From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: Psychohistory
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:29:44 GMT
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr10.230713.19278@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>>The problem is, that every major turning point was predicted by Harry Seldon,
>>but the actual change was accomplished, not by masses of humanity, but
>>by a single person!

>Asimov's argument would have been that these people are not
>transcendental figures.  They do not define history.  Instead,
>people rise up to fit whatever roles are necessary for that history.
>The argument would have been that Hitler or Napoleon would be
>inevitable figures.  If not Hitler, then some other figure filling
>the same role.

Probably it would be more accurate to call it "Seldon's argument"
rather than "Asimov's".  This isn't splitting hairs-- I don't
have any reason to believe that Asimov believed in historical
determinism himself-- especially considering how much he hedged
around the idea in the Foundation series.  (Human history is
determinate... in broad strokes, though not specifics... unless
a mutant appears... and as long as there's an organization which
stops deviations when they appear... and as long as there's
a robot with mind control powers planning the whole thing... and
even then it doesn't work if there's a planet full of mind controllers
who can take the entire beautiful structure of Seldon's Plan, and
kick it into the corner pocket-- _without_ a resultant 30,000 years
of barbarism.)

Besides, while there are broad movements which were probably
inevitable regardless of what the actors did, there are also clear
cases in which individuals were crucial.  Macedon would probably have
conquered Greece and Asia Minor regardless of who succeeded Phillip of
Macedon, but there wouldn't have been Greek states in Afghanistan for
two centuries afterward had Alexander not been a military genius.
Steppe tribes invaded the centers of civilization and built empires
many times, but there would not have been a single empire stretching
from China to Russia had Chinggis Khan not had political and military
skills which were far from the norm.  (And he didn't even get started
till in his forties-- the most influential midlife crisis in 
history.  :-) )  Conversely, Europe was _not_ conquered because of
the pure accident that Ogedai Khan died right after the Mongols
began making incursions into central Europe, forcing the nobility
to make the trek to Karakorum to choose a new Khan.  (A system which
worked better, perhaps, when a steppe tribe controlled hundreds of
square miles rather than millions.)  Neither pure Carlyle ("all of
history is the biography of great men") nor pure Tolstoy (great
men are merely manifestations of the spirit of the masses) is
particularly good for explaining all of history; you can't be
Alexander or Chinggis Khan without a bunch of aggressive and
well-trained Macedonians or Mongols to back you up, but conversely
all the trained and motivated soldiers in the world won't make a
world conqueror of, say, me.

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science