As you know, the manifestation of any, even the most general, laws of history is diverse and multivariate. The role of the most outstanding person is always a fusion of previous development, a mass of random and non-random events, and her own characteristics. There are many ways to organize society, and therefore, there will be many options for the manifestation of personality, and their amplitude can be huge.

Consequently, depending on a variety of conditions and circumstances, taking into account the characteristics of the place under study, time and individual personality traits of her historical role can range from the most inconspicuous to the largest. Sometimes personality plays a decisive role.

Indeed, the nation itself consists of individuals, and the role of each of them is not equal to zero. One pushes the chariot of history forward, the other pulls it back, and so on. In the first case, this is a role with a plus sign, in the second - with a minus sign.

But we are now interested not in ordinary people, but in outstanding historical figures. What is their role?

Not that such a person, at his own will, is able to stop or change the natural course of things. A truly outstanding person not only does not try to “cancel” the laws of history, but, on the contrary, as G.V. Plekhanov noted, he sees further than others and wants more than others. A great person solves the problems put in the queue by the previous move mental development society, he indicates the new social needs created by the previous development of social relations, he takes the initiative to meet these needs. This is the strength and destiny of a great man, and the power is colossal.

He is, if you will, a look-ahead of history, he is the spokesman for the aspirations of a class, a mass, often only vaguely aware of them. His strength is the strength of the social movement behind him.

This is the fundamental difference in the assessment of the role of the individual in dialectical materialist philosophy and its opponents. In assessing the role of the individual, materialistic social philosophy proceeds from the masses to the individual, and not vice versa, sees its role in the fact that it serves the masses with its talent, helps them straighten the path to achieving their goals, and accelerate the solution of urgent historical tasks.

At the same time, firstly, the influence of the individual on the course of history depends on how numerous the mass that follows him and on which he relies through the party, through some class. Therefore, an outstanding personality must have not only a special individual talent, but also the ability to organize and lead people. Secondly, the anarchist attitudes are definitely wrong: there are no authorities. The entire course of history testifies that not a single social force, not a single class in history has achieved dominance if it did not put forward its political leaders, its advanced representatives, capable of organizing the movement and leading it.

Of course, an outstanding personality should not have ordinary abilities for a certain type or series of activities. But this is not enough. It is necessary that in the course of its development society put on the agenda tasks for the solution of which a person with precisely such (military, political, etc.) abilities was needed.

It is accidental here that this particular person has taken this place, accidental in the sense that this place could have been taken by someone else, since the replacement of this place became necessary.

World-historical personalities 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." Fate, as a rule, develops unfortunately for them.

The people, according to I.A. Ilyin, is a great separate and scattered multitude. Meanwhile, his strength, the energy of his being and self-affirmation require unity. The unity of the people requires an obvious spiritual and volitional incarnation - a single center, a person, an outstanding person in mind and experience, expressing the legal will and state spirit of the people. The people need a wise leader, like dry land needs good rain.

Throughout the history of mankind, a huge number of events have taken place, and they have always been directed by individuals different in their moral character and mind: brilliant or stupid, talented or mediocre, strong-willed or weak-willed, progressive or reactionary. Having become by chance or out of necessity the head of the state, army, popular movement, political party, a person can influence the course and outcome historical events various influences: positive, negative, or, as is often the case, both. Therefore, society is far from being indifferent in whose hands political, state and generally administrative power is concentrated.

The advancement of the individual is determined both by the needs of society and the personal qualities of people. “The distinguishing feature of true statesmen lies precisely in the ability to benefit from every need, and sometimes even a fatal combination of circumstances, to turn for the good of the state.”

The very fact of being promoted to the role of a historical personality is precisely this person-- it 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. N.M. Karamzin said this about Peter the Great: “The people gathered on a campaign, waited for the leader, and the leader appeared!” The fact that this particular person is born in this country, at a certain time, is pure coincidence. But if we eliminate this person, then there is a demand for his replacement, and such a replacement will be found.

Often, due to historical conditions, a very prominent role has to be played by simply capable people and even mediocre ones. Democritus wisely said about this: “the less worthy the bad citizens of the honorary positions they receive, the more they become careless and filled with stupidity and arrogance.” In this regard, the warning is true: "Beware of taking by accident a post that you cannot afford, so as not to appear to be what you really are not."

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 the decisive and determining principle in history is not the individual, but the people, individuals always depend on the people, like a tree on the soil on which it grows. If the strength of the legendary Antaeus lay in his connection with the land, then the social strength of the individual lies in his connection with the people. But only a genius is able to subtly "eavesdrop" on the thoughts of the people.

No matter how brilliant a historical person may be, in his actions he is determined by the prevailing set of social events. If a person begins to create arbitrariness and elevate his whims into law, then he becomes a brake and, ultimately, from the position of the coachman of the carriage of history, he inevitably falls under his merciless wheels.

The activity of a political leader presupposes the ability to make a deep theoretical generalization of the internal and international situation, social practice, the achievements of science and culture in general, the ability to maintain simplicity and clarity of thought in the incredibly difficult conditions of social reality and to fulfill the outlined plans and program. A wise statesman is able to vigilantly follow not only the general line of development of events, but also many private "trifles" - to simultaneously 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.

As Confucius said, a person who does not look far is sure to face close troubles. High power carries, however, heavy duties. The Bible says, "And from everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required." In any form state structure one or another person is promoted to the level of the head of state, who is called upon to play an extremely responsible role in the life and development of this society. 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.

