the great man theory essay

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is the Great Man Theory of Leadership?

• Contemporary Views

The great man theory of leadership suggests that some individuals are born with characteristics that naturally make them skilled leaders. According to this view, leaders are born, not made. It also suggests that leaders assume authority when their leadership traits are needed.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Great leaders are born, not made"? This quote sums up the basic tenet of the great man theory of leadership, which suggests that leadership capacity is innate. According to this theory, you're either a natural-born leader or not.

The term "great man" was used because, at the time, ​ leadership was thought of primarily as a male quality, especially in terms of military leadership.

Origins of the Great Man Theory of Leadership

The great man theory of leadership became popular during the 19th century. The mythology behind some of the world's most famous leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln, Julius Caesar, Mahatma Gandhi, and Alexander the Great, helped contribute to the notion that great leaders are born and not made.

Carlyle's Views on Leadership

In many examples, it seems as if the right man for the job seems to emerge almost magically to take control of a situation and lead a group of people into safety or success. Historian Thomas Carlyle also had a major influence on this theory of leadership. He stated, "The history of the world is but the biography of great men."

According to Carlyle, effective leaders are those gifted with divine inspiration and the right characteristics.

Early Leadership Reasearch

Some of the earliest research on leadership looked at people who were already successful leaders. These individuals often included aristocratic rulers who achieved their position through birthright. Because people of a lesser social status had fewer opportunities to practice and achieve leadership roles, it contributed to the idea that leadership is an inherent ability.

Even today, people often describe prominent leaders as having the right qualities or personality for the position. This implies that inherent characteristics are what make these people effective leaders.

Nature vs. Nurture

The great man theory of leadership is an example of using 'nature' to explain human behavior. The nature vs. nurture debate in psychology suggests that some skills are innate while others are acquired through learning and experience. In this case, great man theory suggests that nature plays the dominant role in leadership ability.

Examples of the Great Man Theory of Leadership

Some examples of famous historical figures who are often cited as examples of "great men" include:

• Abraham Lincoln : The 16th president of the United States shepherded the Union through the Civil War and signed the Emancipation Proclamation. His leadership through this tumultuous period is often seen as an example of how great leaders seem to be born with specific skills that make them destined to lead.
• Martin Luther King, Jr .: The civil rights leader was influential in the fight for civil rights during the 1960s. His leadership characteristics, including his persuasive abilities and charisma, are often cited as examples of how innate traits contribute to leadership ability.
• Mahatma Gandhi : The spiritual and political leader who led the successful movement for India's independence from British rule advocated non-violent resistance. His resilience, wisdom, and vision made him an inspiration in the fight for freedom in India and across the globe.

Other leaders often used as examples of the great man theory of leadership include George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Nelson Mandela. Carlyle cited other figures in his book "Heroes and Hero-Worship," including Odin, Muhammad, William Shakespeare, Martin Luther, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Napoleon Bonaparte.  

Criticisms of the Great Man Theory of Leadership

The great man theory of leadership has been the subject of considerable debate and criticism. The following are some of the major critiques of this approach to explaining leadership.

Herbert Spencer's Response

Sociologist Herbert Spencer suggested that the leaders were products of the society in which they lived. In "The Study of Sociology," Spencer wrote:

"You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown…Before he can remake his society, his society must make him."

Incomplete Account of Leadership

One of the critical problems with the Great Man theory of leadership is that not all people who possess the so-called natural leadership qualities become great leaders. If leadership were simply an inborn quality, all people who possess the ​ necessary traits would eventually find themselves in leadership roles.

Ignores Situational Factors

Research has instead found that leadership is a surprisingly complex subject and numerous factors influence how successful a particular leader may or may not be. Characteristics of the group, the leader in power, and the situation all interact to determine what type of leadership is needed and the effectiveness of this leadership.

Neglects Skill Development

The great man theory of leadership also fails to explain how leadership skills can be developed. It oversimplifies leadership and focuses on a very narrow set of skills that may not be effective or appropriate in every context or situation. Modern views emphasize that leadership abilities can be learned and honed with practice.

The psychologist William James defended Carlyle's ideas, suggesting that it is the innate characteristics of individuals that then shape their environments. The theory was critiqued by others in literary form, including in Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace." 

Contemporary Views of the Great Man Theory

The great man theory was an influential early theory of leadership, but it has fallen out of favor in modern leadership research. Contemporary ideas take a more nuanced and complex view of the many factors that influence leadership, including the characteristics of group members and the role of the situation .

While the great man theory has been largely replaced by other ideas, elements of it are still relevant today. The theory does not fully explain or account for the many aspects of leadership, but the existence of specific traits that contribute to great leadership is still of interest to contemporary researchers.

Today, experts recognize that leadership is complex and that innate traits alone do not account for how and why some leaders are successful.

Halaychik CS. Leadership theories . In: Lessons in Library Leadership . Elsevier; 2016:1-56. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-100565-1.00001-7

Spector BA. Carlyle, Freud, and the Great Man Theory more fully considered .  Leadership . 2015;12(2):250-260. doi:10.1177/1742715015571392.

Carlyle T. On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. Fredrick A. Stokes & Brother, 1988.

Spencer, H. The Study of Sociology . Appleton, 1874.​

Yukl G. Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention .  Acad Manag Perspect . 2012;26(4):66-85. doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0088.

James W. Great men, great thoughts, and the environment . The Atlantic .

Kets de Vries M, Cheak-Baillargeon A. Leadership in organizations, sociology of . In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences . Elsevier; 2015:664-669. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.73080-7

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Great Man Theory of Leadership: Examples, Pros and Cons

Dave Cornell (PhD)

Dr. Cornell has worked in education for more than 20 years. His work has involved designing teacher certification for Trinity College in London and in-service training for state governments in the United States. He has trained kindergarten teachers in 8 countries and helped businessmen and women open baby centers and kindergartens in 3 countries.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

The Great Man Theory of leadership postulates that great leaders are born, not made. Some people are just born with the personality characteristics that predispose them to have great leadership skills .

According to this theory, it is not possible to teach people how to become great leaders.

Because they are born with a very specific personality profile, they emerge in society at key moments in history. During these times their in-born traits allow them to excel and accomplish greatness.

Examples of leaders in history and modern times that fit the definition of the Great Man Theory include Napoleon Bonaparte, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Abraham Lincoln.

Definition of Great Man Theory of Leadership

The study of great leaders in history focused on both physical and personality traits. For instance, physical characteristics such as height and appearance were often included in a descriptive taxonomy of “great man” traits.

Personality factors were also identified as traits of great leaders, which included self-confidence, extraversion, charm, courage, aggressiveness and energy level.

This view was strongly supported by the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which provided an account of history as told through the biographies of great men that held leadership positions during significant times in history.

In that era, few women were allowed in the military or positions of political power, and were therefore excluded from consideration.

Examples of Great Man Theory of Leadership

1. napoleon bonaparte   .

Napoleon Bonaparte was a French military leader who is famous for conquering most of Europe in the early 19th century.

Napoleon’s conquests led to a swift rise in his political status, which he parlayed into a coup, seizing political power in 1799 and crowning himself emperor in 1804.

Napoleon was shrewd and ambitious, and a great military strategist. He successfully waged war against various European nations and expanded his empire.

Although most famous for his military accomplishments, many of his other initiatives are also noteworthy. For instance, he instituted many reforms in banking and education, and was a strong supporter of the sciences and arts.

One of his most meaningful and enduring accomplishments was his role in reshaping the French legal system. An effort that resulted in significant reform and remains the foundation of French civil law today.

Napoleon Bonaparte fits the profile of a Great Man because of these accomplishments, but is also widely known as an autocratic leader due to his strongman approach.

2. Abraham Lincoln  

Abraham Lincoln appears on the list of “great men” put together by many writers because of several very significant accomplishments. First, he was the 16th president of the United States.

His political rise was mostly due to his moderate views on several core controversies impacting the country at the time. One reason he makes the Great Man list is because he preserved the Union during the Civil War.

This feat alone was remarkable and without it, no one knows how the history of the world would have unfolded. His second most notable accomplishment was the emancipation of slaves in 1863.

Throughout his presidency, he was steadfast in his principles and withstood defiance and opposition from all sides, including his generals, his Cabinet, his party and a majority of the American people.

3. Martin Luther King, Jr.   

Martin Luther King, Jr. played a prominent role in the American civil rights movement in the 1960s.

