The role of personality in Russian history. The role of personality in history

Politicians, philosophers, historians, sociologists at all times and throughout the civilized world were interested in the problem: "the role of the individual in history." In the recent Soviet past, the Marxist-Leninist approach prevailed: the main thing in society is the people, the working masses. It is they who form society, classes. The people create history and put forward heroes from their midst.

It is difficult to argue with these, but it is possible to place accents differently. society to realize

Significant goals in their development, passionaries are simply needed (more on this later), leaders, leaders who are able to predict the course of social development earlier, deeper and more fully than others, understand goals, identify guidelines and captivate like-minded people.

One of the first Russian Marxists G.V. Plekhanov argued that the leader is great "in that he has features that make him the most capable of serving the great social needs of his time, which arose under the influence of general and special causes."

What criteria should be followed when determining the role of the individual in judging by the fact

a) how significant ideas for society this person generates,

b) what organizational skills it has and how well it knows how to mobilize the masses to solve national projects,

c) what result society will achieve under the leadership of this leader.

It is most convincing to judge the role of the individual in the history of Russia. V.I. Lenin headed the state for no more than 7 years, but left a significant mark. Today it is estimated with a plus sign and a minus sign. But no one can deny that this person entered the history of Russia and the whole world, influencing the fate of several generations. Evaluation of I.V. Stalin went through all the stages - from admiration, and then many years of silence - to resolute condemnation and denial of all his activities and again to the search for a rational in the actions of the "leader

all times and peoples." In the last years of his life, L.I. Only the lazy did not make fun of the “leader” of Brezhnev, and after decades it turned out that the time of his reign turned out to be the golden mean for the Soviet Union, only subsequent unfortunate reformers not only failed to multiply the achievements, but also squandered the potential created over the post-war decades. And today the assessment of its activities is again undergoing changes. It seems that the personality of M.S. will someday become the same significant figure. Gorbachev. He would have already become a national hero and a recognized world authority if the “perestroika of 1985-1991” conceived by him and his team had not turned out to be such a failure. We recall how many "Yeltsinists" were in the country in the nineties, until it became obvious that this "democratic leader", together with his team, was surrendering Russia, being under the hood of the American administration. Probably, life will still make amendments, much is hidden from the eyes of contemporaries, but a lot has been published. He who has ears, let him hear.

But today it would be good to turn to Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov. In the passionary theory of ethnogenesis, people of an energy-abundant type are those citizens who have the innate ability to receive more energy from the external environment than is required only for species and personal self-preservation. They can give out this energy as a purposeful activity, which aims to modify the environment around them. Evidence of increased passionarity characteristic and his psyche.

The role of the individual in history under certain conditions becomes an engine for them.

Thanks to such quality as purposefulness. In these cases, passionaries seek to change the surrounding space in accordance with the ethnic values ​​they have adopted. Such a person measures all his actions and actions against which they proceed from ethnic values.

The role of personality in history for such people is that they are people of new thinking in the population. They are not afraid to break the old way of life. They are able to become and are becoming the dominant link of new ethnic groups. Passionaries put forward, develop and innovate.

Probably, among contemporaries, too, there are many tribunes. For ethical reasons, we will not name the living. But now a portrait of the leader of Venezuela rises before his eyes, about whom they wrote during his lifetime that this is the hope of progressive mankind. Russian cosmonauts, outstanding athletes, scientists, researchers - they are heroes because they do not need to be exalted, but simply do their job. History will determine their role. And she is a fair lady, only with a result deferred to future generations.

Many great reforming rulers, generals, scientists, and even philosophers can claim to be the greatest men in human history. But it is difficult to consider the achievements of a person in isolation from the era. The eras of the Renaissance and Enlightenment, as well as the scientific revolution of the 20th century, changed the face of the world, but these breakthroughs in human history were associated with the activities of many outstanding people.

The achievements of some talented people have not outlived them. Many have reached heights in conjunction with others, and their merits are not shared. Let's try to identify several personalities in world history, whose actions and ideas influenced the further course of the historical process. The consequences of their actions are being felt even now.

At the origins of European science: Aristotle

Aristotle is a rare example of a student who surpassed his brilliant mentor. He did not hesitate to criticize the views of the teacher, and his saying dedicated to this went down in history. Plato was an ingenious philosopher, but his views concerned questions of philosophy, ethics and political science. Aristotle went further.

