Role of Individuals in Historical Thought - Essay Example

Running Head: Role of Individuals in Historical Thought Role of Individuals in Historical Thought [Institute’s Role of Individuals in Historical Thought Introduction The incomparability of the associations and arguments between social forces in finding out the course of history is among the basic suppositions of historical materialism. An individual creates history through his struggle, determination and motivation, and the better is societal development the bigger the control of the individual on society. With the progress of history, the intensifying and expansion of historical efforts, and the advancement of ‘science, technology and society’ a great number individuals take part in historical happenings and every person plays a ‘mounting role’ in the historical course and boosts his involvement to the ‘treasure store’ of material as well as religious way of life. The inventive action of the person is especially great within communist society where there are encouraging environment for free of charge labour and activity in different fields of social existence (Plekhanov, p. 32, 2003). Individuals, not Forces, make History Great individuals do not emerge accidentally but through historical requirement, when the resultant objective circumstances are ready. Exceptional leaders arrive at the forefront during a phase of fundamental radical alterations within society, political activities and known revolts. People of intellect appear in science usually when invention needs some outstanding scientific breakthrough. Exceptional artists, most of the time, show their flair on the most important ‘turning points in history’. In addition, a brilliant individual will go down in history simply if the general public requires his aptitude, temperament and intelligence on a particular phase of its progress. The leaders of the working class and all the waged people - such as Marx, Engels and Lenin - were wonderful individuals who left a profound mark on history. They were leaders of a “qualitatively new type” (Plekhanov, p. 51, 2003), impressive scholars and controller of the best faction of the public, the radical association of the working class. They had pledge and valour, unwavering personal belief in the impartiality of the socialist reasons, affection for the individuals and extreme dislike for their opponents. They were strongly connected with the public, trained them and in turn gained knowledge from the public, taking a broader view of their “rich revolutionary experience” (Limaye, p. 193, 1986). Lately, Oakeshotts efforts have been described as a ‘reformulation’ of moderation, one which attempts to free it of the conventionally main policies of “materialism, economism, and utilitarianism” (Limaye, p. 221, 1986). His individualism is known to be a systematically ‘Hegelian’ dismissal of the usual exact assumptions causing the materialist belief. Oakeshott is quoted mostly for having symbolically explained human activity along with interaction as dialogue. Ironically, a number of political philosophers fail to notice Oakeshotts added declaration that the persistent obsession with particular activities has in fact facilitated in making the general discussion of humanity relatively uninteresting.“Philosophy, on the other hand, is also effectively conversational; it is unusually conversable” (Limaye, p. 291, 1986). Oakeshott’s formation of history is possibly more an issue of ‘modesty than of nihilism’. For Oakeshott, history’ as it is generally considered is a vague phrase, exemplifying two separate thoughts. First, there is the estimated sum of the existence of humankind, or the course of - in some way related - happenings inside this human account. This is a ‘past com prised’ of real historical happenings as well as individuals by actual historical performers; it is they, who make history, not the historians. Oakeshott argues that as it imagines history as a helpful collection of evidence to be mastered; this is not an appropriately historical approach towards the earlier period. The past, as a real sequence of historical happenings or as a fundamental arrangement of historical performers, is beyond understanding. Oakeshott subscribes to a subsequent start of history as the ideate, verbal or written perceptive of that earlier period. “Elton offered his writings on the nature and methods of history not as philosophy, but as an account of what working historians like himself did” (Tapp, p. 81, 1958). To make this sort of an account logical and believable, it was essential to clarify and support the basic suppositions highlighting the disciplines conventional traditions. The collective outcome of Eltons attempts was a persistent justification of what may be known as a ‘human action account’ of the earlier period: the approach that history was not the outcome of social formations, objective strengths or linguistic conversations, but of independent human mediators and that to describe as well as understand the earlier period, historians are required to give an description of those mediators activities in their personal terms, as they were existed and cooperated at the time (Tapp, p. 43, 1958). According to Eltons idea of history as a narrative of human presence and action there was small place for those significant powers, developments, formations, and patterns treasured by social scientists. Everything related to history - the occurrences of the earlier period - takes place to and by individuals. Sociological groupings may be helpful explanatory ‘shorthands’ of activities and results in the long-run, although they stayed concepts not capable to describe particular behaviour and occurrences - the information as well as particularities of past events formed by actual individuals while performing something. According to Elton, history deals with the actions of human beings and not ideas. “Elton argued that the process of historical research should not be a matter of selecting facts to prove a thesis or an argument but the reconstruction of a real past peopled by real individuals who did things that actually happened - and the veracity of such reconstructions should be assessed and judged against all the known evidence, not just that which is presented in a particular account” (Hallett, p. 23, 1967). In addition, “Individuals who approach history with a conspiracy theory are missing the real point of social sciences. Popper states that it is the task of social theory to explain how the unintended consequences