MLK grew up in a relatively well-off family in the Deep South in an era of strict segregation. However, one summer King worked in the North and was astounded at how well Blacks and Whites got along and ate together freely. It was a summer that had a profound impact on his understanding of race relations.

His most famous moment in history is the “ I Have a Dream ” speech he delivered in Washington D.C. in 1963. King was a strong proponent of nonviolence and peaceful protest. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 and was at that time the youngest person to receive the award.

Martin Luther King, Jr. possessed many of the key personality characteristics identified in the Great Man Theory, including being charismatic, persuasive, confident and courageous .

4. Nelson Mandela  

Nelson Mandela fought against racism his entire life. He faced enemies far more powerful than himself as an individual man.

However, his ideals and his determination allowed him to prevail against incredible odds.

He worked tirelessly to end apartheid in South Africa in the 20 th century. In 1993, he won the Nobel Peace Prize along with F. W. de Klerk, who was South Africa’s president at the time.

Even though he spent nearly 30 years in jail, he persevered and eventually became the first democratically elected president of South Africa.

He demonstrated many of the personality traits identified by the Great Man Theory, including being determined, persuasive, courageous, and self-confident.

See Also: Democratic Leadership Model

5. Mahatma Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi was the driving force behind at least three revolutions. He worked tirelessly to end racism, violence against the oppressed, and colonial rule of India.

Gandhi is an example of an amazing individual that possessed some of the most admirable attributes of a Great Man. He was focused and determined; resilient and strong, especially in the face of seemingly insurmountable opposition.

He spoke with a level of wisdom and eloquence that inspired millions of people to take action, even at great personal expense. Even though he endured physical assaults and imprisonment, he refused to accept defeat. He has gone down in history as one of the greatest and most visionary leaders of mankind.

Great Man Theory of Leadership Strengths and Weaknesses

Pro: described personality characteristics.

One value of the Great Man theory of leadership is the early attempt to identify key personality characteristics and traits of great leaders.

Although different authors produced slightly different descriptions, there are several common denominators, such as: charisma, persuasiveness, courage, and self-confidence. This psychological perspective on leadership is one that nearly all modern theories of leadership rely on today.

Pro: Considered Physical Characteristics

A lot of criticism of the Great Man Theory actually points to the consideration of physical characteristics of leaders, such as height.

However, this criticism may not be as valid as it once was in light of more recent research. For example, research reviewed by Vugt and Grabo (2015), shows that:

“ People prefer leaders with dominant, masculine-looking faces in times of war and conflict, yet they prefer leaders with more trustworthy, feminine faces in peacetime. In addition, leaders with older-looking faces are preferred in traditional knowledge domains, whereas younger-looking leaders are preferred for new challenges “ (p. 484).

Pro: Classification of Leadership Domains

The Great Man Theory, as proposed by Thomas Carlye, offered a taxonomy of leadership types. These types were labeled “Hero Classes” and included: Divine, Prophet, Poet, Priest, King, or Man of Letters.

For example, the Divine Hero could be found in Greek or Norse mythology, such as Odin or Thor.

The formal study of leadership was in its infancy and this first step in creating a classification framework for different types of leadership is a strength of the theory which shows an understanding that not all leaders are the same.

Pro: Propelled the Study of Leadership

The Great Man Theory of leadership and the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica helped bring the formal study of the subject into the scholarly domain.

It helped popularize the educated public’s understanding of leadership styles and sparked further interest and debate on the matter. No subject matter can advance without considerable discussion and analysis, and so perhaps the greatest value of the Great Man Theory is that it gave birth to a much more thorough and eventually scientific study of leadership.

Con: Not Supported by Science   

One very common criticism of the Great Man Theory is that it was postulated without being supported by any science at all.

This is true, there is no denying that. However, psychological science was practically non-existent in the 1800s. There were no such things as personality inventories or observational study which modern researchers rely on today to study leadership scientifically.

In a way, it is a bit unfair to criticize a theory for not using scientific methodologies that did not exist at the time.  

Con: Leadership can’t be Taught     

The fundamental premise of the Great Man Theory is that leaders are born. This means there is no way for the common man to become a great leader; quite the discouraging blow to the infinite number of leadership training programs that exist in the world today.

Corporations spend millions of dollars every year trying to develop the leadership potential of their employees, but according to the Great Man Theory, that is all a waste of time and money.

Fortunately, there are many examples of great leaders today that will confess to not possessing great skills early in their careers. Many of them had to evolve into greatness, mostly as a result of professional and personal failures. Therefore, it would seem that great leadership can be acquired by those not gifted with it at birth.

Con: Fails to Consider the Role of the Environment

Many leaders that are considered great today were shaped by significant and sometimes traumatic events in their lives.

Roosevelt became paralyzed from the waist down and married a woman who showed him the unsightly state of the poor in America. This helped open his eyes and heart to their plight. Martin Luther King, Jr. was influenced by his family’s devotion to the church and the summer he spent in the North where he was astonished at the freedom Blacks enjoyed.

There is no room in the Great Man Theory for these environmental factors that helped shape the personalities and personal philosophies of many great leaders.

Con: Gender Exclusivity    

The name of the theory itself says it all. The Great Man Theory only accepts one gender as being able to possess leadership skills.

It would seem that in addition to being born with certain personality traits that lead to greatness, it is also necessary to be born of a specific gender as well. Although to be fair, the 1800s was a time in history in which society was not as enlightened as it is in the 21 st century.

A modern version of the Great Man Theory could be renamed to reflect the possibility of either gender being capable of great leadership, perhaps: the Great Human Theory.

More Leadership Models

• Contingency Theory of Leadership
• Full Range Leadership Model
• Pacesetting Leadership Model

The Great Man Theory of leadership was one of the first attempts to identify the personality traits of leadership. Great leaders were described as possessing courage , charisma, self-confidence, and aggressiveness.

Although it was originally proposed in the 1800s, it is often criticized as lacking a scientific foundation, not being gender inclusive, and not taking in to account environmental factors that often shape the personality and philosophy of those identified as great leaders.

These shortcomings are substantial and are a major reason the theory is less relevant in the 21 st century. However, the theory generated much discussion and helped propel the subject of leadership to become a formal object of scientific study.  

Antonakis, J., & Eubanks, D. L. (2017). Looking leadership in the face.  Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26 (3), 270-275. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417705888

Carlyle T. On Heroes, Hero-worship and the heroic in history. Fredrick A. Stokes & Brother, 1988.

Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12 , 637-647.

Little, A. C. (2014). Facial appearance and leader choice in different contexts: Evidence for task contingent selection based on implicit and learned face-behaviour/face-ability associations, The Leadership Quarterly, 25 (5), 865-874. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.002 .

Vugt, M. V., & Grabo, A. E. (2015). The many faces of leadership: An evolutionary-psychology approach.  Current Directions in Psychological Science ,  24 (6), 484-489. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415601971

• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 23 Achieved Status Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 25 Defense Mechanisms Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 15 Theory of Planned Behavior Examples
• Dave Cornell (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/dave-cornell-phd/ 18 Adaptive Behavior Examples

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 23 Achieved Status Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Ableism Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 25 Defense Mechanisms Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Theory of Planned Behavior Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pursue the Next You in 2024 with 20% Tuition Reduction on October Courses!

The Great Man Theory of Leadership Explained

Last Updated January 8, 2015

What makes a man or woman rise above others to assume the mantle of leadership? Why are some more drawn to the burdens of the job than others? What set history’s great leaders apart from their contemporaries and enabled them to navigate often tumultuous waters, defying the odds to achieve their goals on behalf of themselves and their people Some theorists have argued that these questions are answered by the Great Man Theory of Leadership.

What is the Great Man Theory of Leadership?

The Great Man Theory of Leadership espouses that great leaders are born, not made. These individuals come into the world possessing certain characteristics and traits not found in all people. These abilities enable them to lead while shaping the very pages of history. Under great man theory, prominent leaders throughout the course of history were born to lead and deserved to do so as a result of their natural abilities and talents.

The Great Man Theory of Leadership centers on two main assumptions:

• Great leaders are born possessing certain traits that enable them to rise and lead.
• Great leaders can arise when the need for them is great.

Those who support the great man theory say leaders are born with the attributes necessary to set them apart from those around them and that these traits enable them to assume roles of authority and power. Great leaders are heroes, according to this theory, that accomplish great feats against the odds on behalf of followers. The Great Man Theory of Leadership essentially implies that those in power deserve to lead because of the traits they’ve been endowed with.

History of the Great Man Theory

The Great Man Theory was established in the 19 th century by proponents such as historian Thomas Carlyle, who put forth the idea that the world’s history is nothing more than a collection of biographies belonging to great men.

