The task of the humanities is to understand the roots of human behavior. Researchers and professionals collectively spend their resources constructing theories, systems and approaches that analyze us as a society.
However, the push to base our understanding of societies entirely on material conditions has by now downplayed a key factor: the role of the individual. Modern prominent leaders such as Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin should serve as examples of how individual impact can matter more than broad material conditions.
The Great Man Theory is an approach developed by Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle which argues that history is a “biography of great men.” Academics have criticized it for the past two centuries for its narrow view of history and society.
Criticism of this theory is also reflected in the works of great authors such as Leo Tolstoy and Pablo Neruda, who criticized the habit of “worshipping heroes.” Their literature portrayed historical events not as the accomplishments of a few key people but as the consequences of unavoidable, unstoppable mass movements.
Tolstoy especially emphasized this point in “War and Peace,” his novel covering the years of the Napoleonic Wars. He sought to advance understanding of history and the role of the masses in it by challenging the notion that great men determine the course of history through heroic action. Tolstoy rejected the idea that a few individuals are the sole engine of history, and emphasized that history is made of tides unbreakable by any one person.
In a more academic sense, opposition to the Great Man Theory often aims to deconstruct narratives that glorify heroes. Whereas a statesman, a businessman or a scientist may be idolized as “the one who brought a new era,” modern social sciences strive to build our understanding of history on material conditions. Simply put, it’s not great individuals that create history, but history that creates great individuals.
Our reality is shaped by a long history of social, economic and political dynamics, but assuming no individual can ever change them — as those who critique the Great Man Theory often do — is overly deterministic. Such determinism leads to false conclusions that dismiss the nuances and characteristics of history shaped by those individuals.
The most blatant example of an individual’s influence on history that needs better recognition is the mark left by Trump. Critics of the theory have argued that he is not the sole cause of the current state of politics in the United States, but rather the culmination of years of political and social isolation. Academics who study history from a structuralist and determinist perspective have argued that, since Trump is merely a product of preceding history, a different individual could replace him in a different reality and still make the United States experience the same issues today.
I find such an approach problematic, because it takes it for granted that not just Donald Trump — but any Republican — would have the same policies and tendencies. It ignores what has effectively become a cult of personality tailored to Donald Trump, and assumes that all the political and social changes since 2016 are the consequences of a broader dynamic merely accelerated by Trump.
Another example is Vladimir Putin and the ongoing war in Ukraine. Scholars and academics alike who sought to explain the causes of the war have argued that it is in Russia’s nature to pursue expansionism, and that even if Putin never came to power, history would play out the same because of Russia’s material conditions. Such claims portray an ignorant form of determinism that defines nations through broad prejudices, ignoring the motivations of powerful individuals and, to a degree, those of powerful social classes that have led to Russia pursuing military aggression.
What I support is a critical balance between determinism and individualism, an equal approach that does not chalk up the causes of history to only one person or only an abstract concept of dynamics. To achieve that balance, we must undo some of the “overcorrection” of creating a negative stigma around individuals. A fairer, broader perspective on history must recognize the material realities of the world alongside people’s capacity to steer those realities through their own motives.
I myself don’t seek to support or revive the Great Man Theory here. In fact, I sympathize with the view that, whether visionaries or autocrats, individuals are often more a product of their times than the authors of their times. Yet, I also believe that the events we live through result from specific decisions made by specific people at specific times.
Even if the choices presented to an individual are limited by the possibilities of reality, individuals still have the capacity to make decisions based on their perspectives and character. Those decisions accumulate over time to a point where they can actively change any preceding reality or condition.
Individuals become “great” neither by creating their own reality out of nothing nor by merely being a product of reality — they become “great” by having their own will to steer the reality beyond them to a new point and a new state.
Deniz Gulay is a senior double-majoring in history and Russian.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.