R: History Needs Grand Narratives

In a famous scene from season one of HBO’s True Detective (2014), Rust, a brilliant but psychologically devastated detective, describes time as a “flat circle.” Throughout the series, he argues that people are predictably wicked and will keep on treading out their old patterns, never advancing and never learning from their mistakes. As Solomon said, “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, ‘See, this is new’? It has been already in the ages before us.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10). A spin on the “flat circle” view is found in the book of Judges, which depicts human history as a “downward spiral” as human sin and societal injustice grow worse and worse as time passes. Acolytes of these pessimistic views may side with the negative, arguing that the most accurate narrative description of human activity is “nasty, brutish, and short.” 

An alternative to the “flat circle” view of history is what I call the “mountain” view of history. Proponents of this view argue that human activity is trending inexorably toward a final goal, improving all the while. Perhaps the most famous “mountain” theorist is Francis Fukuyama, who argued in his 1992 The End of History and The Last Man that liberal democracy was the final, triumphant form of government that would usher in ever increasing levels of peace and prosperity. Adherents to this view would likely find themselves in the affirmative, arguing that history demands triumphant narratives of human progress. Premillennialist Christianity also offers a spin on the “mountain” view, holding that Christians must perfect the world to prepare for Christ’s thousand-year reign on earth. 

Scottish man of letters Thomas Carlyle argued in the 19th century for a less deterministic view of history, namely, the so-called “great man” theory of history. He argued that the actions, personalities, and plans of great men were the determining factors of historical events. In his view, human events generally progressed gradually until prompted into a sudden leap by the appearance of a Caesar, Charlemagne, or Napoleon. For Carlyle, the definition of “great men” extended beyond warlords to lawgivers, men of letters, priests, and poets. Modern defenders of the great man theory include George Will, who concedes that plain persons play a role in history but argues that history’s major turning points and epochal trends find their impetus in great men and women. The great man theorist needs grand narratives to make sense of history.

Today, the great man theory has fallen out of favor among historians. Leo Tolstoy thunders against the theory in his 1867 War and Peace, arguing that each individual event has equal bearing on the outcome of history–if one foot soldier had aimed differently on the battlefield of Waterloo, the course of European history would have been forever altered. Modern historians tend to agree with Tolstoy, regarding the great man theory as a quaint relic of the past. Biography has waned, replaced by social history and the history of ideas. Proponents of so-called “history from below” may reject grand narratives on account of the multifaceted engines of history being too various and complex to reduce to a single narrative, or they may favor new grand narratives that displace the traditional ones. 

Perhaps your stance on the resolution will come down to a matter of emphasis. Do you care to emphasize the important people and big events, or do you seek out the forgotten narratives and the overlooked individuals? How do you view history? Do you favor the great man or the plain person? Is history questing toward a definite end or rambling along? Do we need big, ambitious narratives to tell history or should we favor quiet, humble stories?