Carlyle and contemporaries gained recognition for the theory in their time, as evidenced by such works as the Encyclopedia Britannica Eleventh Edition , published in 1911. This encyclopedia told the story of world history through biographies of the great men that led during different historical periods. Not everyone in Carlyle’s time, however, agreed with the theory’s assumptions.

Opposing Views to the Great Man Theory

Herbert Spencer, a noted philosopher, sociologist, biologist and political theorist of the Victorian era, countered that the Great Man Theory was childish, primitive and unscientific. He believed leaders were products of their environment. He advocated that before a “great man” can remake his society, that society has to make him.

Despite Spencer’s arguments to the contrary, the Great Man Theory remained the popular and predominant theory for explaining and understanding leadership until the mid-20 th century. As the behavioral sciences grew, so did the idea that leadership is more of a science that can be learned and nurtured. Those with opposing views say great leaders are shaped and molded by their times as the traits necessary to lead are learned and honed .

However, much like the question of nature versus nurture, there are those who still support the Great Man Theory of Leadership and the idea that men and women leaders are born, not made.

Related Articles

Take the next step in your career with a program guide!

By completing this form and clicking the button below, I consent to receiving calls, text messages and/or emails from BISK, its client institutions, and their representatives regarding educational services and programs. I understand calls and texts may be directed to the number I provide using automatic dialing technology. I understand that this consent is not required to purchase goods or services. If you would like more information relating to how we may use your data, please review our privacy policy .

• Liberty Fund
• Adam Smith Works
• Law & Liberty
• Browse by Author
• Browse by Topic
• Browse by Date
• Search EconLog
• Latest Episodes
• Browse by Guest
• Browse by Category
• Browse Extras
• Search EconTalk
• Latest Articles
• Liberty Classics
• Search Articles
• Books by Date
• Books by Author
• Search Books
• Browse by Title
• Biographies
• Search Encyclopedia
• #ECONLIBREADS
• College Topics
• High School Topics
• Subscribe to QuickPicks
• Search Guides
• Search Videos
• Library of Law & Liberty
• Home   /  

ECONLOG POST

Aug 12 2005

Tolstoy and the Great Man Theory

Bryan caplan .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-avatar img { width: 80px important; height: 80px important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-avatar img { border-radius: 50% important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-meta a { background-color: #655997 important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-meta a { color: #ffffff important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-meta a:hover { color: #ffffff important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-recent-posts-title { border-bottom-style: dotted important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-recent-posts-item { text-align: left important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-li { border-style: none important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-li { color: #3c434a important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-li { border-radius: px important; } .pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline ul.pp-multiple-authors-boxes-ul { display: flex; } .pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline ul.pp-multiple-authors-boxes-ul li { margin-right: 10px }.pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.pp-multiple-authors-wrapper.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-post-id-69046.box-instance-id-1.ppma_boxes_69046 ul li > div:nth-child(1) {flex: 1 important;}.

By Bryan Caplan, Aug 12 2005

Most historians tell stories in which the decisions of a few Great Men drastically change the fates of millions. Prinzip started World War I by assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Stalin collectivized agriculture, and Hitler ordered the Holocaust. Tolstoy wrote his greatest novel, War and Peace , before any of these events happened. But it’s clear that he would have violently objected to the standard historical accounts.

In part, Tolstoy’s case is philosophical: “[T]he course of human events is predetermined from on high.”

In part, it is tautologous: “At the battle of Borodino Napoleon shot at no one and killed no one. That was all done by the soldiers. Therefore it was not he who killed people.”

But the interesting part of his argument is microeconomic. According to Tolstoy, it only looks like X happens because The Great Man ordered X to happen. Why?

The French soldiers went to kill and be killed at the battle of Borodino not because of Napoleon’s orders but by their own volition. The whole army- French, Italian, German, Polish, and Dutch- hungry, ragged, and weary of the campaign, felt at the sight of an army blocking their road to Moscow that the wine was drawn and must be drunk. Had Napoleon then forbidden them to fight the Russians, they would have killed him and have proceeded to fight the Russians because it was inevitable.

In other words, causation goes not from The Great Man to the masses, but the other way around. A leader who tries to make the masses do something they don’t want to do loses his head, and the masses continue on their merry way:

Strange as at first glance it may seem to suppose that the Massacre of St. Bartholomew was not due to Charles IX’s will, though he gave the order for it and thought it was done as a result of that order; and strange as it may seem to suppose that the slaughter of eighty thousand men at Borodino was not due to Napoleon’s will, though he ordered the commencement and conduct of the battle and thought it was done because he ordered it; strange as these suppositions appear… historic investigation abundantly confirms it.

I worship Tolstoy’s writing, and he’s got a coherent model, but it’s obviously wrong. Sure, there are times when events force a leader’s hand. Once the Russians were shooting at Napoleon’s troops, they were going to shoot back. But if Napoleon hadn’t given the original order to invade Russia, his troops were not going to kill him in Paris and march to Moscow.

How is this possible? Modern game theory has a simple answer: Great Men serve as focal points in coordination games . In many circumstances, people want to do what other people are doing. If no one else is invading Russia, you don’t want to either. If all your fellow soldiers are invading Russia, however, you probably don’t want to be left behind. Given this indeterminancy, you often get the result that most people see as “obvious.”

But doesn’t that confirm Tolstoy’s point? Not if the obvious outcome is “Follow the Leader.”

It often is. Indeed, once people accept you as a Great Man, it’s easy to get them to do all sorts of things. Men will kill for you, bleed for you, and sit around doing nothing for you. There are limits, but there is tons of slack. The really interesting question, which game theory has only begun to address, is how society turns a short Corsican into a Great Man. Personal ability and a charismatic personality are clearly part of the story. But as the whole history of hereditary monarchy shows, being at the right place at the right time matters a lot too.

READER COMMENTS

• READ COMMENT POLICY

Michael Dubious

Aug 12 2005 at 9:29pm.

“Hitler ordered the Holocaust”: we all know that he probably did, but no one has found a single document probing that he actually did it or knew about it. You might want to blame Himmler for that.

Mike Linksvayer

Aug 12 2005 at 10:04pm.

being at the right place at the right time matters a lot too.

If the obvious outcome is “follow the leader” but the leader is random, what does this say for “great man” theory?

Aug 13 2005 at 8:34am

You know as an economists you should think the great man plays the same role in history as the entrepreneur does in economics. But both the great man and the entrepreneur are products of their environment. Napoleon would not have been possible without the French revolution, just as the Wright brothers could not have developed the airplane if others had not developed light-weight gasoline engines. It is more likely that because of French revolution someone would have emerged to play the role that Napoleon did, then Napoleon could have been a great man without the French revolution. Given the stage of technology, if the Wright brothers had not developed the airplane, someone else would have.

So isn’t it a question of the causal relationship working both ways, not just one way?

Aug 13 2005 at 10:19am

In analogy to the Wright brothers, I think it would be reasonable to say that if a military coup had not brought Napoleon to power, there is a reasonable chance that a coup would have brought someone else to power.

I don’t think it follows, though, that once in power, another leader would necessarily have adopted the same policies as Napoleon did.

Comments are closed.

RECENT POST

Aug 13 2005

Productivity Trend

Arnold kling .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-avatar img { width: 80px important; height: 80px important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-avatar img { border-radius: 50% important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-meta a { background-color: #655997 important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-meta a { color: #ffffff important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-meta a:hover { color: #ffffff important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-recent-posts-title { border-bottom-style: dotted important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-author-boxes-recent-posts-item { text-align: left important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-li { border-style: none important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-li { color: #3c434a important; } .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.box-post-id-69046.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-instance-id-1 .pp-multiple-authors-boxes-li { border-radius: px important; } .pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline ul.pp-multiple-authors-boxes-ul { display: flex; } .pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline ul.pp-multiple-authors-boxes-ul li { margin-right: 10px }.pp-multiple-authors-boxes-wrapper.pp-multiple-authors-wrapper.pp-multiple-authors-layout-inline.multiple-authors-target-shortcode.box-post-id-69046.box-instance-id-1.ppma_boxes_69046 ul li > div:nth-child(1) {flex: 1 important;}.

James Hamilton writes, Between 1995 and 2004, U.S. output per worker grew at a 2.9% annual rate, even faster than the impressive pre-1973 pace. It's hard to attribute this to a change in any of those factors thought to have contributed to the slowdown in the seventies. Instead, the good news seems to be the result of ...

