Significant role of personality in history. Historical figures of Russia Historical figures and their role in 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 of historical events, the rise or fall in the life of peoples, wars, uprisings, revolutions and others 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? The reactionary historiography ascribes the creation of the Russian state to the Varangian princes, the unification of the principalities around Moscow, the gathering of Russia - to Ivan Kalita, and the transformation of Russia 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 and social relations over the individual.

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 the history of 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 overemphasized either the role of the masses or individuals in the historical development of 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 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."

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 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 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 deeply theoretically generalize the domestic and international situation of social practice, the achievements of science and culture in general, the ability to maintain simplicity and clarity of thought in incredibly complex conditions of social reality and to fulfill the 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 to an 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 particularly high mind, or as geniuses who go 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.

The role of personality in history as a philosophical and historical problem

Understanding the course of history inevitably raises questions about the role of this or that person in it: did she change the course of history; whether such a change was inevitable or not; what would have happened without this person? etc. From the obvious truth that it is people who make history, the important problem of the philosophy of history follows. about the relationship between regular and random which, in turn, is closely related to the question of the role of the individual. Indeed, the life of any person is always woven from accidents: he will be born at one time or another, marry this partner or another, die early or live long, etc. On the one hand, we know a huge number of cases when a change of personalities (even under such dramatic circumstances as a series of assassinations of monarchs and coups) did not entail decisive changes. On the other hand, there are circumstances, which are discussed below, when even a trifle can become decisive. Thus, it is very difficult to grasp what the role of the individual depends on: on himself, the historical situation, historical laws, accidents, or all at once, and in what combination, and how exactly, is very difficult.

In any case, it is important to understand that an accident, having taken place, ceases to be an accident and turns into a given, which, to a greater or lesser extent, begins to influence the future. Therefore, when a person appears and is fixed in a certain role (thereby making it difficult or easier for others to come), “chance ceases to be an accident precisely because there is a given person who leaves an imprint on events ... determining how they will develop” (Labriola 1960: 183).

The uncertainty of historical events, the alternative future and the problem of the role of the individual. Modern science as a whole rejects the idea of predetermination (predetermination) of historical events. The outstanding French sociologist and philosopher R. Aron, in particular, wrote: “He who claims that an individual historical event would not be different, even if one of the previous elements were not what it really was, must prove this statement (Aron 1993: 506). And since historical events are not predetermined, then the future has many alternatives and can change as a result of the activities of various groups and their leaders, it also depends on the actions of various people, such as scientists. Consequently, the problem of the role of the individual in history is always relevant for each generation.. And it is very relevant in the age of globalization, when the influence of certain people on the whole world can increase.

Goals and results. Forms of influence. A person - for all its potentially important role - is very often unable to foresee even the immediate, not to mention long-term, consequences of his activity, since historical processes are very complex, and more and more unforeseen consequences of past events are revealed over time. At the same time, a person can have a significant impact not only by actions, but also by inaction, not only directly, but also indirectly, during his life or even after death, and a noticeable mark in the history and further development of societies can be not only positive, but also negative. , and also - quite often - unambiguously and forever not determined, especially since the assessment of a person depends on political and national predilections.

Dialectical difficulties of the problem. From the standpoint of providentialism, that is, if some ahistorical force (God, fate, “iron” laws, etc.) is recognized as real, it is quite logical to consider individuals as tools of history, thanks to which some predetermined program is simply implemented. However, too many events in history are personified, and therefore the role of the individual is often exceptionally significant. "The role of personalities and accidents in historical events is the first and immediate element" (Aron 1993: 506). Therefore, on the one hand, it is the actions of leaders (and sometimes even some ordinary people) that determine the outcome of the confrontation and the fate of various tendencies in critical periods. But on the other hand, it is impossible not to notice the conditionality of the role of individuals by the social structure, as well as the peculiarity of the situation: in some periods (often long) there are few outstanding people, in others (often very short) - entire cohorts. Titanic people fail, and nonentities have a gigantic influence. The role of a person, unfortunately, is far from always proportional to the intellectual and moral qualities of the person himself. As K. Kautsky wrote, “Such outstanding personalities do not necessarily mean the greatest geniuses. Both the mediocre and even those below the average level, as well as children and idiots, can become historical figures if they fall into the hands of great power” (Kautsky 1931: 687).

