The role of an outstanding personality in history. On the topic: “The role of personality in history. The people are the creator of history

Problems related to the role of the masses and the individual in history are included in the subject of social philosophy.

Before philosophers who tried to understand, comprehend the process of world history or the history of individual countries and peoples, the question arose: what is the driving force of history, what causes and determines the course and outcome historical events, rise or fall in the life of peoples, wars, uprisings, revolutions and other popular movements? at the head of all any significant events are one or another historical figure. These are people with different characters: with great will and purposefulness or weak-willed; insightful, far-sighted, or vice versa.

These historical figures, personalities have a greater or lesser influence on the course, and sometimes on the outcome of events. Are not these historical figures - Caesars, kings, kings, political leaders, generals, ideologists - the true inspirers, movers, "culprits" of historical events, the main creators of history? Reactionary historiography ascribes the creation of the Russian state to the Varangian princes, the unification of the principalities around Moscow, the gathering of Rus' - to Ivan Kalita, and the transformation of Rus' into a powerful centralized state explains the activities of Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great. Bourgeois and noble historians explain the English revolution of the 17th century by the influence of the personality of Cromwell.

World history is the result of the activities of great or outstanding leaders - this is the conclusion that historians, philosophers, and politicians have made on the basis of a consideration of historical events. (idealism). the Marxist view, without in any way belittling the role of the individual, sees the primacy of society, public relations over personality.

Of course, the role of the individual is great because of the special place and special function that it is called upon to perform.

In general form historical figures are defined like this: these are individuals raised by the power of circumstances and personal qualities to the pedestal of history.

The question of the role of the individual in history has its roots in antiquity. Already ancient scientists laid the foundation for the tradition, according to which the individual and society are considered in close relationship. But the most fruitful epoch in solving the question of an outstanding personality was opened by German classical idealism. According to Hegel, the most important distinguishing feature of an outstanding figure is a goal that contains such a universal that forms the basis for the existence of a people or a state. It is the great people who best understand the essence of the matter, and all other people only assimilate this understanding of theirs and approve of it, or at least come to terms with it. All other people follow these spiritual guides because they feel the overwhelming power of their inner spirit. People become great insofar as they want and realize the great, and, moreover, not imaginary and imaginary, but just and necessary.

The Hegelian concept had a great influence on the interpretation of questions about the subjects of history in many philosophical teachings, including the Marxist concept. Marxists proceed from the position of the decisive role of the masses in history, while emphasizing the possibility of the individual to influence the course of the historical process. Marxism removes the extremes of those historical and philosophical positions that have excessively focused attention either on the role of the masses or individuals in historical development society. The roles of the people and the individual in history are analyzed inextricably linked.

G. Hegel called world-historical personalities those few outstanding people whose personal interests contain a substantial element that constitutes the will of the World Spirit or the Reason of history. They are not only practical and political figures, but also thinking people, spiritual leaders who understand what is needed and what is timely, and leading others, a lot. These people, albeit intuitively, but feel, understand the historical necessity and therefore, it would seem, should be free in this sense in their actions and deeds. But the tragedy of world-historical personalities lies in the fact that "they do not belong to themselves, that they, like ordinary individuals, are only tools of the World Spirit, although a great tool."

Studying the life and actions of historical figures, N. Machiavelli wrote that happiness did not give them anything, except for the chance that delivered material to their hands, to which they could give forms according to their goals and principles. It was necessary that Moses found the people of Israel in Egypt languishing in slavery and oppression, so that the desire to get out of such an intolerable situation would prompt them to follow him. And in order for Romulus to become the founder and king of Rome, it was necessary that he, at his very birth, be abandoned and removed from Alba by everyone. Indeed, the beginning of the glory of all these great people was generated by chance, but each of them only managed to attach great importance to these cases and use them for the glory and happiness of the peoples entrusted to them.

I.V. Goethe: Napoleon, not only a brilliant historical figure, a brilliant commander and emperor, but above all a genius of "political productivity", i.e. a figure whose unparalleled success and fortune, "divine enlightenment" arose from the harmony between the direction of his personal activity and the interests of millions of people for whom he managed to find things that coincided with their own aspirations.

History is made by people in accordance with objective laws. The people, according to I.A. Ilyin, there is a great divided and scattered multitude. Meanwhile, its strength, the energy of its existence and self-affirmation require unity - a single center, a person, an outstanding person in mind and experience, expressing the legal will and state spirit of the people.

A historical personality must be evaluated from the point of view of how it fulfills the tasks assigned to it by history. A progressive personality accelerates the course of events. The magnitude and nature of the acceleration depend on the social conditions in which the activity of a given individual takes place.

The very fact of nominating this particular person to the role of a historical personality is an accident. The need for this advancement is determined by the historically established need of society for a person of this kind to take the leading place. The fact that this particular person is born in this country, at a certain time, is pure coincidence.

In the process of historical activity, both strong and weak sides personality. Both sometimes acquire a huge social meaning and influence the fate of the nation, the people, and sometimes even humanity.

Since in history the decisive and determining principle is not the individual, but the people, individuals always depend on the people.

The activity of a political leader presupposes the ability to make a deep theoretical generalization of the domestic and international situation in social practice, the achievements of science and culture in general, the ability to maintain simplicity and clarity of thought in incredibly difficult conditions of social reality and to fulfill the outlined plans and program. A wise statesman is able to vigilantly follow not only the general line of development of events, but also many private "little things" - at the same time see both the forest and the trees. He must notice in time the change in the correlation of social forces, before others understand which path must be chosen, how to turn the overdue historical opportunity into reality.

A huge contribution to the development of the historical process is made by brilliant and exceptionally talented individuals who have created and are creating spiritual values ​​in the field of science, technology, philosophy, literature, art, religious thought and deeds: the names of Heraclitus and Democritus, Plato and Aristotle, Leonardo da Vinci and Raphael, Newton, Lomonosov, Mendeleev and Einstein, Goethe, Pushkin and Lermontov, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky and others. Their work left the deepest mark in the history of world culture.