Financial Innovation and Regulation

While I was at the beach, the last two essays in my series on finance came out. The first one discussed financial innovation. (note: URL corrected 8-14) The previous essay described how the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) says that there is no reward for taking idiosyncratic risk. Everyone should hold the same m...

Most historians tell stories in which the decisions of a few Great Men drastically change the fates of millions. Prinzip started World War I by assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Stalin collectivized agriculture, and Hitler ordered the Holocaust. Tolstoy wrote his greatest novel, War and Peace, before any of the...

Great Man Theory Essays

Leaders are born, not made, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

The Great Man Theory of History

Jan 17, 2020 | Articles

(This essay was originally written as a chapter in my book, Heroes, Legends, Champions: Why Heroism Matters , and is an outtake from that book.)

Do specific geniuses or “great men” drive forward the events of history?   Is profound impact on social history the criterion of such great men or heroes?

This idea, known as “the great man theory of history,” was extensively argued during the 19th century, when Western support  for heroism was still pronounced.

Despite a fascinating philosophic debate among serious thinkers, the theory is fatally flawed.

The Great Man Theory

The essence of the hypothesis is that certain great men or heroes, by virtue of their genius, charisma, and/or military-political acumen, are the primary causal agents of historic events. Society does not shape great individuals; rather, great individuals shape society.

Napoleon—who, in accordance with this speculation, can be interpreted as seizing control of the French Revolution and imposing it on sundry European monarchs—is often advanced as an exemplar.

Thomas Carlyle, in his book, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, And The Heroic In History, analyzes writers, priests, and prophets as authentic examples of heroes, but definitively proclaims rightful rulers the greatest of the great. “The Commander over Men; he to whose wills our wills are to be subordinated, and loyally surrender themselves, and find their welfare in doing so, may be reckoned the most important of Great Men.” [i]

It is Carlyle’s fervent exhortation that we: “Find in any country the Ablest Man that exists there; raise him to the supreme place, and loyally reverence him….The Ablest Man; he means also the truest-hearted, justest, the Noblest Man: what he tells us to do must be precisely the wisest, fittest, that we could anywhere, anyhow learn;–the thing which it will in all ways behoove US, with right loyal thankfulness and nothing doubting, to do.” [ii]

Drawn from history, Carlyle’s principal examples of proper commanders over men are Cromwell and Napoleon who, presumably, he believes, will provide us guidance “the wisest, fittest, that we could anywhere, anyhow learn.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, although aphoristic and metaphoric in style—and hardly systematic—is a thinker vastly more profound; who mocks the “insipid muddleheaded Carlyle,” and who provides trenchant if brutal argumentation in support of his vision.

Ironically, Nietzsche, despite his devout atheism, holds a quasi-religious metaphysics, in which “will”—a feature of spirit or mind or consciousness—is presented as the impelling drive of reality itself.  He repudiates the mechanistic, “billiard ball” vision of the universe, which posits, in effect, a world composed of material entities moving, totally and unconditionally, in accord with the laws of physics; and does so, because such a view wrongly models human life and society, actuated as they are by passion and desire.

Nietzsche, rejecting dualism, and seeking a unified world view, resists a projection of inanimate matter’s form of causation onto man—and rather, projects man’s form of causation onto inanimate matter: “Let us assume that nothing is ‘given’ as real except our world of desires and passions….Would we not be allowed to experiment with the question whether these ‘givens’ are not sufficient for understanding the so-called mechanistic (or material) world?…To understand the material world as a pre-form of life?” [iii]

“Will-causality” is the sole form of causality he recognizes.  What are the will(s) composing reality willing? In some primordial sense, a drive to power, about which he works out no detailed theory applied to the universe, but does so applied to life. He writes:  “Life itself is essential assimilation, injury, violation of the foreign and the weaker, suppression, hardness, the forcing of one’s own forms upon something else, ingestion and—at least in its milder form—exploitation.” [iv]

For human beings, as for all organisms, the ultimate good is mastery, domination, subjugation.

(It is not to be overlooked that, for Nietzsche, the paradigm examples of the superior person or Overman were, most likely, such creative artists as Michelangelo, Leonardo, and Goethe; who harness the passion, the turbulence, the raw, burgeoning power of their frenzied souls, and, having gained self-mastery, project order onto the world’s intractable materials, bringing forth in structured, stylized beauty, a momentous work of art. “One must still have chaos in oneself to give birth to a dancing star.” [v] )

Nevertheless, the most frequent examples of the exuberantly hard, indomitably self-assertive, world-bursting individuals he extols are generals, politicians, ruthless leaders of men—Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon. These individuals topple city-states, overturn republics, crush freedom, not as wantonly destructive nihilism but so they may establish empire.

“Most of the overmen whom Nietzsche mentioned by name were politicians and generals whose creativity often expressed itself in the conquest of alien peoples or the subjugation of their fellow citizens.” [vi]

Such giants of history were “beyond good and evil” precisely because, in overturning the old political order among men, and imposing a new, they flouted, violated, shattered conventional moral codes and thrust upon society rules, guidelines, commandments inherently  their own.

“The History of the world is but the Biography of great men,” stated Carlyle in perfect, pithy expression of this view. [vii]

Nineteenth Century Criticisms of the Theory

Today, it is generally held that the great man theory was logically devastated by the withering critique of Herbert Spencer. Spencer, arguing for the causal role of society in shaping an individual, famously observed: “You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown…Before he can re-make his society, his society must make him.” [viii]

William James, from a distinctively biological standpoint, critiqued Spencer’s critique. James pointed out, in terms of causation, a reciprocal relationship between geniuses (or great men) and society; comparing these to the mutual impact on each other of organism and physical environment, as elucidated in Darwinian theory.

“The causes of production of great men lie in a sphere wholly inaccessible to the social philosopher. He must simply accept geniuses as data, just as Darwin accepts his spontaneous variations…these data being given, how does the environment affect them, and how do they affect the environment? …the relation of the visible environment to the great man is in the main exactly what it is to the ‘variation’ in the Darwinian philosophy. It chiefly adopts or rejects, preserves or destroys, in short selects him. And whenever it adopts and preserves the great man, it becomes modified by his influence in an entirely original and peculiar way.” [ix]

For James, biological—not social—factors produce a great man: “Physiological forces, with which the social, political, geographical…conditions have just as much…to do as the condition of the crater of Vesuvius…with the flickering of this gas by which I write, are what make him.” [x]

Presumably, for James, expressed in contemporary terms, a genius arises due predominantly (perhaps exclusively) to genetic causation—either matches his environment or not—and by it is either accepted or rejected, embraced or crushed. When an individual’s genius matches his society, it welcomes him, and he becomes, for it, a driving catalyst of change. “The mutations of societies, then, from generation to generation, are in the main due directly or indirectly to the acts or the examples of individuals whose genius was so adapted to the receptivities of the moment…” [xi]

Or, as James puts it, writing in the late 19 th century: “Not every ‘man’ fits every ‘hour’…A given genius may come either too early or too late. Peter the Hermit [an 11 th century priest who helped incite the First Crusade] would now be sent to a lunatic asylum…Cromwell and Napoleon need their revolutions, Grant his civil war…” [xii]

There are a constellation of errors permeating this debate, some committed by this thinker, others by that.

These are: 1. Impact on historic events is not a primary criterion of heroism. 2. Mistakes regarding the complex relationship between an individual and society. 3. Failure to apprehend a fundamental aspect of a great individual’s greatness. 4. The critical error that everyman should obey the commands of heroes, who properly should hold political and legal dominion.

Let’s examine these one at a time.

Critiquing the Great Man Theory

One: Impact on social history: Regarding heroism, an individual’s impact on history is the wrong question to ask. Vivid counter-examples form the start of a counter argument; principles extracted from them, its culmination.

Attila and earlier Hun chieftains had an incalculable impact on social history. Their invasions of Eastern and Central Europe swept before them Germanic tribes, who, fleeing, burst the boundaries of the Roman Empire; catalyzing a series of migrations and battles that, decades later, contributed to the collapse of civilization and triumph of barbarism. Attila ravaged extensive portions of northern Italy and even threatened Rome itself.

Attila and prior Hun leaders were a powerful force in early medieval European history. Is this sufficient to make them heroes? No. Blood-drenched barbarians who dramatically augment the destruction of civilization are, no doubt, mighty villains—but, by virtue of this alone, are excluded from the ranks of heroes.

