The role of personality in history. The person who influenced the course of history: examples. People who changed the course of world history. Classes and their leaders

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 Enlightenment believed that laws community development 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 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 with materialistic positions. It is based on the laws of development of material production, such as the primacy 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 is manifested 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."

All our explorations in the field of the philosophy of history are justified, finally, by the main theme - the theme of man's place in history. And this topic seems to be quite controversial.

Man does not exist outside of society and social history, but history is also impossible without man or when it acts against man.

It is clear that man and history cannot be separated from each other, but their opposition is not far-fetched. At certain times and under certain circumstances, people must sacrifice themselves in order to preserve certain historical achievements, or in order for history to continue. That is, there are situations when history reveals itself above the individual and his fate. Sometimes the question stands differently: either man will own what history has acquired, or history will degrade along with the degrading of man. Such a mutual distancing of man and history testifies that within their connection they carry a different semantic and semantic load.

Man appears as a real and the only possible factor in history, because it is history that produces certain actions and determines the existence of certain spheres. public life and historical activities. In this regard, history appears as the deployment of the inner possibilities of man. Everything that happens in history, saturated with human aspirations, interests, efforts, suffering, and so on. On the other hand, history specializes a person, and the latter always appears as a person of a certain era, a certain historical type society; even professionally a person is historically conditioned.

So, history appears as a concrete reality of a person, and in this respect it limits a person, introduces him into specific forms of life activity and into a specific space of his possible realizations. And if history limits a person, this means that it does not use all its possibilities, and therefore appears in its concreteness rather than from a person, perspectively aimed at the possible fullness of a person.

However, in a certain sense, history and society are always more than an individual, because they: a) provide space for self-realization for a large number of people, and not just individuals; b) preserve and fix the experience of previous generations with their structures; c) instill in individual individuals a variety of interests that go beyond their purely individual vital needs; d) finally, they form goals and meanings that exceed individual human life horizons and lead to the fact that quite often a person sees his main task in serving history and society.

All this means that a person enters history in those of his abilities and manifestations, identified and fixed by the mechanisms social activities(or technologies of social activity). But the same can be said about the natural-cosmic forces and properties, so social activity is a transition, a mutual equating of human existence and the cosmos. Through this, it becomes clear why human existence requires the assimilation of the experience of social activity: outside of this, a person cannot even know why she is a person; however, something else becomes clear - why we still have reason to talk about historical fate, about the autocracy of history; after all, the identification and certified technologies of social activity, which is an alloy of existence and space, have their own laws, and these laws do not coincide either with the actions of an individual, or with the laws of space and nature.

The concrete unity of subjective and objective factors and factors of human social activity, taken with due regard for its historical achievements and trends, appears before us as historical fate(or as the autocracy of history).

Therefore, for example, the same actions and actions of people in different historical times can have completely different consequences. Of course, we must not forget that historical activity has as its source man and the cosmos in their interaction, and therefore we must not tear history away from either nature or man. But also we should not identify them; in fact, history is the realm of human self-exploration. Comprehending it, a person, most likely, must agree with the thesis of J. G. Fichte that an act is our destiny. History demands action and responds to it. But from the considered problem of the relationship between man and history, one more conclusion should be drawn:

History has an active (procedural) and a conservative side, and only both of them can ensure a normal course. historical process and historical self-manifestation of man.

At the same time, it makes sense to talk about such trends in history:

a tendency to increase the role of a conscious (reasonable) beginning in the implementation of the historical process;

tendency to increase the information saturation of the field of human effective self-expression;

a tendency towards a variety of forms of human historical activism and an increase in the role of individual initiative in the historical process.

conclusions

History as the reality of man and its manifestations looks like a heterogeneous, complex and paradoxical process. The philosophy of history is designed to give a person general orientations in history, to help him assess the possibilities and conditions of his socio-historical life self-affirmation.

as a special direction philosophical studies The philosophy of history arose in the 18th and 19th centuries. But its problems permeate all the main stages in the development of the history of philosophy.

Among the most important problems of the philosophy of history in the foreground are: the definition of a special quality of the socio-historical process, its direction, the nature of its implementation, the solution of the question of the finiteness or infinity of history.

A convincing option for solving the problem of the subject of history is the depiction of him as a human personality, which concentrates the unique qualities of the individual and the characteristics of social relations. Through reference to the individual as an amateur active unit of the historical process of the initial conditions and factors human activity it is possible to outline the content of the most painful questions in the study of history.

