Social Determinism vs. the "Great Man" theory

[MissGiggleQueen]

so in my Anthropology class today we were talking about social determinism versus the "Great Man" theory.

Social determinism basically suggests that a society's development is predetermined by internal social forces that it has. For example, Tolstoy (who was a social determinist) claimed that if Napoleon had never existed, someone would inevitably have replaced him, and French history (and world history as we know it) would have been the same.

On the other hand, the "Great Man" theory states that history is made up of just that - great men, and the changes these men brought about would not have occurred without them.

What do you guys think?

Sorry if I'm just a nerd, and no one else is interested in this =)

 

[kurchatovium]

I think to an extent History does have a kind of inertia. So in some instances some events are unavoidable. However I dont think this applys to everything.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

I personally sway more towards the "Great Man" theory. Although I wouldn't consider half of the men who caused changes to be great, or even good.

 

[maverick83]

Interesting. Personally, I think the two coexist. The relationship between a society and the individuals in that society is a kind of vicious cycle. Our development as individuals is heavily influenced by the environment in which we develop and, in turn, the development of that environment is influenced by our actions as individuals. The conditions of a society determine the attributes which will allow an individual to gain greater influence within that society. However, there are far too many means by which to achieve influence, far too many variations in the specifics of an individual’s personality, and far too many variables regarding their course of action to guarantee a similar sequence of events transpiring with or without a given individual. Society defines the general criteria which qualifies one as a “great man” (thereby defining a general direction, so to speak), and the specific personalities and actions of “great men” guide a society, and largely determine how history unfolds.

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

I don't think it's exclusively one or the other, but I think the Great Man theory is more realistic than Social Determinism. There's no question that our environment influences us, but I think of someone like Hitler, and it's disheartening to think that had he not committed the atrocious acts he did, someone else would have done it in his place, causing the same amount of death and destruction. On the flip side, I like to think that if the men in history who really did to great things didn't do them, someone else eventually would have. But that's really just me wanting everything to be all rainbows and butterflies 😛

I think our society definitely influences our actions, and our actions influence our society. Beyond that, no one theory is going to get it all right.

 

[Mister Scruff]

There are arguments for both, but I think, like so much else in the universe, the answer doesn't lie solely with either one of these hypotheses; it's a mixture of both.

Think of the battle of Thermopylae (in a very loose "Frank Miller" sense, without going into too much detail); the Spartan men had been moulded by their culture (a product of the histoical actions of their forebears) to believe that dying in battle was not only glorious but was also their duty as Spartans (hence the "Here by Spartan laws we lie" thing), so their presence at the suicidal last stand was pretty much mandatory. Alongside the Spartans were 1,000 Thespians; Thespia wasn't a warrior nation and it's people were bound by no code demanding they sacrifice their lives in a suicidal action which, at best, would buy the Greek city-states time to prepare for the Persian attack. The Thespians stayed anyway, because they knew if they didn't the Persians would pose a far greater risk to their bretheren if defences hadn't been sorted out. Or maybe they were just inspired by the Spartans' determination and didn't want them to die alone, who knows; either way there was no historical compunction for the Thespian presence. These men simply decided on the spot they were going to stay and die in this battle.

tl;dr: The Spartans stayed because the culture their history had moulded required them to do so, whilst the Thespians stayed because they felt the immediate situation required them to do so. If it hadn't been Leonidas and his "bodyguard" at Thermopylae then the 300 other individuals who were sent would've stayed also, because that's what the Spartan customs and laws required them to do; social determinism in action. The Thespians stayed because it was simply the noble thing to do, and thus it could be argued that, lacking the cultural compunction for self-sacrifice, if the 1,000 Thespians hadn't been "great men" they would probably have bugged out with the rest of Leonidas' allies. The "Great Man" theory in action.

 

[Flatfoot]

I buy into the Great Man theory, because human beings are inherently lazy sheep, save the rare person who takes charge of a situation to make things happen, influencing those who will follow him.

 

[Capnmad]

I agree with Scruff. 'World's too complex to be ruled just by one law or the other. Pushed for which has more power, I'd say it's social determinism and that in a sense, "Great Man" notions romanticize history well beyond necessity.

 

[Mephistopheles]

I think it's a bit of both. Several things were invented at pretty much the same time because it was just something waiting to happen.

The stage has to be set for a great man do his work, but if the man is inadequate it will fail.

 

[sasaxrah]

Going back to the Hitler example - Hitler could not have murdered so many Jews if not for the centuries of antisemitism in Germany and other areas of Europe. "Great men," like anything else in history, can't exist in a vacuum. They are able to gain power or implement change within the context they live.

 

[Mister Scruff]

Going back to the Hitler example - Hitler could not have murdered so many Jews if not for the centuries of antisemitism in Germany and other areas of Europe. "Great men," like anything else in history, can't exist in a vacuum. They are able to gain power or implement change within the context they live.

The murdering of jews wasn't part of the Nazi Party's original election manifesto. It didn't become an official policy until after Hitler assumed total control of Germany and instituted a brutal regime which ruled with an iron fist. The historically established anti-semetism in Europe may have been the reason the jews were chosen as the focus of nationalist hatred and it may have made them easier to villify in the minds of the populace, but it wasn't the reason the Nazis "got away" with processing them. If it was that simple how do you explain how they "got away" with processing Slavic peoples (Russians, Eastern Europeans, etc), whom the Nazis killed in their millions just because they weren't Aryan? There was no historical prejudice in the European mindset against the Slavs, at least not in the same way as there was against the jews. Communists and intellectuals too.

Hitler and the Nazis "got away" with their final solution because they had assumed such total control through fear that nobody under their sway dared argue with them for fear of the repercussions. For people to come to fear an oppressive, violent government does not require any help from history.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Going back to the Hitler example - Hitler could not have murdered so many Jews if not for the centuries of antisemitism in Germany and other areas of Europe. "Great men," like anything else in history, can't exist in a vacuum. They are able to gain power or implement change within the context they live.

And apart from what Scruff just said, Hitler would never had come to power is Germany was as wealthy as western germany post WWII; you need unhappy people looking for a scapegoat to blame their misery on if you want fascist rules get elected.

 

[jj82277]

so in my Anthropology class today we were talking about social determinism versus the "Great Man" theory.

Social determinism basically suggests that a society's development is predetermined by internal social forces that it has. For example, Tolstoy (who was a social determinist) claimed that if Napoleon had never existed, someone would inevitably have replaced him, and French history (and world history as we know it) would have been the same.

On the other hand, the "Great Man" theory states that history is made up of just that - great men, and the changes these men brought about would not have occurred without them.

What do you guys think?

Sorry if I'm just a nerd, and no one else is interested in this =)

I think that it's both. there are great men that definately posess certain traits and qualities that make them leaders in their particular fields, but at the same time their achievments are shaped by the times and the problems that they used their greatness to solve.