Talk:Great man theory

message: Too many people are tampering with this article, trying to turn it into a sexist ideology, others are attempting to make this an example of a European imperialist or racist attitude. Lets worry less about the minor details and more about the theory as it was claimed and understood at the time of its formulation. That being said, my completely unimportant POV is this:
Those that dwell too much on socio-economic conditions forget who created those conditions in the first place, as culture and economics are to begin with a product of 'great men' (great people in politically correct terms) or 'great civilizations,' 'great nations' et al. The influence of cultural Marxism has attempted to blur these lines, thus reducing human progress to a mere random phenomenon of no consequence and ultimately the lowest common denominator of human capacity. Essentially accidental, as 'anyone' and 'everyone' can create culture under certain conditions according to Marxism and thus high culture procludes biology, status, or wealth. On the other side those that claim 'great men' are the source of all progress are denounced as defenders of the status quo as well as imepeding true progress for selfish reasons, eg. profit. Such is perhaps the fate of all human greatness, those 'great people' who create that high culture through sacrifice, struggle and overcoming adversity fall victims to decay and errosion of that greatness through the passing of time as greatness never remains long under static and degenerating conditions (eg. the immoral state which places the existence of itself over its people who sustain it). Under such stagnent conditions where greatness is lacking, the beaurocrats replace greatness over time and impliment rigid systems to prolong the system beyond its natural life span against the forces of decay and collapse, thus giving cultural marxism a purpose and perhaps justification. All great civilizations in known history have fallen victim to the cultural marxists of their day in some form or another, and ultimately were overwhelmed by others of a greater nature or succombed to ultimate collapse in the abscence of greatness. Some cultures throughout history have staved off such corruption and collapse only by reinvigorating their own internal greatness to the point in which it could again sustain itself and prevent its own internal decay, as well as ward off others who sought to replace them. Such is our nature, which this theory attempts to explain. It has little to do with race, background or social status. Such things tend to be largely constructed, or at least appear that way once the original creative forces that forged those things to begin with have faded and dissapeared with time. The question is, will humanity succomb to the challenges it faces and fade from existence? or will it struggle on? Bickering over the connotations of 'men' versus 'people' is squabling over mere semantics and certainly won't do much to improve the human condition will it?
--Nazrac 05:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The huge irony that the page as it stands is a long series of quotations from "Great men in history" refuting the "Great Man in History" theory... and that the talk page seems to be a protracted argument over which "Great men in history" should be included in that list. Andypreston (talk) 08:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the topic rather than bickering over details of complete unimportance 

message: I fail to see any direct connection between the Great Man Theory and Dead white males, but someone who linked both articles to each other apparently does.  Can someone explain?  It seems to me that the Great Man Theory could just as easily be applied to European culture as any other.  And furthermore, linking a theory like this to a particular race ignores that history is a sum of the ocntributions of all people of different races, who have inevitably influenced each other; you cannot limit history to solely white history or the history of any other race. Theshibboleth 19:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rephrased the link, since "dead white males" isn't really a "notion of history" per se as much as a pejorative term for a particular educational emphasis. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead white males link 

message: I know Friedrich Nietzsche was neither the first nor last to propose this theory.  However, his works really embody the whole concept.  I am wondering if we should simply redirect to Friedrich Nietzsche or Übermensch and then add a sub-section for others who support the idea or something. Nimur 23:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO. Different subject altogether. What do you mean? The article rightly states that Nietzsche was opposed to this theory, he didn't "propose" it! Hegel's philosophy of history concerns more the great man, although it could also be claimed that he opposed himself to it. Santa Sangre 23:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect to Übermensch?

message: I am not a native English speaker, but I have always understood man and  men to mean both specific gender pronouns and gender-neutral pronouns. In such a case, the sentence
the name "Great men" would suggest, [excludes] women
does not make sense.
Is there a Wiki policy or a grammar guide that someone can point to?
--70.49.136.45 05:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of the word "men" 

message: Well, I have a BA in History (92') and remember this topic in my senior year "Philosophy of History" class. It was discussed in the context of historiography, as a method of approaching and writing history. It was common in the 19th C common, but has fallen out of favor. However to call it "pejorative" is another matter entirely, that is a value judgment, and as such it needs to be said who exactly is casting this value judgment, when and why - for example, my professors never expressed such personal value judgments, nor do I have such a value judgment - who exactly is calling it a pejorative?
Also I find it humorous that the term is being twisted to literally mean "men and not women" .. the Great Man method does not exclude women, it is simply an approach to writing history, it could be applied to Cleopatra or any number of important women in history. Basically the paragraph as written sounds pretentious - it's just an outdated methodology. -- Stbalbach 21:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: instead sniveling. Please refrain from personal attacks.  -- Stbalbach 22:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pejorative? 

message: Is the last paragraph about film an example of the critique outlined in the penultimate one?  It isn't really made clear.  I think it should begin by saying "An example is.."
:I think that paragraph should just be deleted. The whole thing seems like a pointless detail, since the article already supplies examples. Galanskov 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph's a bit of a non-sequitur 

message: The material regarding Britannica and the Encyclopedie is fascinating, but unsourced. I would like to actually pursue this further, but absence a source it is original research and should be removed. --Reagle 17:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No sources for claims

message: I am slightly baffled by the sentence that refers to Hegel as a proponent of this idea (or sthg like that, I can't remember). In any case, surely it's the other way round, as in the Hegelian view of history tends to oppose 'Great Man' theory? Tanzeel 01:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hegel? What? 

message: I think the article should include one word or two about :s:Representative Men/Uses of Great Men by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Teofilo talk 14:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Emerson ? 

message: Is there a corollary article of the Great Man theory (i.e. The Least man theory)? Reason being that societies and people seem to bubble up to take credit for a “great men”, but not for people who are unsuccessful and those weak people are considered “self-made men”. Not to be flippant, but could these Great Men really be the fortunate ones who were not in contact with certain people who are the equivalent of a “career short-circuit” and most people in a normal society could be potential “Great Men” if put in contact with those who take credit for making great men. As it says in the Uebermensch article "The most disheartening tendency common among readers is to tear out one sentence from a work, as a criterion of the writer's ideas or personality. Friedrich Nietzsche, for instance, is decried as a hater of the weak because he believed in the Uebermensch. It does not occur to the shallow interpreters of that giant mind that this vision of the Uebermensch also called for a state of society which will not give birth to a race of weaklings and slaves." I was just pondering if there should be such an article that would listed in the “See Also” section, but I do not know what it would be. Any possible suggestions of such an article in WP?Septagram (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the Commoners? Cambalachero (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  corollary article of the Great Man theory? 

message: The largest and most comprehensive body of critical work about the Great Man approach to history, to date, has come from feminist scholars. Their exclusion from the "Criticism" section is glaring and needs to be corrected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C434:2A20:216:CBFF:FEB6:2F87 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a different issue. The criticism is of the view that leading individuals change history. It's called "great man" because "man" is used in the old sense of "mankind". It might be worth adding a sentence on that point, but only to avoid confusion. It's still same theory whether you are talking about Boudicca or Julius Caesar. Paul B (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section needs work 

message: "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." The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. Doesn't Marx's comic/tragic insight into a not-so-great man of history also deserve at least a mention here? Spencer may well have been the 'approved' demolisher of the Great Man theory, but I suspect that Marx may perhaps have helped to chip away at the foundations too, and in a more radical manner... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spencer, but no Marx? 

message: In Eastern thought, "The Good King" or Great King is very if not same as "The Great Man" theory.  Don't have to be elected leader, sometimes there are good men born to a bloodline that leads his people to a peaceful and prosperous life.  Most kings/royalties do not last long because of in fighting and trying to kill each other off for succession.  The Good King is raised and trained in the art of government and philosophy, it was a novel idea but impractical in practice because the corrupt heart of ordinary men.  In history there were great kings, great emperors, even great bandit kings that in real life robbed the rich and gave to the poor. (There are Robin Hoods in all ethnic history if you look)Neoking (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Good King 

