 When the question of greatness arises, the prominent debate comes between advocates of the "great person theory" and advocates of the "great events theory".
Whenever articles such as this one from Pravda looks at two such conflicting theories you will nearly always find that their truth nestles comfortably somewhere inbetween. I wonder if this is because of the human need to compromise and compartmentalise?
At any rate, the first theory postulates that certain people are destined for greatness, whereas the second argues that greatness is thrust upon people as determined by the events that shape them. For readers of novels (particularly from the fantasy genre) these themes will seem quite familiar. However, it is also cause for constant debate for historians when trying to determine whether events made the man or vice versa.
My own thoughts in this are that although both theories may influence an outcome, within any given instance one will be the dominant. However, in order to determine which gave cause to the greatest influence you would have to investigate each case individually.
Of the two, I would prefer to give weight to the events theory, as this gives hope to the everyman. Although I recognise that their will be instances when someone destined to greatness, I have never favoured the idea of predestination or fate.
I am in agreement with the Pravda article in that the difficulty lies not so much with determining the cause, but in actually identifying when greatness has been achieved. For missing that is truly a tragedy.
|