G. V. Plekhanov wrote about two conditions, the presence of which allows an outstanding personality to have a great influence on the socio-political, scientific, technical and artistic development of society.

Firstly, talent should make a given person more than others corresponding to the social needs of a given era,

Secondly, the existing social system should not block the path of the individual with his abilities. If the old, feudal order in France had lasted an extra seventy years, then military talents could not have manifested themselves among a whole group of people led by Napoleon, some of whom were actors, hairdressers, lawyers in the past. When one or another outstanding person finds himself at the forefront of historical events, he often obscures not only other personalities, but also those mass social forces that nominated and support him, thanks to which and in the name of which he can manage his affairs. This is how the "cult of personality" is born.

Charismatic historical figure- a spiritually gifted person who is perceived and evaluated by others as unusual, sometimes even supernatural (of divine origin) in terms of the power of comprehending and influencing people, inaccessible ordinary person. Carriers of charisma are heroes, creators, reformers, acting either as heralds of the divine will, or as carriers of the idea of ​​a special lofty intelligence, or as geniuses going against the usual order of things.

Charles de Gaulle: there must be an element of mystery in the leader's power: the leader must not be fully understood, hence the mystery and faith.

Weber: the charismatic power of the leader is based on unlimited and unconditional, moreover, joyful submission and is supported primarily by faith in the chosenness, charisma of the ruler.

A lot depends on the head of state, but, of course, not everything. Much depends on which society elected him, what forces brought him to the level of the head of state. The people are not a homogeneous and unequally educated force, and the fate of the country may depend on which groups of the population were in the majority in the elections, with what measure of understanding they carried out their civic duty. One can only say: what is the people, such is the personality chosen by them.

There is a thesis that history is made by individuals, so when great personalities are at the head of the state, they make great story, and when the state is run by traitors and mediocrities, the country goes haywire.

This thesis is true in principle, but it describes only a small part of the historical process, for a better understanding of which it is necessary to understand where great personalities come from and why historical periods they find themselves at the head of the state, while in other historical periods this does not happen, and the ruling elite is formed by mediocrities and traitors with all the consequences.

If someone thinks that all this happens randomly and depends on whether a great statesman is born in the country or not, this is not so.

In a country with a population of many millions, people are born every year with very different qualities and inclinations, with abilities for a wide variety of activities - science, art, sports, crafts and many others, including management.

In any historical period, hundreds, and maybe even thousands of people live in a country of many millions, whose mindset, character traits and other qualities are similar to such historical figures as Lenin, Stalin, Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible and others.

It's just that not in all historical periods such people are in demand in the state and society, they do not always find themselves and make a career as politicians and statesmen.

This happens because politics is, figuratively speaking, a team sport. Politics cannot be played alone. And you can’t learn to play well alone either. Accordingly, one cannot prove oneself if there is no opportunity to play in a strong team.

Let's take a sports example. Let's take a game like hockey. Those who wish can, by analogy, consider the example of football or other team games, if they are closer to you.

Why are there many good hockey players in Russia? Because we have hockey schools, hockey rinks, there are many teams and coaches. Therefore, the boy who early years shows interest and ability in this game, has a high chance of getting to a good coach, to a good hockey school, then to a youth league team, and from there to the big leagues and further to the KHL or NHL.

He has the opportunity to train and play with other talented guys, and then with real masters, learn from their experience and eventually become the same master, and if he trains hard and adds some of his original tricks to the experience he will become an outstanding player .

To learn how to play hockey at the level of the best masters, without playing since childhood, without playing with the masters, is basically impossible.

You can watch the game on TV all you want and practice shooting in the backyard, but if you don't really play among the professionals, you won't be able to work out the interaction, you won't be able to learn how to beat others.

High skill comes with experience, is developed during training and games, it is not given from birth by itself.

To become a master, you need to play in a good team and with other good teams, and for this, the country must have a good strong league.

That is why there are many good hockey players in Russia, and there were even more of them in the Soviet Union - because in Soviet times there were hockey rinks all over the country, in many yards. And in Canada, for the same reason, there are many good hockey players - because there are several youth leagues and several adults, because every third person plays hockey there, and everyone else watches.

But in Japan there are no good hockey players. Because there this species sport is not developed. And not at all because there are no children born there who are capable of sports and team games - they are born, approximately in the same number as in Russia and Canada, only they are engaged in other sports.

Football is very developed in France or Italy, rugby in Australia - that's why there are many good football players and rugby players, not hockey players.

Quite talented children are also born in African countries, but they become outstanding athletes when they leave for Europe and get into good clubs, and those who fail to do this very rarely achieve high results, because in Africa the system of clubs is poorly developed, there are few sports schools.

This is what happens in politics.

Politics is a team game, one might even say a super-team game, because in the whole country there are usually only a few large political teams in which you can learn this game, train, gain experience playing among great masters, prove yourself and grow to the highest level.

At the beginning of the 20th century, such teams in Russia were the Social Revolutionaries, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and of course the state team, staffed by the nobility and officials.

In the state team, only Stolypin grew out of the great figures of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In the team of Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, practically no one worthy of mention has grown. And in the team of the Bolsheviks, many great figures grew up at once - Lenin, Stalin and dozens of others.

And Trotsky, no matter how they treated him, was an outstanding personality who left a significant mark on history - he also grew up in the Bolshevik team.

Because the Bolsheviks ultimately won, because their team was stronger. And it turned out to be stronger because it was staffed by masters of their craft, who over the years have been building up their knowledge and experience, practicing teamwork, learning from each other. And of course, we trained a lot, playing with other teams - the Mensheviks, the Social Revolutionaries, and most importantly - with the state.