Epistemologically, the concept “hero” refers to the identification that, in real life, some rare individuals achieve goals that substantially advance human life; that support construction and life, not destruction and death. If a powerful Roman emperor had arisen—a latter-day Augustus—had selected skilled commanders, rallied his troops, defeated the invaders, saved Rome, restored and upheld some degree of intellectual freedom, thereby promoting a revival of civilization, and had continued to protect it against barbarians—this would be a hero.

A different example on the same theme: If impact on history is a prime criterion of heroism, then few can lay better claim to the title than Hitler. But, in truth, one of history’s most egregious mass murderers has even less claim to the title of “hero” than does Attila.

There is a fundamental flaw in the great man theory of history: It asks the wrong question.

The proper criterion of heroism is not impact on society—but benefit to human life. The individual who discovers new knowledge—or applies it to such life-promoting fields as music, agriculture, medicine, electrical engineering, or numerous others—the person who creates material or intellectual wealth—or who effectively protects the creators—the men and women responsible for originating civilization, for raising mankind out of the caves and the jungles, for immensely increasing living standards, life expectancies, leisure time, and for creating art, entertainment, and consequent immeasurable  enhancement of men’s ability to enjoy their earthly time—these are mankind’s heroes.

Heroes, by this measure, do greatly impact social history—but such influence is not the fundamental criterion of heroism. If we employ the Carlyle-Nietzsche definition of “great men,” then, in truth, all (epic)heroes are great men—but not all great men are heroes. Unfortunately, heroes are not as widespread a phenomenon as “great men;”  worse, “hero worship” has been too often directed at “great men” unworthy of it.

Two: The relationship between the great individual and society :  Looked at from one perspective—viewing society as an immense but nonetheless single entity, composed of an incalculable number of components—a reciprocal influence upon each other of great man and society is undeniably true.

Napoleon certainly shook European monarchies to their foundations.

But the causal factors animating such momentous events stretched back through centuries; including, most obviously, the French Revolution; but also the long-unchallenged power of the ancien regime —the thoughts, values, and actions of various Bourbon monarchs, their families, foes, and advisors—the teachings and actions of the Catholic Church, its popes, cardinals, and theologians; the writings of various philosophes, supporting the freedom of man’s mind, opposing the ancient regime; the influence, especially on Voltaire, of Britain’s gradual movement away from absolute monarchy in the direction of increased individual liberties; the prevalence across the Continent of oppressive hereditary monarchies, and the opposition of many to the ideals and goals of the Revolution; and so on, in incessant litany of causes and conditioning persons and events, that could not be exhaustively recounted in a dozen lifetimes by a regiment of Will Durants.

Napoleon was acted upon, by society, in ways too numerous to catalogue.

But viewing society as a single super-organism that thinks and acts and influences an individual is worse than a fiction of lazy minds unwilling to examine its multitude of constituent parts. It is the fallacy of reification writ large. “Reification…is the hypostatizing [thing-making] of entities, that is, the making of abstractions into substances.” [xiii]

That, in some sense, society exists, is not to be doubted. But in what sense? Surely, “American society” does not exist in the sense that, for example, Clint Eastwood—American citizen—exists. One could meet face-to-face with Eastwood, converse, dine, and tipple with him—might visually observe, on the silver screen, his impressively manly squint—applaud (or not) as he garners “Best Director” awards—and so on. Can one engage in such activities vis-à-vis “American society?” One cannot.

American society, or any other, is an amalgam of such an immense quantity of individuals—their thoughts, values, emotions, actions, and swirling interactions—as to be, in a literal sense, incalculable. One could not encounter all such social components, never mind remember, during the latter stage of encountering, those antecedently encountered; much less keep track—in the time elapsed during these subsequent encounters—of the further doings of those initially encountered.

The concept “society” is a mental construct subsuming an immeasurable quantity of data, much, although not all of it, observational.  To state the point simply: Society is a collection of individuals who act upon each other.

Whose actions impinge most heavily on others?

Napoleon exerted more influence—for better or worse—on far more individuals than the vast majority of other individuals exerted on him. Although it is true, in some sense, to say that “society” significantly influenced (but not “made” or “molded”) Napoleon, the conventional understanding of this claim is—including by many philosophers—at best, woozy.

The sense in which it is true is that many members of human society—individuals—exerted some influence on Napoleon, and that some members exerted much; this latter includes more than the usual suspects of parents, family, peers, teachers, and so on; but also some of history’s other “great men,”  including a wide array of diverse artists, philosophers, scientists, and statesmen who helped create both the relatively-advanced Western society in which Napoleon was educated and the opportunities it afforded.

James succinctly expresses the point: “…the important thing…is that what makes a certain genius now incompatible with his surroundings is usually…that some previous genius of a different strain has warped the community away from the sphere of his possible effectiveness. After Voltaire, no Peter the Hermit…” [xiv]

Regarding the exertion of influence, not all human beings are created equal.  A few exert substantially—in some cases vastly—more on other individuals than do other individuals on them (or than these other individuals do on the still other individuals composing the rest of society). A critically important question is: Is such influence for good or ill—or is it mixed? To make such a judgment, of course, requires a standard.

That Napoleon exerted enormous impact on European society is clear. Further, numerous of his policies effectively supported human life. He ended feudalism, abolished serfdom, and annulled the Inquisition. He advanced religious freedom in Europe, even for the long-oppressed Jews. Across the continent, he so weakened the ancient regime that it would not long survive his own demise.

But the blood, the guts, the enormous cost in human life, in service of his dreams of conquest and power, cannot be sanctioned. Although certainly not a scourge of civilization a la Attila, much less a monster, the countless youthful lives snuffed out, in endless procession of gory battles, to fulfill his imperial designs renders unconscionable an overwhelming preponderance of his career.

It is definitely tragic, and possibly criminal that we, the human race, have so often glorified conquerors. Stendhal, as but one example, praised Napoleon as “the greatest man to appear in the world since Caesar.” [xv] Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, despite some noble qualities and beneficent policies, shed such an ocean of innocent blood as to dwarf their life-giving achievements. It is the creators and their protectors, not power-seekers and warmongers that deserve our respect and emulation. Nietzsche, in his best moments, understood this; unfortunately, his best moments were rare.

Three: The overlooked cause of a great man’s greatness: James, in effect, argues that geniuses or great men are born, not made. Presumably, the biological causes of a hero’s gifts are operative whether his society is ready or not for them; whether, to these gifts, it offers nurture or opposition; whether, for them, it provides outlet or stone wall.

In response to his chief opponent, he wrote: “Can it be that Mr. Spencer holds the convergence of sociological pressures to have so impinged on Stratford-upon-Avon about the 26 th of April, 1564, that a W. Shakespeare, with all his mental peculiarities, had to be born there, –as the pressure of water outside a certain boat will cause a stream of a certain form to ooze into a particular leak?  And does he mean to say that if the aforesaid W. Shakespeare had died of cholera infantum, another mother at Stratford-upon-Avon would needs have engendered a duplicate copy of him, to restore the sociologic equilibrium,–just as the same stream of water will reappear, no matter how often you pass a sponge over the leak, so long as the outside level remains unchanged?” [xvi]

Presumably, Spencer meant no such thing. What he most likely meant was a more conventional claim that, once born, a future genius receives from society nurturing, education, religious training, stable political environment, friendship, love, human intimacy, and much more, all of which contribute to the eventual great man; or, in Spencer’s overstated terms, are what “make him.”

One assumes Spencer does not mean what James ascribes to him: that society—its cultural evolution, educational system, government, and so forth —necessitates, at precisely that moment, the birth of a man with the vigorous brain activity of a Shakespeare; but merely, that once such an individual is born, society trains that brain to cognize, to value, to feel, in specific forms.  James is here guilty of a straw man fallacy.

Aside from the reification already described—and the realization that the education, cultural accomplishments, and so forth, provided the germinating genius proceed from other individuals and institutions founded, run, and supported by individuals—both disputants overlook a cardinal principle necessary to understand the gestation of any person’s thinking and values, including those of a genius: volition. (This is an oversight especially puzzling in the case of James, strong advocate of free will that he is.)

Do Spencer and James differ over no more than variants of determinism, with the former advocating a social—and the latter a biological—version? If so, this writer disagrees.

That a Shakespeare is born with a robust brain (and nervous system) generating rich, diverse, quick, multiple neural firings—or however 21 st century neuro-biology understands such functions—seems clear. Who doubts that the brain of a genius is pre-eminently active?

