. His thoughts were even reinforced this year with Xi’s “socialism with Chinese characteristics”, so even as his most evident legacy is wiped away, traces of his other policies remain.

In The 100 Most Influential People In History, Michael H. Hart includes many scientists and political leaders, yet the least disputable are those commanding the arts. Writing, painting, and creating require creativity, self-awareness, thought, and in some cases bravery. At number 31, William Shakespeare makes an appearance. In his widely published works he expresses individual reflections, humour, and confidence. Coming to fame in the early 17th century, Shakespeare used his scope of influence to address topics such as racism and antisemitism. Although this alone may not define William Shakespeare as a “Great Man”, his sizeable impacts on British society and recently the world are shown most simply in how he shaped the English language. It is unlikely for any other author to have been in such an opportune position (with audiences for Elizabeth I and James I) and to have such personality coming across in his works that his words are woven into our modern language.

Nevertheless, the debate continues; it remains reasonable that the many forces in society (for instance, the economy, societal values, and the law) add or detract from any action "Great Men" want to take. Bullock in “Parallel Lives” explains the rise of social and economic history within academic interests as a cause of disbelief in “Great Men”, however in this argument it is more pertinent to remind ourselves that this history has always existed - its growth is just another variation in historiographical trends. Yet, this rise in popularity could be reflective of our societal evolution, towards more focus on society as a whole rather than the adamant promotion of figureheads - wiping out “Great Men” from our contemporary societies.

Some that believe in "Great Men" do so due to their view that mankind cannot do things as horrific as, for instance, the Holocaust. This, however, seems more naïve than anything else. If this theory is used only to pass on blame from social agency, then "Great Men" become scapegoats for society’s sins. Hitler’s Germany took an active role in the Holocaust, from playing a part in the secret police to reporting neighbours. And those who didn't also didn't take effective action against him. Here, the native population became at best enablers and at worse aids to ridding Germany of the so-called “untermensch”. A prominent example of this is Adolf Eichmann, the main organiser of the Holocaust.  Therefore, Hitler was not acting alone: ideas and action stemmed from both himself and others, detracting from the responsibility we give him as a society. No one in the most morally black-and-white event in the 1900s is free of blame - even the British who appeased Hitler until he had sufficient power and confidence to expand lebensraum past agreements. Philippa Gregory would even argue that the millennias-long history of antisemitism contributed and enabled Hitler. And of course, luck and mistakes also play a huge part in the historical narrative. Being in the right place at the right time let Hitler seize power with the Nazi party; the mistakes of Trotsky and Zinoviev allowed Stalin to play off their unpopularity and become the leader of the USSR.

Furthermore, common belief would hold scientists within the ranks of "Great Men". However, it can be argued that most scientific discoveries are inevitable and would have been found maybe even within the next 100 years as other areas of science developed around the topic. For instance, the discovery of the heliocentric universe. This was first hypothesised by Greek philosophers, then by Copernicus, then by Galileo. "Great Men", as shown earlier, need individual thought and creativity. Some scientists could have this, with discoveries being made far before supporting scientific knowledge existed, however examples such as Fleming, although he found a truly significant antibacterial, show that often scientists have very little part to play in discoveries.

Finally, in the case of political philosophers it is individual thought that fails them. These figures had huge effects on events in both the 18th and 20th century with revolutions and the rise of communism - featuring philosophers such us Rousseau, Marx, and John Locke. Nevertheless, the recurring message throughout history seems to be “we deserve better”. If political philosophy only ever takes a single step in the direction of “better”, can these thinkers ever be "Great Men" as they only extrapolate a small amount on past trends? The progression of politics is fairly linear (with the exceptions of fall backs in the dark ages - potentially as a result of the loss of knowledge and fall of politically advanced empires). Therefore, it can be argued with ease that such progressions are inevitable and many would have arisen within the century of the first hypothesis. The common understanding of “Great Men” here fails as although such philosophers are influential, they are replaceable and give little in the way of significant gains.

Perhaps instead the argument is not whether they exist or not, but in what cases we see "Great Men". Following the argument above, Michael H. Hart would be incorrect in attributing huge societal shifts to political philosophers and certain scientists. However, it is possible in very strict conditions for these "Great Men" to appear. Unfortunately for them, what is believed to be the easiest way of becoming a “Great Man” is long gone; forgotten within the anachronistic era of unchecked monarchy. It appears that firm executive power is necessary for such people to arise, indicating that either a monarchy or dictatorship is required. In these instances, culpability can easily be placed on those in power as the public have very little say in the decisions of leaders. However, in the last few centuries greater levels of democracy have developed and transparency has increased, making leaders more accountable but also making public opinion a larger factor in national decisions (see the Brexit vote). Nevertheless, there has been a resurgence of "Great Men" in the last century with leaders harnessing chaos as a stepping stone to total power. Bullock in “Parallel Lives” talks about how this chaos is an enabler for "Great Men" to take power and then fully assert themselves in long term roles. This isn’t just a brief episode for the 1900s; it could be said that this is what Xi Jinping is aiming for currently. Removing checks of power in order to exceed the maximum term length creates optimum conditions for seizing total power. His emulation of Mao’s cult of personality and the gradual centralisation of rule that has characterised his premiership of China also falls into line with the definition of a “Great Man”. Maybe Mr Jinping is attempting now to join the ranks of other historical figures.

Taking into account all the evidence laid out above, it is naïve to believe there are intrinsically "Great Men". The scenarios and examples used show that the situation has to allow for the rise of these figures: there must be established total power, or sufficient chaos for total power to be established. Yet, in this statement, the entire theory of "Great Men" is contradicted. Their existence relies on enablers within society, yet their very definition dictates that they rely on nothing but their own actions. Therefore, "Great Men" in whole cannot exist; if their rare occurrence relies on societal shifts and the lenience of the population, then that in itself proves that they are no more than “harnessers” of the public.

This is not say, however, that the theory of "Great Men" isn’t useful in general. The concept aids the teaching and communication of history to the mainstream audience. It makes history accessible and simplified, introducing people to entire eras centered around each revered figure. Furthermore, it feeds into the historicism of the population with the ready consumption of biographies which in turn funds academic interest in the subject (through museums, novels, and theatre). Although it seems that the existence of “Great Men” in reality is contradictory, their existence in public beliefs and their effects on the subject are imperative. In an academic sense, they may have negative effects, with confusing history and giving those with culpability an easy way of passing blame. However, the funding and widespread appreciation for history that is gained through their “existence” shows how they can be beneficial to both the public and academics.