Talk:Great man theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Various

incorrect grammar in several places, and obvious bias, even though I happen to agree with it.

Funny how you have to present this as an either/or situation at both ends of the extreme (either history is shaped exclusively by socioeconomic forces - or by great men alone?), but I guess that's what narrowmindedness will get you. Taking contemporary historical research and academia into account, I would be willing to bet that the entry author's claim about current scholars rejecting only the one extreme (that history is only shaped by great men), but not the other (that there are no great men at all ; every historical development being a product of environmental, socio-economical, libidinal, or what-have-you forces) misses the mark completely. History, as researched in today's academial environment, does very often (and not without reason) focus on great men, and very much at that. If, then, modern scholars despise any theory suggesting that great men might "create" history just as often as social and economic conditions do, why would they concentrate so much energy on researching the motives, inclinations and actions of these same great men?

Seems like a misrepresentation to me.

---

Shouldn't Tolstoy's criticism of the "great man", as presented in War and Peace, be included in criticism? Most of the book covers the idea that history is not shaped by singular figures, refuting the great man claim eloquently

Isn't this also a theory in historiography, or philosophy of history?

---

Maybe. I've only heard about it in conjunction with film history so far, but that doesn't mean much...

The Krygier reference should be deleted immediately unless full and verifiable publication details are provided. No such book, article, or dissertation shows up in searches of Google, Amazon, WorldCat, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, HOLLIS catalogue, ProQuest Digital Dissertations, or Philosophers Index.

Back to the topic rather than bickering over details of complete unimportance

Too many people are tampering with this article, trying to turn it into a sexist ideology, others are attempting to make this an example of a European imperialist or racist attitude. Lets worry less about the minor details and more about the theory as it was claimed and understood at the time of its formulation. That being said, my completely unimportant POV is this: Those that dwell too much on socio-economic conditions forget who created those conditions in the first place, as culture and economics are to begin with a product of 'great men' (great people in politically correct terms) or 'great civilizations,' 'great nations' et al. The influence of cultural Marxism has attempted to blur these lines, thus reducing human progress to a mere random phenomenon of no consequence and ultimately the lowest common denominator of human capacity. Essentially accidental, as 'anyone' and 'everyone' can create culture under certain conditions according to Marxism and thus high culture procludes biology, status, or wealth. On the other side those that claim 'great men' are the source of all progress are denounced as defenders of the status quo as well as imepeding true progress for selfish reasons, eg. profit. Such is perhaps the fate of all human greatness, those 'great people' who create that high culture through sacrifice, struggle and overcoming adversity fall victims to decay and errosion of that greatness through the passing of time as greatness never remains long under static and degenerating conditions (eg. the immoral state which places the existence of itself over its people who sustain it). Under such stagnent conditions where greatness is lacking, the beaurocrats replace greatness over time and impliment rigid systems to prolong the system beyond its natural life span against the forces of decay and collapse, thus giving cultural marxism a purpose and perhaps justification. All great civilizations in known history have fallen victim to the cultural marxists of their day in some form or another, and ultimately were overwhelmed by others of a greater nature or succombed to ultimate collapse in the abscence of greatness. Some cultures throughout history have staved off such corruption and collapse only by reinvigorating their own internal greatness to the point in which it could again sustain itself and prevent its own internal decay, as well as ward off others who sought to replace them. Such is our nature, which this theory attempts to explain. It has little to do with race, background or social status. Such things tend to be largely constructed, or at least appear that way once the original creative forces that forged those things to begin with have faded and dissapeared with time. The question is, will humanity succomb to the challenges it faces and fade from existence? or will it struggle on? Bickering over the connotations of 'men' versus 'people' is squabling over mere semantics and certainly won't do much to improve the human condition will it? --Nazrac 05:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The huge irony that the page as it stands is a long series of quotations from "Great men in history" refuting the "Great Man in History" theory... and that the talk page seems to be a protracted argument over which "Great men in history" should be included in that list. Andypreston (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Dead white males link

I fail to see any direct connection between the Great Man Theory and Dead white males, but someone who linked both articles to each other apparently does. Can someone explain? It seems to me that the Great Man Theory could just as easily be applied to European culture as any other. And furthermore, linking a theory like this to a particular race ignores that history is a sum of the ocntributions of all people of different races, who have inevitably influenced each other; you cannot limit history to solely white history or the history of any other race. Theshibboleth 19:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Except is it usually applied to Great European Males, thanks to the history of European conquests and power and whatnot in the last four hundred years. They are certainly quite related in that sense and are for many people in the historical profession almost synonymns. --Fastfission 00:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've rephrased the link, since "dead white males" isn't really a "notion of history" per se as much as a pejorative term for a particular educational emphasis. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A Marxist educational emphasis. --Nazrac 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Übermensch?