The Bolsheviks gained experience during the events of 1905, drew conclusions and engaged in political activities for many years. Many were in exile, where they also had the opportunity to comprehend the state of affairs, exchange views and draw some conclusions.

In 1917, when the February Revolution happened, it was time for a big practical game. During the events of 1917, the Bolsheviks began to work out interaction at an accelerated pace, form a team, work out solutions, and in the end "outplayed" the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and the provisional government.

After that, a civil war began and society split into two large teams - red and white. And in this final duel, the red team won - for many reasons, which will be discussed below.

In the course of the revolution and the civil war, the Bolsheviks gained colossal experience in political activity and state building - experience that could not have been obtained in any other way.

It was from this experience - the command experience of the revolution and the civil war, as well as from previous theoretical studies and training in the period from 1905 to 1917, that such figures as Lenin, Stalin and others grew up.

Lenin and Stalin were not born great politicians and statesmen - they became them in the course of many years of practical training, finding themselves in a strong team, gaining valuable experience and taking part in historical events that gave them the opportunity to test themselves and prove themselves and test their capabilities on practice and draw conclusions from mistakes - both their own and those of others.

All this together led to the emergence of great personalities among the Bolsheviks.

A strong team, staffed with strong personalities, as well as great historical events have led to a positive selection and the formation of great statesmen.

But why did the Bolsheviks turn out to have a strong team, while the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries turned out to have a weak one, why did the state team turn out to be weak, why did the provisional government turn out to be incapacitated, and why did the Whites lose the civil war?

Is it a coincidence that the most powerful personalities gathered precisely in the team of the Bolsheviks?

Of course not.

If the appearance of strong personalities in one or another political team would be random, then the distribution would turn out to be more uniform and would depend on the size of the team. And most of the strong personalities should have ended up in the state apparatus as in the most numerous team, but this was not observed.

The Bolsheviks promoted the ideas of social democracy, which at the beginning of the 20th century were very progressive. The Social Revolutionaries did not have a strong and progressive ideological base, their ideas were reduced to revolution as such. The Mensheviks, in full accordance with the name, represented the minority of the Social Democrats.

The state apparatus was a bureaucratic machine, making a career in which is the lot of careerists and opportunists, but not individuals.

For the sum of these reasons, strong personalities began to gather in the Bolshevik team, because this team promoted strong progressive ideas and allowed them to express themselves.

But the Bolsheviks won not only because they had a strong team. The “white” team that emerged after the revolution also turned out to be quite strong in composition, but this was not enough to win.

The reason for the victory of the Bolsheviks in the civil war consists of several factors, among which two main ones can be distinguished:

1) The Bolshevik team was formed over a long period of time, starting from 1904-1905, and during this period it became quite well-coordinated, worked together, worked out interactions, and developed an ideological community. The team of "whites" was formed quickly during 1917-1918, and it included people with very different views - from monarchists to democrats. The lack of unity in the "white" team manifested itself constantly and can be easily traced by studying the history of the civil war. But this was not the only factor in the victory of the Bolsheviks.

2) The Bolsheviks offered society progressive ideas and an image of the future, which quickly became popular. The working class, soldiers and sailors, the intelligentsia and even part of the nobility took the side of the Bolsheviks. It was the popularity of the ideas of social democracy and communism that allowed the Bolsheviks to enlist the support of a significant part of society and rely on it to defend their power in the civil war.

If the Bolsheviks had not represented the ideas of social democracy that became popular in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, they would not have been able to win and retain power. And they would not have had a strong team, because it was the progressiveness and popularity of the ideas of social democracy that attracted strong and talented figures to the Bolshevik team.

Without the Bolsheviks and their team, without the ideas of social democracy that gained popularity in Russia, neither Lenin nor Stalin would have become great historical figures, they would not have made any history.

If it were not for the February Revolution as a historical event, the prerequisites for which arose long before the birth of Lenin, and the February Revolution itself happened without his participation, Vladimir Ilyich could have stayed in Switzerland and would have gone down in history as a philosopher and writer of the early 20th century, together with many others who wrote compositions, but did not take a direct part in history.

Therefore, before the individual begins to make history, history itself must make the individual.

History and society, its needs and ideas that meet these needs, leading to the emergence of political teams, the growth of their popularity and development, lead to the formation of strong personalities.

History is realized through personality, and personality through history.

Without a history that opens up opportunities for individuals, without society's demand for an individual to lead it, there will be no great historical figures, just as there will be no outstanding athletes without teams, coaches and spectators who need their performances.

Without society, without its requests, without historical moments that make it possible to express themselves - all potential Lenins, Stalins, as well as Yeltsins and Putins - would have remained in second or even third roles, would have gone down in history as writers or bombers, Chekists or secretaries of regional committees, nothing more.

The history of the destruction of the Soviet Union is actually very similar to the history of the destruction of the Russian Empire. Yeltsin and his associates came to power for similar reasons - because the ideas of democracy, only this time bourgeois, the ideas of private property, independence, various rights and freedoms became popular in society - just as they became popular in the early 20th century ideas of social democracy and communism.

Therefore, most of the bright politicians in the late 80s and early 90s gathered precisely in the camp of democrats, in the Yeltsin team, and in the team of supporters of the Soviet government there were almost no individuals capable of leading the country and people.

For the same reason, only the star of Putin, whom many consider indispensable and the most influential, burns in the political sky today. His star burns because the majority considers him the most influential, irreplaceable and does not want to see others.

Putin expresses the ideas of stability, getting up from his knees and revanchism, which are the most popular in society today, and there are simply no other fairly popular ideas today, so there are no political teams, and there are no bright personalities who would express them.

Modern Russian society enjoys being in a cozy raw material swamp, stable and predictable.

