0910AW SPECTACULAR 之【 同主题写作】第十期 ISSUE48 by chloelin

chloelinUID: 2673636

40分钟 547字   
Without a deep investigation into history as a subfield of social science, it is easy for us to make a conclusion as the author did, which states history study put too much attention in significant individuals. There has long been a debate about the appropriate attribution of the great events either to the famous ones or to the unknown majority. Some argued the significant figures such as Napoleon, Churchill or Mao Zedong, should take the credit of making important events possible, while others maintained that the massive amount of people who work in their trivial positions, such as a farmer, a vendor, or a teacher, to make the society function well should be granted as the true reason of the great events in history. This debate is a lasting one without a perfect solution yet. From my point of view, the famous few deserve special attention for a deep understanding of history.
First of all, the important figures were the incarnation of the spirit of the era they lived their lives. These people were usually highly adaptable to the society they grew up in. Many of them were well-educated, with high-intelligence and unbelievable tenacity in absorbing usable information to facilitate their career. In other way, they were inept to modify what they had learned to influence other people, especially, to recruit followers through effective broadcasting. Therefore, their deeds, works and thoughts are condense versions of the essence of the era and are worth intensive study. They are the incarnation of the era spirit. Take Gandhi as example, he was deeply instilled by the traditional Indian culture and proposed the civil disobedience movement according to Indian culture and led his people to the independence of India.
Secondly, the famous few were much more influential than any single individual of the unknown mass. The famous few usually occupy the scarce positions in a society which hold unproportionate great powers. No matter how they achieve these positions, they could greatly impact people in the lower status if they wish. In contrast, the unknown mass plays the role of the flock of sheep most of the time. They would follow the order of the powerful and significant ones willingly if the power-holders master the art of propaganda and control. They would only start resurrection if the famous few acted too irrational and made too much mistakes in the public affairs. Even when the unknown mass took action to show their power, they always selected their new leaders, who would prove to be the new "famous ones". This rule has been illustrated by the Chinese farmer revolutions over and over again in the history.
Some may argue that the unknown groups have provide the basic resources, such as food, fuel, or human resource, for the society to function normally, and without them, nothing is possible in history. It is this broad necessity makes it meaningless to stress the contribution of the unknown group. They are like the containers and basic materials in a chemical experiment while the famous few are the catalyst, without whom, history would be different.
In sum, it is reasonable for history study to accentuate significant individuals. Because they are the incarnations of era spirits and the power-holders in a society while the unknown majority enjoys much less influence over the society and the history.