Thus, the emergence of outstanding personalities on the historical arena is prepared by objective circumstances, the maturation of certain social needs. Such needs appear, as a rule, at critical periods in the development of countries and peoples, when large-scale socio-economic and political tasks are on the agenda. From everything that has been said before, the conclusion follows directly and immediately that the theory and practice of the personality cult is incompatible with the spirit and essence of the dialectical-materialist social philosophy. The cult of personality in modern manifestations consists in imposing on the people admiration for the bearers of power, in attributing to the individual the ability to create history at his own discretion and arbitrariness, in transferring to the individual what is the cause and merit of the people.

The cult of personality (this was clearly revealed by Stalin's cult of personality) is fraught with great dangers and dire consequences. Attempts to solve complex problems of theory and practice alone lead to mistakes and blunders not only in theory but also in practice (the problem of the pace of collectivization, the conclusion that the class struggle will intensify with the progress of socialism, etc.). The cult of personality nourishes and reinforces dogmatism in theory, since the right to truth is recognized only for one person.

The cult of personality is especially dangerous because it entails the destruction of the rule of law and its substitution by arbitrariness, which leads to mass repression. Finally, the disregard for the interests of ordinary people, covered up by an imaginary concern for the public interests, results in a progressive fading of initiative and social creativity from below, according to the principle: we, comrades, have nothing to think about, leaders think for us.

The people are not a homogeneous and equally 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 degree of understanding they carried out their civic duty. One can only say: what is the people, such is the personality chosen by them.

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

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

• Introduction
• 1. People and nation
• 2. Weight
• 3. Crowds
• 4. The role of personality in history
• 4.1 Factors that determine the historical role of the individual
• 4.2 The role of the individual in the dynamics of changes in the social structure
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Introduction

The problem of the subjects of history is the most important problem of social philosophy. Even the questions themselves: "Who makes history?" and "Who makes history?" often provoke heated discussions. At the time, there was a heated debate between English philosopher J. Lewis and his French colleague L. Althuser about the expression "make history". J. Lewis argued that a person makes history. Althuser sharply objected to him. History, he argued, cannot be made. They make objects, things, not history. So, "the carpenter who "makes" the table already has primary matter- wood. He turns it into a table ". But, Althuser continues, the carpenter will never say that he is making a tree, because he knows perfectly well that this tree is a product of nature and exists independently of it. From the point of view of Lewis, Althuser believes, "man has already made a story that makes history! Consequently, in history, a person creates everything: not only the result as a product of his "labor" (history). But before that, he created the primary matter (history), which he turned into history. "But only God, who is outside history itself, can act as such an all-making person. Not a person, rightly concludes Althuser, but the masses and classes make history. Subjects history is a people, a nation, a mass, a crowd, social classes, outstanding personalities... Let us give a more detailed description of all these subjects.

1. People and nation

Usually the term "people" is used in three senses. Firstly, this concept covers all the people inhabiting any country. For example, when they say "American people", they mean all Americans living in the United States, regardless of their race, nationality, or property status. In this case, the concept of the people coincides with the concept of the population. Secondly, the people are workers who create material and spiritual values ​​and do not appropriate the labor of others. Thirdly, the people are an organized whole that has a single psychology (mentality), culture, traditions, language, customs, common territory, general economic ties, etc. This is a stable community of people with their own "ethnic" interests.

For a long time in the domestic literature there were discussions about the relationship between the concepts of "people" and "nation". At the same time, the entire controversy unfolded around the definition of a nation given by Stalin. In Marxism and the National Question, Stalin gives the following definition of a nation: "A nation is a historically established, stable community of people that has arisen on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and a mental make-up that manifests itself in culture."

This definition of the nation for our researchers served as a standard for the study of the nation until the death of Stalin. But after the death of Stalin and especially after the XX Congress of the CPSU, the pendulum turned the other way and everything that was written by Stalin was subjected to sharp criticism. Needless to say, the Stalinist definition of the nation was immediately rejected and, in general, Stalin was accused of all mortal sins. But the fourth sign of a nation, the mental warehouse, was subjected to special criticism. It has been argued that there is no specific mental make-up, that all nations have the same mental make-up. At the same time, they completely forgot that, from the point of view of Stalin, the mental warehouse is manifested in culture, the specificity of which, of course, no one denies.

All researchers of the nation, including Stalin, proceeded (and could not help but proceed, because nations first of all arose in Europe) from Western European realities when studying the genesis of the nation and national relations. And these realities are connected with the formation of bourgeois social relations. The same Stalin writes: “A nation is not just a historical category, but a historical category of a certain epoch, the epoch of rising capitalism. The process of liquidation of feudalism and the development of capitalism is at the same time a process of folding people into nations. This happens, for example, in Western Europe. The British, the French, the Germans, the Italians and others have been formed as a nation in the victorious march of capitalism triumphing over feudal fragmentation.

In the initial period, the bourgeois mode of production presupposes common economic ties, a nationwide market. And this, in turn, implies the existence of a common territory and a common language. Therefore, the socio-ethnic communities involved in bourgeois social relations tend to unite, to have a common territory, common economic relations, a single national state, a single market, a single language in which everyone can communicate. Thus, the process of formation of bourgeois social relations and the nation as a new social community of people is a single process. But at the same time, it is also the process of forming a single people with a common economy, a common territory, a common language and a common culture. Hence: in Western Europe, the concepts of nation and people initially coincided. They were used as synonyms. The 18th-century French philosopher Holbach, for example, wrote: “Now, nations are always subject to natural laws: they are also not allowed to harm each other, to destroy each other, to deprive each other of the advantages they enjoy, just as it is not allowed for a member of society to harm others. to its members. Every people has the same obligations towards another people as a person towards another person: every nation must show justice, honesty, humanity and help to other nations, since it wants all this and for itself . Every nation is bound to respect the liberty and possessions of the other nation." As can be seen, Holbach uses the concepts of "people" and "nation" as synonyms. Four signs of a nation - a commonality of economic ties, a commonality, territories, a common language and a common mental warehouse, manifested in culture - which Stalin cites, until the second half of the 20th century, characterized both the nation and the people. A French citizen, for example, was also a representative of the French people.