In a form analogous to how the coordinated muscle structure of an Olympic champion facilitates athletic accomplishments, just so the vigorous brain functioning of a Shakespeare is a necessary condition of  intellectual ones.  A certain type of brain and the neural activity it actuates are, presumably, foundations of the “one percent inspiration” of genius properly invoked by Edison.

Further, if an individual of prodigious cerebral endowment, such as a Shakespeare, is born to a primitive nomadic tribe, which has yet to formulate written language, the education, values, and training afforded by such a society provide scant opportunity for the potential Bard to actualize his surpassing literary gifts. (Although, he might be exactly the individual, in that society, who pioneers written language; the earlier absence of which itself provides opportunity). That the history, culture, education, political system, and so forth, of a given society emphatically affects the germination of a great individual’s intellect and values—on what basis can such a proposition be doubted?

Nevertheless, an individual is not the crafted outcome of what other individuals molded him to be; as many parents have ruefully discovered. He/she is not the sum total of the thoughts, appraisals, beliefs, emotions, and actions of the myriad individuals who have, to greater or lesser degree, impacted him. He is influenced; he is not molded.

If individuals are molded, who or what molded the original molders? (Or, in Spencer’s overstated terms, if society “make[s]” an individual, who makes the makers?) Somewhere in time, the process of molding began; otherwise, no process. Who initiated it? And what were the culture’s determining influence(s) on him (or them)? Or are we to assume that the human race’s progenitors made fundamental choices of which their descendants are incapable? If so, what principle explains the volition possessed by some members of humanity, as distinct and apart from the rest?

In short, the thesis that some individuals “make” an individual, is hopelessly entangled in an infinite regress of causes. For, the individuals that made Napoleon were themselves “made” by antecedent individuals, who, of course, were “made” by individuals prior to them, and so forth, ad infinitum. Positing such an infinite regress of causation is a more egregious logical error even than reification.

Further, does the super-charged brain activity of a Shakespeare necessitate its direction into literature? Was it neither neurologically nor socially possible for a man of such intellectual gifts to spark interest in mathematics or medicine or art? Indeed, was it necessary that he pursue an intellectual career at all? Many a time, honest observers have witnessed the sad spectacle of supremely gifted individuals squandering immense intellectual inheritance, as do some of their unfortunate counterparts regarding material ones.

As a striking example, Shakespeare’s brilliant contemporary, poet/dramatist, Christopher Marlowe, was, aged twenty-nine, stabbed to death under mysterious circumstances that might never be entirely understood.

Nevertheless, tragically, for the claim that Marlowe was as much a genius of low-living as he was of theater arts, there is abundant supporting evidence. An anonymous 16 th century contemporary wrote of him: “Pity it is that wit so ill should dwell, Wit lent from Heaven, but vices sent from hell.”

That a man possesses active brain and brilliant acumen provides no assurance that he values either—that he will doggedly pursue serious intellectual interests, literary or otherwise—or, so  doing, that he will not simultaneously court dissipation or early demise in riotous hedonism, gratuitous violence, or one or another of self-destruction’s myriad seductive forms.

Marlowe manifested a short but brilliant career. How many others, with equally potent brains and similarly powerful vices, manifested careers only short—or non-existent? The graveyards, one sadly suspects, are filled with skeletons of potential geniuses that, for one or another reason, were never heard from.

The truth is that Shakespeare was born with a vibrantly active brain that enabled prodigious intellectual achievement—that he appeared in a 16 th century English culture that prized theater and literature, providing thereby encouragement and opportunity—and that he chose an intellectual career and chose one distinctively in the field of literature.   

Choice, as a real aspect of human life, is known via direct introspective awareness–and the flaws of determinism, in any of its forms, are intellectually fatal.   (See Appendix B: “A Challenge to Determinism.”)

Four: Heroes possess no moral authority to command obedience:  Why do purveyors of the Great Man theory claim that a hero should rightfully possess unlimited political power?

Is it because he/she embodies a will to dominance that forms the core of metaphysical reality, is thereby incarnation of it, and entitled—as, in effect, reality’s certified deputy—to shunt, bestride, or trample lesser men? Or is it because the great individual possesses wisdom and judgment lacking in mere mortals, whose otherwise lost souls call out desperately for his guidance?

Is his/her rule justified by brute power—as, according to the most radical Greek Sophists—force was the final arbiter of right and wrong? [xvii] Or is it sanctioned by paternalism, similar to that of Plato’s vision of a Socrates-like Philosopher King? Is it the great person’s rightful destiny to overthrow societies, and, living “beyond” the conventional moral codes they embody, crush sniveling weaklings strewn athwart his path? Or, under the burden of noblesse oblige, must his/her reign embody not merely a material generosity to those less prosperous but, as well, a spiritual guidance to those less wise?

Clearly, for Nietzsche, the propositions contained in the former questions constitute his reasons; nor is it a matter of guesswork that, for Carlyle, those in the latter.

In his 1849 essay, “Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question,” Carlyle is brutally clear regarding the reasons of paternalism’s rectitude. It is here that Carlyle first applied his now-famous epithet “the dismal science” to economics. What is “dismal” regarding economics? The economists’ commitment to individuals making unfettered choices in free markets, unguided by their intellectual and/or moral superiors.

To be blunt, Carlyle regarded certain human beings—blacks, European serfs, Irishmen, low-born workers—as unqualified for self-governing. The principles of individualism, individual rights, and political-economic liberty cut asunder such persons from a hierarchical society that bestowed upon them a sustaining  guidance from their superiors.  For this reason, Carlyle fervently supported race-based slavery—and excoriated the economists because they did not. [xviii]   In the end, in politics, Carlyle embodies a bastardized version of Platonism.

In truth, however, to the extent that authoritarian rulers are upheld as heroes, and hero worship is held to be unreserved reverence for and unquestioning obedience to them, they are dangerous figures; properly, human beings should be fearful of such beliefs.  In the “Prologue” to her book, Heroes, Saviors, Traitors, and Supermen: A History of Hero Worship, Lucy Hughes Hallett warns against human willingness to “hand over their political rights to a glorious superman.” [xix]    Regarding this aspect of the complex issue, she is quite right.

Why? The answer can be succinctly stated: Rational beings possess the wherewithal, and must accept the responsibility, to govern their own lives. To surrender this right is not merely to threaten political liberty, and enshrine statism, but to undermine the role of the mind in each individual’s life. Did nature endow us with a mind to surrender it to a fatherly despot? When we are children, we need the loving supervision of our parents. Does it follow that, as adults, we yet require such supervision from the state?

Epistemologically, psychologically, morally—despite our years, experience, and wisdom attained—do we perennially remain akin to children? Do the vast majority of persons—healthy, able-bodied, possessing a human brain—require Political Big Daddy or Super Nanny to guide them? “An exaggerated veneration for an exceptional individual poses an insidious temptation. It allows worshippers to abnegate responsibility, looking to great men for salvation or for fulfillment which they more properly should be working to accomplish for themselves.” [xx]

A healthy adult living in a free society can and will deploy his/her intelligence to choose the education he receives, the field of study in which he specializes, the career he pursues, the locale of his residence, and so forth regarding the myriad values of human life.

Could the state, for example,  know for Jenny Smith—better than she could know—what is best for her regarding a single one of these values, much less the totality? By what means? Jenny Smith, let us say, chooses to study biology—but the state deems architecture a field for her better suited. What evidence could the state adduce to support its claim? Since Carlyle (and many others) assumes paternalism, the kinship of a benevolent state to a loving parent, the sought-after outcome must include the well-being of the individual citizen.

By what means could the state know that architecture, rather than biology, will best ensure Ms. Smith’s fulfillment? Will it administer a battery of sophisticated aptitude tests? Will it hire expert psychologists to interview and examine her? Will it coerce her—as a trial run—to spend x amount of time studying architecture?

And what if, after all of the state’s noblest efforts, Ms. Smith persists in obdurate commitment to biology? Will the state coerce her into its preferred field? If so, is it reasonable to expect that, under conditions of forced labor, Ms. Jenny Smith will achieve career fulfillment?

Further, once this aspect of Ms. Smith’s drama is resolved, the state is yet faced with guiding her life regarding other significant human values. Multiply this dilemma by the fifty million citizens (or greater) populating a given society, and the insuperable epistemological difficulties faced by a paternalistic state become manifest.

Or, if it is assumed that the state need concern itself only with the best interest of society as a whole—rather than the fulfillment of individual citizens—how is this achieved? Under individual rights and freedom, individuals pursue their own values. But the impelling premise of paternalism is that the wise political rulers know what is best for each citizen—more ably than he/she can know for himself/herself.