Society does not want to change and change the country, and therefore there are no individuals who would make history, except for those who are gathered into the team of the Kremlin and United Russia.

There is no political environment and command system that would form bright personalities, and there is no demand from society that forms the political environment necessary for this.

Demand creates supply - this also applies to individuals who make history.

What are the demands of society - such are the individuals who lead it.

More or less developed concepts and theoretically formalized views on the problem of the role of the individual appear only in the 19th century. However, throughout this century, the general framework of the discussion on this problem lay within certain rigid boundaries. In the words of G. V. Plekhanov, the clash of views on this issue often took the form of “an antinomy, the first member of which was general laws, and the second - the activities of individuals. From the point of view of the second member of the antinomy, history seemed to be a mere chain of accidents; from the point of view of its first member, it seemed that even the individual features of historical events were determined by the action of general causes. Only at the end of the XIX century. managed to somewhat (and then relatively) push these limits.

In the first decades of the 19th century, during the period of the dominance of romanticism, there was a turn in the interpretation of the question of the role of the individual. The ideas of the enlighteners mentioned above were replaced by approaches that placed the individual in the appropriate historical environment. And if the enlighteners tried to explain the state of society by the laws that the rulers issued, then the romantics, on the contrary, derived government laws from the nature of society, and explained changes in its state by historical circumstances. In general, it is not surprising that the romantics and trends close to them were little interested in the role of historical figures, since they focused on the “folk spirit” in different eras and in various manifestations. In particular, the historical school of law in Germany proceeded from the fact that changes in law are the result mainly of deep processes taking place within the “folk spirit”. Of course, in this approach (if we discard some mysticism associated with the ontologization of the “folk spirit”) there was a lot of truth, but there was an underestimation of the creative role of individuals, in particular, individual legislators. But at the same time, it was from romanticism that the desire to depict great people was established - in contrast to what the enlighteners did - in an exaggeratedly enthusiastic (truly romantic) manner.

Contrasting views on the role of the individual in the 19th century. Chant of heroes and kings. English philosopher Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) was one of those who returned to the idea of ​​the prominent role of individuals, "heroes" in history. One of his most famous works, which had a very strong influence on contemporaries and descendants, was called “Heroes and the heroic in history”. According to Carlyle, world history is the biography of great men. Carlyle concentrates in his works on certain personalities and their roles, preaches lofty goals and feelings, and writes a number of brilliant biographies. He says much less about the masses. In his opinion, the masses are often only tools in the hands of great personalities. According to Carlyle, there is a kind of historical circle or cycle. When the heroic principle in society weakens, then the hidden destructive forces of the masses can break out (in revolutions and uprisings), and they act until the society again discovers in itself the “true heroes”, leaders (such as Cromwell or Napoleon).

Search for opportunities to fit the personality into the process and era. In the 19th century, therefore, there is a search for a combination of the recognition of the greatness of certain historical figures with the processes of historical development. In the first two-thirds of the century, these processes were associated especially often with the development of the self-consciousness (spirit) of the people. And since this development of peoples and societies is always associated with one or another major historical figure, the theme of the role of the individual has become quite popular even among romantics. That is why many major historians have discussed it in more or less detail. At the same time, not all of them considered historical figures from the standpoint of providentialism and religious idealism (although the Hegelian influence is felt very strongly). On the contrary, a number of historians are trying to identify completely earthly (both material and ideal) factors as the driving forces of history and to inscribe in this search the significance of historical figures. As an example, one can point to such a Russian historian as S. M. Solovyov, whose general idea is that a historical figure must be inscribed in the character of his time and people, that his activity satisfies the people's need and allows it to be realized. A historical personality can be a prominent, main figure, but not the creator of a phenomenon arising from the general laws of people's life (Soloviev 1989: 416-426). Indeed, no individual is capable of creating great epochs if there are no accumulated conditions in society for this.

The question of the possibilities of the individual, its correspondence to the time and the people was considered in this era from various angles. The German historian Karl Lamprecht (1856-1915), the author of the 12-volume History of Germany, quoted by Plekhanov, in particular, comes to the conclusion that the general character of the era is an empirically given necessity for a great man. But, of course, it is not so easy to establish the boundaries of this need. Lamprecht himself provides what he sees as an irrefutable illustration when he asks: could Bismarck have returned Germany to a subsistence economy? It would seem that the answer is obvious. And the framework of "necessity" is found. But very soon (during the First World War) it suddenly turns out that in this very Germany everything begins to be distributed on cards. Who would have thought?! And twenty years later, in Russia and Germany, a planned “subsistence” economy appears altogether, in which money will cease to play its former role. And worse than that, slavery is resurgent. And if, together with Lamprecht, we were to ask: is it possible to revive slavery in Germany and Russia, then who could have imagined that it was possible? Thus, a completely fair formulation of the question of the limits of the possibilities of the individual does not allow us to give a simple answer.

In the last decades of the XIX century. and at the beginning of the twentieth century. in disputes around the problem of the role of the individual, arguments drawn from the natural sciences and human sciences are increasingly being used.

W. James (1842-1910), a famous American pragmatic philosopher, was one of those who put the question of his environment in the broad sense of the word and the correspondence of the personality to the environment at the center of the problem of the role of the individual. W. James outlined his rather interesting concept in the lecture "The Great Man and His Entourage". James argues with the Spencerians, who gave the main role in the changes to the evolution and interaction of society and the environment, significantly underestimating the role of the individual. He believed that main reason, which causes societies to change from generation to generation, is associated with the accumulation of the influence of individuals, their example, initiative and decisions.