G. V. Plekhanov believed that the role of the individual and the boundaries of his activity 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 in so far as where, when and insofar as social relations allow her” (Plekhanov 1956: 322). There is a lot of truth in this. However, if the nature of society gives room for arbitrariness (a very common case in history), then Plekhanov's position does not work. In such a situation, development often becomes very dependent on the desires and personal qualities of the ruler or dictator, who will begin to concentrate the forces of society in the direction he needs.

Development of views on the role of personality in history

Ideas about the role of the individual in history until the middle of the 18th century. Historiography arose not least from the need to describe the great deeds of rulers and heroes. But since there was no theory and philosophy of history for a long time, the problem of the role of the individual as an independent one was not considered. Only in an indistinct form was it touched upon along with the question of whether people have freedom of choice or is everything predetermined in advance by the will of the gods, fate, etc.?

Antiquity. The ancient Greeks and Romans, for the most part, looked at the future fatalistically, as they believed that the fate of all people was predetermined in advance. At the same time, Greco-Roman historiography was mainly humanistic, therefore, along with faith in fate, the idea is quite noticeable in it that a lot depends on the conscious activity of a person. This is evidenced, in particular, by descriptions of the fates and deeds of politicians and generals left by such ancient authors as Thucydides, Xenophon and Plutarch.

Middle Ages. Otherwise, to a certain extent, more logically (although, of course, incorrectly) the problem of the role of the individual was solved in the medieval theology of history. According to this view, the historical process was unequivocally regarded as the realization of not human, but divine goals. History, according to Augustine and later Christian thinkers (and the 16th-century Reformation period, such as John Calvin), proceeds according to a divine plan from the beginning. People only imagine that they act according to their own will and goals, but in fact God chooses some of them to realize his plan. But since God acts through the people he has chosen, then to understand the role of these people, as R. Collingwood notes, meant to find hints of God's plan. That is why interest in the role of the individual in history in a certain aspect acquired special significance. And objectively, the search for deeper causes than the desires and passions of people contributed to the development of the philosophy of history.

During the period Renaissance the humanistic aspect of history came to the fore, and therefore the question of the role of the individual - though not as a problem of pure theory - took a prominent place in the reasoning of humanists. Interest in the biographies and deeds of great people was very high. And although the role of Providence was still recognized as the leading one in history, the activities of outstanding people are also recognized as the most important driving force. This can be seen, for example, from the work of N. Machiavelli "The Sovereign", in which he believes that the success of his policy and the whole course of history depends on the expediency of the policy of the ruler, on his ability to use the necessary means, including the most immoral. Machiavelli was one of the first to emphasize that not only heroes play an important role in history, but often unprincipled figures as well.

During the period 16th and 17th centuries faith in the new science is growing, they are also trying to find laws in history, which was an important step forward. As a result, the issue of human free will is gradually being resolved more logically on the basis of deism: the role of God is not completely denied, but, as it were, limited. In other words, God created the laws and gave the universe the first impetus, but since the laws are eternal and unchanging, man is free to act within the framework of these laws. However, in general, in the XVII century. the problem of the role of the individual was not among the important ones. Rationalists did not formulate their view of it clearly enough, but given their ideas that society is a mechanical sum of individuals, they recognized the great role of prominent legislators and statesmen, their ability to transform society and change the course of history.

Development of views on the role of the individual in the XVIII-XIX centuries.