In the modern era, the situation has changed in a certain way due to the fact that in Western Europe there are millions of people who, if they have citizenship, are citizens of the country where they live. But until complete assimilation, if, of course, this happens, they remain ethnic minorities. In the same France, hundreds of thousands of Arabs, Negroes, representatives of Asian peoples. They are all French if they have French citizenship, but they are not part of the French people.

From all of the above, it follows that the Stalinist definition of a nation proceeded from the realities that existed at the beginning of our century, when this article was written. This is both the definition of a nation and a people. And it has not lost so far its scientific significance.

However, today it is necessary to give a different definition of the nation. This definition is given by Yu.I. Semyonov: "A nation is a collection of people who have one common fatherland." Indeed, all citizens of a given state, regardless of their ethnic origin and ethnicity, constitute a single nation. All those with French citizenship are French, although not all of them are of the French people. In other words, not all of them are ethnically French.

2. Weight

If the concept of a people is a socio-ethnic concept, then the concept of a nation is a socio-political concept.

The mass, in the words of the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gaset, is a multitude of people without any particular merit. The masses have some common features: tastes, interests, lifestyle, etc.

Jaspers considers the mass as people who are not related to each other in any way, but in their combination they represent a kind of unity. But "the mass as a public is a typical product of a certain historical stage; they are connected by perceived words and opinions, people who are not differentiated in their belonging to different strata of society. "The mass forms its own opinion, which is not the opinion of a single individual, but is called public opinion.

E. Canetti actually identifies the mass with the crowd and believes that the masses appear suddenly and also suddenly disappear. "There were five, maybe ten, maybe twelve people, no one announced anything, no one expected anything - and suddenly everything around is black with people. People are flowing from everywhere, it seems that all the streets have become one-way traffic. Many do not even know what happened, ask them - they have nothing to say, but they hurry to be where the others are. There is a determination in their movement, very different from ordinary curiosity ... They have a goal. It is there before they are able to realize it, and this goal is the blackest, that is, the place where the most people are." Canetti exaggerates the sudden appearance of the masses. This is not entirely true, unless, of course, we are talking about onlookers who gather, say, during a major car accident. Under normal conditions, someone organizes the mass, someone leads somewhere. Rallies and marches, for example, are led by certain political forces. Of course, many people join the protesters and demonstrators, who generally share the mood of the masses.

Canetti identifies four properties of mass:

1. Striving for numerical growth.

2. Equality within the mass. "It is absolute and indisputable and never questioned by the mass itself. It is fundamentally important, so much so that mass state could be defined precisely as a state of absolute equality ... For the sake of this, people turn into a mass. Anything that can distract from this is not worthy of attention. All demands for justice, all theories of equality derive their energy ultimately from the experience of equality, which everyone knows in his own way from mass feeling.

3. Density. The mass, according to Canetti, loves density, it experiences the feeling of the greatest density as a feeling of strength.

4. Orientation. The mass must know where to move and what to do. This focus reinforces the sense of equality and the need to achieve a goal.

B.A. Grushin defines the concept of mass as follows: "Masses are situationally emerging (existing) social communities, probabilistic in nature, heterogeneous in composition and statistical in forms of expression." He distinguishes between the following types of masses:

1) large and small;

2) stable (constantly functioning) and unstable (impulsive);

3) grouped and ungrouped;

4) contact and non-contact (dispersed);

5) spontaneous (spontaneously occurring) and organized (institutionally generated).

Masses arise from time to time. They can appear by chance, when a huge number of people accumulate in connection with a particular event. But they can be pre-organized and taken to the streets to hold certain political events (rallies, demonstrations, etc.).

3. Crowds

people nation personality historical

The concept of the crowd is close in content to the concept of the mass, but it is very different from the concept of the people. The crowd is something unorganized, a random accumulation of people guided not so much by reason as by feelings and emotions, herd consciousness dominates in it, and it is ready for momentary "heroic" sacrifices, especially when fanatic leaders appear at its head in order to achieve their own goals. selfish goals. And N.K. Mikhailovsky, there were reasons when he wrote that the crowd should be "called a mass capable of being carried away by an example, again highly noble, or morally indifferent." The crowd cannot create, it can only destroy, its psyche is easy to use for destruction social institutions and orders. Therefore, it is very dangerous for society when politicians operate with the opinion of the crowd and intend to implement the decisions made by the crowd. Of course, real, responsible leaders take into account the mood of the crowd, because in the end they reflect the real picture of society. But the crowd does not live long, it quickly dissolves, although it quickly arises. It often serves as a social base for nationalist and chauvinist political movements and organizations. The lower the level of the political culture of the crowd, the more dangerous it is, and this danger cannot be ignored. The crowd is often used during the election campaign, when each candidate wants to get more votes. She is promised mountains of gold, she, as a rule, believes this and promises to vote for that particular candidate for the legislative bodies who promises more and speaks more beautifully.

The true subject of history is the people, not the crowd or the masses. But the crowd (mass) often plays an important role in this or that historical event, which then had a serious impact on the subsequent development of human society.

4. The role of personality in history

As you know, the manifestation of any, even the most general, laws of history is diverse and multivariate. The role of the most outstanding person is always a fusion of previous development, a mass of random and non-random events, and her own characteristics. There are many ways to organize society, and, consequently, there will be many options for the manifestation of personality, and their amplitude can be huge. Consequently, depending on a variety of conditions and circumstances, taking into account the characteristics of the place under study, time and individual personality traits, its historical role can range from the most inconspicuous to the most enormous.