A native of the insignificant city of Stagira came to Athens, where he created his own philosophical school. Many philosophers and even well-known politicians were its pupils, but none of them made a contribution to history comparable to the founder.

Aristotle created the doctrine of the first principles of existence. He introduced the principle of development into world philosophy, created a system of philosophical categories and levels of existence. Stagirite was the founder of logic as a science. He studied ethics and developed the doctrine of the virtues. In the field of cosmology, he advocated the idea of ​​a spherical earth.

In the essay "The State" Aristotle studied the strengths and weaknesses of different forms of government and put forward his own, realistic, idea of ​​the state. His work on the history of the Athenian state system is an example of a historical essay.

In addition, the scientist from Athens wrote works on all the then available areas of knowledge - biology, zoology, poetics (where he studied theatrical art). The works of Aristotle were studied by the philosophers of the Middle Ages in Europe and the Muslim world. It can rightfully be placed at the origins of modern science.

Alexander the Great: Creation of a New World

In world history there have been many commanders whose victories numbered in the tens. Alexander defeated the army of the largest empire in several battles, took the most fortified cities of that time and reached the Punjab. The empire he created collapsed within a few decades after his death, but new states appeared on its fragments.

The king of Macedonia was obsessed with the idea of ​​uniting the West and the East under his rule. The idea was partially successful. After his campaigns, the Mediterranean became another world. The Greeks had previously served the eastern rulers. But now the heart of Greek civilization began to beat in Asia and Egypt. The Alexandria Museum became the greatest center of intellectual life - philosophers, scientists and poets of the entire Mediterranean lived here. The most important scientific works were collected in the library. Here the Old Testament was translated into Greek. Pergamum did not lag behind him, whose library also became a scientific center.

Hellenism caused a revival and changes in the literature, sculpture and architecture of the Hellenes. New traditions and ideas associated with oriental influences emerged. Later, the Roman Republic will join this world, whose culture will be formed under the influence of the Hellenistic one.

Alexander was not directly involved in most of the processes. But it was his conquests that created the world in which the emergence of the Alexandria Museum and the Pergamon Library was possible.

Prophet Muhammad: the creation of a new religion

Mohammed and the religion of Islam can be treated differently. For many centuries, Arab tribes roamed the expanses of Arabia. They were vassals or allies of powerful empires. The nomads staged bloody wars among themselves, composed original and complex poems, and worshiped many gods.

In the first half of the 7th century, Muhammad began to preach in Mecca. He managed to overcome the enmity of his fellow tribesmen and gather a group of supporters. With them, he went to Medina, but after a series of battles he defeated the enemies and achieved the unification of the two cities under his authority.

Mohammed's enemies adopted his religious teachings and became his companions. The doctrine of Islam assumed expansion - after the death of the Prophet, the Arab armies left Arabia. The Arabs, led by the teachings of Mohammed, destroyed the Sasanian Empire and conquered vast territories of the Byzantine Empire. They did not stop there and subjugated the territories of Spain, Central Asia and the islands of the Mediterranean.

Now Islam is practiced by about 1.5 billion inhabitants of the planet. It is the state religion of 28 countries, and communities of followers of the Prophet are located in 122 states. This is evidence of the influence of the Prophet Muhammad on history, whose actions changed the lives of not only his fellow tribesmen, but also many distant peoples.

Charlemagne: at the origins of modern Europe

After the slow decline of the Roman Empire in the west, Europe plunged into the darkness of the Early Middle Ages. The population has declined: some regions have become depopulated. Several epidemics and devastating wars swept across Europe.

Even under these conditions, the heritage of Roman civilization and science was not forgotten. But the epochs of the 5th - 8th centuries stand out as difficult and dark times. In 768, Charles, who went down in history under the name of the Great, became the king of the Frankish kingdom. He was a decisive sovereign who fought a lot with his neighbors and pushed the boundaries of the Frankish kingdom, and in 800 was crowned as emperor.

His empire included part of eastern Spain, Italy to Rome, the territory of modern Germany. Avars and numerous Slavic peoples were dependent on him: Moravians, Czechs, encouragers, Serbs.

