Great man theory

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The great man theory asks one of history's oldest questions: does the individual shape the age, or does the age shape the individual? In 1840, a Scottish essayist named Thomas Carlyle stood before an audience and delivered a series of lectures on heroism. His central claim was stark. "The History of the world," he wrote, "is but the Biography of great men." From that moment, the theory he articulated became one of the most debated frameworks in historical thought. Who were these great men? Could genius be measured, inherited, or summoned by circumstance? And what happened when the theory met figures whose deeds were monstrous rather than noble? The answers, it turned out, were far more complicated than Carlyle imagined.

• 2. Carlyle's Six Heroes

  ›

  Carlyle's 1840 lectures were published under the title On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History, and within them he laid out a taxonomy of greatness sorted into six types. The hero as divinity, represented by Odin. The hero as prophet, represented by Muhammad. The hero as poet, represented by William Shakespeare. The hero as priest, represented by Martin Luther. The hero as man of letters, represented by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The hero as king, represented by Napoleon. Each category was an argument that a single towering figure had bent the trajectory of human affairs in ways no accumulation of ordinary people could replicate. Carlyle also argued that studying these heroes was "profitable" to one's own heroic side. By examining great lives, he believed, a reader could uncover something true about their own nature. The philosopher Sidney Hook, writing much later, clarified that Carlyle's actual claim was not that ordinary people were irrelevant. Carlyle was saying that great men were the decisive factor, owing to what Hook called their "unique genius." Hook pressed the point with a sequence of questions that have stuck in the literature ever since: "How many battalions are the equivalent of a Napoleon? How many minor poets will give us a Shakespeare? How many run of the mine scientists will do the work of an Einstein?"

• 3. Scholarly Support

  ›

  Frederick Adams Woods, an American scholar, gave the great man theory its most empirically ambitious defence. In The Influence of Monarchs: Steps in a New Science of History, Woods examined 386 rulers in Western Europe, spanning from the 12th century to the French Revolution in the late 18th century. He traced how those rulers shaped the course of events in their respective territories, attempting to ground the theory in something resembling systematic evidence. At its peak, the great man approach dominated professional historical writing in the 19th century. The Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition of 1911 is a striking example of how thoroughly this framework shaped scholarship. That edition contained lengthy, detailed biographies of historical figures but very few general or social histories. All information on the post-Roman Migrations Period of European history, for instance, was compiled under the biography of Attila the Hun. Several philosophers reinforced the view. Leon Bloy, Soren Kierkegaard, Oswald Spengler, and Max Weber each endorsed this heroic reading of history in their own ways. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel approached it from a different angle, grounding his version in what he called providentialist theory. Hegel wrote that "what is real is reasonable" and argued that World-Historical individuals were agents of what he termed the World-Spirit. For Hegel, the great man did not create historical reality himself; he only uncovered an inevitable future that the World-Spirit had already determined.

• 4. Spencer's Refusal

  ›

  Herbert Spencer arrived at the opposite conclusion from Carlyle, and he argued his case with force. Attributing historical events to the decisions of individuals was, in Spencer's view, simply unscientific. Great men were not the cause of their social environments; they were its products. Spencer wrote: "You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown.... Before he can remake his society, his society must make him." This placed Spencer in fundamental opposition to Carlyle, and the debate drew one of the 19th century's most distinguished psychologists into the argument. William James entered with a lecture titled "Great Men, Great Thoughts, and the Environment," delivered in 1880 and published in the Atlantic Monthly. James was direct in his rejection of Spencer, calling Spencer's argument "impudent", "vague", and "dogmatic." James built his defence on physiology rather than mysticism. He argued that genetic anomalies in the brains of great men introduced genuinely original influences into their environments. These variations, he said, "would not, in the mind of another individual, have engendered just that conclusion." The spark of genius flashes out of one brain and no other, James wrote, because the instability of that brain is such as to tip itself in just that particular direction. James then described how the environment either preserves or destroys these spontaneous variations, borrowing from evolutionary language. If the great man survives and is embraced, he acts as what James called a "ferment," changing the constitution of his society in an entirely original way. James closed with a formulation that distilled the whole debate: "The community stagnates without the impulse of the individual. The impulse dies away without the sympathy of the community."

• 5. Dissent and Parable

  ›

  Blaise Pascal weighed in before the 19th century debate even began. In his Three Discourses on the Condition of the Great, written it seems for a young duke, Pascal told the story of a castaway who washes up on an island whose inhabitants mistake him for their missing king. The parable's point was pointed: the legitimacy of greatness rests on custom and chance. A man is born in the right place to the right parents, and arbitrary custom arranges wealth and power in his favour. There is nothing inherent about it. Leo Tolstoy developed a different kind of dissent in War and Peace. Criticism of great-man thinking appears throughout the novel's philosophical digressions, where Tolstoy argued that the significance of great individuals is imaginary. They are, in his phrasing, only "history's slaves," carrying out a decree of Providence without truly directing it. Jacob Burckhardt cut against the dismissive current. He affirmed that great men in politics genuinely existed, even as he acknowledged the rarity of true magnanimity among them. He predicted that belittling great men would lower standards and produce a general rise in mediocrity. Mark Twain contributed a sharper, more democratic version of the same observation. In his essay "The United States of Lyncherdom," Twain argued that "moral cowardice" was "the commanding feature of the make-up of 9,999 men in the 10,000," and that no revolt against injustice had ever been begun except by one daring individual in ten thousand, with the rest joining slowly and reluctantly under that person's influence.

• 6. The Hitler Problem

  ›

  By 1926, the sociologist William Fielding Ogburn was noting that Great Men history was already being displaced by interpretations focused on wider social forces. He did not deny that individuals could show exceptional qualities, but he described them as inevitable products of productive cultures. His example was calculus: if Isaac Newton had not lived, Gottfried Leibniz would have discovered it; and if neither man had lived, Ogburn suspected someone else would have done so. The theory's sharpest modern stress test came not from a philosopher but from a historical figure. Ian Kershaw wrote in 1998 that the figure of Adolf Hitler, whose personal attributes were "scarcely noble, elevating or enriching," posed self-evident problems for the great man tradition. Some historians, including Joachim Fest, responded by coining the phrase "negative greatness." Kershaw rejected that solution. He argued it was more important to study wider political and social factors to understand the history of Nazi Germany, and he described Hitler as an unremarkable person whose importance derived from how others perceived him. Kershaw framed this through Max Weber's concept of charismatic leadership: the power was not in the man but in the image projected onto him. In the introduction to a later edition of Heroes and Hero-Worship, David R. Sorensen noted the modern decline in support not only for Carlyle's specific theory but for the idea of heroic distinction more broadly. One exception he cited was Robert K. Faulkner, a proponent of Aristotelian magnanimity whose book The Case for Greatness: Honorable Ambition and Its Critics argued that contemporary liberalism's hostility to superior statesmanship was, in Faulkner's words, "peculiarly zealous, parochial, and antiphilosophic."