Great Man Theory vs. People’s History

The great man theory is an approach to the study of history popularised in the 19th century according to which history can be largely explained by the impact of great men, or heroes: highly influential and unique individuals who, due to their natural attributes, such as superior intellect, heroic courage, extraordinary leadership abilities, or divine inspiration, have a decisive historical effect. The theory is primarily attributed to the Scottish essayist, historian, and philosopher Thomas Carlyle, who gave a series of lectures on heroism in 1840, later published as On Heroes, Hero-Worship, & the Heroic in History, in which he states:

This theory is usually contrasted with “history from below”, which emphasizes the life of the masses creating overwhelming waves of smaller events which carry leaders along with them. Another contrasting school is historical materialism.

Carlyle stated that “The History of the world is but the Biography of great men”, reflecting his belief that heroes shape history through both their personal attributes and divine inspiration. In his book Heroes and Hero-Worship, Carlyle saw history as having turned on the decisions, works, ideas, and characters of “heroes”, giving detailed analysis of six types: The hero as divinity (such as Odin), prophet (such as Muhammad), poet (such as Shakespeare), priest (such as Martin Luther), man of letters (such as Rousseau), and king (such as Napoleon). Carlyle also argued that the study of great men was “profitable” to one’s own heroic side; that by examining the lives led by such heroes, one could not help but uncover something about one’s own true nature.

As Sidney Hook notes, a common misinterpretation of the theory is that “all factors in history, save great men, were inconsequential”, whereas Carlyle is instead claiming that great men are the decisive factor, owing to their unique genius. Hook then goes on to emphasize this uniqueness to illustrate the point: “Genius is not the result of compounding talent. 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?”

American scholar Frederick Adams Woods supported the great man theory in his work The Influence of Monarchs: Steps in a New Science of History. Woods investigated 386 rulers in Western Europe from the 12th century until the French Revolution in the late 18th century and their influence on the course of historical events.

The Great Man approach to history was most fashionable with professional historians in the 19th century; a popular work of this school is the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1911) which contains lengthy and detailed biographies about the great men of history, but very few general or social histories. For example, all information on the post-Roman “Migrations Period” of European History is compiled under the biography of Attila the Hun. This heroic view of history was also strongly endorsed by some philosophers, such as Léon Bloy, Søren Kierkegaard, Oswald Spengler and Max Weber.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, proceeding from providentialist theory, argued that “what is real is reasonable” and World-Historical individuals are World-Spirit’s agents. Hegel wrote: “Such are great historical men—whose own particular aims involve those large issues which are the will of the World-Spirit.” Thus, according to Hegel, a great man does not create historical reality himself but only uncovers the inevitable future.

In Untimely Meditations, Friedrich Nietzsche writes that “the goal of humanity lies in its highest specimens”. Although Nietzsche’s body of work shows some overlap with Carlyle’s line of thought, Nietzsche expressly rejected Carlyle’s hero cult in Ecce Homo.

A people’s history, or history from below, is a type of historical narrative³ which attempts to account for historical events from the perspective of common people rather than leaders. There is an emphasis on disenfranchised, the oppressed, the poor, the nonconformists, and otherwise marginal groups. The authors typically have a Marxist model in mind, as in the approach of the History Workshop movement in Britain in the 1960s.

…

A people’s history is the history as the story of mass movements and of the outsiders. Individuals not included in the past in other type of writing about history are part of history-from-below theory’s primary focus, which includes the disenfranchised, the oppressed, the poor, the nonconformists, the subaltern and the otherwise forgotten people. This theory also usually focuses on events occurring in the fullness of time, or when an overwhelming wave of smaller events cause certain developments to occur. This approach to writing history is in direct opposition to methods which tend to emphasize single great figures in history, referred to as the Great Man theory; it argues that the driving factor of history is the daily life of ordinary people, their social status and profession. These are the factors that “push and pull” on opinions and allow for trends to develop, as opposed to great people introducing ideas or initiating events.

In his book A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn wrote: “The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex. And in such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners.”

Historian Guy Beiner wrote that “the Neo-Marxist flag-bearers of history from below have at times resorted to idealized and insufficiently sophisticated notions of ‘the people’, unduly ascribing to them innate progressive values. In practice, democratic history is by no means egalitarian”.