If the state “guides,” that is, can coerce a person toward the end it—but not he/she—cherishes, how many members of society will be fulfilled? How many will work conscientiously, as opposed to resentfully and half-heartedly? How many will commit suicide? How is the best interest of society—a composite of millions of individuals—served by the enforced frustration of countless of those individuals?

Thus far, we have discussed only education and career. Throw in the values of friendship, romantic love, marriage, and children, and the prescription for state-dominated misery becomes irresistible.

Related: Nietzsche, in his best moments and moods, recognizes that the greatest individuals or most perfected heroes are not conquerors or kings, but creative artists and intellectual geniuses. About this, he is correct. What of such creative minds under paternalism? Are we to believe the wise rulers those most capable of identifying and nurturing such nascent talent? And what ensues if the germinating genius seeks independence from the state, as do teen-agers from parents, and dares disagree with its edicts and policies?

What occurs if he/she persists in such disagreement into adulthood, using his creative gifts to convey his message to the public? Stripped of the right to govern his/her life by application of his own intelligence, and obligated to—in all matters—accept the state’s superior wisdom, is he inevitably faced with the brutal alternative: Kowtow or die? How thick is the irony when Plato’s politics, embodied, results in the execution of a future Socrates?

Politically, this form of hero worship necessitates state worship. Ironically, in its milder form, it makes life exceedingly difficult for the great creative minds that constitute mankind’s grandest heroes; in its most virulent form, it crushes them.

The great man theory of heroism, as debated in the 19th century, is fatally flawed. Impact on society or on history is not a proper criterion of heroism; nor are many of the individuals hero-worshipped worthy of it. Heroes are “made” by neither genetic inheritance nor social conditioning nor a combination of the two; although these are impactful factors, they do not cover the waterfront; additionally, heroes choose to perform the life-enhancing feats they do, often under great duress and against social opposition; such courageous choices are part of what make them heroes. Heroes, as earlier discussed, are to be worshiped and emulated; not blindly obeyed.

Get your copy of Heroes, Legends, Champions: Why Heroism Matters today!

[i] Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, And The Heroic In History (Middlesex, England: Echo Library, 2007), p. 123.

[ii] Ibid.,  p. 123.

[iii] Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, tr. M. Cowan (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1955), pp. 42-43.

[iv] Ibid. , p. 201.

[v] Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, in The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter Kaufman (New York: Viking, 1954), p. 129.

[vi] W.T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy, vol. 4, “Kant and the Nineteenth Century” (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1975), p. 257.

[vii] Carlyle, op. cit., p. 21.

[viii] Herbert Spencer, The Study of Sociology (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1896), p. 34.

[ix] William James, “Great Men and their Environment” in The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1956), pp. 225-26.

[x] Ibid., pp. 234-35.

[xi] Ibid., p. 227.

[xii] Ibid., p. 230.

[xiii] Ward Fearnside and William Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959), p. 43.

[xiv] James, op. cit., p. 230.

[xv] Quoted in Will and Ariel Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 11, “The Age of Napoleon” (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975), p. 773.

[xvi] Ibid., p. 235.

[xvii] W.T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy, Volume One, “The Classical Mind” (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969), pp. 68-71.

[xviii] Carlyle, “Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question,” www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/carlyle/occasion.htm . Retrieved July 16, 2016. David Levy, How The Dismal Science Got Its Name (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), pp. xiii-xv, 3-28, 41-57, 147, 158-197, and passim. Levy, “150 years and Still Dismal!”  www.fee.org/articles/150-years-and-still-dismal/. Retrieved July 16, 2016.

[xix] Lucy Hughes-Hallett, Heroes, Saviors, Traitors, and Supermen: A History of Hero Worship (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2004), p. 14.

[xx] Ibid., p. 5

Recent Posts

• Joseph Conrad’s Exquisitely Brutal Novella, “Heart of Darkness”
• “Race Blind” Individualism is the Solution to Antisemitism
• Great Islamic Thinkers Versus Islam
• Climate The Movie: The Cold Truth
• Barbara Stanwyck

Historical Theories: The Great Man vs. Zeitgeist

Unlike the zeitgeist theory, the Great man theory is based on the idea that remarkable humans make history. Thus, each century is represented by heroes who are unique in their abilities and who are able to influence the whole world through their actions. However, the theory disregards the socio-economic and cultural factors that influence those men to do remarkable things. Instead, their traits are so unique that they cannot be explained by the world these individuals live in or any other possible impacts on personality development. This is the downside that the zeitgeist theory addresses. Based on this premise, history is driven by an invisible force that correlates with a specific epoch (Leahey, 2018). Thus, people are impacted by the general spirit of the era and not the other way around, which highlights the specific characteristics of different time periods in history and their differences based on the ideas that were critical at the moment. Based on the general premise of the zeitgeist theory mentioned prior, I subscribe to its aim and explanation of how the world changes.

Based on the zeitgeist theory, the last ten years within US history have been predominantly highlighted by an emphasis on environmental and social activism. Such causes are often represented in the media since the public is rather active when it comes to supporting or going against a social agenda. An example would be the MeToo movement, which has been revolutionary in terms of bringing awareness to sexual harassment, a topic that remained uncovered for decades. Moreover, the Black Lives Matter movement has become the reason for protests all over the country, which is how people have expressed concern for issues such as inequality and racial discrimination. On the other hand, the environmental agenda has been highlighted through the appearance of such companies as Tesla and the US government’s aim to invest in clean energy. Thus, it is certain that the US population is primarily concerned with these specific aims, and the trends show that the Zeitgeist theory is exemplified through people’s desire to support such causes.

Leahey, T. H. (2018). A history of psychology. From antiquity to modern (18th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, December 10). Historical Theories: The Great Man vs. Zeitgeist. https://studycorgi.com/historical-theories-the-great-man-vs-zeitgeist/

"Historical Theories: The Great Man vs. Zeitgeist." StudyCorgi , 10 Dec. 2022, studycorgi.com/historical-theories-the-great-man-vs-zeitgeist/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Historical Theories: The Great Man vs. Zeitgeist'. 10 December.

1. StudyCorgi . "Historical Theories: The Great Man vs. Zeitgeist." December 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/historical-theories-the-great-man-vs-zeitgeist/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Historical Theories: The Great Man vs. Zeitgeist." December 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/historical-theories-the-great-man-vs-zeitgeist/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Historical Theories: The Great Man vs. Zeitgeist." December 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/historical-theories-the-great-man-vs-zeitgeist/.

This paper, “Historical Theories: The Great Man vs. Zeitgeist”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: December 10, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Sample details

• Words: 1578

Related Topics

• Microorganisms
• Ebola Virus
• Cell biology
• Biomolecules
• Circulatory system
• Natural Selection
• Cardiovascular system
• Cohabitation

The Great Man Theory Essay

The Great Man Theory

This term paper explains the leadership style of “The Great Man Theory”, by Thomas Carlyle, a historian of nineteenth century. The idea of the theory is leader and leadership. The basic idea of the theory is that leaders are born and not made. Thomas Carlyle, a historian in nineteenth century presented his ideas on leadership, named “The Great Man Theory.” Carlyle focused on the influence great men had on historical events. Like great people such as Mohammad, Shakespeare, and Napoleon among others (Goleman). The basic theme of The Great Man Theory is that “Leaders are born and not made” (Bass). Research done in the nineteenth and early part of twentieth century on the leadership primarily focused on the people who were already great and established leaders. These people were mostly from the aristocratic class, very few people in the lower classes had the opportunity to lead. This is the reason why the belief that leadership is generally related with aristocracy or upper class (Bass). The idea presented in the great man theory also comes from the myth that a great man would magically rise. This theory did not focus on gender because in the great man theory most of the leaders at that time were male and they believed that a woman as a leader was not an accepted idea (Goleman). The great man theory talks about the influence of great men in history. The main reason for the impact of great men on the history, is due to personal traits of the leaders such as wisdom, passion, charisma, competence, and trust. The great man theory has received a lot of attention ever since presented by Carlyle. Such a great amount of attention is focused on history or events of history that are related and written about great men. The significance of the great man theory is also due to the relationship of performance with the personalities in top position (Kayworth.) Most of the research made in the psychological area, with reference to the great man theory, has specifically been oriented to the complexities in selecting individuals who are best suitable to assume the role of leadership (Kayworth). The theory says that great men continue to remain as the great personalities over a period of time. Different events in which great men are involved have a higher product rate of success. Moreover, great men are said to show a huge extent of strength in the events full of fearfulness and nervousness (Bass.)