I know Friedrich Nietzsche was neither the first nor last to propose this theory. However, his works really embody the whole concept. I am wondering if we should simply redirect to Friedrich Nietzsche or Übermensch and then add a sub-section for others who support the idea or something. Nimur 23:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

NO. Different subject altogether. What do you mean? The article rightly states that Nietzsche was opposed to this theory, he didn't "propose" it! Hegel's philosophy of history concerns more the great man, although it could also be claimed that he opposed himself to it. Santa Sangre 23:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the word "men"

I am not a native English speaker, but I have always understood man and men to mean both specific gender pronouns and gender-neutral pronouns. In such a case, the sentence

the name "Great men" would suggest, [excludes] women

does not make sense. Is there a Wiki policy or a grammar guide that someone can point to? --70.49.136.45 05:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The American Heritage dictionary, for one, seems to agree with you, as it also bears the definition of "man" as "a human regardless of sex or age; a person". Moreover, it buttresses this usage with a note stating that Traditionally, many writers have used man and words derived from it to designate any or all of the human race regardless of sex. In fact, this is the oldest use of the word. In Old English the principal sense of man was “a human,” and the words wer and wyf (or wζpman and wifman) were used to refer to “a male human” and “a female human” respectively. But in Middle English man displaced wer as the term for “a male human,” while wyfman (which evolved into present-day woman) was retained for “a female human.” Despite this change, man continued to carry its original sense of “a human” as well, resulting in an asymmetrical arrangement that many criticize as sexist. Nonetheless, a majority of the Usage Panel still accepts the generic use of man, although the women members have significantly less enthusiasm for this usage than the men do."

My Oxford dictionary also carries the definition of man as "a human regardless of sex or age", so I agree with you that the argument about "Great Men Theory" reflecting some sort of patriarchal power structure at the exclusion of women, is, to say the least, a red herring. I believe such arguments might have their place in articles about the feminist critique of language, but not specifically in the context of an entry concerning the "great man theory". Porfyrios 15:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Pejorative?

Well, I have a BA in History (92') and remember this topic in my senior year "Philosophy of History" class. It was discussed in the context of historiography, as a method of approaching and writing history. It was common in the 19th C common, but has fallen out of favor. However to call it "pejorative" is another matter entirely, that is a value judgment, and as such it needs to be said who exactly is casting this value judgment, when and why - for example, my professors never expressed such personal value judgments, nor do I have such a value judgment - who exactly is calling it a pejorative?

Also I find it humorous that the term is being twisted to literally mean "men and not women" .. the Great Man method does not exclude women, it is simply an approach to writing history, it could be applied to Cleopatra or any number of important women in history. Basically the paragraph as written sounds pretentious - it's just an outdated methodology. -- Stbalbach 21:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you try examining the underlying qualities of the theory in question instead sniveling about the gender disrepencies that have occured between the time the theory was put forth and today. If there is any disparity to be found in the term 'men' or 'man' which was at the time the de-facto term in English for all humanity, it is from cultural Marxism attempting to subvert such concepts and alter its connotations by inflaming gender, race and social problems, and then offering the solution in form of "political correctness" which thus transmutes the meaning of such a term into some kind of taboo when no such disparity existed to begin with. --Nazrac 05:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

instead sniveling. Please refrain from personal attacks. -- Stbalbach 22:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks, merely constructive criticism. That tends to work better than destructive criticism, such as pointing out spelling and grammar errors. --Nazrac 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Last paragraph's a bit of a non-sequitur

Is the last paragraph about film an example of the critique outlined in the penultimate one? It isn't really made clear. I think it should begin by saying "An example is.."

I think that paragraph should just be deleted. The whole thing seems like a pointless detail, since the article already supplies examples. Galanskov 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No sources for claims

The material regarding Britannica and the Encyclopedie is fascinating, but unsourced. I would like to actually pursue this further, but absence a source it is original research and should be removed. --Reagle 17:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the actual quotation for the Spencer quotation...went to the Questia link and it went redirected to the Scarlet Letter. Found it myself on Questia and went to page 36 and can't find the quote. Anyone else have better luck than this? Tjcheckley (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hegel? What?