message: The quote from Fear and Trembling is taken completely out of context!—Arpose (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "history" what professional historians research and write?  If Hegel is quoted, why not (poor man) von Ranke? If a professional historian, for professional reasons, is moved to commit biography, is he thereby conscripted to the "great man" school?  And if Carlyle wrote "Frederick the Great", didn't he also write "The French Revolution"?   And wasn't his best work of history "The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell", where the documents stand out from the commentary, as they were intended to?  Certainly it seems to depart from the oppositions presented in this Wikipedia article and advance towards a slightly more "professional" approach. There is something known as "prosopography" which in this context seems of interestDelahays (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Arpose above. This Kierkegaard quote comes from his discussion of faith, not history. His writing often gets lumped in with Hegel and Heidegger, and they share certain philosophical similarities, but Fear and Trembling is not a discussion on the traits that great leaders possess. I am going to take this sentence out entirely. Cal (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kierkegaard  

message: I hope you didn't find my reversion hostile. I didn't mean to be combative; I assumed my edit summary explanation would suffice. But on to the article. The section I want to remove on the grounds of it being WP:OR reads as follows:
:"In Untimely Meditations, Nietzsche writes that: "...the goal of humanity lies in its highest specimens".
:In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard writes that: "...to be able to fall down in such a way that the same second it looks as if one were standing and walking, to transform the leap of life into a walk, absolutely to express the sublime and the pedestrian—that only these knights of faith can do—this is the one and only prodigy."Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling. Preliminary Expectoration.
:Hegel, proceeding from providentialist theory, argued that what is real is reasonable and World-Historical individuals are World-Spirit's agents. Hegel opined: "Such are great historical men—whose own particular aims involve those large issues which are the will of the World-Spirit."Hegel, G.W.F. [1837]. Philosophy of History, trans. J. Sibree (New York: Dover, 1956), 30.  Thus, according to Hegel, a great man does not create historical reality himself but only uncovers the inevitable future."
Now, you said in your first reversion summary that "Sourced [info], by definition, is not OR". Now, this does follow the part of WP:OR that states "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." But, the next line says "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources" [emphasis added].
The first two quotes, I believe, serve to reach or imply a conclusion that those writers were offering their thoughts on great man theory, despite the fact that such was not stated by the sources. A search of the text of Untimely Meditations returns no hits for the phrase "great man theory". According to whom was Nietzsche discussing great man theory? According to whom is the quote relevant enough to include in this article? According to some random Wikipedia editor with an interpretation, that's whom. A search of the text of Fear and Trembling returns no hits for "great man theory" and one irrelevant hit for "great man" [this is a 2006 translation I used, seeing as no date or link was provided in the original reference]. The last paragraph is the most obvious example of OR. Like the last example, a search of the text returns no hits for "great man theory" and one irrelevant hit for "great man" [this is a 1900 edition]. Then, following the Hegel quote and its reference, is the unreferenced statement "Thus, according to Hegel, a great man does not create historical reality himself but only uncovers the inevitable future." That may seem obvious, but this is simply the conjecture of the editor who added that info. I'm sure I could find dozens of quotes from various notable figures that say "Great men shape history" and the like, but what makes them notable to include in this article? Are they an accurate representation of great man theory, according to the scholars and historians who study it? Only a secondary source can tell us this (except perhaps quotes from Thomas Carlyle, who created the theory). -Indy beetle (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-pinging for discussion . -Indy beetle (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't forgotten. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the delay.  I guess my basic problem is that I don't understand how the quotes from Nietzsche and Kierkegaard aren;t illustrative of the sentence which immediately precedes them: "This heroic view of history was also strongly endorsed by some philosophical figures such as Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Spengler..."  It's not OR in my opinion because it's illustrating that "heroic view" which is at the core of the Great Man Theory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If that statement were cited I would perhaps agree with you. But since it is not, it could very well be the opinion of some Wikipedia editor, and therefore be WP:SYNTH. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but you didn't remove the statement, just the quotes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think to, but probably should have. However, seeing as you have found supporting sources, I guess the matter is resolved. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: The weight given to James seems excessive in comparison to Spencer. I think it would be a good idea to cut down the information on William James by summarizing it concisely and removing some of the long quotes. Right now it seems like it would be difficult for the average reader and a bit excessive. I'm personally not well versed on this subject. --Pythagimedes (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  William James response is given undue weight 

message: Sure, Napoleon was a military genius, but political? Louis XIV is way better at politics than Napoleon84.54.70.206 (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napoleon, a political genius?