During the period Enlightenment a philosophy of history arose, according to which the natural laws of society are based on the eternal and common nature of people. The question of what this nature consists of was solved in different ways. But the prevailing belief was that society could be rebuilt according to these laws on reasonable grounds. Hence, the role of the individual in history was recognized as high. Enlighteners believed that an outstanding ruler or legislator could greatly and even radically change the course of history. For example, Voltaire in his "History of the Russian Empire in the reign of Peter the Great" portrayed Peter I as a kind of demiurge, planting culture in a completely wild country. At the same time, these philosophers often depicted prominent people (especially religious figures - because of the ideological struggle with the church) in a grotesque way, as deceivers and rogues who managed to influence the world with their cunning. Enlighteners did not understand that a person cannot arise from nowhere, it must to some extent correspond to the level of society. Consequently, personality can be adequately understood only in the environment in which it could appear and manifest itself. Otherwise, the conclusion suggests itself that the course of history depends too much on the accidental appearance of geniuses or villains. But in terms of developing interest in the topic of the role of the individual, the enlighteners did a lot. It is from the Enlightenment that it becomes one of the important theoretical problems.

A look at individuals as instruments of historical regularity

IN the first decades of the 19th century, during the period of domination of romanticism, there is a turn in the interpretation of the question of the role of the individual. Ideas about the special role of a wise legislator or founder of a new religion from scratch were replaced by approaches that placed a person in an appropriate historical environment. If the enlighteners tried to explain the state of society by the laws that were issued by the rulers, then the romantics, on the contrary, derived government laws from the state of society, and explained changes in its state by historical circumstances (see: Shapiro 1993: 342; Kosminsky 1963: 273). Romantics and representatives of directions close to them were little interested in the role of historical figures, since they paid the main attention to the "folk spirit" in different eras and in its various manifestations. The French romantic historians of the Restoration period (F. Guizot, A. Thierry, A. Thiers, F. Mignet, and the more radical J. Michelet) did a lot to develop the problem of the role of the individual. However, they limited this role, believing that great historical figures can only hasten or slow down the onset of what is inevitable and necessary. And in comparison with this necessary, all the efforts of great personalities act only as small causes of development. In fact, this view was also adopted by Marxism.

G. W. F. Hegel(1770-1831) in a number of points, including in relation to the role of the individual, expressed views in many respects similar to those of the romantics (but, of course, there were also significant differences). Based on his providential theory, he believed that "everything that is real is reasonable", that is, it serves to carry out the necessary course of history. Hegel is, according to some researchers, the founder of the theory of "historical environment" (see: Rappoport 1899: 39), which is important for the problem of the role of the individual. At the same time, he severely limited the significance of historical figures in terms of their influence on the course of history. According to Hegel, the vocation of "world-historical personalities was to be confidants of the world spirit" (Hegel 1935: 30). That is why he believed that a great personality cannot create historical reality itself, but only reveals inevitable future development. The task of great personalities is to understand the necessary next step in the development of their world, to make it their goal and to put their energy into its realization. However, was the emergence of, for example, Genghis Khan and the subsequent destruction and death of countries (although along with this, many positive consequences arose in the future as a result of the formation of the Mongol empires)? Or the rise of Hitler and the emergence of the German Nazi state and the Second World War unleashed by him? In a word, much of this approach contradicted real historical reality.

Attempts to see underlying processes and laws behind the canvas of historical events were an important step forward. However, for a long time there was a tendency to downplay the role of the individual, arguing that as a result of the natural development of society, when there is a need for one or another figure, one personality will always replace another.

LN Tolstoy as an exponent of historical providentialism. L. N. Tolstoy expressed the ideas of providentialism almost more than Hegel in his famous philosophical digressions in the novel War and Peace. According to Tolstoy, the significance of great people is only apparent, in fact they are only “slaves of history”, which is carried out by the will of Providence. “The higher a person stands on the social ladder ... the more power he has ... the more obvious the predestination and inevitability of his every act,” he argued.

Contrasting views on the role of the individual inXIXin. The English philosopher Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) was one of those who returned to the idea of the prominent role of personalities, "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” (1840). 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).