The emperor became famous not only for victorious wars. He attracted educated people to his court and built schools. The Academy was organized, the members of which were the smartest people of his era - the monk Alcuin, the historian Paul the Deacon, the biographer Einhard. Alcuin's student was the author of one of the medieval encyclopedias, Raban Maurus.

In schools organized in the empire of Charlemagne, the children of nobles and clerics studied. They studied the seven liberal arts, the canon of which had already been established. "Carolingian minuscule", a way of writing letters that has become the basis of the modern alphabet of most Western countries. At the court of Charles, admiration for Roman literature reigned, and copies of works were made in Latin.

After the death of Charlemagne, the collapse of his empire followed. The division of the empire into three states, formalized in 843, laid the foundations of modern Italy, Germany and France.

The Ideology That Changed History: Karl Marx

One of the greatest (according to many) thinkers of the 19th century is Karl Marx. He was born in Prussia but spent most of his life in Great Britain and died in London. The ideas and works developed by him determined the course of the history of the next century.

The formation of Marx as a thinker was influenced by the philosophy of Hegel. Marx criticized his predecessor, but, relying on his dialectical method, formed his own concept of dialectical materialism. He introduced his own materialistic understanding of the course of the historical process, which continues to be used in modern science.

Finally, Marx created the work "Capital", in which he examined the contradictions of contemporary capitalist society. He showed the essence of conflicts between capitalists and workers, as well as within these classes. He substantiated the inevitability of the replacement of capitalism by socialism.

Marx's ideas influenced all left-wing thinkers of the 20th century. The practical application of these ideas was made by the builders of the USSR and other socialist states. In the 21st century, socialist states continue to exist, and supporters of this ideology believe in the final victory of socialism. At the basis of this historical process were the ideas of Karl Marx.

The greatest men in the history of mankind are individuals who, alone or with the help of fellow performers, changed the course of history or directed it in the right direction. This influence was manifested in different ways - the development of science, the creation of a new religion or ideology, the change in the political map of the world, which created new conditions for the development of civilization. The result of the activity of these personalities could be fully manifested years and decades after their death.

When we talk about the role of the individual in history, two completely different thoughts can be implied. First, how a single person can influence history. It does not consider any specific person. Or how a specific historical figure could change the course and course of events by his actions. Both topics are extremely interesting. I would like to touch on both sides a little.

A person becomes a historical figure if he acquires a certain fame, and if indeed his personality somehow influenced history. Many can belong to this category of people. First of all, of course, those who had a certain power. But not only. Famous scientists, doctors, actors, writers and many others are rightfully considered historical figures.

People in power often directly influenced the course of history. The lives and fates of many depended on their decisions.

Our experts can check your essay according to the USE criteria

Site experts Kritika24.ru
Teachers of leading schools and current experts of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.

Often the lives of citizens of an entire country, or even more than one, could change at the will of those in power. How many wars have been unleashed through the fault of politicians! And how rightly it was said that politicians do not unleash wars in order to fight them themselves. They do it so that others can fight. But not only those in power can change history. As already mentioned, such people can be workers in science, or even culture. How can this happen? A discovery can change the lives of many. Automation and robotization of production, for example, lead to job cuts. Someone made discoveries that became the basis of these processes. Also people of culture can influence history. A certain style in cinema or music leaves a mark on the lives of many people. The thinking, aspirations and goals of a huge mass of people can change.

I also wanted to dwell a little on two specific personalities. Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States. In the hearts of US citizens, he will forever remain the one who prevented the collapse of the United States, who made a huge contribution to the formation of the American nation, who is the main one in the abolition of slavery, which prevented the further normal development of a free society. It is not clear what would have happened to this country if not for President Lincoln. Everything could be completely different. Another person is Academician Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, one of the creators of the hydrogen bomb. In 1953, this brainchild of the war was invented. Such weapons endangered the very existence of mankind. Sakharov was one of those who worked on these weapons. By the end of the fifties, the academician became a dissident, as he actively opposed the use of nuclear weapons and for reducing the arms race. It is interesting that a person who directly led to a new round of this race by his activity, then could not do anything to stop it. Although we must pay tribute, creating such a bomb, Sakharov thought only about protecting the country from enemies, and did not think that it should be used.