Additional literature on the topic

1. Andrushenko V.M. Mikhapchenko Sh. Modern social philosophy K 1096

2. Berdyaev N. A. The meaning of history. M., 1990.

3. Boychenko V. Philosophy of History: Textbook. K., 2000.

4. Vico J. Foundation of a new science of the general nature of things. M., K., 1994.

5. Voltaire. Philosophy and Methodology of History // Historians and History. Life, fate, creativity: V. 2v. M., 1998.

6. Gavrylyshyn By. Pointers to the future. towards efficient societies. Report to the Club of Rome. K., 1990.

7. Hegel G.-W.-F. Lectures on the Philosophy of History. SPb., 1993.

8. Zhekii G.V. Social philosophy of history. K., 1996.

9. Kolineud Robin J. Idea of history. K., 1996.

10. Kuzmenko V.L., Romanchuk O.K. On the threshold of supercivilization (reflections on the future). Lvov, 1991.

11. Montesquieu C.-L. About the spirit of laws. M., 1999.

12. Scientific foresight of community processes. K., 1990.

13. Ortega y Gasett Hall. theme of our era. K., 1994.

14. Rickett Heinrich. Philosophy of history // Rickett Heinrich. Philosophy of life. K., 1998.

15. Modern western philosophy: Dictionary. M., 1991.

16. Toynbee Arnold J. Research of history. Abridged version of volumes I-IV by D.V. Semervenka: In 2 vols. K., 1995.

17. Shpeingler A. Decline of Europe. Essays on the morphology of history: In 2 vols. M., 1998.

18. Jaspers K. The meaning and purpose of history. M., 1991.

Quite often, philosophy, in developing this problem, exaggerated the role of the individual in the historical process and, above all, statesmen, while believing that almost everything is decided by outstanding personalities. Kings, kings, political leaders, generals supposedly can control the whole of history and run it like a kind of puppet theater, where there are puppeteers and puppets. Historical personalities are personalities placed on the pedestal of history by the force of circumstances and personal qualities. Hegel called world-historical personalities those few outstanding people whose personal interests contain substantial components: the will, the world spirit or the reason of history. "They draw their strength, goals and their vocation from a source, the content of which is hidden, which is still underground and knocks on the outside world, as if on a shell, breaking it" (Hegel. Works. T. IX, p. 98).

“Studying the life and work of historical figures, one can notice,” Machiavelli wrote in his work “The Emperor,” that happiness did not give them anything, except for the chance that brought them into their hands the material to which they could give forms according to their goals and principles; without such chances of their valor could fade away without application; without their personal merits, the chance that gave them power in their hands would not be fruitful and could pass without a trace. It was necessary, for example, that Moses find the people of Israel in Egypt languishing in slavery and oppression, so that the desire to get out of such an intolerable situation would induce them to follow him.

According to Goethe, Napoleon became a historical figure, first of all, not because of his personal qualities (he, however, had many of them), but the most important thing is that “people, obeying him, expected thereby to achieve their own goals. That is why they followed him, as they follow anyone who inspires them with this kind of confidence "(Goethe. Sobr. soch. T., 15. p. 44-45). In this regard, Plato's statement is interesting: "The world will only become happy when the wise men become kings or kings become wise men" (quoted from: Eckerman. Conversations with Goethe. M., 1981, p. 449). No less interesting is the opinion of Cicero, who believed that the strength of the people is more terrible when they have no leader. The leader feels that he will be responsible for everything, and is preoccupied with this, while the people, blinded by passion, do not see the danger to which he exposes himself.

Having become by chance or by necessity the head of state, a person can influence the course and outcome historical events various influences: positive, negative, or, as is more often the case, both. Therefore, society is far from being indifferent in whose hands the political, state power is concentrated. A lot depends on her. V. Hugo wrote: " Distinctive feature true statesmen is precisely in order to benefit from every need, and sometimes even a fatal combination of circumstances, to turn for the good of the state "(Hugo V. Sobr. op. V.15, pp. 44-45). There is only one leader, if this is a genius, he must subtly "eavesdrop" on the thoughts of the people. In this regard, the reasoning of A. I. Herzen is curious: "A person is very strong, a person placed in a royal place is even stronger. But here again the old thing: he is strong with the flow and the stronger, the more he understands him. But the flow continues even when he does not understand it and even when he resists it "(quoted from: Lichtenberg G. Aphorisms. M., 1983, p. 144).