Marxist view most systematically stated in the work of G. V. Plekhanov (1856-1918) "On the Question of the Role of the Personality in History." Although Marxism decisively broke with theology and explained the course of the historical process by material factors, it nevertheless inherited much from the objective idealistic philosophy of Hegel in general and regarding the role of the individual in particular. Marx, Engels and their followers believed that historical laws are invariant, that is, they are implemented under any circumstances (maximum variation: a little earlier or later, easier or harder, more or less completely). In such a situation, the role of the individual in history appeared to be small. Personality can, according to Plekhanov, 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.

This approach was actually based on the ideas of the inevitability of the implementation of laws (acting in spite of everything, with "iron necessity"). But there are no such laws and cannot be in history, since societies in the world system play a different functional role, which often depends on the abilities of politicians. If a mediocre ruler delays reforms, his state may become dependent, as, for example, happened in China in the 19th century. At the same time, reforms carried out correctly can turn the country into a new center of power (for example, Japan at the same time managed to reorganize itself and began to make conquests).

In addition, Marxists did not take into account 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. the Arab tribes felt the need for a new religion. But what she could become in her real incarnation, in many respects depended on a specific person. In other words, if another prophet appeared, even with his success, the religion would no longer be Islam, but something else, and then the Arabs would play such an outstanding role in history, one can only guess.

Finally, many events, including socialist the 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 without the coincidence of a number of accidents and the outstanding role of Lenin (to a certain extent, Trotsky).

Unlike Hegel, in Marxism, not only positive, but also negative figures are taken into account (the former can speed up, and the latter slow down the implementation of the law). However, the assessment of the "positive" or "negative" role depended significantly on the subjective and class position of the philosopher and historian. So, if the revolutionaries considered Robespierre and Marat to be heroes, then the more moderate public regarded them as bloody fanatics.

Trying to find other solutions. So, neither deterministic-fatalistic theories, which do not leave a creative historical role to individuals, nor voluntaristic theories, which believe that a person can change the course of history, as he pleases, did not solve the problem. Gradually, philosophers move away from extreme solutions. Giving an assessment of the dominant currents in the philosophy of history, the philosopher H. Rappoport (1899: 47) wrote at the very end of the 19th century that, in addition to the above two, there is a third possible solution: “Personality is both a cause and a product of historical development ... this solution , in its general form, seems to be closest to scientific truth...” On the whole, this was the right approach. The search for a certain golden mean made it possible to see different aspects of the problem. However, such an average view still did not explain much, in particular, when and why a person can have a significant, decisive influence on events, and when not.

There were also theories that tried to use the laws of biology that came into fashion, especially Darwinism and genetics, to solve the problem of the role of the individual (for example, the American philosopher W. James and the sociologist F. Woods).

Mikhailovsky's theory. Personality and masses. In the last third of the XIX century. - the beginning of the twentieth 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 common, especially among revolutionary-minded young people. This made popular the question of the role of the individual in history, in the formulation of T. Carlyle, the relationship between the “hero” and the masses (in particular, it is worth noting the “Historical Letters” of the revolutionary populist P. L. Lavrov). A significant contribution to the development of this problem was made by N. K. Mikhailovsky (1842-1904). In his work “Heroes and the Crowd”, he formulates a new theory and shows that a person can be understood not necessarily 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, in relation to historical figures, does not develop this theme in detail. His article rather has a psychological aspect. The meaning of Mikhailovsky's ideas 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 the whole action acquires special power. In short, the role of the individual depends on how much its psychological impact is enhanced by the perception of the masses. Somewhat similar conclusions (but significantly supplemented by his Marxist class position and concerning the already more or less organized mass, and not the crowd) were later made by K. Kautsky.

Strength of personality in different situations. Mikhailovsky and Kautsky correctly grasped this social effect: the strength of the individual grows to colossal proportions when the masses follow him, and even more so when this mass is organized and united. But the dialectics of the relationship between the individual and the masses is still much more complicated. In particular, it is important to understand whether the individual is only a spokesman for the moods of the masses, or, on the contrary, is the mass inert, and the individual can direct it?