I am slightly baffled by the sentence that refers to Hegel as a proponent of this idea (or sthg like that, I can't remember). In any case, surely it's the other way round, as in the Hegelian view of history tends to oppose 'Great Man' theory? Tanzeel 01:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither Hegel nor Nietzsche (a fatalist!) said that "history is made by great men". The latter rather said that great men are the meaning of history, that is: the sense and aim of becoming, but of course not its cause (that would mean causa sui). Actually, the idea is true in so that if a man differs strongly enough from his environment, then he'll most likely grow even more and more different, in the course of self-affirmation. This can lead to much-worse or much-better, and it the latter case really somebody much more valuable (according to some measurement, some will) can arise. TheUgliest 1 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.113.74.183 (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Emerson ?

I think the article should include one word or two about s:Representative Men/Uses of Great Men by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Teofilo talk 14:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

corollary article of the Great Man theory?

Is there a corollary article of the Great Man theory (i.e. The Least man theory)? Reason being that societies and people seem to bubble up to take credit for a “great men”, but not for people who are unsuccessful and those weak people are considered “self-made men”. Not to be flippant, but could these Great Men really be the fortunate ones who were not in contact with certain people who are the equivalent of a “career short-circuit” and most people in a normal society could be potential “Great Men” if put in contact with those who take credit for making great men. As it says in the Uebermensch article "The most disheartening tendency common among readers is to tear out one sentence from a work, as a criterion of the writer's ideas or personality. Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance, is decried as a hater of the weak because he believed in the Uebermensch. It does not occur to the shallow interpreters of that giant mind that this vision of the Uebermensch also called for a state of society which will not give birth to a race of weaklings and slaves." I was just pondering if there should be such an article that would listed in the “See Also” section, but I do not know what it would be. Any possible suggestions of such an article in WP?Septagram (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Commoners? Cambalachero (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section needs work

The largest and most comprehensive body of critical work about the Great Man approach to history, to date, has come from feminist scholars. Their exclusion from the "Criticism" section is glaring and needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C434:2A20:216:CBFF:FEB6:2F87 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a different issue. The criticism is of the view that leading individuals change history. It's called "great man" because "man" is used in the old sense of "mankind". It might be worth adding a sentence on that point, but only to avoid confusion. It's still same theory whether you are talking about Boudicca or Julius Caesar. Paul B (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Spencer, but no Marx?

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past." The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. Doesn't Marx's comic/tragic insight into a not-so-great man of history also deserve at least a mention here? Spencer may well have been the 'approved' demolisher of the Great Man theory, but I suspect that Marx may perhaps have helped to chip away at the foundations too, and in a more radical manner... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The Good King

In Eastern thought, "The Good King" or Great King is very if not same as "The Great Man" theory. Don't have to be elected leader, sometimes there are good men born to a bloodline that leads his people to a peaceful and prosperous life. Most kings/royalties do not last long because of in fighting and trying to kill each other off for succession. The Good King is raised and trained in the art of government and philosophy, it was a novel idea but impractical in practice because the corrupt heart of ordinary men. In history there were great kings, great emperors, even great bandit kings that in real life robbed the rich and gave to the poor. (There are Robin Hoods in all ethnic history if you look)Neoking (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Kierkegaard

The quote from Fear and Trembling is taken completely out of context!—Arpose (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't "history" what professional historians research and write? If Hegel is quoted, why not (poor man) von Ranke? If a professional historian, for professional reasons, is moved to commit biography, is he thereby conscripted to the "great man" school? And if Carlyle wrote "Frederick the Great", didn't he also write "The French Revolution"? And wasn't his best work of history "The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell", where the documents stand out from the commentary, as they were intended to? Certainly it seems to depart from the oppositions presented in this Wikipedia article and advance towards a slightly more "professional" approach. There is something known as "prosopography" which in this context seems of interestDelahays (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Arpose above. This Kierkegaard quote comes from his discussion of faith, not history. His writing often gets lumped in with Hegel and Heidegger, and they share certain philosophical similarities, but Fear and Trembling is not a discussion on the traits that great leaders possess. I am going to take this sentence out entirely. Cal (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)