SHU--A5--TC
Assignment #5: Explain the question, "Do leaders make history, or does the historical moment make the leader?"
Introduction:
The issue that will be debated throughout the remainder of this summary is relatively complicated, since one must understand each side of the question, in order to reach a conclusion. Each side has extensively debated this issue, and perhaps universal agreement towards this issue may never be reached. Yet, this summary aims to inform the position of each side, allowing the reader to form his/her own opinion.
Facts:
The position of each side of this debate takes relatively simplified positions. For the purpose of discussion, we will refer to those who confirm that leaders make history as "revolutionaries"; while, those who believe the history makes the leader as "historians". To begin, the term "revolutionaries" is used because those who feel that leaders make the time believe that leaders add a new element to a society, culture, nation, or country which eventually causes a new order to be established in that groups' history. These additions from leadership are revolutionary and can either advance or revert a group; however, it are the principles brought into practice by the leader that change the course of history. For example, FDR would be regarded as a leader who made history. During his leadership in the United States, he adopted new radical measures of limited/controlled socialism which advanced his "group" (all Americans) into a position of dominance, hence issuing a new order in American conceptual history. Importantly, there are limits to the extent of adherence to this school of thought: there are those who feel strongly that only leaders make the time, and those who may give limited credit to historical events, while maintaining that ultimately leaders determine history. Conversely, there are those who believe that history makes the leader. The term "historians" has been used to illustrate this side's emphasis on historical implications on leaders. Scholars on this end of the spectrum believe that historical factors such as cultural practices/beliefs that are firmly established determine the level to which a leader will be accepted/rejected. For example, a "historian" would claim that the historical moment was responsible for issuing in the 'new history' under the leadership of FDR, not FDR's radical new policies. Rather, history allowed for such measures to be accepted, because the past and present were terrible for the Americans, making the masses desperate for change. Likewise, there exists two extremes: those who acknowledge that history alone makes a leader, and those who recognize limited influence by the leader.
Analysis:
Since the purpose of the summary was to inform the reader of each side, ultimately allowing the reader to form his/her own opinion, it is ultimately difficult to analyze without bias. However, it is important to note that within each spectrum there are levels to which these schools of thought are applied by their followers. Therefore, it is possible to a strong "revolutionary" and a weak "historian", and vice versa. When forming an opinion on this issue, remember that total adherence to either school of thought is not necessary; however, one must understand the importance of the other side, in order to form a true opinion. Without comprehension of each, a conclusion, once reached will be uninformed. Therefore, it is important to compare the positions of each side, and then based on total understanding, determine the level of adherence to that chosen position.
Conclusion:
In the end, there is no right or wrong decision, assuming that the facts were understood. The only way to make a wrong choice is to disregard important details. Many people feel that leaders make history, while others feel history makes the leaders. There is a split right down the middle on this issue; yet, it is not important how many individuals feel the same way as yourself, only that your choice has been academic.