ready to help you now

Without paying upfront

The great man theory states that the quality of a great man is leadership. Some believe that at the time of Carlyle, leaders are very different from their followers. Carlyle also believes that fate was a primary reason for the major events of history. The idea that leaders are born and not made was accepted and acknowledged not only by the scholars but of others that tried to make people believe in this theory. The great men in each community were to have great levels of energy, morals and be very intelligent. It was believed that followers are always led by the leaders. The ideas of this theory mention such men as Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln and Douglas MacArthur as the role models of great men theory, who were born with great abilities that have been associated with this theory (Bass). For the last fifty years, contingency theories and behavioral theories have dominated literature and the focus of scholars has shifted away from the great man theory. However, there are some scholars who still consider the idea that leaders are born and not made. They believe that leadership is not a learned skill but has something to do with natural forces. In researching the idea of the theory that biographies and life histories of great men sometimes say that they had entered the world with great genetic abilities and somehow their future role of leadership was predetermined. The critics of this theory believe that it is just a myth. They believe that leadership can be taught and learned and that everybody has a desire to learn. The great man theory emphasizes the role of leaders. Carlyle states that few people have the distinctive features. Leaders that are said to be a genius have the qualities to succeed. Leadership is a demanding job with huge responsibilities and enormous pressures. It would be a disappointment to leaders to think that they are just ordinary people who were in the right place just at the right time (Bass). The idea of great man theory supports the idea that the ability to lead is natural and cannot be created. The role of leader to lead is associated with the leader’s personality. Managers and leaders are not the same. As managers seem to favor maintaining the condition of status quo, the leaders strives for innovation taking all possible risks (Zaleznik 126). Leaders seems to have traits that are common with artists, like creativity, than managers do. Leaders are distinctive in history, motivation and the ways in which they think and act.

They are also different in the sense of their selves, their work abilities and their relationships with others. The difference between leadership and management can be explained that managers confront with complexity, and in leadership it is mostly coping with change. It is stated that leadership and management are different processes but not necessarily different people. The people in favor of this theory firmly believe that management turns into leadership when it matures (Goleman, 23). “Leaders are inductive, managers are deductive; leaders are dynamic managers are static; leaders have ideas, managers act on facts; leaders have broad vision, managers have narrow; Leaders are experiential, managers are rote; leaders ask questions, managers answer them; leaders develop and construct processes, managers are content with already developed processes; leaders have strategy, managers plan tactics; leaders have long-term vision, managers have short-term; leaders are always looking for change, managers prefer stability; leaders take risk, managers avoid them by following the rules strictly (Goleman, 46).” Defining charisma seems to be more difficult than defining leadership. The distinctive feature is a gift or talent, according to some scholars including Carlyle. The theory strongly asserts that leaders are born having such mystical abilities and are different from their followers. “Personal Factors: Cognitive- pluralist, radical and unitary ideologies, orientation of social domination: Motivational- authoritarianism: Moral- egalitarianism and moral development along with moral scope (Goleman, 48).” “Situational Factors: Deep structures- norms, roles, history, distribution of wealth and hierarchy: Goal Interdependence; and Culture (Goleman, 48).” From mid-nineteenth century to the decade of 1940, the research on leadership was dominated by efforts to show that there are characteristics or qualities that leaders have that set them from followers. The research shows that leadership abilities are that of an effective and successful leader. Studies have focused on the measurement of leadership traits and the relationship that is between criteria and traits of leader effectiveness (Bass). Leadership was not believed to be separate and different from the other traits that are used in language to show differences that exist among people. On the other hand leadership was believed to be property, the survival of which was explicable in relations with other fundamental or basic traits that make individuals different (Bass). It is important to point out some of the view points and arguments against the great man theory.

Prior to the middle of 20th century, the idea presented by the great man theory had an impact on one idea of leadership.

However, the idea of the great man theory has lost, specifically after the middle of twentieth century. The main reasons for this downfall of the theory was the development of behavioral sciences (Bass). The scholars have now directed their time and energy elsewhere. The contingency and behavioral theories continue to dominate. Most of the modern scholars do not believe that leaders are born and that the great man theory is just a myth. They believe that leadership is, a learned skill and has nothing to do with natural forces (Mowery). Modern day scholars firmly believe that the effectiveness of leaders is influenced by environmental forces rather their abilities. They believe that leaders have little impact over technological factors (Mowery). The decisions made by leaders are connected by the wave of the world economy. They believe that leaders are helpless when they face tragedies such as natural disaster. They rarely show control over external forces, they just provide necessary support as they adapt to the situation. The concepts presented in the great man theory have been discussed in this paper. Thomas Carlyle, a historian in nineteenth century presented the great man theory in which he focused on the leadership theme. Carlyle believes that leaders are born and not made. These qualities include wisdom, passion, and competence. It could be concluded, that even the ideas and thoughts of modern scholars have drifted away from the idea of the great man theory, yet some of the ideas presented in the theory on leadership are still valued and admired by a select group of individuals.

Bibliography Bass, Bernard. “Bass & Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership.” 3rd Ed. New York. The Free Press 1990

Goleman, Daniel. “Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence”. Boston Harvard University Press. 2002

Kayworth, Turner. “Leadership effectiveness in global project teams.” Journal of Management Mowery, Delisle. “Inward technology transfer and competitiveness: The role of national innovation systems” Journal of Economics 19(1): 67. 2003

Zaleznik, Abraham. “Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?” Harvard Business Review, March-April 1992, p: 126.

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/the-great-man-theory-essay/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

• Homeostasis
• Organic compounds
• Immune System

Check more samples on your topics

Great man theory analysis julius caesar.

Julius Caesar

Julius Caesar was doubtless a adult male who changed history. His life and its narrative have inspired coevalss of awe and scrupulous survey. Many would reason he is the most influential adult male in recorded history. However, can the great Caesar genuinely be declared a event-making adult male, harmonizing to the standards of the Great

Great-Man Theory

Intelligence

As I have read about it, a peculiar interest in me has been raised about the fantastic manner in which many people have utilized their natural abilities as a medium of reunion and leadership. I found a strong nexus between the gifts or accomplishments these individuals had and their peculiar behavior during the time they

The Comparison of Behavior Theory, Contingency Theory and Transformational Theory

Transformation

Leadership is one of the most complex and multifaceted phenomena to which organisational and psychological research has been applied. While the term "leader" was noted as early as the 1300s (The Oxford English Dictionary, 1933) and conceptualised even before biblical times, the term leadership has been in existence only since the late 1700s (Stogdill, 1974). Even

How did the Renaissance change Man’s view of man

Renaissance

How did the renaissance change man’s view of man? The renaissance changed man’s view of man through the lenses of philosophy, religion, art, and science. Philosophy was made that challenged the ideas of monarchs and how people should be ruled. There were many pre-conceived church doctrines which were challenged by the great scientists of that

A Good Man is Hard to Find and A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings Analysis

A Very Old Man With Enormous Wings

Comparative Analysis of Two Short Stories, ` A good man is hard to find ` and  ‘A very old man with enormous wings’ The short story ‘A good man is hard to find’ is written by an Irish Flannery O’Connor while the short story ‘A very old man with enormous wings’ is written by a Colombian

Comparison of Iron Man 1 and Iron Man 2

A Comparison of Iron Man 1 and Iron Man 2 Several superhero movies have been made but none have been as amazing and awesome as Iron Man 2, including Iron Man. The expectations of the first one were too high which made it hard for them to meet up to it. Since Iron Man failed

The poem ‘Old Man, Old Man’ written by U.A. Fanthorpe

I am going to be discussing the main theme and features of the poem 'Old Man, Old Man' written by U.A. Fanthorpe. The main theme of this poem is the relationship between and elderly man and his daughter. The relationship is exploited through memories that are brought up throughout the poem. The Old Man used to

Dave in “The Man Who Was Almost A Man” by Richard Wright

Richard Wright

In the story ' The Man Who Was Almost a Man,' Richard Wright explores the various decisions and their consequences that individuals encounter in life. The protagonist, Dave, embodies a young man who yearns to be seen as a mature adult but becomes confronted with the harsh realities of adulthood. Wright effectively portrays this

My Ideal Man: How Would you Describe an Ideal Man

What is your ideal man? I never know how to answer questions like this one, so I usually just say something along the lines of, “My ideal man is someone who wants a committment,” now, that may not sound like a bad thing– actually, I believe every woman wants that– but for a question like

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.