Sometimes personality plays a decisive role. But it is impossible not to notice that in some epochs even the most outstanding people turn out to be powerless in the face of circumstances. It is also undoubted that the role of the individual depends on the set different reasons and only “it seems that the heroes create out of themselves and that their actions have created such a state and such relations in the world that are their business and consciousness” (Hegel). But on the other hand, it is the actions of leaders (and sometimes ordinary people) that determine the outcome of the confrontation and the fate of different tendencies. We must not forget about the differences in the manifestations of laws and accidents for a particular society and humanity. The beneficial or fatal role of the personality for the first, usually for the second will be significantly different (except in extreme cases). But even today, in the conditions of close rapprochement of mankind, the danger of uncontrolled actions on the part of one person is of the most serious nature.

In the most general form, we are talking about the fact that, due to his personal characteristics, or occasion, or social position, or the specifics of the time, etc., any person can render by the very fact of his existence, his ideas, actions or inaction, directly or indirectly, during his life or even after his death, such an impact on his own or other societies that can be recognized as important because they left a noticeable mark on history and further development societies (positive, negative or some other).

4.1 Factors that determine the historical role of the individual

The impact of all the typical causes that determine the role of the individual can be described in one term - "situation factor". It consists of: a) the features of the environment in which the individual operates (social system, traditions, tasks, etc.; b) the state in which the society is at a certain moment (stable, unstable, going up, downhill, etc. .P.); c) features of surrounding societies; d) features of formational time (i.e. general characteristics period of the historical process, including the degree of integration of societies, the pace of development, etc.); e) the proximity of society to the "general line" of history, which increases or decreases the ability to influence many 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) presence of competitive figures; i) others.

The strength of factors in different cases may not be the same. If we consider the influence of the individual on all of humanity, then points “c”, “d”, “e” will be important here; if the reasons are failures of reforms, then “a”, “b”, “g”, “h”. Etc. In general, the more of the above favors the individual, the more important his role may be.

Analysis from the position of the factor of the situation allows not only to combine different points of view, but also to localize them, having determined the scope of action, to “cut down” their claims. In addition, this approach facilitates the study of a particular case (because it outlines the range of questions, gives the direction of the search, etc.), without predetermining the result in any way.

I must say that, although in general the factor of the situation is not taken into account enough, one of its moments - position within society- a number of researchers highlights. True, for the most part this is in the nature of incidental and sometimes indistinct remarks, however, one way or another, they mark two main states: 1) stability and strength; 2) instability, chaos, revolutions, crises, etc. At the same time, the less solid and stable a society is, the more old structures are destroyed there, the greater the impact an individual can have on it. In other words, the role of the individual is inversely proportional to the stability and strength of society.

4.2 The role of the individual in the dynamics of changes in the social structure

However, both stability and especially instability have many variants, each of which has very significant features (plus, of course, specific things). Thus, stagnation differs from stability under conditions of normal territorial or economic growth; and even more so from the conditions rapid growth. Stability can also be with slow degradation or decline. Even with stability, much depends on how much the social system is “regulated” for one person. The options for social breakdown are also diverse: reform is different from revolution, peaceful revolution is different from civil war, and so on.

Therefore, the idea of ​​changes in society as about the process of changing its states (phases). Further, for example, one of a number of models of such a process, consisting of 4 phases, will be shown: a stable society such as a monarchy; social pre-revolutionary crisis; revolution, the creation of a new order.

In the history of societies, perhaps most of the time is occupied by quiet eras. If this is a monarchy, then sovereigns come and go, each ruling to the best of their ability, unless something out of the ordinary happens (a fatal defeat, the death of an heir, etc.). Other forms of government may be better or worse than a monarchy, but it is important to note that the more checks and balances in the system, the more correctly the separation of powers is carried out, the more society is insured against the fact that its leaders will undermine its stability. In any state, a lot always depends on a particular individual, but in general, such calm, “small” eras are much less prone to an individual becoming its “creator”, benefactor or demon.

Sooner or later, but the system begins to decline (primarily in societies where there are no “built-in regulators” that make it possible to identify emerging problems at a relatively early stage and solve them). The contradictions within it, especially fueled by the borrowing of technology and technology, advanced relations and laws in certain areas, are aggravated. It is good if at this time there is a leader who is able to lead society along the path of peaceful development. In monarchies, this can usually only be an autocrat. In Russia in 1861, such a tsar (Alexander II) appeared and carried out a series of transformations. In Russia 1905 and 1917 There was no such thing. The absolute ruler often acts to a large extent as an autonomous, independent force: and in the protection of the old, contrary to common sense(such was Nicholas I), and in terms of reforming the obsolete, despite resistance (such was Alexander II in many respects). The autonomy of such a ruler is also confirmed by the fact that very often changes begin only with the death (overthrow) of him (the monarch, dictator), since this was impossible during his lifetime.

If the solution of problems that are inconvenient for the upper strata is delayed, then the idea arises of forcibly resolving them (coup, revolution), and with them various concepts, schemes for reorganizing the world, the country, eliminating injustice, etc. There are many personalities who are striving, one way or another, to transform the system. They represent various social and political trends. Various possibilities (trends and directions) for the development of society receive here not only a clearer class-group expression, but also find their apologists, leaders, heralds, etc. Very eloquent in this sense is the situation that developed during the reign of Nicholas II, during which three revolutions took place in Russia.

In such an era, bright personalities are more characteristic of the destructive side, which feels historical and moral right behind itself, when the era opens up pores and cracks for a certain number of talented people to declare themselves. However, they are often one-sided, irreconcilable, sometimes fanatical people. But talents can also emerge on the conservative side (remember, for example, P.A. Stolypin). Good luck if such a leader manages to “let off steam” and peacefully change the country, defuse the situation. However, this is not always the case. Crises are crises because limited and stubborn people bring the situation to such an extreme that it is almost impossible to get out of it (as, in fact, happened in the case of P.A. Stolypin, whom such people did not allow to bring the reforms to the end; Isn't this the root of the revolutions of 1917). The responsibility of the monarch, if he brings society to an explosion, is largely measured by how much such a revolution damaged or, on the contrary, had a positive effect on the future fate of the state.