James takes a very original approach. He takes as an analogy Darwin's theory of the influence of the environment on natural selection and species change. A philosopher, according to James, must take geniuses for granted, just as a biologist takes for granted Darwin's "spontaneous variations" (that is, spontaneous mutations, according to modern genetics. - L. G.). And the role of the individual will depend on the degree of its compliance with the social environment, era, moment, etc. James introduces the concept of the susceptibility of the individual to the historical situation/moment, period, time. Changes in societies from generation to generation, according to James, are directly or indirectly due mainly to the activity or example of individuals. At the same time, either the genius of these people turned out to be so consonant with the characteristics of their time (corresponded to a certain moment), or their accidental position in power was so important that they became the inspirers or initiators of the movement, created a precedent or style, turned into a center of spiritual decay or the cause of the death of others. people whose talents, given free play, would lead society in a different direction.

Marxism. The strength of Marxism was that it was able to formulate a fairly complete and convincing theory that explained the course of the historical process by material factors. However, although Marxism broke completely with providentialism and theology, it inherited from objective idealistic philosophy Hegel's belief that historical laws are invariant, that is, they must be implemented under any circumstances (maximum variation: a little earlier or later, easier or harder, more or less completely).

Despite the fact that major Marxists often interestingly posed questions related to the problem of personality in history and sometimes gave interesting answers, in general, in a situation of economic determinism, the role of personality in history appeared to be small. The desire to oppose individuals and the masses in favor of the latter, laws and chances - almost exclusively in favor of the former, significantly contributed to this result.

A number of provisions regarding the role of the individual in the classical form for Marxism were formulated by Engels, but most systematically set forth in the work of G. V. Plekhanov "On the Question of the Role of the Individual in History" (1956). Marxists believed that a person can give historical events some originality or, in Plekhanov’s words, a person can only leave an individual imprint on the inevitable course of events, speed up or slow down the implementation of historical law, but is not able under any circumstances to change the programmed course of history. And if there were no one personality, then it would certainly be replaced by another, which would fulfill exactly the same historical role.

Recognizing the development of productive forces as the main, most general historical cause, Plekhanov writes: “Next to this general cause, special causes operate, that is, the historical situation in which the development of the productive forces of a given people takes place,” and “the influence of special causes is supplemented by the action of individual causes, then there are personal characteristics of public figures and their "accidents", thanks to which events finally receive their individual physiognomy. But "single causes cannot produce fundamental changes in the action of general and special causes, which, moreover, determine the direction and limits of the influence of single causes."

It is clear that Plekhanov proceeds not simply from the linearity of the historical process, but from always and everywhere complete subordination and hierarchy of causes. Meanwhile, in history there are many cases of turning, "bifurcation", fateful, etc., when it is precisely "small" causes that influence the possibility of realizing a trend, when different forces collide, etc. It is in such situations that the role of the individual becomes very important and even decisive. A huge number of historical situations and phenomena are also associated with the presence of a certain force, system, etc., the very existence of which depends on a mass of reasons of various ranks, including the qualities and capabilities (luck) of individuals.

Plekhanov involuntarily proceeds from the idea of ​​realizing the meaning of history before the events took place. At the same time, his logic at first glance contradicts the well-known thought of F. Engels. “History is made in such a way,” wrote the latter, “that the end result is always obtained from the collision of many individual wills, and each of these wills becomes what it is, again thanks to a mass of special life circumstances ... what one wants , meets opposition from everyone else, and the end result is something that no one wanted. However, both Engels and other Marxists perceive personalities mainly as auxiliary driving forces, assuming much more influential historical forces behind the actions of many personalities, which must inevitably implement the laws they discovered.

But there are no inevitable laws, acting against everything, with "iron necessity" and cannot be in history. First, the global totality of societies is a complex system in which the roles of certain states are not at all the same (and, consequently, the paths of development are significantly different). Therefore, for example, the delay in reforms due to the fact that the power was not an outstanding, but a mediocre person, can be fatal for a particular society, which, because of this, can fall behind and become dependent (as, for example, happened in China in the 19th century). century, while Japan managed to reorganize itself and began to make conquests).

Secondly, the determinists did not take into account enough that a person not only acts in certain circumstances, but when circumstances allow, to a certain extent creates them according to his own understanding and characteristics. For example, in the era of Muhammad at the beginning of the 7th century. Arab tribes and chiefdoms felt the need for a new religion (ideology), and various kinds of prophets and ideologists appeared among them. But what could be new religion in its real incarnation, largely depended on a particular person. And the rules established by Muhammad, written sacred texts, laws, etc., often created under the influence of certain circumstances, personal experience, etc., then turned into canons, which have played and still play a very important role. And most importantly: the Arabs, of course, could acquire a different religion, but would it have become world without Muhammad?

Thirdly, many events, including, for example, the socialist revolution in Russia (namely, it, and not the revolution in Russia in general), must be recognized as a result that could not have been realized at all without the coincidence of a number of accidents, the prominent role of Lenin, and to a lesser extent - Trotsky. Similar views have been analyzed, in particular, in the work of S. Hook (Hook 1955).

Plekhanov tries to be objective, but this is impossible if one takes the point of view of his "monistic" approach to history. In particular, he writes that the role of the individual and the boundaries of its activities are determined by the organization of society, and "the character of the individual is a" factor "of such development only there, only then and only insofar as where, when and insofar as social relations allow it." In general, this is largely true. But the question arises: what are the possibilities of the individual, if social relations allow her to become a "factor of such development"? Can't development in this situation become more dependent on the desires and personal qualities of the ruler, who will begin to concentrate the forces of society in the direction he needs, than on other reasons? Thus, if the nature of society gives room for arbitrariness (a very common case in history), then Plekhanov's position does not allow answering many questions.

However, if - which is the only correct one - we proceed from the fact that in different situations the influence of different forces can have a different result, then the personality in some situations - but not in all - becomes a very important and even the most important factor.

Lenin, in a number of his works, also touches on the problem of the role of the individual, as does Trotsky in his two-volume History of the Russian Revolution, first published in Germany in 1932. But while individual thoughts deserve attention, there is nothing original in this regard compared with other Marxists. did not do.