Such a historical detail is curious. Catherine the Second, when asked by a foreigner why the nobility obeyed her so unconditionally, replied: "Because I order them only what they themselves want." But high power, however, also carries heavy responsibilities. The Bible says: "To whom much has been given, much will be required" (Matthew: 95:24-28; Luke: 12:48). Do all former and present rulers know and follow these commandments?

An outstanding person must have high charisma. Charisma is a "God's spark", an exceptional gift, outstanding abilities that are "from nature", "from God". The term and its development in relation to this or that leader are given in the sociological theories of Troeltsch and Max Weber. The charismatic personality itself spiritually influences its environment. The environment of a charismatic leader can be a "community" of students, warriors, co-religionists, that is, it is a kind of "caste-party" community, which is formed on charismatic grounds: students correspond to the prophet, retinue to the military leader, confidants to the leader. A charismatic leader surrounds himself with those in whom he intuitively and by the power of his mind guesses and catches a gift similar to himself, but "smaller in stature." It seems that of all the above concepts about the place and role of the leader, the leader, the most acceptable is such a happy option when a sage becomes the head of the state, but not by himself, not a sage for himself, but a sage who clearly and timely captures the mood of the people who trusted him power, able to make his people happy and prosperous.

TOPIC 24. MAN.

LESSON PLAN

I. Organization of the beginning of the lesson.

II. The message of the topic, the objectives of the lesson. Motivation of educational activity.

Goals:

Educational:

Know the definitions of "individual", "individuality", "personality", their similarities and differences.

Developing:

Continue to improve the ability to be a reflective practitioner;

Improve the ability to evaluate information;

Develop skills to identify biased attitudes, opinions and judgments.

Educational:

Know and develop qualities successful person– conscientiousness, responsibility, diligence, justice, mutual respect.

Motivation for learning activities: the goal of life is to have its meaning, and to improve yourself in relation to the meaning of life, and the more satisfied you are with your ability to achieve this ideal, the closer we are to realizing the problem of happiness.

III. Actualization of basic knowledge of students.

1. What are the features of Russian philosophy?

2. What stages of development did the Russian idea go through?

3. What are the prospects for the further development of the Russian idea?

4. What are the main features of the program for the development of Russian philosophy by I.V. Kireevsky?

IV. Learning new material.

Lecture plan.

Man as an individual, as an individual.

2. Man as a person.

3. The role of personality in history.

Literature

1. Introduction to philosophy. Frolov I.T. (in two parts) M.1989

2. Spirkin A.G. Philosophy: textbook. M.2004. Introductory word.

3. Stepin V.S. Philosophy. Mn. 2006.

4. Petrov V.P. Philosophy. M. 2012. Lecture 1.

5. Philosophy. (team of scientists) Rostov n/a. 2001.

6. Yakushev A.V. Philosophy. M., 2004.

V. Consolidation of new knowledge.

1. Who is a person?

2. Why are the concepts used to characterize a person: person, individual, individuality, personality?

3. What is a "historical figure"?

4. Can a person really play a historical role in history?

VI. Summing up the lesson.

VII. Homework message.

1. Give brief description the concept of "individual"?

2. Set the differences between an individual and individuality?

3. What qualities are inherent in personality?

Man as an individual, as an individual

Individual.

To characterize a person as an individual phenomenon, a number of special terms are used in the philosophical and psychological literature. The most important of them are the individual, individuality, personality, subject, I, etc. Each of these concepts has a specific content. Man is a unique phenomenon in the Universe. He is unique and mysterious. Neither modern science, nor religion, nor philosophy can fully reveal the mystery of man. When philosophers talk about the nature and essence of a person, or his other characteristics, then it is not so much about their final disclosure, but about the desire to return to them once again and, perhaps, supplement or clarify them. The concepts of "nature", "essence" in relation to a person are often used as synonyms. However, there is a difference between them. Under the "nature" of a person is meant persistent unchanging traits, general inclinations and properties that express his features as a living being, which are inherent in him at all times, regardless of biological evolution (from the moment a person was formed) and the historical process. The nature of a person is revealed by such concepts as "individual", "subject", as they include such characteristics as will, specificity of thought processes, affectivity, features of neurodynamics, gender, age, constitutional differences, etc. The characteristics "individuality" are more associated with the concept of human essence. and "personality". In a more rigorous form, the term "individual" is used to refer to any individual representative of the human race. In social philosophy, this term denotes a single representative of a separate whole. The individual is "instance", that is, not just one, but "one of". The individual is biosocial being, genetically related to other forms of life, but separated from them due to the ability to produce tools, think abstractly and adapt the world around them to their needs. Man as an individual, possessing specifically unique features that are different from typicality - individuality, was formed as a herd, social being. Therefore, at any moment it also exists as a "product" of social relations. Society not only surrounds a person, but also lives "inside him". The era in which a person was born and formed, the level of culture that society has reached; way of life, way of feeling and spirituality (mentality) - all this leaves a mark on individual behavior, determines the initial, often unconscious, attitudes and influences the motives of actions. A person has not only to reckon with the conditions and possibilities of the existing society, he must also understand that he owes the latter many qualities that at first seemed to be independent acquisitions. The characterization of the individual as a product of social relations does not mean at all, however, that the initial conditions of individual existence (for example, the nature of upbringing, family or social environment) once and for all predetermine the subsequent behavior of a person.