So, we see two situations that, speaking mathematically, are in different (at an angle of 90 o) phases. A calm, stable, conservative era, in which the role of politicians is usually relatively small. The second situation is when the country is on the verge of a socio-political explosion. Whether it happens or not depends on many factors, incl. and from the strength of personalities on the one hand and on the other. Let us note that no individual is capable of creating great epochs if there are no accumulated conditions in society for this. Let us not forget that a person always manifests himself in a concrete situation and acts primarily within the framework of the tasks and conditions for himself and those groups with which he identifies himself. It is important to remember that individuals do not act in a vacuum, but find ready-made relationships and are formed in a certain environment. And this givenness of the previous, having been refracted in a person, then itself becomes an important condition for its future impact on society.

However, if there are already objective prerequisites for change, then a person is able to speed up or delay the solution of the problem, give this solution special features, use the given opportunities with talent or mediocrity. With a different, “calm” sovereign in place of Peter I, the era of reforms in Russia would be postponed, then it could be late, as in Turkey, as a result of which the country would begin to play a completely different (small, subordinate) role in Europe and the world. But after Peter I, not very talented people often ruled, but the phase of society after Peter's reforms and victories was already different, more calm. Even the time of Catherine II, with all her outstanding abilities, is less great than the era of Peter I. There the Russian statehood and social structure were established, here it was only improved.

Therefore, the question of the boundaries of the role of the individual in history can also be answered in the following way: if some individual has managed to do something that seems amazing (it’s all the same in this case, whether it was progressive or vice versa), so there were potential conditions for this. But far from always history presents the figure with one hundred percent chances. Very often they are vague, fuzzy, controversial, sometimes insignificant.

The foregoing also explains the role of a favorable moment: since history is not programmed and at each moment of time one of a number of potentialities is realized, then in certain situations the chances of weak tendencies increase and, in general, the possibility of choice increases. Will there be actors who can seize the opportunity, and who will they be? It is sometimes said that if there were no one personality, another would replace it. In principle, this would be the case if the situation could wait a long time. But the point is, is there right person at the most favorable moment (when, according to the well-known expression of Lenin, today is early, and the day after tomorrow is late). It is worth missing the opportunity, and then ten times more gifted person will not be able to do anything. And as the pace of history increases, societies have less time to experiment than before, when history could be replayed, destroying and recreating civilizations. The general level outgrows a certain level, and then society must catch up with others, using not its own, but other people's models.

Therefore, in assessing the value of some actor, the question arises of whether someone else could do the same under the present conditions? Often we can state that no, I could not. What this man did (good or bad): managed to concentrate the forces of the nation, use a tiny chance, showed unprecedented cruelty, etc. - this is beyond the strength of not just an ordinary person, but also a person much above (below) the norm. Doesn't this also explain the attractiveness of the images of Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, etc.?

While resolving the global contradictions that have accumulated within the old system, society never has an unambiguous solution in front of it. This is impossible for many reasons, because already every class, group, party, etc. have their own solution to the problem, and the struggle of parties of individuals and ideas only strengthens such a multitude. By this point, of course, trends have more or less preferable chances of success. At the same time, political or other forces cannot be fixed in any units, these are very mobile and changeable factors (for example, the mood of the masses), and it is they who carry out the changes. The strength of personalities often manifests itself not by itself, but by the ability to represent certain layers and groups, which does not negate the fact that the method and “quality” of solving a sore problem is strongly colored by the personal data of the figure.

Since the political forces are by no means faceless (and in some cases they must be expressed in the personality of a particular person, for example, a true, legitimate king), the victory of one or another group or direction largely depends on the leaders and prominent supporters of these forces. There is intense rivalry among the leaders, which contributes to the rapid promotion of often very talented people in one way or another. Each of them can claim a sole solution to the problem. Which of the forces will win is determined by many factors, incl. a more successful or strong-willed leader, an opportunity and the ability to use it, etc.

Of course, it is wrong to say that great epochs give birth to great people in the sense that they come as if by order. The tragedy of many eras was the inconsistency of leaders with the tasks that time set, and on the contrary, the appearance of a person who managed to take advantage of circumstances to lead society away from the most correct path became their curse. Thus, the presence of a person more or less corresponding to social tasks is a case, although quite probable.

In such critical periods, leaders can sometimes play the role of weights, as it were, capable of pulling the scales of history. There is no doubt that the exceptional will of Lenin, Trotsky and others played an outstanding role in the conquest and retention of power by the Bolsheviks. Had Kamenev and Zinoviev been more influential with their uncertainty, there is no doubt that the fate of Russia would have been more prosperous.

This is similar to the effect of resonance in physics. And when the frequency of fluctuations in social possibilities (in the very various forms, for example, in the desires of the masses or the army) coincides with the fluctuations of the personality, when the gigantic will of social force accumulates in it, as it were, its role increases a thousandfold. Therefore, it is not just a more powerful social force that wins, but the very power of this force largely depends on who leads it. It is almost like the result of a battle, when suddenly, with a relatively small force, a successful commander defeats a larger one. Consequently, at certain moments, the strength of individuals, their personal qualities, the correspondence to their role, and so on, are of great, often decisive or final importance. This strong-willed, often irrational and occasional factor can be both beneficial and dangerous, therefore it is much more reliable if society has limits to such influences.

