Editing Great man theory (section)

=== 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"/>