The strength of individuals is often directly related to the strength of the organizations and groups they represent, and those who rally their supporters best achieve the greatest success. But this does not at all negate the fact that it sometimes depends on the personal characteristics of the leader where this common force will turn. Therefore, the role of the leader at such a crucial moment (battle, elections, etc.), the degree of his compliance with the role, one might say, is of decisive importance, since, as A. Labriola (1960: 183) wrote, the self-complex interweaving of conditions leads to the fact that “ at critical moments, certain personalities, whether brilliant, heroic, successful or criminal, are called upon to have the final word.

Comparing the role of the masses and individuals, we see: on the side of the first - the number, emotions, lack of personal responsibility. On the side of the latter - awareness, purpose, will, plan. Therefore, we can say that, other things being equal, the role of the individual will be greatest when the advantages of the masses and leaders combine into one force. This is why splits reduce the power of organizations and movements so much, and the presence of rival leaders can generally reduce it to zero. So, there is no doubt that the significance of the figures is determined by many factors and causes. Thus, developing this problem, we have already moved on to the analysis of modern views.

Modern views on the role of personality

First of all, it should be said about the book of the American philosopher S. Hook “A Hero in History. Exploring Limits and Possibilities" (Hook 1955), which was a notable step forward in the development of the problem. This monograph is still the most serious work on the topic under study. In particular, Hook comes to an important conclusion, which essentially explains why the role of the individual can fluctuate in different conditions. He notes that, on the one hand, the activity of the individual is indeed limited by the circumstances of the environment and the nature of society, but on the other hand, the role of the individual increases significantly (to the point where it becomes an independent force) when alternatives appear in the development of society. At the same time, he emphasizes that in a situation of alternativeness, the choice of an alternative may also depend on the qualities of a person. Hook does not classify such alternatives and does not link the existence of alternatives with the state of society (stable - unstable), but a number of the examples he cited concern the most dramatic moments (revolutions, crises, wars).

In chapter 9, Hook makes an important distinction between historical figures in terms of their impact on the course of history, dividing them into people who influence events and people who create events. Although Hook does not clearly divide personalities in terms of the amount of their influence (on individual societies, on humanity as a whole), nevertheless, he attributed Lenin to people who create events, since in a certain respect he significantly changed the direction of development not only of Russia, but of the whole world. in the twentieth century

Hook rightly attaches great importance to chances and probabilities in history and their close connection with the role of the individual, at the same time he strongly opposes attempts to present all history as waves of chances.

In the second half of the XX - early XXI century. The following main areas of research can be distinguished:

1. Attracting methods and theories of interdisciplinary areas. In the 50-60s. 20th century finally formed systems approach, which potentially opened up the opportunity to look at the role of the individual in a new way. But more important here are synergetic studies. Synergetic theory (I. Prigogine, I. Stengers and others) distinguishes between two main states of the system: order and chaos. This theory has the potential to help deepen understanding of the role of the individual. With regard to society, her approaches can be interpreted as follows. In a state of order, the system/society does not allow significant transformation. But chaos - despite the negative associations - often means for her the opportunity to move to another state (both to a higher and to a lower level). If the bonds/institutions that hold a society together are weakened or destroyed, it is in a very precarious position for some time. This special state in synergetics is called "bifurcation" (fork). At the point of bifurcation (revolution, war, perestroika, etc.), society can turn in one direction or another under the influence of various, even generally insignificant, reasons. Among these reasons, a place of honor is occupied by certain personalities.

2. Consideration of the issue of the role of the individual in terms of the problem of the laws of history or in the context of certain areas of research and approaches. Among the many authors who in one way or another deal with these issues are the philosophers W. Drey, K. Hempel, E. Nagel, K. Popper, the economist and philosopher L. von Mises, and others, and between some of them at the end of 1950- x - early 1960s. there were interesting discussions around the problems of determinism and the laws of history.