After the victory of any force, the third phase begins. But this victory must still be defended in a hard struggle. And under the influence of many needs, social forms are often created that no one planned and could not plan.

And these, in fact, random things then become a given, which will begin to determine the future structure of a renewed society. We see here that in the most critical epochs the role of the individual is enormous, but at the same time it is usually quite different from what it itself assumed. And the further consequences are not at all clear. We also see that during such breaks a lot of changes take place, many variants, “mutations” of various social institutions and relations are revealed, which can be both harmful and beneficial. This will already determine the specific alignment of forces and the case. Such explosions provide many opportunities for various evolutionary development options. The only trouble is that the trial and error method of history requires (as it took place in the 20th century in Russia) millions of victims and ruined generations of those who fell under an unfortunate Accident. In this respect, revolutionaries are like gamblers: they claim that they can easily win a large fortune, but they often lose outright.

So, society has weakened, the ties that held it together have disintegrated, rigid structures have collapsed. In fact, we have before us a very amorphous, and therefore very malleable social organism to forceful influences. During such periods, the role of individuals can be uncontrollable, unpredictable, and for a fragile society, it can also be a formative force.

It also happens that, having gained influence on society, the leader does not at all take it (under the influence of a wide variety of personal and general reasons) to where no one could even think, “invents” new methods of management or even a social structure (albeit defined by geographical , social, ideological and other prerequisites, since no one can disregard some forces).

Then (sometimes quite quickly) a new phase begins - the fourth phase. After the strengthening of any political force in power, the struggle can go on within itself. Some new economic, political and ideological relations began to take shape, but still in a very general view meanwhile, the struggle in the camp of the winners is connected both with the relationship of leaders and 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 can be associated precisely with this person, the prophet, the leader, etc. After a sharp change in social order (especially a revolution, a civil or peasant war, in which society is noticeably , for example, the leader of the uprising or the head of the victorious party, begins to play the role of a kind of banner. To finally establish yourself in power, you need to deal with the remaining political rivals and prevent the growth of competitors from allies. A lot depends on what kind of leader, on what his authority was based within the movement. (The example of Lenin suggests that he could probably do without great and bloody repressions in the party and to a large extent in society.) The death of this man sharpens the struggle in the camp of the victors to the extreme.

Often, in an ideologized movement (religious, revolutionary, etc.), the leader of the victors must look sinless, and therefore anyone who argues with him acts as an encroachment on the sacred. The fight against rivals finally consolidates some version of the new within the framework of the victorious direction (for example, all deviations from certain dogmas of faith are declared heresy, in the Communist Party - right or left deviation, etc.). This ongoing struggle (the duration of which depends on many reasons) finally gives shape to society.

It is clear that such transitional epochs often end in a personal dictatorship, in which the aspirations of the leader himself, and the personification of various “successes” in him, and the weakness of society, etc. merge. So the look new system strongly depends on the characteristics of their leaders, the ups and downs of the struggle and other, sometimes random, things. This is the reason why drastic changes always result in a society that is not what was planned. Consequently, in a normally functioning state, there must be mechanisms that, firstly, do not bring things to an explosion, and secondly, they greatly limit the role of the individual as a force that is poorly controlled in some situations. On the one hand, this gives much more opportunity to manifest itself, on the other hand, it reduces the dependence of development on the individual - the “benefactor”, and guarantees against excessively harmful influence. A similar situation was reflected, for example, in the worldview of the founders of the United States, who believed that any government is a necessary evil, but bad evil is unbearable.

Gradually, the considered hypothetical society matures, takes shape, acquires rigidity and its own laws. Now it already largely determines the leaders. One of the thinkers of the past very correctly expressed such a process in an aphorism: “When societies are born, it is the leaders who create the institutions of the republic. Later, institutions produce leaders.” As long as the system is strong enough, and even more so if it is at least partially progressing, it is not so easy to change it, it is often impossible. If a society that has entered the phase of stability fails to acquire the regulators of crisis-free development, then the cycle with certain changes may repeat itself again, or beneficial transformations will occur at a new stage.

Conclusion

Modern researchers consider a person not just as a “cast” from society, i.e. set of social relations social roles or a pure product of social development. The interaction of the individual and society is now understood as the activity of an individual who satisfies his needs, pursues his goals in specific social connections and interactions of the individual, when his adaptation to the requirements of the environment (society) is only a moment subordinate to the tasks of self-realization of the individual.

The ambiguity and versatility of the problem of the role of the individual in history requires an adequate, multilateral approach to its solution, taking into account as many reasons as possible that determine the place and role of the individual in a particular moment of historical development. The combination of these reasons is called the situation factor, the analysis of which allows not only to combine different points of view, localizing them and “cutting down” their claims, but also methodically facilitates the study of a particular case, without predetermining the result of the study.

The variety of options for the dynamics of the historical development of society forces researchers to move on to ideas about changes in society, against which the personality manifests itself, as a process of changing its states (or phases). The use of dynamic models shows that the influence of the individual on the state of society in different phases of historical development varies from minimal in eras of stability and strength of society to key in eras of a radical breakdown of social foundations.

At the same time, a person is able to accelerate or delay the solution of urgent problems, to give the solution special features, to use the given opportunities with talent or mediocrity. If a certain person managed to do something, then there were already potential opportunities for this in the depths of society. No individual is capable of creating great epochs if there are no accumulated conditions in society. Moreover, the presence of a person more or less corresponding to social tasks is something predetermined, rather accidental, although quite probable.

Consequently, in a normally functioning state, there must be mechanisms that do not bring things to a social explosion and, moreover, greatly limit the role of the individual as a sometimes poorly controlled force. This, on the one hand, gives much greater opportunities to manifest itself, and on the other hand, it reduces the dependence of the development of society on the individual “benefactor”, guarantees against excessively harmful influence.

