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. He believed that the men Carlyle supposed "great men" are merely products of their social environment:
William James' defence William James, in his 1880 lecture "Great Men, Great Thoughts, and the Environment", published in the
Atlantic Monthly, forcefully defended Carlyle and refuted Spencer, condemning what James viewed as an "impudent", "vague", and "dogmatic" argument. was a 19th-century philosopher and psychologist.|left James' defence of the great man theory can be summarised 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".
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," realising the decree of Providence.
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.
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." In 1926
William Fielding Ogburn, an American
sociologist, 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. 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. 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. 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, criticises 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."
Ian Kershaw wrote in 1998 that "The figure of
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. == See also ==