Mikhailovsky's theory. Personality and masses. In the last third of the XIX - early XX century. the ideas of a lone individual, capable of doing incredible things, including turning the course of history, thanks to the strength of his character and intellect, were very popular. Revolutionary-minded young people were especially susceptible to them. Not surprisingly, the question of the role of the individual was quite popular at this time. This brought into focus the problem of the relationship between the "hero" and the mass (crowd). Among those who sharply contrasted the heroes and the masses, P. L. Lavrov occupies a prominent place. Lavrov's concept is not without originality, but it has an openly propagandist orientation. Lavrov's view is the direct opposite of Carlyle's approach. In their " Historical letters”, published in 1868, in particular in the Fifth Letter “The Action of Personalities”, Lavrov contrasts a handful of educated and creative minorities, which is not particularly useful to the people, but can exist only due to the fact that the majority created all the conditions for it, and the downtrodden majority overwhelmed by work and hardship. This is necessary for Lavrov in order to call on intelligent youth to atone for guilt before the people and to bring them all possible benefits. But at the same time, Lavrov overly exaggerates the role of so-called critically thinking individuals, that is, revolutionaries, in the cause of "human progress."

A significant contribution to the development of this problem was made by N. K. Mikhailovsky (1842-1904). In his articles "Heroes and the crowd" (1882), "Scientific letters (on the question of heroes and the crowd)" (1884), "More about the heroes" (1891), "More about the crowd" (1893), he formulates new theory and shows that it is not necessary to understand a person as an outstanding person, but in principle - any person who, by chance, found himself in a certain situation at the head or simply ahead of the masses. Mikhailovsky does not develop this topic in detail in relation to historical figures (almost more often he cites literary examples or what were called historical anecdotes in Pushkin's time). His article rather has a psychological aspect, somewhat similar to G. Tarde's theory of the role of imitation, set forth in the latter's famous work "Laws of Imitation".

The meaning of Mikhailovsky’s ideas (which is sometimes lost due to some confusion of presentation) is that a person, regardless of his qualities, can at certain moments sharply strengthen the crowd (audience, group) with his emotional and other actions and moods, which is why all the action acquires special power. In short, the role of the individual depends on how much psychological impact enhanced by the perception of mass.

One has to regret that Mikhailovsky did not find an opportunity to at least somehow systematically state his ideas about the role of personality in history (which Mikhailovsky himself, as well as Kareev and other researchers, very much regretted. If we interpret Mikhailovsky’s ideas in a certain direction, we can say that the role of personality depends on what force it leads or directs, since the strength of the individual due to this increases many times over.With this interpretation, one of the important aspects of the problem of the role of the individual - the relationship between the individual and the masses - receives a more adequate solution.

K. Kautsky later made somewhat similar conclusions, but much clearer and supplemented due to his Marxist class position (concerning the already more or less organized mass, and not the simple crowd). “The historical ... influence of a person,” he wrote, “depends primarily on the strength of the class or group whose trust this person has won and as the representative of which he acts. The total strength of this group or class then appears to the historian as the personal strength of their representatives. Therefore, the forces of this personality can take on superhuman dimensions in the description.

personality history time people

What is the role of the individual in history? An essay on this topic is required in high school. Students write about many things. Most of the students talk in the essay about the great scientists, philosophers, inventors, about the role their work played in history. And yet, rarely does anyone mention ordinary people in their writings. About those who were thrown out of the pages of history and have long been forgotten. If we talk about the role of the individual in history, the essay does not have to tell a banal story about the next ruler.

Before proceeding with this task, let me give you a piece of advice: every student is also a person, so what is his role in history? If you seriously think about this issue, you can get an excellent final essay on the role of the individual in history.

Nietzsche said so

Friedrich Nietzsche once said an interesting phrase: “Humanity must tirelessly give birth strong people, and that is its main task. It was in this vein that the great German philosopher argued about the role of the individual in history. Society is driven by people endowed with special power and charisma. In difficult times, heroes always appear who are ready to take the reins of government into their own hands and lead humanity to a brighter future.

Antonio Labriola and Louis Pasteur

Many thinkers and philosophers have spoken about the role of the individual in history. In the essay, it would be useful to mention some of their words. For example, Antonio Labriola said the following: “The very fact that history is based on contradictions, opposites, struggles and wars determines the strong influence of some people under certain circumstances.” Simply put, he was sure that in a world where there is a constant struggle for power and the division of resources, charismatic individuals who can lead the crowd will play a decisive role.

Louis Pasteur thought less globally: "The value of a person is determined by the value and significance of his discoveries." This is the role of the individual in history. In the final essay, it is worth noting the different views on this issue.

Decisive moments

Mankind often faces turning points in the course of its historical development. It is at such moments that the fate of an entire state can be decided by just one person. Such people can be called Alexander the Great or Napoleon Bonaparte. They became the head of the state in order to change it, bring a new culture and change the minds of people. Nietzsche emphasizes that it is precisely such people that "humanity must give birth to." After all, who, if not them, is able to lead thousands of troops towards a brighter future.

An important role in historical development is played by people driving scientific and cultural progress. Vincent van Gogh, Salvador Dali, Picasso were innovators in their craft, they changed people's ideas about the world and made art much more versatile. Do not ignore physicists, biologists and doctors. Thanks to them, today we can enjoy all the benefits of civilization and the achievements of modern medicine.

Nietzsche speaks of leaders as the highest representatives of humanity, because it is their activity that sets the world in motion, forcing it to develop. But at the same time, an important role in history is played by individuals who appear when the situation requires, the so-called children of the era.

Masters of the Pen

Nietzsche's words can be taken as a basis for writing an essay on social science "The Role of the Personality in History", but this is unlikely to be enough. Many writers often mentioned in their works about people whose names are remembered and will be remembered. Using their example, the masters of the pen showed how important it is for a person to maintain his best qualities, no matter how outstanding he is.