Bibliography

1. Ivin A.A. Social Philosophy. - M.: Gaodariki, 2003. - 336s.

2. Migolatieva A.A. Philosophy. - M.: UNITI-DANA, 2001. - 639s.

3. Spirkin A.G. Philosophy. - M.: Gardariki, 2005. - 816s.

4. Philosophy. / Ed. Mironova V.V. - M.: NORMA, 2005. - 928s.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

Sources, subjects and driving forces of the historical process. The concepts of "people", "masses", "elite". Philosophical thought about the role populace in history. Conditions, scales, ways of influence of the personality on social changes. The problem of the cult of personality in history.

test, added 01/08/2016


Genesis and development of socio-philosophical knowledge. Basic research programs in social science. Conflict model of society. Conflict, violence and non-violence. Historical necessity and individual freedom. The role of people and personality in history.

term paper, added 02/17/2011


Slavophilism and Westernism: philosophical and socio-political discussions. The doctrine of personality as a spiritual and moral unity. The concepts of "holistic personality" and "integrity of the spirit." Western orientation in Russian philosophical thought, its representatives.

test, added 08/20/2009


Ideology and socio-political concept of Taoism. Confucianism as the most influential doctrine in the history of political and legal thought in China. The role of Mohism concepts in Chinese political thought. Political and legal worldview of legalism.

abstract, added 12/24/2010


Socio-political myth as a modern socio-cultural phenomenon: specificity, nature, properties, role and influence on formation public consciousness. Qualitative characteristics of the functions of the myth, the degree of consequences of their impact on society and man.

The evolution of socio-philosophical thought. Description social being as a material sphere of human activity. The study of the concept, the history of the origin of property, the allocation of its main forms. Characteristics of the social structure of society.

abstract, added 10/16/2010


The era of information technology and its impact on the nation. Formation of the nation as a material and spiritual form of existence of peoples. Creation of the state on the basis of the ethnic principle. The role of classes, collectives and social communities, the characteristics of their relations.

abstract, added 05/06/2015


Consideration of questions of the essence of man as a person, what is its place in the world and in history. Characteristics of personality types: figures, thinkers, people of feelings and emotions, humanists and ascetics. Features of the perception of the individual and her actions in the West and East.

presentation, added 11/24/2013


The meaning of the concept "people" (peuple) for political concept J. Rousseau, its difference from political views Hobbes and Montesquieu. The idea of ​​Rousseau's work "Discourse on the origin and foundations of inequality between people." His construction of popular sovereignty.

term paper, added 01/08/2017


Study of the problem of personality in the history of philosophy and its relationship with society. The doctrine of the human personality in its relation to the individual. The main characteristics and moral foundations of personality. Analysis of the opinions of philosophers on the question of the representation of personality.

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 earlier, deeper and more fully than others community development, understand the goals, identify landmarks 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." AT last years life of 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 appears to be the same significant figure someday the personality of M.S. Gorbachev. He would have already become a national hero and a recognized world authority if the “perestroika of 1985-1991” conceived by him and his team had not turned out to be such a failure. We recall how many "Yeltsinists" were in the country in the nineties, until it became obvious that this "democratic leader", together with his team, was surrendering Russia, being under the hood of the American administration. Probably, life will still make amendments, much is hidden from the eyes of contemporaries, but a lot has been published. He who has ears, let him hear.

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

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

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

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

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

As you know, history is a process of human activity that forms a link between the past, present and future. The linear model of historical development, according to which society develops from a simple to a more complex stage, has existed in science and philosophy for a long time. However, at present, priority is still given to the civilizational approach.

Many factors influence the development of the historical process. Among these factors, an important role is played by the person who leads social activities. The role of a person in history especially increases if he is directly related to power.

Plekhanov G.V. noted that history is made by people. The activities of each individual person, who takes an active life position, contributes with his work, theoretical searches, etc. In addition, a certain contribution to the development of a particular area public life This is already a contribution to the historical process as a whole.

The French writer J. Lemaitre wrote that all people participate in the creation of history. Therefore, each of us, even in the smallest part, is obliged to contribute to her beauty and not let her be too ugly. One cannot but agree with the writer's point of view, since all our actions in one way or another affect the people who surround us. So how can a person influence the formation of society and history as a whole?

The question of personality in the historical process has worried scientists at all times, and currently remains relevant. Life does not stand still, history moves forward, there is a constant development of human society and significant personalities enter the historical arena, replacing those who remain in the past.

The problem of the role of personality in history has been dealt with by many thinkers, scientists of philosophy. Among them G. Hegel, G.V. Plekhanov, L.N. Tolstoy, K. Marx and many others. Therefore, the ambiguity of the solution of this problem is associated with ambiguous approaches to the very essence of the historical process.

Let us note that history is driven by impulses that set in motion large masses of people, entire peoples, and in each given people, entire classes. And for this it is necessary to understand what influence these masses carry in themselves.

The people are the creation of their era, but the people and the creator of their era. The creative power of the people appears especially brightly in the deeds of great historical figures. Throughout the life of mankind, we see the connection between personality and history, their influence on each other, their interaction. At the same time, the emergence of this category of personality is caused by certain historical conditions, which are prepared by the activities of the masses and historical needs.

The mass, as it is a special type of historical community of people, fulfills the role assigned to it. If the originality of the individual is ignored or suppressed when the cohesion of the team is achieved, the human team turns into a mass. The main features of the mass are: heterogeneity, spontaneity, suggestibility, variability, which serve as manipulation by the leader. Individuals are able to control the masses. The mass, in its unconscious movement towards order, elects a leader who embodies its ideals.

The influence of the individual on the course of history in many respects directly depends on how numerous the mass that follows him, and on which he relies through some class, party. Because of this, an outstanding personality must not only be talented, but also have organizational skills in order to captivate people.

