Great man theory
Thomas Carlyle delivered a series of lectures on heroism in 1840 that would later become the foundation for the great man theory. He published these ideas as On Heroes, Hero-Worship, & the Heroic in History shortly after the lectures concluded. Carlyle stated clearly that "The History of the world is but the Biography of great men". This assertion placed individual figures at the center of historical change rather than mass movements or economic forces. The Scottish essayist and historian identified six specific types of heroes to illustrate his point. These categories included the hero as divinity like Odin, the prophet such as Muhammad, the poet exemplified by William Shakespeare, the priest represented by Martin Luther, the man of letters including Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the king modeled after Napoleon. Carlyle argued that studying these lives was profitable because it revealed something about one's own true nature. His work became popular among professional historians during the nineteenth century. The Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition from 1911 contained lengthy biographies of great men while offering very few general social histories. Information on the post-Roman Migrations Period appeared solely under Attila the Hun's biography. Philosophers like Léon Bloy, Søren Kierkegaard, Oswald Spengler, and Max Weber strongly endorsed this heroic view of history.
Villanova University points out two main assumptions underlying the theory. Every great leader is born already possessing certain traits that will enable them to rise and lead on instinct. The need for leadership has to be great for these traits to then arise allowing them to guide others. Theorists claim these leaders were born with a specific set of attributes making them ideal candidates for authority and power roles. This framework relies heavily on the idea that greatness comes from nature rather than nurture or cultivation. It cultivates the belief that those in power deserve their positions because they possess unique traits suited for command. Critics argue this perspective ignores environmental factors shaping individuals. Sidney Hook noted a common misinterpretation where people believe all historical factors except great men are inconsequential. Carlyle actually claimed only that great men are the decisive factor owing to their unique genius. He asked how many battalions equal one Napoleon or how many minor poets produce a Shakespeare. His argument suggested genius cannot be compounded from ordinary talent but emerges as something singular and irreplaceable.
William James forcefully defended Carlyle and refuted Spencer in his 1880 lecture published in the Atlantic Monthly. He argued genetic anomalies in the brains of great men serve as the decisive factor driving environmental change. These individuals might offer original ideas discoveries inventions and perspectives which would not arise in another person's mind. James described how such instability tips a brain in a particular direction creating unique conclusions. He compared this process to evolutionary selection where new variations either get preserved or destroyed based on reception. Each ferment exerts influence on its environment changing its constitution like a new zoological species altering regional equilibrium. James challenged critics to explain what increasing uniformities the environment would exhibit if geniuses were removed. He concluded both factors remain essential to change since community stagnates without individual impulse while that impulse dies without community sympathy. His argument emphasized spontaneous variations of genius as causally independent from their social environment yet capable of reshaping it entirely.
Leo Tolstoy rejected the theory in War and Peace featuring criticism as a recurring theme within philosophical digressions. According to Tolstoy the significance of great individuals is imaginary because they are only history's slaves realizing Providence's decree. Mark Twain suggested moral cowardice serves as the commanding feature of ninety-nine hundredths of human makeup in his essay The United States of Lyncherdom. He wrote no revolt against public infamy has ever begun but by one daring man in ten thousand while others wait timidly joining slowly under that man's influence. Jacob Burckhardt affirmed historical existence of great men even excusing rarity among them possessing greatness of soul. He predicted belittling great men leads to lowering standards and rise in mediocrity generally. Before the nineteenth century Blaise Pascal began Three Discourses on the Condition of the Great with a castaway story where island inhabitants mistake him for missing king. Pascal defended legitimacy of greatness through custom and chance rather than inherent merit. In 1926 William Fielding Ogburn noted Great Men history faced challenges from newer interpretations focusing on wider social forces. He suspected calculus would have been discovered by Gottfried Leibniz if Isaac Newton had not lived.
Ian Kershaw wrote in 1998 that Hitler posed self-evident problems for traditions celebrating exceptional individuals. His personal attributes were scarcely noble elevating or enriching yet he held immense power. Some historians like Joachim Fest responded arguing Hitler possessed negative greatness. Kershaw rejected the Great Men theory insisting it matters more to study wider political and social factors explaining Nazi Germany's history. He argued Hitler was an unremarkable person whose importance came from how people viewed him exemplifying Max Weber's concept of charismatic leadership. David R. Sorensen noted modern decline in support for Carlyle's theory in general editions of Heroes and Hero-Worship published by Yale University Press during 2013. Robert K. Faulkner stood as exception promoting Aristotelian magnanimity in his book The Case for Greatness: Honorable Ambition and Its Critics. Faulkner criticized political bias discussing greatness stating new liberalism's antipathy to superior statesmen is peculiarly zealous parochial and antiphilosophic. Peter Dizikes wrote Twilight of the Idols for The New York Times on the 5th of November 2006 asking if traditional great-man science biography goes the way of dodo.
Continue Browsing
Common questions
What did Thomas Carlyle state about the history of the world in his 1840 lectures?
Thomas Carlyle stated clearly that The History of the world is but the Biography of great men. He published these ideas as On Heroes, Hero-Worship, & the Heroic in History shortly after the lectures concluded.
Which six types of heroes did Thomas Carlyle identify to illustrate his point?
Carlyle identified the hero as divinity like Odin, the prophet such as Muhammad, the poet exemplified by William Shakespeare, the priest represented by Martin Luther, the man of letters including Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the king modeled after Napoleon.
How did Herbert Spencer criticize the formulation of the Great Man theory proposed by Thomas Carlyle?
Herbert Spencer believed attributing historical events to individual decisions was an unscientific position because he argued that men labeled as great are merely products of their social environment. He insisted history results from broader social forces rather than isolated personal choices.
What argument did William James make in his 1880 lecture regarding genetic anomalies and environmental change?
William James argued that genetic anomalies in the brains of great men serve as the decisive factor driving environmental change. He described how such instability tips a brain in a particular direction creating unique conclusions that function like new zoological species altering regional equilibrium.
Why did Leo Tolstoy reject the Great Man theory in War and Peace?
Leo Tolstoy rejected the theory because he believed the significance of great individuals is imaginary since they are only history's slaves realizing Providence's decree. He viewed them as instruments of larger forces rather than independent drivers of history.
What conclusion did Ian Kershaw reach about Adolf Hitler and the Great Man theory in his 1998 writing?
Ian Kershaw rejected the Great Men theory insisting it matters more to study wider political and social factors explaining Nazi Germany's history. He argued Hitler was an unremarkable person whose importance came from how people viewed him exemplifying Max Weber's concept of charismatic leadership.