Everyone knows that Pushkin died in a duel defending the honor of his wife. Later, Mikhail Lermontov called the outstanding poet "a slave of honor." The quarrel, in which the honor of the poet was offended, caused his death, but in the memory of the people he will forever remain an outstanding poet who managed to maintain his good name. In an essay on the topic “The Role of the Personality in History”, it is not necessary to mention this fact, but it can be a good example if you write about the relationship between a person’s personal qualities and his role in history.

Arguments from literature

In the essay "The Role of Personality in History" it is worth citing several arguments from the literature. After all, it is in it that a real storehouse of public knowledge is located. In The Song about the Merchant Kalashnikov, Lermontov noted that a strong personality must have strong convictions and principles. People must be fearless and have the strength of mind that can crush any opponent. This quality has always been inherent in those who entered the pages of history.

The furrier in the work " Captain's daughter”considered the problem of the role of the individual in history using the example of Emelyan Pugachev. The poet simply could not help but be interested in the person who managed to raise a third of Russia to revolt, forever inscribing her name on the pages of history. The author described him as an active and attractive person, and at the same time not without vices, but who knew how to inspire others. Pugachev is an outstanding and controversial personality, however, like all those who engraved their names in the memory of history.

"War and Peace"

In history, all outstanding personalities have an extraordinary mind, charm, a different worldview and the ability to lead. Of course, not all of them have amazing charisma, some of them were unlucky during their lifetime, but they nevertheless became part of world history. In the novel "War and Peace" L. N. Tolstoy raises the problem of the role of the individual in history. He is sure that there can be no greatness where there is no kindness and simplicity. Only those people who have common interests with their people can influence the course of history.

Don't forget about the people

But history is not only made up of great people. There is not enough space on its pages to enter everyone, but this is not a reason to neglect yourself. Lenin, Pushkin, Shakespeare, Popov, Einstein Marconi and thousands of other people who influenced the development of world history are personalities that are written about on the pages of school textbooks. Someone remembers them even after graduation, someone forgets, and someone does not want to know at all. And at this very time, entire generations, millions and billions of people, about whom no one will ever write, about whom everyone will forget, go into oblivion.

Textbooks say one thing: only outstanding personalities play a role in history, who are able to change the course of events. They have inner strength and charisma. Someone leads his troops to victory, someone invents electricity or internal combustion engines. They change the course of history. But isn't it important those who lived with these outstanding personalities at the same time. On the contrary, it was thanks to ordinary people that historical personalities were able to show themselves.

Each person plays a special role in the course of world history. Perhaps someone's smile can inspire someone to write a book, and the latter, without expecting it, will become a famous writer and will forever remain on the pages of history. And then, after a few decades, a negligent schoolboy will read his book and become seriously interested in medicine. He will become an outstanding surgeon and one day save the life of the man who will invent the Internet.

In an essay on the role of personality in history, it is important to mention that history consists of many little things. For the man who invented electricity to appear, it was necessary that thousands of peasants burned candles and torches. Before the telephone was invented, many people could not say goodbye or meet their loved ones in time.

Mosaic pieces

All people who live in the present, were in the past or will be in the future, they are all equally important for history. Perhaps individuals are important in history, but what would be the use of them if they did not appear in that era, they were surrounded by other people, or if there were only a handful of outstanding personalities in the world?

The whole history is a mosaic of personalities, actions, thoughts and desires. The fragments of this mosaic are people, and if someone is gone, then the picture of the world will already be incomplete. It doesn't matter who: the politician who changed the whole country, or the alcoholic Sanya, the life of each of them is equally important for history.

As you know, the manifestation of any, even the most general, laws of history is diverse and multivariate. The role of the most outstanding person is always a fusion of previous development, a mass of random and non-random events, and her own characteristics. There are many ways to organize society, and therefore, there will be many options for the manifestation of personality, and their amplitude can be huge.

Consequently, depending on a variety of conditions and circumstances, taking into account the characteristics of the place under study, time and individual personality traits, its historical role can range from the most inconspicuous to the most enormous. Sometimes personality plays a decisive role.

Indeed, the nation itself consists of individuals, and the role of each of them is not equal to zero. One pushes the chariot of history forward, the other pulls it back, and so on. In the first case, this is a role with a plus sign, in the second - with a minus sign.

But we are now interested not in ordinary people, but in outstanding historical figures. What is their role?

Not that such a person, at his own will, is able to stop or change the natural course of things. A truly outstanding person not only does not try to “cancel” the laws of history, but, on the contrary, as G.V. Plekhanov noted, he sees further than others and wants more than others. A great man solves the problems put in the queue by the previous course of the intellectual development of society, he indicates the new social needs created by the previous development of social relations, he takes the initiative to satisfy these needs. This is the strength and destiny of a great man, and the power is colossal.

He is, if you will, a look-ahead of history, he is the spokesman for the aspirations of a class, a mass, often only vaguely aware of them. His strength is the strength of the social movement behind him.

This is the fundamental difference in the assessment of the role of the individual in dialectical materialist philosophy and its opponents. In assessing the role of the individual, materialistic social philosophy proceeds from the masses to the individual, and not vice versa, sees its role in the fact that it serves the masses with its talent, helps them straighten the path to achieving their goals, and accelerate the solution of urgent historical tasks.

At the same time, firstly, the influence of the individual on the course of history depends on how numerous the mass that follows him and on which he relies through the party, through some class. Therefore, an outstanding personality must have not only a special individual talent, but also the ability to organize and lead people. Secondly, the anarchist attitudes are definitely wrong: there are no authorities. The entire course of history testifies that not a single social force, not a single class in history has achieved dominance if it did not put forward its political leaders, its advanced representatives, capable of organizing the movement and leading it.