Yes, not every person can influence history. But any of us can be a person, remaining in his time of history a holistic and fair person.

Updated: 2018-01-06

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

Human society changes and develops over time. This development of mankind in time is history. History - "the development of human society in relation to nature, the science of this process."

Many thinkers have thought about the question: does history move by itself (that is, there are some laws of history) or is it driven (created) by people? Thus, the most important problem is the problem of correlation between objective and subjective factors of history. Under the objective factor understand the patterns of development of society. These patterns exist objectively, do not depend on the will and desire of individuals.

The subjective factor is a person, his desires, will, actions. The subjects of history are diverse: the people, the masses, the social group, the elite, historical figures, ordinary people.

There are many theories that explain social development or, as it is often said, the historical process. The historical process is a successive series of events in which the activities of many generations of people are embodied. Let's dwell on some of them. There are two extreme points of view on the ratio of objective and subjective factors: fatalism and voluntarism. Fatalism (from lat. fatalis - fate, fate). Fatalists believed that everything is predetermined, that regularity prevails, and a person cannot change anything. He is a puppet of historical necessity. For example, in the Middle Ages, the idea of ​​divine providentialism dominated (history develops according to a plan drawn by God, predestination). Voluntarism is based on the understanding that everything depends on the will of a person, his desire, there are no objective laws for the development of society, and history is created by great people who have a stronger mind and will.
The thinkers of modern times connected the development of the laws of society with the nature of man and the development of the mind. For example, the French enlighteners believed that the laws of social development are determined by the development of the human mind. It is enough to change only public opinion, and the whole society will change. At the heart of the change of historical stages are changes in public consciousness.

G. Hegel posed the question of the relationship between the objective and the subjective in history in a new way. The world spirit (world mind) develops according to objective laws. The world spirit is both an individual, and a people, and a state, i.e. The world spirit is embodied in specific peoples, people (ie, it is embodied in the subjective factor). People pursue their interests, but very often the results they have achieved differ from the goal. This means that the regularity of the development of the World Spirit interferes. Hegel called this "the cunning of the World mind."

Hegel compared the actions of a man in history with the actions of an arsonist: one peasant set fire to his neighbor's house out of hatred for him, but because of the strong wind, the whole village burned out. The goal and the real result are clearly not the same.

Hegel considered the problem of the role of a great personality in history. He noted that not great personalities themselves create history, but history itself creates heroes. Great is that person who expresses the development of the World Spirit.

However, one should distinguish between outstanding personalities, whose contribution to history is positive and significant for society, and historical figures, which include tyrants and dictators. There is even a catchphrase - "the glory of Herostratus" - Herostratus burned the temple of Artemis of Ephesus, wanting to become famous.

Marx and Engels also considered the interaction of objective and subjective factors, but from a materialistic standpoint. It is based on the laws of the development of material production, such as the primacy of social being in relation to social consciousness, the primacy of the basis in relation to the superstructure, the law of the correspondence of production relations to the nature and level of development of the productive forces.

Objective laws do not act by themselves and they do not create history, history is created by people. The objective in society (the laws of history) is manifested only in the subjective factor, only through the activities of people. The patterns of history are the resultant of all the efforts of its participants.

Marxists also paid attention to the role of great personalities in history. A great personality, firstly, is that person whose activity corresponds to the objective laws of the development of society - progress, and secondly, it best expresses the interests of a certain class. The main driving force in history is not individuals, but the masses, since the people create all material and spiritual benefits. Without the participation of the masses, a large-scale historical action is impossible.

Hegel and Marx noted that history is the activity of a person who pursues his goals. In history, human activity is embodied in events. Events make up the living fabric of history. History is not static, but dynamic. History is a process. Both Hegel and Marx showed the dialectics of the objective and the subjective in society, showed that the objective in society manifests itself only through the subjective.

We summarize the theories that explain the course of history: 1) history moves "according to a predetermined plan (divine or logical)"; 2) the nature and development of society "are determined by material factors" (for example, climate, geographical conditions); 3) the laws of history are "the resultant of all the efforts of its participants."

Thus, we will answer the question: what and who drives history. Both the objective course of events and the conscious activity of people matter.

