Editing Great man theory (section)

== Responses ==
[[File:Herbert Spencer.jpg|thumb|upright=.7|[[Herbert Spencer]] was a contemporary critic of Carlyle's great man theory.]]

=== Herbert Spencer's critique ===
One of the most forceful critics of Carlyle's formulation of the great man theory was [[Herbert Spencer]], who believed that attributing historical events to the decisions of individuals was an unscientific position.<ref name=HeroMyths>Segal, Robert A. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=JbE5UxcCr10C&dq=%22herbert+spencer%22+%22genesis+of+the+great+man%22&pg=PA3 Hero Myths]'', Wiley-Blackwell, 2000, p. 3.</ref>  He believed that the men Carlyle supposed "great men" are merely products of their social environment:

{{Blockquote|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.&nbsp;... Before he can remake his society, his society must make him.|Herbert Spencer, ''The Study of Sociology''<ref name="Spencer">Spencer, Herbert. ''[https://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=96277756 The Study of Sociology] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120515130355/http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=96277756 |date=15 May 2012 }}'', Appleton, 1896, p. 31.</ref>}}

=== William James' defence ===
[[William James]], in his 1880 lecture "Great Men, Great Thoughts, and the Environment",<ref>James, William (1880), [https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/jgreatmen.html/ "Great Men, Great Thoughts, and the Environment"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190328055722/http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/jgreatmen.html |date=2019-03-28 }}</ref> published in the ''[[Atlantic Monthly]]'', forcefully defended Carlyle and refuted Spencer, condemning what James viewed as an "impudent", "vague", and "dogmatic" argument.<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/James/James_1880.html|title=William James: Great Men, Great Thoughts, and the Environment|website=brocku.ca}}</ref>
[[File:William James b1842c.jpg|thumb|upright=.7|[[William James]] was a 19th-century philosopher and psychologist.|left]]

James' defence of the great man theory can be summarized as follows: The unique [[physiological]] nature of the individual is the deciding factor in making the great man, who, in turn, is the deciding factor in changing his environment in a unique way, without which the new environment would not have come to be, wherein the extent and nature of this change is also dependent on the reception of the environment to this new stimulus. To begin his argument, he first [[sardonically]] claims that these inherent physiological qualities have as much to do with "social, political, geographical [and] [[anthropological]] conditions" as the "conditions of the crater of [[Vesuvius]] has to do with the flickering of this gas by which I write".<ref name="auto"/>

James argues that [[genetic anomalies]] in the brains of these ''great men'' are the decisive factor by introducing an original influence into their environment. They might therefore offer original ideas, discoveries, inventions and perspectives which "would not, in the mind of another individual, have engendered just that conclusion ... It flashes out of one brain, and no other, because the instability of that brain is such as to tip and upset itself in just that particular direction."<ref name="auto"/>

James then argues that these spontaneous variations of genius, i.e. the ''great men'', which are causally independent of their social environment, subsequently influence that environment which in turn will either preserve or destroy the newly encountered variations in a form of evolutionary selection. If the great man is preserved then the environment is changed by his influence in "an entirely original and peculiar way. He acts as a ferment, and changes its constitution, just as the advent of a new zoological species changes the faunal and floral equilibrium of the region in which it appears." Each ferment, each great man, exerts a new influence on their environment which is either embraced or rejected and if embraced will in turn shape the crucible for the selection process of future geniuses.<ref name="auto"/>

In the words of William James, "If we were to remove these geniuses or alter their idiosyncrasies, what increasing uniformities would the environment exhibit?" James challenges Mr. Spencer or anyone else to provide a reply. According to James, there are two distinct factors driving social evolution: personal agents and the impact of their unique qualities on the overall course of events.<ref name="auto"/>

He thus concludes: "Both factors are essential to change. The community stagnates without the impulse of the individual. The impulse dies away without the sympathy of the community."<ref name="auto"/>

=== Other responses ===
Before the 19th century, [[Blaise Pascal]] begins his ''Three Discourses on the Condition of the Great'' (written it seems for a young duke) by telling the story of a castaway on an island whose inhabitants take him for their missing king. He defends in his parable of the shipwrecked king, that the legitimacy of the [[greatness]] of ''great men'' is fundamentally custom and chance. A coincidence that gives birth to him in the right place with noble parents and arbitrary custom deciding, for example, on an unequal distribution of wealth in favor of the nobles.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Pascal, Blaise {{!}} Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy|url=https://iep.utm.edu/pascal-b/|access-date=2020-08-08|language=en-US|publication-place=iv. Discourses on the Condition of the Great in c. Minor Works (Opuscules)}}</ref>

