Do 'Great Men' Drive History ?

1. In November 2022, I was reading The 18^th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and the following famous sentence from near the beginning struck me forcefully:

 

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."

 

You may say - so what ? That's blindingly obvious. But, having thought about the process of History through many specific historical sequences of events over the years, the endless controversy over whether history is primarily driven by 1) Great Individuals or primarily by 2) underlying technological, economic, ideological and social forces, bothered me. Because of course, it's a blend of both. I think a lot of modern historians incline to the second view, because the first view held sway for so long, but also because they are frightened of seeming naive, or of being regarded as power-worshippers. Conversely, some historians such as Andrew Roberts proudly incline to the first view, partly because they genuinely believe it, & partly because they take an impish delight in being deliberately old-fashioned & going against the current trend. Whereas, as I have said, it becomes obvious when you study history that it is a blend of both. I could illustrate this endlessly.

'Bonaparte, First Consul' by Antoine-Jean Gros, 1802

 

Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour

Otto von Bismarck

One example: what if there had been no Napoleon ? What course would the French Revolution have taken ? Without Napoleon's campaigns and conquests, would German unification or Italian unification have happened in the way that they did ? or happened at all ? Possibly not. The implications of either are staggering. The underlying technological, economic, ideological and social forces enabled Napoleon, but he focussed them and pointed them in a certain direction which had specific consequences, and not other potential consequences which could have happened. History is a constant series of potential branches: one is actually taken, which rules out/nullifies the other possibilities, and generates a new set of possible branches; one of those is taken, and so on ad infinitum. This process operates in the lives of all individuals as well. All the acts and decisions of everyone interact constantly. That makes up the sum total of the world. That is what history is made of. 

 

You can see that in trying to explain my observation that the historical process is a blend of both the will of great individuals and underlying social forces, I'm having to go somewhat around the houses. That is what is so exciting to me about Marx' dictum, quoted above. It is a succinct, elegant and unanswerable distillation of the point I'm trying to make. In other words, this issue is now

 

and there is no need to reinvent the wheel, and no point in trying. The wheel has been invented, it's a perfectly good wheel, and works very well. This is one great advantage of having a culture. Certain controversies have actually been solved. If anyone ever raises the debate to me, or I read the issue being questioned - is it great individuals or the ineluctable underlying forces that drive history ? - all I have to do is point them at The 18^th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. (written 22.11.2022)

2. Barbara Cottman once asked me "Do you see history as linear or circular ?" These are my thoughts on that subject.

Evidently it depends what you mean by the terms 'linear' and 'circular'. What I think you mean is: 'linear' means political and economic progress in their broadest sense is inevitable and always advancing overall despite setbacks; 'circular' means we take two steps forward and one back, or two steps forward and two back, or even two steps forward and three back.

History is linear in the sense that time advances irretrievably, there is no going back, one thing happens after another. It is not linear in the sense that progress overall is inevitable. Nor is regression inevitable. Nothing is inevitable except our individual death, pace Benjamin Franklin. History does not have intention, or any inner purpose. It is not heading anywhere. History in the sense of a thing that has intention does not exist, and anyone who thinks it does exist in that sense is in my opinion mistaking metaphors, figures of speech and mental shortcuts for reality: which is a very common error. Speaking technically, history is not teleological. There are many teleological accounts of how history works, where it is heading. For instance, fundamental to Christianity is a claim about the nature of history: that there is an inevitable progression from Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, the Fall; to the possibility of redemption provided by Christ's death and resurrection; closing inevitably with the Last Judgement. Marx regards the victory of the proletariat in the class struggle as inevitable. Other commentators have regarded the expansion and ultimate triumph of liberal democracy as inevitable. The attraction of such accounts is clear: they give the individual structure, purpose and comfort. However they are in my view illusions.

Which is not to say that there is no such thing as progress. There is progress, but it is neither inevitable nor irreversible. (Written 13.3.2023).