of our intentions and actions arise, and what kind of consequences arise if people do this that or the other in a certain social situation” (Hallett, p. 94, 1967). Popper argues that no human kind is faultless, but in any case, the one we have at the moment, has extended an intricate custom that has a history following it. The thought that individuals could forget about all the customs and start fresh is wrong. The recent society would be an indigent one. He declares that customs have the significant dual role of not just forming a particular order or something similar to a social formation, but as well providing something upon which people can function; something on which people can pass judgement and modify. This point is critical for the people, ‘as rationalists and as social reformers’. A number of social reformers have a thought that they want to clean the social world, forgetting about everything and beginning from scratch with new and logical humankind. This thought is senseless and impracticable to implement. If one wants create a logical world once again, there is no motive to think that it will be a contented planet. There is no motive to trust that a ‘blue-printed’ humanity will be any superior than the existing world. There are individuals who argue that human beings decide nothing, “but are thrown about by the greater objective forces of history” (Tapp, p. 54, 1958). This school of thought symbolizes fatalism, where people work as sheer ‘marionettes’, their actions are controlled by some unseen hand. This thought is originated from a Calvinist set of guidelines that every human action is exquisitely predetermined. It is the mental condition expressed in Luther’s words, “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise” (Sampson, p. 18, 1988). The power of destiny forgets about every thought of personal independence in addition to the autonomous movement of the masses. However, this is not the case. People make history. Socialists - in contrast to the shallow pessimists - do not disagree with the part of the individual, his idea or courage, within the social effort. It is the duty of socialism to reveal the dialectical association between the human being and the great forces that preside over the progress of society. Historical materialism does not disregard the responsibility of the individual in history, however, observes this responsibility within its historical background (Matthews, p. 164, 1994). Socialism describes that no individual, regardless of how brilliant, competent or predictive, can find out the major path of historical progress, which is formed by objective forces. On the other hand, in crucial state of affairs, the part played by human beings can be significant, the final influential connection in the series of causality. In some particular situations, the ‘individual factor’ can turn out to be the most significant reality in history. The part of Lenin during the Russian uprising is an example of such situation. Whereas, the individual in history can be observed to have played fundamental part, such part could only be assumed during certain social situation (Sampson, p. 17, 1988). Individuals can control the destiny of society by virtue of innate qualities of their personality. Their power is occasionally very significant; however, the chance of its being implemented and its level are decided by society along with the arrangement of its forces. An individual’s personality is an aspect within social progress, only to the level that social associations allow it to be. In other words, there are specific confines to the part of individuals. No exceptional individual can compel on society associations, which no longer match to the condition of these forces or do not yet match to them. In this sense, certainly, he is unable make history. Conclusion Whereas historical materialism offers superiority to the objective aspects in history, for instance, the level of the prolific forces as well as the current class associations, the subjective aspect can play a significant part. Nonetheless, there is more to this association. The separation of observable fact in history between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ is not fixed and relies on their pertinent connection. For instance, the global market is ‘objective’ to every country that creates it. Every country is secondary to the global market and unavoidably related to it. In the meantime, the country is objective to the classes that forms its social arrangement (Matthews, p. 102, 1994). Then again, the leading class is objective to the salaried class, and the class is objective to its social standing. The human being has a subjective position with respect to all these aspects. The degree of this power of individual on history will rely on the level of progress of historical situation, the connection of social forces, as well as the function of the individual in these forces. There are usually extensive periods where even the most predictive cannot have any effect on the path of history. On the other hand, sometimes, in crucial situation, an individual’s part can be significant (Ford, p. 194, 1991). History struggles between various social classes and their necessary divisions, mainly over-estimated by the inner judgment of every particular form of production. This view of history is not supported by the defiance of human beings’ individuality nor on an ‘underestimation’ of individual independence, personality or standards (DeVos, p. 89, 1995). References DeVos, George A. 1995. The role of ethnicity in social history. AltaMira Press. Ford, Norman M. 1991. When Did I Begin? Cambridge University Press. Hallett, E. 1967. WHAT IS HISTORY? A Distinguished Historian Seeks to Reconcile the Doctrine of Progress with the Present State of the World in the Light of Modern Concepts of Determinism, Accident, Causation, Objectivity, and the Role of the Individual in History. Alfred A. Knopf. Limaye, M. 1986. Prime Movers: Role of the Individual in History. Stosius Inc/Advent Books Division. Matthews, Michael R. 1994. Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of science. Routledge. Plekhanov, Georgi V. 2003. The Role of the Individual in History. University Press of the Pacific. Sampson, Edward E. 1988. ‘The debate on individualism: Indigenous psychologies of the individual and their role in personal and societal functioning.’ American Psychologist, vol. 43, issue 1, pp. 15-22. Tapp, Edwin J. 1958. The role of the individual in history. Australian Press. Read More