Among the not particularly numerous attempts to develop the theory of the role of the individual, we can mention the article by the famous Polish philosopher L. Nowak "Class and Personality in the Historical Process". Nowak tries to analyze the role of the individual through the prism of the new class theory, which was part of the non-Marxist historical materialism he created. It is valuable that he tries to consider the role of the individual in a broad aspect of the historical process, builds models of the influence of the individual depending on the political regime and the class structure of society. In general, Novak believes that the role of a personality, even an outstanding one, in the historical process is not particularly great, which is difficult to agree with. Quite interesting and correct, although not fundamentally new, is his idea that the personality itself as an individual is not capable of significantly influencing the course of the historical process, if this personality is not at the intersection with some other factors - the parameters of the historical process (Nowak 2009: 82).

The role of outstanding people in the process of formation of states, the creation of religions and civilizations is well known; the role of outstanding people in culture, science, inventions, etc. Unfortunately, there are surprisingly few special studies in this regard. At the same time, there are many authors who, when analyzing the processes of formation of states and the development of civilizations, expressed interesting ideas about the role of the individual. Such ideas provide an opportunity to expand our understanding of the role of the individual in different periods, in different societies and special eras. In particular, in this regard, a number of representatives of the neo-evolutionary direction of political anthropology should be noted: M. Sahlins, E. Service, R. Carneiro, H. Klassen - regarding the role of the individual in the process of formation and evolution of chiefdoms and states.

3. In recent decades, the so-called alternative, or counterfactual, history(from the English counterfactual - an assumption from the opposite), which answers questions about what would happen if there were no one or another person. She explores hypothetical alternatives under non-existent scenarios, such as under what conditions Germany and Hitler could win World War II, what would happen if Churchill died, Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo, etc.

4. Analysis of the role of individuals in different situations comes from the idea that the historical role of the individual can vary from imperceptible to the most enormous, depending on a variety of conditions and circumstances, as well as on the characteristics of the place under study, time and individual personality traits.

Accounting for what moments, when and how affect the role of individuals, allows us to consider this problem most fully and systematically, as well as to model different situations (see below). For example, the role of the individual in monarchical (authoritarian) and democratic societies is different. In authoritarian societies, a lot depends on individual traits and accidents associated with the monarch (dictator) and his entourage, while in democratic societies, due to the system of checks and balances in power and the change of government, the role of the individual is generally less.

Separate interesting remarks about the differences in the strength of the influence of individuals in states of society of different stability (stable and critical unstable) can be found in the works of A. Gramsci, A. Labriola, J. Nehru, A. Ya. Gurevich and others. This idea can be formulated as follows : the less solid and stable a society is, and the more the old structures are destroyed, the more influence an individual can have on it. In other words, the role of the individual is inversely proportional to the stability and strength of society.

In modern social science, a special concept has also been developed that combines the impact of all typical causes - "situation factor".It consists of: a) the characteristics of the environment in which the individual operates (social system, traditions, tasks); b) the state in which society is at a certain moment (stable, unstable, on the rise, downhill, etc.); c) features of surrounding societies; d) features of historical time; e) from whether the events took place in the center of the world system or on its periphery (the first increases, and the second reduces the influence of certain individuals on other societies and the historical process as a whole); e) favorable moment for action; g) the characteristics of the personality itself and the needs of the moment and the situation in precisely such qualities; h) the presence of competitive figures.

The more of these points favors the individual, the more important his role may be.

5. Modeling allows you to imagine changes in society as the process of changing its phase states, and in each state the role of the personality changes significantly.As an example, we can cite a model of such a process, consisting of 4 phases: 1) a stable society such as a monarchy; 2) social pre-revolutionary crisis; 3) revolution; 4) creation of a new order (see also the diagram below).

In the first phase- during a relatively calm era - the role of the individual, although significant, is still not too great (although in absolute monarchies everything that concerns the monarch can become very important, especially in the second phase).