“In historical circumstances, there are different possibilities for their further development. The choice is presented to the actors." A person has an influence on a historical event. Man is the main subject (creator) of history. This is both the people (large masses of people), and individuals ... "In history there is an opportunity for self-expression not only of great personalities, but also of the most ordinary people."

The complexity and ambiguity of understanding the problem of the role of the individual in history is seen in the example of the same Marxism, despite the fact that, as is known, it most consistently defends the primacy of social laws over other factors of historical development. Plekhanov expressed his Marxist views on this problem most systematically in his work “On the Question of the Role of the Personality in History”. Nevertheless, modern researchers (Lukach, 1991; Aron, 1993; Karsavin, 1993; Grinin, 1998, etc.) evoke quite reasonable criticism of some aspects of it. For example, the fact that the author speaks almost only about great and progressive figures, while there were many more insignificant, reactionary, bloodthirsty, insane, etc., who often played a very large role. However, the main mistake is that he tries to see social laws as inexorable, eternal, unchanging, hence the belittling of the role of the individual. Recognizing the development of productive forces as the main, most general historical cause, he writes: the historical situation in which the development of the productive forces of a given people takes place and which itself was created in the last instance by the development of the same forces among other peoples, i.e. the same common cause. “Finally, the influence of special causes is supplemented by the action of single causes, i.e. personal features of public figures and their "accidents", thanks to which events finally receive their individual physiognomy. "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." One gets the impression that Plekhanov imagines history as a pre-written performance in which the director can replace the actor, but will still do what is indicated in the script. The author involuntarily proceeds from the idea of ​​the existence of the meaning of history before the events took place. If we refuse such an approach, then it is not at all easy to answer the endless questions that arise, as soon as you delve into the history of any country. Why do small personalities sometimes play such a huge role, while great heroes fail? What is the reason for the demonic success of usurpers and tyrants (Ivan the Terrible, Stalin, Hitler, etc.) who enslave society, and why are often reformers (Boris Godunov, Alexander II, Khrushchev, etc.) who try to free it, lose their lives or are overthrown? Why do some tyrants calmly end their lives, while rebellions rise up against others? Why are some ideas so easily perceived and become, in the words of K. Marx, a “material force”, while others, seemingly very relevant, stumble upon a wall of misunderstanding? How the activities of certain individuals affected the country and the whole world, and what would happen if this leader died. How did the features of character, environment affect? Etc. The answers given are different, they are intertwined with true and erroneous positions. “The role of the individual is determined by the organization of society,” Plekhanov correctly writes. But then why is it given such a small role in his theory? After all, if the nature of society is such that it allows governing at will, then with the coming to power of a new personality, the historical outline may no longer depend on the nature of society, but on the desires and personal qualities of the ruler, who will attract social forces to satisfy them. And at the moment of the decisive battle for the primacy of the two leading world powers, when the outcome may depend mainly on the luck and talent of the generals, will the character of society always have a noticeable effect? “Not an idea, not a dream, but a mysteriously great man stands here, as elsewhere, at a turning point in history,” writes one of the supporters of the exaggerated role of the individual A. Julicher (Yaspers, 1994, p. 176.). This is also true, but the most difficult question arises: is this “mysteriously great man” caused by the era or, on the contrary, created it himself (did the Arab people, looking for a new idea, cause Mohammed, or did the latter himself bring the Arabs out of historical oblivion?). So, is any person capable of becoming the most important independent factor that changes society (epoch, dominant views) depending on his understanding of the matter, or is he only realizing what was laid down by previous development and inevitably should manifest itself? In other words, would the course of history change in some cases if there were no one or another person, or, on the contrary, if the right figure appeared at the right time? For Plekhanov, the proposition that the role of the individual is determined by the organization of society serves only as a way to prove the triumph of harsh, inexorable Marxist laws over the will of man. Modern researchers (Lukach, 1991; Aron, 1993; Karsavin, 1993; Grinin, 1998, etc.) note that within the framework of the antinomy indicated by Plekhanov (see introduction), the issue cannot be resolved, since there is correctness in both approach. Moreover, as shown in the previous section, a person is not a simple “cast” from society, but nevertheless has a completely definite attitude towards it with their active mutual influence on each other.