on legacies
how historical revisionism is used to shape today's world
The way we understand history is too often taken for granted. Our common understanding of it—and the way it’s taught—is what is known as the “Great Man” theory of history. We can thank Thomas Carlyle for introducing this in the 19th century as an interpretation of history where human civilization is shaped by the unique vision, will, and capacity for action of exceptional individuals. These individuals create the events and periods that shape history.
Over the last couple centuries, I would argue that this view has been generalized to events as well. Events such as the “Great Depression” or “9/11” become treated much the same—as separated events which sprung out of themselves and shaped the course of society thereafter.
This view is backwards.
Historical Materialism, developed by Marx and Engels—inspired by Hegel, inverts this understanding entirely. This view takes these “Great Men” as symptoms of their material conditions rather than the cause. Historical moments are not created by these men, material conditions create the historical moments under which “Great Men” can act. This is not a complete disregard for the influence of individuals on history. Rather, it holds that their influence is minimal and that another individual would have been created by the historical moment. Yes, the alternative to certain figures would shape history differently, but not in an absolute capacity.
What implications does the prevalence of the “Great Man” theory have on society today?
Psychologically, it diminishes the average citizen’s perception of their impact on society and naturalizes hierarchy. It builds an image of history where most of us can only sit around and witness clashes of almost superhuman forces. Materially, it denies the fact that leaders cannot act outside their material constraints. The real engine of change lies in the collective human activity centered around the production of material conditions. Power outright lies with the community of people, but is voluntarily offered to a small group of people due to cultural delusions about how civilization develops.
A powerful way this cultural delusion is kept alive to benefit those we abdicate power to, is through manipulation of historical memory. Not only does the adoption of the “Great Man” theory of history damage the power of the people in a basic sense, but it opens the door for mass manipulation of the political horizon. By controlling the legacies of the “Great Men” they espouse as the architects of history, they can control what aspects of politics, economics, and culture are considered important, and control how we ought to think about this limited set of concepts.
They have three main tools for this:
Emphasis
Complicated people are hard to understand—they force you to think. That’s no good. Instead, they would rather take all of these “Great Men” and totalize their existence into one aspect of their life. Don’t worry about the fact that Einstein was deeply socialist and anti-capitalist. No, he was just a quirky physicist who gave us general relativity. It’s simpler that way. MLK gets reduced to civil rights advocate instead of an advocate for redistribution of political and economic power. Realistically, they would likely have preferred to not even acknowledge MLK, but his impact was substantial enough they could not deny his contributions and had to co-opt his image and manipulate his legacy to support their continuing control. We are taught his “I Have a Dream” speech, but not his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” where he denounces the white moderate in one of my favorite quotes:
“I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
There are endless examples I could give about the bastardizations of legacies, but I will save those for later essays. Each figure deserves their own post to offer a complete view of their legacy in all its parts.
Omission
Emphasis implies omission; so, in a sense they are the same concept, but their treatment deserves separate attention.
While emphasis is used to tell us how important certain ideas are, omission is used to control what ideas even enter our minds. Furthermore, within emphasis there is omission. Civil rights, revolution, war heroes. They are all glorified and elevated to heights of undeniable/unquestionable righteousness; however, the concept is the only thing glorified. The actual methods, nuances, and reality of them are omitted from history.
This is why nobody can define socialism.
Concepts get spoken about loudly, but go unexplained—favoring instead careful crafting of emotional appeals to tether to the concepts. The information explaining the reality of concepts is buried beneath heaps of vague, emotional discussions devoid of substance. Because let’s face it, if you actually learn about and understand history and the concepts which drive it, the common treatment of things in everyday society reveals itself as blatant absurdity aimed at perpetuating the conditions for continued control through ignorance.
Fabrication
Rarely, is outright fabrication necessary for those already dead. There are instances where blatant lies are levied against living figures to discredit them and neutralize their influence, such as Michael Jackson; but the use I find more damaging to legacies is about interpretation and aestheticization.
“Every lie is born from a kernel of truth”
I find this manipulation of legacies particularly damaging because it takes the tightest hold of reality. It takes the real and twists into its own contradiction to remove the power of the actual concept being represented in the legacy.
Consider Gandhi. His legacy has become synonymous with a saintly standard of non-violence. The fact that his leadership of Indian resistance was non-violent is true, but it was not due to the idea of a universal moral principle as it has become thought of today. Non-violence was a strategic decision for his primary goals, resistance and liberation. British colonialism was predicated on the notion that they were a civilizing occupation. Their sustaining myth was that they brought order, law, and progress to “backwards” peoples. Gandhi’s non-violent resistance brought the contradiction of this myth to the surface and crushed public perception and support for British colonialism. Furthermore, material resistance was integral to Gandhi’s success but is often undiscussed. The salt marches, textile boycotts, and non-participation in colonial administration were tactics that all imposed real costs. Then, after WWII drained British wealth, occupation of India became no longer worth the financial cost, and non-violence allowed the British to feel morally justified to withdraw.
This is itself an oversimplified history, but it can work as an example of materially and conditionally specific movements having their legacies twisted into universal concepts which are harmful when applied to other situations.
The British’s goal was resource exploitation from India, this required Indian cooperation and manpower. Settler colonial projects like apartheid South Africa and Israel have a different goal: land without people. In cases like these—where there is no option of strategic withholding of a desired resource—non-violence is a foolish method of resistance. This will play only into their goals, a population that will accept displacement without fighting back.
What was originally a conditional expression of resistance, became an aestheticized ideal for all resistances that only benefits the goals of oppressors.
Historical Memory Controlled
This is a broad topic where the majority of the fruits are found in specific explorations into revealing the illusions. It becomes a matter of diligently reshaping your understanding of history into a consistent, wholistic view that accounts for historical conditions as what manifests the responses known as “Great Men.”
My writing will keep this as a consistent thread and I will delve into the “Great Men” of history to reveal the history of their time and historical moment within its full context. This will apply for those remembered well, and poorly alike. I also plan to explore the context which surrounds the “Great Men” of today to offer a direct cut through contemporary manipulations; but, promises of future writing aside, I felt it important to articulate the broader concept itself first so as to arm you with the mental tools necessary to follow the upcoming excavation of history.
Until next communion, all my love! <3
Micah Xavier Probst