Individuality. Irreducibility of a person to common features its natural essence or social group position, the relative independence of behavior from the factors that originally caused it, the ability to be responsible for one’s appearance, to have value and significance in the eyes of society - all these characteristics fix “individuality” and “personality”, close and interconnected concepts. They express not only the difference between man and animals, but his essence. Appearing into the world as an individual, a person becomes a personality later. And this process has a social character.

Individuality as a further development of a person is his essential characteristic, since it reflects the unique way of his being. Individuality is the originality of feelings and character traits, originality of thinking, talents and abilities inherent only to this individual, it is a set of properties and features that distinguish this individual from all others, a characteristic of the individuality of a person, his uniqueness and originality, his indispensability.

2. Man as a person. The concept of personality emphasizes in a person, first of all, the conscious-volitional and cultural-social principle. The more an individual deserves the right to be called a personality, the more clearly he realizes the motives of his behavior and the more strictly he controls it, subordinating his behavior to a single life strategy and responsibility. In a person, her actions are interesting. Personality is determined by what line of behavior it chooses. Personality is its own initiator of a successive series of life events. The dignity of a person is determined not so much by how much a person has succeeded, but by what and how he took responsibility for himself, what he imputes to himself. Being a person is very difficult. And this applies not only to outstanding personalities who have assumed responsibility not only for themselves, but also for the country, for the people or humanity as a whole, for the political or intellectual movement, but also for any person in general. Personal existence is an ongoing effort. There is no personality where the individual refuses to take the risk of choice, tries to evade an objective assessment of his actions and an analysis of his motives. In a real system of social relations, evading independent decision and responsibility is tantamount to admitting personal incompetence and agreeing to a subordinate existence, to petty social-bureaucratic supervision. For the lack of a conscious-volitional beginning, people have to pay with a failed fate, disappointment and a sense of their own inferiority.

In the social literature there are various approaches to understanding what a person is: A). A personality is described in terms of its own motives and aspirations, which make up the content of its "personal world" - a unique system of personal meanings, individually unique ways of ordering external impressions and internal experiences. B). Personality is considered as a system of relatively stable, externally manifested characteristics of individuality, which are fixed in the subject's judgments about himself, as well as in the judgments of other people about him. AT). The personality is characterized as an active, active "I-subject", as a system of plans, relationships, directions, semantic formations that characterize its behavior outside, outside the initial positions. G). A personality is considered as a subject of personalization: that is, when the needs, abilities, aspirations, values of this subject cause changes in other people, influence them, determine their orientations. By and large, philosophy considers a person to be such an individual who has his own position in life, to which he comes and which he realizes thanks to great spiritual work on himself. Such a person shows independence of thought, non-banality of feelings, a certain integrity of nature, inner passion, a creative streak, etc. Personality is a socialized individual, considered from the side of the most essential and significant social qualities. Personality is a self-aspiring, self-organizing particle of society, taking into account the features and characteristics of the society in which it exists, respecting culture and universal values, respecting them and making its own contribution to universal culture and history.

Summing up the concept of personality, we can draw the following conclusions: 1. The concepts of "man", "individual", "subject of activity", "individuality", "personality" are not unambiguous and contain differences. 2. Extreme interpretations of the concept of "personality" should be taken into account: expansive - here a person is identified with the concept of "person" (any person is a person); elitist understanding - when a person is considered as a special level social development(not every person can become and becomes a person). 3. There are different points of view on the relationship between biological and social in the development of the individual. Some include biological organization in the structure of personality; others consider biological givens only as predetermined conditions for personal development, which do not determine psychological and social features personality. 4. Personalities, indeed, are not born. They become, and the formation goes on for virtually a lifetime. The data show that in ontogenesis (individual formation) personal qualities are formed quite late even in the norm, and some never seem to "grow up", so there is a large percentage of infantile people. 5. Personality is the result of a person's successful socialization, but not its passive product, but the result of one's own efforts. Only in activity does the individual act and assert himself as a person. Preserving oneself as a person is the law of human dignity; without it, our civilization would lose the right to be called human. A person is simply obliged to be a person, to strive to become a person. The level of personal development is measured by the severity of a person's intellectual, moral and volitional qualities, the coincidence of his life orientations with universal human values, a positive indicator functioning of these qualities. Personality is characterized by the spirit, freedom, creativity, goodness, the affirmation of beauty. A person is made a person by caring for another person, autonomy in decision-making and the ability to bear responsibility for them.