History teaches that no class, no social force achieves dominance if it does not put forward its own political leaders. But individual talents are not enough. It is necessary that in the course of the development of society there are tasks on the agenda that this or that person can solve.

The appearance on the historical arena of an outstanding personality is prepared by objective circumstances, by the maturation of certain social needs. Such needs appear at variable periods in the development of countries and their peoples. So what characterizes an outstanding personality, especially a statesman?

In his work The Philosophy of History, G. Hegel wrote that there is an organic connection between the necessity that dominates history and the historical activity of people. Personalities of this kind, with extraordinary insight, understand the perspective of the historical process, form their goals on the basis of what is new, which is still hidden within the given historical reality.

The question arises, would the course of history change in some cases if there were no one or another person or, on the contrary, if a figure appeared at the right moment?

G.V. Plekhanov believes that the role of the individual is determined by the organization of society, which serves only as a way to prove the triumph of inexorable Marxist laws over the will of man.

Modern researchers note that a person is not a simple "cast" from society. On the contrary, society and the individual actively mutually influence each other. There are many ways to organize society, and therefore, there will be many options for the manifestation of personality. Thus, the historical role of the individual can range from the most inconspicuous to the most enormous.

A huge number of events in history have always been marked by the manifestation of activity by various personalities: brilliant or stupid, talented or mediocre; strong-willed or weak-willed, progressive or reactionary.

And as history shows, a person, having become the head of a state, an army, a party, a people's militia, can have a different influence on the course of historical development. The process of nomination of the individual is determined by the personal qualities of people and the needs of society.

Therefore, first of all, a historical person is evaluated from the point of view of how she fulfilled the tasks assigned to her by history and people.

A striking example of such a person is Peter I. To understand and explain the actions of an outstanding person, one must study the very process of forming the character of this person. We will not talk about how the character of Peter I was formed. We will only pay attention to the following. From the way Peter's character developed and what the result was, it becomes clear what effect he could have on Russia as a king. The methods and strategy of governing the state of Peter I were very different from the previous ones.

One of the distinguishing features of Peter I, determined by his upbringing and the process of character formation, is that he intuitively felt and looked far into the future. At the same time, his main policy was that in order to achieve the desired results in the best possible way, there is little influence from above, it is necessary to go to the people, improve the skills and change the style of work of the governing groups of society through training abroad.

Historians have long come to the conclusion that the program of Peter the Great's reforms matured long before the beginning of the reign of Peter I, that is, there were already objective prerequisites for change, and a person is able to speed up or delay the solution of a problem, give this solution special features, use the opportunities provided talentedly or mediocrely.

If another “calm” sovereign had come to replace Peter I, the era of reforms in Russia would have been postponed, as a result of which the country would have begun to play a completely different role. Peter was a bright personality in everything, and this is what allowed him to break established traditions, customs, habits, enrich old experience new ideas, deeds, to borrow what is necessary and useful from other peoples. It was thanks to the personality of Peter that Russia made significant progress, closing its gap with the advanced countries of Western Europe.

However, we note that a person can have a different influence on the course and outcome of historical events, both positive and negative, and sometimes both.

In our opinion in modern Russia one can single out a personality that has left its mark on its history. An example of such a person is M.S. Gorbachev. Not much time has passed to fully understand and appreciate its role in the history of modern Russia, but some conclusions can already be drawn. Becoming General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU in March 1985, M.S. Gorbachev could have continued the course taken before him. But to analyze the situation in the country that had developed by that time, he came to the conclusion that perestroika is an urgent need that has grown out of the deep processes of development of a socialist society, and society is ripe for change, and the delay in perestroika is fraught with the threat of a serious socio-economic and political crisis.

Gorbachev M.S. were characterized by idealism and courage. At the same time, you can scold and blame him for all Russian troubles as much as you like, but the fact that his activities are disinterested is obvious. He did not increase his power, but reduced it, a unique case. After all, all the great things of history were improvisations. Gorbacheva M.S. often blamed for not having a preconceived plan for rebuilding. At the same time, it is important to note that it could not have been, but even if it had, life, various factors, would not have allowed this plan to come true. Moreover, Gorbachev came too late to reform the system. At that time, there were too few people who were ready to read the state in a democratic spirit. And Gorbachev's path is the path of introducing new content into old forms. All the grandiose destructive and creative work of Gorbachev M.S. unthinkable without idealism and courage, in which there is an element of "beautiful soul", naivety. And it was precisely these features of Gorbachev, without which there would be no perestroika, that contributed to its defeat. Definitely, Gorbachev M.S. big personality, forte which is also its weakness. He relied on reason, hoping to realize universal interests both in his country and in the world, but he did not have the strength to replace the old power relations with new ones.

Thus, the analysis of two outstanding personalities showed how much a person can influence the course of history, and how personal characteristics can radically change the course of the historical process. One cannot beg the role of the individual in history, because a progressive personality accelerates the course of the historical process, directs it in the right direction. At the same time, there are many examples of the impact of personality on history, both positive and negative, thanks to which our modern state has developed.

Literature:

1. Malyshev I.V. The role of the individual and the masses in history, - M., 2009. - 289 p.

2. Plekhanov G.V. Selected Philosophical Works, - M .: INFRA-M, 2006. - 301 p.

3. Plekhanov G. V., To the question of the role of personality in history // History of Russia. - 2009. - No. 12. - P. 25-36.

4. Fedoseev P.N. The role of the masses and personality in history, - M., 2007. - 275 p.

5. Shaleeva V.M. Personality and its role in society // State and Law. - 2011. - No. 4. - S. 10-16.

Scientific adviser:

Candidate of Historical Sciences, Ragunstein Arseniy Grigorievich.