Figureheads: The Myth of Great-Man History
In Historical circles, there is a phrase we use for a certain lens through which people see History, and it's one of the most prevalent: Great Man History.
First off, what is Great Man History?
First off, what is Great Man History?
Are they giants? They Might Be Giants.
Great Man History is the historical philosophy that history is decided by big, powerful men, preferably with a unique physical feature, like Stalin's mustache or FDR's wheelchair or Teddy Roosevelt's mustache, or Otto von Bismarck's mustache - there were a lot of mustaches, is what we're saying.
This is probably the lens used by your school teachers and textbooks, and it's a pretty attractive one; it quite appeals to my narrative-loving literary side, personally.
And most of the time, it's utter horse-puckey (PG articles FTW). Most of the time, history is not dictated by the will of one man, so much as by the will of the people, and the semi-random events that propel them to action. The entire genre of alternate history is dependent on the notion that history is just an endless line of dominoes, where one slightly different occurrence leads to a wildly different results. So, probably closer to a giant line of dominoes that you blindly poke at based on the results of a d20 roll.
While there are times where a person truly does come along and shape history by will alone, (John Blunt, Napoleon, Hitler), they are, by nature, only stepping up (or having the chance to step up) to the plate because of a series of events years, decades, or even centuries in the making. Napoleon's reign was a reaction to the food shortages in France and the stupidly luxurious lives of the Bourgeois. Hitler came to power over a fallen, broken Germany battered by World War I, which itself was partially caused by Franz Ferdinand's assassination, which itself was caused by the Austrian annexation of Bosnia, which itself was caused by the treaty ending the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878. The course of history is a curious mix of free will and the ripple effects that exercise of will has on others.
Now, Great Man History isn't always wrong, and it can give us some pretty great insights into a historical period (I guess the title is a bit inaccurate, but screw it. I need me some clickin'.), but when we use it almost to the exclusion of anything else, it can be very damaging. It creates the idea that we aren't the ones who make history, that it's the Stalins and Churchills and Mandelas of the world that make history, and we're just a bunch of background characters. Now sure, that's a fairly small variable in the grand scheme of things; but it's still a problem that needs to be addressed.
The fun thing about history is it's malleability; it can be almost anything to anyone. For me, it's usually more narrative-like or people-focused, while others might prefer viewing things through the lens of economics.
No matter which way we prefer to look at history, we should always be aware of other viewpoints, and attempt to look through that lens on occasion. It makes history, literature, politics, and the general act of existing far better for everyone.
Best of Luck,
King Thomas XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVII
This is probably the lens used by your school teachers and textbooks, and it's a pretty attractive one; it quite appeals to my narrative-loving literary side, personally.
And most of the time, it's utter horse-puckey (PG articles FTW). Most of the time, history is not dictated by the will of one man, so much as by the will of the people, and the semi-random events that propel them to action. The entire genre of alternate history is dependent on the notion that history is just an endless line of dominoes, where one slightly different occurrence leads to a wildly different results. So, probably closer to a giant line of dominoes that you blindly poke at based on the results of a d20 roll.
While there are times where a person truly does come along and shape history by will alone, (John Blunt, Napoleon, Hitler), they are, by nature, only stepping up (or having the chance to step up) to the plate because of a series of events years, decades, or even centuries in the making. Napoleon's reign was a reaction to the food shortages in France and the stupidly luxurious lives of the Bourgeois. Hitler came to power over a fallen, broken Germany battered by World War I, which itself was partially caused by Franz Ferdinand's assassination, which itself was caused by the Austrian annexation of Bosnia, which itself was caused by the treaty ending the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878. The course of history is a curious mix of free will and the ripple effects that exercise of will has on others.
Now, Great Man History isn't always wrong, and it can give us some pretty great insights into a historical period (I guess the title is a bit inaccurate, but screw it. I need me some clickin'.), but when we use it almost to the exclusion of anything else, it can be very damaging. It creates the idea that we aren't the ones who make history, that it's the Stalins and Churchills and Mandelas of the world that make history, and we're just a bunch of background characters. Now sure, that's a fairly small variable in the grand scheme of things; but it's still a problem that needs to be addressed.
The fun thing about history is it's malleability; it can be almost anything to anyone. For me, it's usually more narrative-like or people-focused, while others might prefer viewing things through the lens of economics.
No matter which way we prefer to look at history, we should always be aware of other viewpoints, and attempt to look through that lens on occasion. It makes history, literature, politics, and the general act of existing far better for everyone.
Best of Luck,
King Thomas XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVII