The Great Man Fallacy

There's a famous approach to the study of history called the Great Man Theory of history. I'm not sure when I started believing so strongly in the erroneousness of this ideology, but I very much do now. I'm motivated to write this because counter to my convictions, the Great Man Theory (GMT) holds much sway in how people think, consciously or subconsciously, because of how it simplifies history. This is often particularly true when thinking about nations and their leaders. However, I think this historical lens is flawed and dangerous, appealing to our base instincts but leading to a misunderstanding of the true scope of social movements. Doing the hard work of understanding social forces at play is a better way to understand nations as well as how to tackle massive problems like climate change.

The gist of the GMT is that super smart people, men invariably, have shaped our nations, advanced our science, and single-handedly helped our understanding of the world. We know their names - Einstein, Jobs, Hitler, Stalin, Kennedy, Napoleon, Gandhi. Through their forces of personality and perhaps lucky timing, they have had outsized individual impact on our societies. 

Like all compelling theories, GMT has elements of truth. Most companies, organizations and countries assign controlling power to an individual, as many real world decisions need to be made with a speed and efficiency that's enabled by a single executor. When debating the formation of the office of President of the United States, Alexander Hamilton dedicated an entire Federalist paper (#70) examining the flaws of a dual executive in Ancient Rome. As a result, when an individual does ascend to a position like CEO or President, they have the power to apply their personal worldviews and ideas to great effect.

But even when a chief makes an executive decision, they are often responsive to larger forces rather than shaping them. CEOs feel the pressure from shareholders to buyback stock, or face revolt from employees unless they focus more on diversity, or they order a reorganization based on a Harvard Business Review article. Understanding those drivers is often more important than understanding an individual leader's personalities or opinions.

Those drivers, or forces, are abstract and nebulous. It's much easier to study an individual person, wherein lies the attractiveness of GMT. The individual is the smallest unit of society, the propellant behind any action. And we are all individuals. We can understand others like us, with their own unique stories and motivations. 

Nevertheless, we can and should still examine the forces behind notable individuals. Take Barack Obama’s rise. He’s often described as a generational political talent, with his charisma and oratory skills particularly exclaimed. Indeed I have high praise for his intelligence, work ethic and values. One could read US history and Obama's election focused on his singular abilities. Or they could focus on the appetite of the country (or half the country) for the values Obama embodied. He was a product of a white/black pre-marital coupling that was received better in 1959 Hawaii than it would have been in many other places and times. Economic growth and social programs helped him to gain an elite education. His presidential candidacy came in an era where the tide of racial prejudice had turned with a whole generation born and grown post Civil Rights movement.  Had he been raised earlier in the Jim Crow south, even with his prodigious talents, it's hard to imagine him becoming president. But one could argue that by 2008, the liberal-leaning American public wanted someone to break the streak of white male presidents, and that were it not Obama, the Democratic establishment may have coalesced around a man like Deval Patrick or Cory Booker.  Once in office, Obama was as subject to larger political forces as any before him. Despite his reputation as a liberal stalwart, Obama did not support gay marriage until 2012. He did not let up on the war on terror, did not close Guantanamo, and could not accomplish many of his objectives in immigration reform, taxation reform, etc.  

Many Americans understand the Russian government and major decisions such as the invasion of Ukraine through the framework of Vladimir Putin. Indeed his worldview has been the obvious driver of a hardline change in Russia's international standing.  But if his worldview were singular and not shared by Russians, it is likely he would not be able to exact his agenda or even remain in power. While there is certainly plenty of quashed dissent within Russia, there is also a groundswell of animosity against Western nations and historical grievances. When Putin launches accusations of hypocrisy, it lands with the populace, enhanced but not created by his tight grip on the media.  Putin is easy to vilify, but he is not a video game boss whose demise means the game is won. The populist resentment against the west, the structure of natural resources wealth controlled by oligarchs and evolving capabilities of cyberwarfare are some of the other forces that shape Russia today and would likely contribute to a post-Putin Russia.

Xi Jinping is probably the only person an average American knows of in the Chinese government. He's been called a dictator who managed to remove term limits. His rise to leadership has coincided with a dramatic shift in China's relations to the international world, particularly the US. One could certainly attribute this turn to his ideology. But an equally valid and much less common approach would require examining the inefficiencies of his predecessor Hu Jintao, the appetite amongst the CCP leadership for a stronger central authority, and deep anti-western resentment stemming from events during the Qing Dynasty. Xi Jinping would not be able to orthogonally change China's course were he not propelled by larger forces.

Perhaps the single best examination of the GMT is its manifestation in Donald Trump. Here we have a man who seems to defy the conventional wisdom, who appears to be singular in many ways. In addition, here is a man who thrives off the simplicity of GMT, who convinces his base that problems are caused by bad individuals. He simplifies the entire legal system to the prosecutor and the judge and he personifies the Covid-19 restrictions enforced by the government as Anthony Fauci. He knows there are a myriad of reasons behind America's Covid-19 response and rules, and that Anthony Fauci was more a figurehead than anything. But it is easy to galvanize supporters to denigrate Anthony Fauci. The Trump campaign feeds off the GMT, both in promoting their man and in demonizing the enemy. The true issues in this country are the forces, from demographic change, wealth redistribution, technological changes in media to name a few, that have enabled Trump's rise and polarize American society. 

These forces are not easy to understand, let alone combat. Digging into how American society became more polarized, from our geography, consumer choices, media diet to political and religious beliefs, is a book unto itself. But if we truly want to understand the world, we can't just understand a handful of people.