[[Leo Tolstoy]]'s ''[[War and Peace]]'' features criticism of great-man theories as a recurring theme in the philosophical digressions. According to Tolstoy, the significance of great individuals is imaginary; as a matter of fact they are only "history's slaves," realizing the decree of Providence.<ref>Tolstoy, L. 2010. War and Peace. Oxford, MA: Oxford University Press Bk. IX, ch. 1</ref>

[[Jacob Burckhardt]] affirmed the historical existence of great men in politics, even excusing the rarity among them to possess "greatness of soul", or [[magnanimity]]: "Contemporaries believe that if people will only mind their own business political morality will improve of itself and history will be purged of the crimes of the 'great men.' These optimists forget that the common people too are greedy and envious and when resisted tend to turn to collective violence." Burckhardt predicted that the belittling of great men would lead to a lowering of standards and rise in mediocrity generally.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Salomon |first=Albert |date=1945 |title=Jacob Burckhardt: Transcending History |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2102884 |journal=Philosophy and Phenomenological Research |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=240–1 |doi=10.2307/2102884 |jstor=2102884 |issn=0031-8205|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

[[Mark Twain]] suggests in his essay "[[The United States of Lyncherdom]]" that "moral cowardice" is "the commanding feature of the make-up of 9,999 men in the 10,000" and that "from the beginning of the world no revolt against a public infamy or oppression has ever been begun but by the one daring man in the 10,000, the rest timidly waiting, and slowly and reluctantly joining, under the influence of that man and his fellows from the other ten thousands."<ref>Twain, Mark (1901, pub. 1923) 'The United States of Lyncherdom' https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_United_States_of_Lyncherdom</ref>

In 1926, [[William Fielding Ogburn]] noted that Great Men history was being challenged by newer interpretations that focused on wider social forces. While not seeking to deny that individuals could have a role or show exceptional qualities, he saw Great Men as inevitable products of productive cultures. He noted for example that if [[Isaac Newton]] had not lived, [[calculus]] would have still been discovered by [[Gottfried Leibniz]], and suspected that if neither man had lived, it would have been discovered by someone else.<ref>{{cite journal|title=The Great Man versus Social Forces|journal=Social Forces|volume=5|issue=2|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3004769|date=Dec 1926|jstor=3004769|access-date=18 March 2022|last1=Ogburn|first1=William Fielding|pages=225–231|doi=10.2307/3004769|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Among modern critics of the theory, [[Sidney Hook]] is supportive of the idea; he gives credit to those who shape events through their actions, and his book ''The Hero in History'' is devoted to the role of the hero and in history and influence of the outstanding persons.<ref>Hook, S. 1943. The Hero in History. A Study in Limitation and Possibility. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. p. 116</ref>

In the introduction to a new edition of ''Heroes and Hero-Worship'', [[David R. Sorensen]] notes the modern decline in support for Carlyle's theory in particular but also for "heroic distinction" in general.<ref>On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History, Edited by David R. Sorensen and [[Brent E. Kinser]], [[Yale University Press]], 2013, pp. 2-3.</ref> He cites [[Robert K. Faulkner]] as an exception, a proponent of Aristotelian magnanimity who in his book ''The Case for Greatness: Honorable Ambition and Its Critics'', criticizes the political bias in discussions on greatness and heroism, stating: "the new liberalism’s antipathy to superior statesmen and to human excellence is peculiarly zealous, parochial, and antiphilosophic."<ref>Faulkner, Robert (2007), ''The Case for Greatness: Honorable Ambition and Its Critics'', Yale University Press, p. 210.</ref>

[[Ian Kershaw]] wrote in 1998 that "The figure of [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]], whose personal attributes – distinguished from his political aura and impact – were scarcely noble, elevating or enriching, posed self-evident problems for such a tradition." Some historians like [[Joachim Fest]] responded by arguing that Hitler had a "negative greatness". By contrast, Kershaw rejects the Great Men theory and argues that it is more important to study wider political and social factors to explain the history of [[Nazi Germany]]. Kershaw argues that Hitler was an unremarkable person, but his importance came from how people viewed him, an example of [[Max Weber]]'s concept of [[charismatic leadership]].<ref>Kershaw, Ian ''Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris'', W. W. Norton, New York, 1998, p. xii-xiii & xx</ref>