The Online Right and the "Great Man" Theory of History

To Theory or Not to Theory

If you spend too much time scrolling through X, as I do, and your native home is on the right, it is always funny to notice what the anons who are currently driving the political climate there are talking about. These people drive a good deal of the conversation concerning politics these days, so I was interested when a few days ago a number of posts popped up in my feed, all talking about the “Great Man” Theory of History, popularized by the 19th century writer Thomas Carlyle. This is the idea that all of history is driven by great geniuses more than say impersonal forces. This seems to have been touched off by someone “dissing” this idea.

These right-wing anons also attributed to the decline of this theory to the bureaucraticization of the academy.

And even those right wing accounts who are not anonymous had to jump in to defend the honour of their favored Great Man.

I wouldn’t spend this many words on a brief round of internet shitpoasting but as I am one of the intended targets, I thought I would chip in my two cents.

First of all, it is perfectly true that some great, important events in history are unthinkable without the agency of important actors. I don’t really know anyone who would deny this. But that history as a whole can be explained by this alone is simply not true, much less every great event. Take Washington and the American Revolution for example. I’m not aware of any academic historian who denies Washington’s leadership was crucial for its success. But more important was probably the alliance with France, whose navy allowed the rebels to break the British blockade. Without their support, the colonists would likely have lost the war, despite Washington’s leadership.

The “Great Man Theory” is a theory—a model meant to capture some aspect of history. Neither it nor any other theory can capture the complexity of reality. That, and not some love of impersonal explanations, explains why most academic historians look with disfavor on it.

I find the online right fascinating because, being outsiders to institutions like the academy, they sometimes are able to penetrate the often ridiculous halo of self-importance these institutions clothe themselves with in incisive ways. This is not one of those moment. I am just as critical of the modern academy but for different reasons, which I have written about elsewhere. Sufficed to say they are right to be critical of academic historians but for the wrong reasons.

They seem to be more exercised about “Great Men” than history, heritage and tradition rather than historical investigation. Indeed, it is one criticism (one I agree with) that modern history has become lost in analysis of historical minutiae and fails to provide a coherent narrative for people to understand their past. Everyone who has undergone the primitive ritual we call “getting your PhD” knows the difficulty of explaining the thoroughly esoteric subject matter of your dissertation to a normal human being.

But modern historians haven’t actually abandoned the “Great Man Theory.” Some of these anons complained about Marxists historians but most academics are just left-wing liberals mostly (“shitlibs” in the parlance of the online right), and they don’t love impersonal forces as much as they love sophistication and complexity, or at least historical explanations that make them sound as if their ideas are sophisticated and complex (they’re not). Rather than junk it altogether, most academic historians have just replaced it with the “Great Person Theory” along with most of the subjects usually associated with that theory (Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Washington). And of course they have tried to put women and POC in their place, which, you guessed it, right-wingers despise.

I actually agree with them on this point. But then your complaint is not really about history, but tradition, about which figures which will be the subject of story and myth in your culture. History can contribute to that but it is only one thread of that tapestry. I suspect one reason for the online right’s gravitating toward this idea is its general Nietzschean drift. In a society which young men especially have been discouraged from dreaming big and accomplishing great things, I can see how the idea naturally appeals to them (just think of Elon Musk and his desire to colonize Mars, which also appeals to them). Young men need something to look forward to and to believe that great feats still remain for them to accomplish, and models to imitate. As long you don’t confuse that with historical understanding, I am all for it. But my right-wing anons have swung and missed this time, and shouldn’t turn their favored theories into idols anymore than shitlib academics should theirs.