The role of personality in history.

Having become the head of state by chance or out of necessity, a person can have various influences on the course and outcome of historical events: positive, negative, or, as is more often the case, both. Therefore, society is far from being indifferent in whose hands the political, state power is concentrated. A lot depends on her. V. Hugo wrote: "A distinctive feature of true statesmen lies precisely in the fact that they benefit from every need, and sometimes even a fatal combination of circumstances, to turn for the good of the state" (V. Hugo Sobr. Op. Vol. 15, p. 44 -45). The leader alone, if he is a genius, must subtly "eavesdrop" on the thoughts of the people. In this regard, the reasoning of A.I. Herzen: “A person is very strong, a person placed in a royal place is even stronger. But here again the old thing: he is strong with the flow and the stronger, the more he understands him. But the flow continues even when he does not understand him and even when he resists it" (quoted from: Lichtenberg G. Aphorisms. M., 1983, p. 144).

An outstanding person must have high charisma. Charisma is a "God's spark", an exceptional gift, outstanding abilities that are "from nature", "from God". The charismatic personality itself spiritually influences its environment. The environment of a charismatic leader can be a "community" of students, warriors, co-religionists, that is, it is a kind of "caste-party" community, which is formed on charismatic grounds: students correspond to the prophet, retinue to the military leader, confidants to the leader. A charismatic leader surrounds himself with those in whom he intuitively and by the power of his mind guesses and catches a gift similar to himself, but "smaller in stature." It seems that of all the above concepts about the place and role of the leader, the leader, the most acceptable is such a happy option when a sage becomes the head of the state, but not by himself, not a sage for himself, but a sage who clearly and timely captures the mood of the people who trusted him power, able to make his people happy and prosperous.

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 generally 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 the most different people such as scientists. Consequently, the problem of the role of personality 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 trace in history and further development Societies can be not only positive, but also negative, and also - quite often - unambiguously and forever not defined, especially since the assessment of the individual 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 different tendencies in critical periods. But on the other hand, it is impossible not to notice the conditionality of the role of individuals social organization, 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 course of history as a whole 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 in history important role not only heroes play, but often unscrupulous figures.

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, gradually the issue of human free will is 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, a person 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, due to 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

AT 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 new religion from scratch were replaced by approaches that put the individual in the appropriate historical environment. If the enlighteners tried to explain the state of society by the laws that the rulers issued, then the romantics, on the contrary, derived government laws from the state of society, and the changes in its state explained 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 focused on " 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 invest their energy in 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 strongly 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 to the role of the individual inXIXin. English philosopher Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) was one of those who returned to the idea of the prominent role of individuals, "heroes" in history. One of his most famous works, which had a very strong influence on contemporaries and descendants, was called “Heroes and the Heroic in History” (1840). According to Carlyle, world history is the biography of great men. Carlyle and focuses in his works on certain personalities and their roles, preaches lofty goals and feelings, writes whole line 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 hidden destructive forces masses (in revolutions and uprisings), and they act until the society again finds 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 resolutely broke with theology and explained the course of the historical process by material factors, it nevertheless inherited much from the objective idealistic philosophy Hegel in general and in relation to the role of personality 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 have played 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 that leave no creative historical role personalities, nor voluntarist theories, which hold that the individual 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 historical development... this solution, in its general form, seems to be closest to the scientific truth...” On the whole, this was the correct 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 is rather 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 masses, 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 chances and probabilities in history and their close connection with the role of the individual, at the same time he sharply opposes attempts to present the whole of history as waves of chance.

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, one can mention the article by the famous Polish philosopher L. Novak "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 the second world war 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, probabilities to manifest themselves, but this ratio is influenced by different reasons may change drastically. 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 new order can definitely communicate with a particular 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.

So the character new system strongly depends 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 its final solution.

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.