Second phase occurs when the system begins to decline. If the solution of issues that are inconvenient for the authorities is delayed, a crisis arises, and with it many individuals appear who seek to resolve them by force (coup, revolution, conspiracy). There are development alternatives behind which are various socio-political forces represented by personalities. And it now depends on the characteristics of these people, to one degree or another, where society can turn.

Third phase comes when the system perishes under the influence of revolutionary pressure. Starting in such a situation to resolve the global contradictions that have accumulated in the old system, society never has an unambiguous solution in advance (which is why it is quite appropriate to speak of a “bifurcation point” here). Some of the tendencies, of course, have more, and some less, chances to manifest themselves, but this ratio can change dramatically under the influence of various reasons. In such critical periods, leaders are sometimes, like additional weights, able to pull the scales of history in one direction or another. In these bifurcation moments the strength of personalities, their individual qualities, compliance with their role, etc. are of great, often decisive importance, but at the same time, the result of the activity (and, consequently, the true role) of the individual may turn out to be quite different from what she had imagined. Indeed, after the revolution and the destruction of the old order, society appears amorphous and therefore very susceptible to forceful influences. During such periods, the influence of individuals on a fragile society can be uncontrollable, unpredictable. It also happens that, having gained influence, leaders completely turn societies (under the influence of various personal and general reasons) in a direction that no one could even think of, “invent” an unprecedented social structure.

Fourth phase comes with the formation of a new system and order. After a political force is consolidated in power, the struggle often takes place already in the camp of the victors. It is connected both with the relationship of leaders and with the choice of a further path of development. The role of the individual here is also exceptionally great: after all, society has not yet frozen, and the new order can definitely be associated precisely with some specific person (leader, prophet, etc.). To finally establish yourself in power, you need to deal with the remaining political rivals and prevent the growth of competitors from allies. This ongoing struggle (the duration of which depends on many reasons) is directly related to the characteristics of the victorious individual and finally gives shape to society.

Thus, the nature of the new system depends heavily on the qualities of their leaders, the ups and downs of the struggle and other, sometimes random, things. For this reason as a result of changes, the society that was planned is always not obtained. Gradually, the considered hypothetical system matures, forms and acquires rigidity. Now, in many respects, new orders form leaders. philosophers of the past expressed this aphoristically: “When societies are born, it is the leaders who create the institutions of the republic. Later, institutions produce leaders.” Undoubtedly, the problem of the role of the individual in history is far from being finally resolved.

Scheme

The ratio between the level of stability of society and the power of the influence of the individual on society

Aron, R. 1993. Stages of development of sociological thought. M.: Progress.

Grinin, L. E.

2007. The problem of analyzing the driving forces of historical development, social progress and social evolution. Philosophy of history: problems and prospects/ ed. Yu. I. Semenova, I. A. Gobozova, L. E. Grinina (p. 183-203). Moscow: KomKniga/URSS.

2008. On the role of personality in history. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences 78(1): 42-47.

2010. Personality in History: The Evolution of Views. History and modernity 2: 3-44.

2011. Personality in History: Modern Approaches. History and modernity 1: 3-40.

Labriola, A. 1960. Essays on the materialistic understanding of history. M.: Science.

Plekhanov, GV 1956. On the question of the role of personality in history. Selected philosophical works: in 5 vols. Vol. 2 (pp. 300-334). M.: State. Publishing House Polit. liters.

Shapiro, A. L. 1993. Russian historiography from ancient times to 1917 Lecture 28. M .: Culture.

Engels, F. 1965. To Joseph Bloch in Konigsberg, London, September 21[-22], 1890. In: Marx, K., Engels, F., Op. 2nd ed. T. 37 (pp. 393-397). Moscow: Politizdat.

Hook, S. 1955. The Hero in History. A Study in Limitation and Possibility. Boston: Beacon Press.

James, W. 2005. Great Men and Their Environment. Kila, MT: Kessinger Publishing.

Nowak, L. 2009. Class and Individual in the Historical Process. In Brzechczyn, K. (ed.), Idealization XIII: Modeling in History ( PoznanStudies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 97) (pp. 63-84). Amsterdam; New York, NY: Rodopi.

