Issue48 第一篇，距考试还有二十天，请指教

sissiyangleiUID: 2763394

谢谢各位前辈:)
48
History, cited by Hegel, is a constant process of dialectic clash, which each thesis encountering an opposing idea or event antithesis. When coming to the study of history, the exceptional feats of ‘the famous few’ should be put a priory to while the fundamental effect of ‘general groups’ cannot be overlooked at the same time.

To begin with, distinct individuals play significant and pivotal roles in the history events such as political reforms, global systems and social transformations. For instance, history of the Second World War may be focused on the big personalities of the conflict-Sir Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, et al-and view all of the historical events as being tired directly to their own individual decisions and orders. As Thomas Carlyle said:’ the history of the world is but the biography of great men.’ To some extent, History can be represented and explained by the impact of great men: highly influential individuals, either from personal charisma, genius intellects, or great political impact.

  However, ‘the great man’ cannot separately make a difference without background and support from the general groups.’ You must admit that the genesis of the great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown.’ ’ Before he can remark his society, his society must make him.’ (Herbert Spencer) This can be best illustrated with the example of Che Guevara, who is regarded as symbol of Cuba communist movement. Admittedly, the supreme efforts of Che can never be estimated, yet achievement of revolution would have been impossible without the sacrifices of the martyrs who adhere to Che’s principles and conceptions. For that matter, history typically relies on the class struggles based on social forces such as economics, demography and civilizations rather on individual subjects.



Technically, individuals and groups are not manual exclusive but dependent and influence each other in terms of shaping history. Without individuals’ sparkling aspiration and ambition, the society would lose somewhere in the middle of nowhere-like a navy without compass; Without groups’ strong power which forces the fleet, our society as a whole would not process either. On the other hand, both individuals and groups are indispensible part of integrate of history and should not be separated apart. For instant, when Encyclopedie, the editions of the influential 18th century French encyclopedia which ideologically opposed to biographies, wrote the article on Wolstrope, England, it is almost entirely about the life of Newton as some biographies were ‘hidden’ inside articles. In short, the effects of individuals and groups are not absolute and definite.



Regardless, whether the impact of individuals far outstrips that of groups is uncertain because the nature of history itself is vague. In another words, the philosophy of history will forge the direction for the method of history, which in turn affects the conclusions-history itself. In a government by a monarch, individuals’ endeavors are amplified while in a government of democracy, groups’ efforts are more emphasized. Consequently, history may reflect different aspects in various angles. Therefore, the debate between individuals and groups can never draw a conclusion.






To conclude, the relationship between individuals and groups is what the collation between qualitative change and quantitative change. Individuals are the significant impulse of social revolution while groups are accumulation of social basement. In the history of human civilization, both individuals and groups are crucial and should be investigated to a certain degree from the perspective of historic existence.