Of course, an outstanding personality should not have ordinary abilities for a certain type or series of activities. But this is not enough. It is necessary that in the course of its development society put on the agenda tasks for the solution of which a person with precisely such (military, political, etc.) abilities was needed.

It is accidental here that this particular person has taken this place, accidental in the sense that this place could have been taken by someone else, since the replacement of this place became necessary.

World-historical personalities are not only practical and political figures, but also thinking people, spiritual leaders who understand what is needed and what is timely, and lead others, the masses. These people, albeit intuitively, but feel, understand the historical necessity and therefore, it would seem, should be free in this sense in their actions and deeds.

But the tragedy of world-historical personalities lies in the fact that "they do not belong to themselves, that they, like ordinary individuals, are only tools of the World Spirit, although a great tool." Fate, as a rule, develops unfortunately for them.

The people, according to I.A. Ilyin, is a great separate and scattered multitude. Meanwhile, his force, the energy of his being and self-affirmation require unity. The unity of the people requires an obvious spiritual and volitional incarnation - a single center, a person, an outstanding person in mind and experience, expressing the legal will and state spirit of the people. The people need a wise leader, like dry land needs good rain.

Throughout the history of mankind, a huge number of events have taken place, and they have always been directed by individuals different in their moral character and mind: brilliant or stupid, talented or mediocre, strong-willed or weak-willed, progressive or reactionary. Having become, by chance or out of necessity, the head of a state, an army, a popular movement, a political party, a person can have various influences on the course and outcome of historical events: positive, negative, or, as is often the case, both. Therefore, society is far from being indifferent in whose hands political, state and generally administrative power is concentrated.

The advancement of the individual is determined both by the needs of society and the personal qualities of people. " Distinctive feature true statesmen consists precisely in being able to benefit from every need, and sometimes even a fatal combination of circumstances, to turn for the good of the state.

The very fact of nominating this particular person to the role of a historical personality is an accident. The need for this advancement is determined by the historically established need of society for a person of this kind to take the leading place. N.M. Karamzin said this about Peter the Great: “The people gathered on a campaign, waited for the leader, and the leader appeared!” The fact that this particular person is born in this country, at a certain time, is pure coincidence. But if we eliminate this person, then there is a demand for his replacement, and such a replacement will be found.

Often, due to historical conditions, a very prominent role has to be played by simply capable people and even mediocre ones. Democritus wisely said about this: “the less worthy the bad citizens of the honorary positions they receive, the more they become careless and filled with stupidity and arrogance.” In this regard, the warning is true: "Beware of taking by accident a post that you cannot afford, so as not to appear to be what you really are not."

In the process of historical activity, both the strengths and weaknesses of the personality are revealed with particular sharpness and convexity. Both sometimes acquire a huge social meaning and influence the fate of the nation, the people, and sometimes even humanity.

Since the decisive and determining principle in history is not the individual, but the people, individuals always depend on the people, like a tree on the soil on which it grows. If the strength of the legendary Antaeus lay in his connection with the land, then the social strength of the individual lies in his connection with the people. But only a genius is able to subtly "eavesdrop" on the thoughts of the people.

No matter how brilliant a historical person may be, in his actions he is determined by the prevailing set of social events. If a person begins to create arbitrariness and elevate his whims into law, then he becomes a brake and, ultimately, from the position of the coachman of the carriage of history, he inevitably falls under his merciless wheels.

The activity of a political leader presupposes the ability to make a deep theoretical generalization of the internal and international situation, social practice, the achievements of science and culture in general, the ability to maintain simplicity and clarity of thought in the incredibly difficult conditions of social reality and to fulfill the outlined plans and program. A wise statesman is able to vigilantly follow not only the general line of development of events, but also many private "trifles" - to simultaneously see both the forest and the trees. He must notice in time the change in the correlation of social forces, before others understand which path must be chosen, how to turn the overdue historical opportunity into reality.

As Confucius said, a person who does not look far is sure to face close troubles. High power carries, however, heavy duties. The Bible says, "And from everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required." In any form of government, one or another person is promoted to the level of the head of state, who is called upon to play an extremely responsible role in the life and development of this society. A lot depends on the head of state, but, of course, not everything. Much depends on which society elected him, what forces brought him to the level of the head of state.

Thus, the emergence of outstanding personalities on the historical arena is prepared by objective circumstances, the maturation of certain social needs. Such needs appear, as a rule, at critical periods in the development of countries and peoples, when large-scale socio-economic and political tasks are on the agenda. From everything that has been said before, the conclusion directly and immediately follows about the incompatibility with the spirit and essence of the dialectical-materialist social philosophy theory and practice of the personality cult. The cult of personality in modern manifestations consists in imposing on the people admiration for the bearers of power, in attributing to the individual the ability to create history at his own discretion and arbitrariness, in transferring to the individual what is the cause and merit of the people.

The cult of personality (this was clearly revealed by Stalin's cult of personality) is fraught with great dangers and dire consequences. Attempts to solve complex problems of theory and practice alone lead to mistakes and blunders not only in theory but also in practice (the problem of the pace of collectivization, the conclusion that the class struggle will intensify with the progress of socialism, etc.). The cult of personality nourishes and reinforces dogmatism in theory, since the right to truth is recognized only for one person.

The cult of personality is especially dangerous because it entails the destruction of the rule of law and its substitution by arbitrariness, which leads to mass repression. Finally, the disregard for the interests of ordinary people, covered up by an imaginary concern for the public interests, results in a progressive fading of initiative and social creativity from below, according to the principle: we, comrades, have nothing to think about, leaders think for us.

The people are not a homogeneous and equally educated force, and the fate of the country may depend on which groups of the population were in the majority in the elections, with what degree of understanding they carried out their civic duty. One can only say: what is the people, such is the personality chosen by them.