Powers that be

Julius Caesar - the famous ancient Roman statesman, dictator. Caesar became famous as one of the greatest commanders. He not only significantly expanded the territory of the Roman state, laying the foundation for the empire - a new page in the history of Rome, but also, in fact, redrawn political Europe. In addition, being a talented writer, he made a huge contribution to the development of European culture.

The greatness of Caesar in the eyes of posterity is evidenced by the fact that subsequent emperors of Rome took his name as a designation for their title. It also became a household name for the rulers of other states and eras (king, kaiser).

Genghis Khan is the legendary conqueror and founder of the Mongol Empire. Destroying a number of once powerful ancient states, he created the largest empire in the history of mankind. It included gigantic territories - from the Danube River to the Sea of Japan and from the North-West of Russia to Southeast Asia. Genghis Khan was not only an outstanding conqueror, but also a wise politician who established a well-functioning state system. For the peoples of Asia, he is not just the main character, but almost a sacred personality.

Napoleon is a great commander and statesman, the founder of the modern French state. He led a series of victorious wars that turned France into the main European power. His rapid rise and subsequent fall amazed the minds of his contemporaries. Napoleon changed the idea of the role of the individual in history, becoming for some - a symbol of courage and amazing human capabilities, and for others - an example of a lover of power, ready to destroy himself in the name of glory.

Peter I is the Russian emperor, statesman and reformer. Everything new was associated with the name of Peter in his era: a new dynasty, a new form of political structure, a new capital, a new army, a new culture. His large-scale reforms changed all spheres of life in Russian society. In addition, Peter expanded the territory of Russia and, thanks to the victorious war with Sweden, gained access to the Baltic Sea. Historians have diametrically opposed views on this outstanding personality, but no one doubts that Peter's activities brought Russia to a completely different level of civilizational development, putting it on a par with the leading European powers.

Strong-willed

Jesus Christ is the founder of one of the three, which is professed by more than a third of the world's population. According to Christian doctrine, Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of the world, with his redemptive sacrifice and subsequent resurrection from the dead, he reconciled people with God and opened the way for them to the Kingdom of Heaven. Even those who do not recognize Christ as Lord, not the fact that this really existing person changed the world with his selflessness and love. The history of life and the teachings of Christ became a source of inspiration for millions of people, among whom there were many figures of culture and art.

By the number of mentions of the name in literature, Christ is the most popular person on earth.

From the date of his birth, a new era began in the history of mankind.

Christopher Columbus is a legendary navigator, the most famous traveler in the world. Columbus was the first to cross the Atlantic Ocean and is believed to have discovered two continents - North and South America. Thanks to his voyages, Europe got acquainted with a hitherto unknown world and entered a new era - the time of colonial expansion. And although many scientists believe that Columbus was not the discoverer of America, his voyages certainly had a huge historical value. At the same time, the personality of Columbus himself, despite the general fame and many scientific works devoted to him, still remains shrouded in secrets.

Karl Marx is a philosopher, revolutionary, the world's most famous economist and sociologist. Founder of historical materialism and the theory of class struggle. The ideological inspirer of the communist movement and socialist revolutions. The creator of philosophical, political and economic doctrine, which in many ways changed the fate of the world. At the end of the last century, almost half of the world's population lived in countries with so-called Marxist regimes. Karl Marx became a man whose fanatical love and fierce hatred for his ideas do not fade to this day.

Gagarin is a Soviet pilot-cosmonaut, the first in the history of mankind to fly into outer space. People may not know, for example, who invented the wheel or invented the bicycle. But the name of the first man in space is on everyone's lips. He became the one who was personally convinced that the Earth is round. At one time, Gagarin's flight was the main news in the world, and Yuri Alekseevich himself turned into one of the most famous people. According to polls, for Russians, Gagarin is the favorite hero of the last century. Thanks to him, the most incredible dream of mankind - flight into space - came true.

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 with 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.