Levi Fox
Page 1
2/16/2016
Great Men, Ideological Power, and Historical Knowledge:
A Short Essay into a Deep Topic
For more than a century the field of historiography has been an arena for sometimes
heated debate over the issue of whether and to what degree men make or are made by history.
Strong advocates of the notion that men make the world around them, who tend to adopt what
has come to be called a “great man” view of history, have been an influential presence in the
historical profession from the very beginning. Herodutus and Thucydides, the two ‘founding
fathers’ of historiography, pointed to the recording, popularizing, and analysis of the heroic
words and actions of great and powerful men as central motivations for their histories. Directly
related to this edification of the individual (and evidenced by Thucydides’ use of speeches of
powerful people) was the notion that “great men’s” words contained wisdom and should be
recorded, known, and consulted. These notions that history can serve as a form of preservation
and popularization of thoughts and actions of men that the writer deems heroic, which stretch
back to the beginnings of Western historiography, have continued to the present in various
forms. Contemporary American society, for example, tends to lionize the actions of the so-called
“Founding Fathers” and continually fights heated cultural wars over the meaning of the words
and actions of these American “great men.” Furthermore, it would appear at least from the
Jefferson-Hemings case, that such notions can influence how we know, study, understand, and
practice history.
Modern day adherents of the “great man” theory of history often cite as proof, the careers
and achievements of single individuals such as Napoleon, Stalin, or Ben Franklin whose
placement in positions of power enabled them through thought and action to help shape history.
While this view has been continually challenged by a variety of critics with their own competing
notions of what drives history, the views, actions, and motivations of powerful individuals have
Levi Fox
Page 2
2/16/2016
remained the subject of intense curiosity for contemporary historians. Though most scholars no
longer write books for the explicit purpose of edifying their subjects, the practice of “great man”
history as a method of historical understanding has as continued in various guises, even in the
face of harsh critique. E. H. Carr, who has been influencing the practice of American
historiography during the 40 years that his What is History? has been “widely used as an
introduction to historical study,” has a particular notion of the relationship between “great men”
and history (Evans 1). Carr argues for studying individuals rather than what he sees as vague
and illusory broad historical trends, on the grounds that these “impersonal forces,” which some
scholars see as the driving force behind history, can only “find expression [in] the acts of
individuals” (Evans 161). He further argued that a “great man was great because he embodied
on a larger than normal scale the wills and aspirations of his contemporaries” and thus could be
studied as a representative “of wider historical forces” (Evans 161). Yet while historians’
motivations for studying the words and actions of “great men” may have shifted, the fact that
they are still regarded by historians as “great men” reinforces public opinion and, in turn
influences how exactly they are studied.
The fact that individual lives and careers are seen as worthy of study (and, by many, of
mass emulation) because of supposed greatness, often influences and problematizes the way in
which these lives are examined. Indeed, the fact that many readers are more interested in works
of history and historical biography about individuals whose lives are seen exceptional helps
foster a ready intellectual and financial market for historians who purport to study these popular
“great men.” High levels of interest has also helped fuel renewed debate within both the
historical community and the general public over the lives of these men. The protracted debate
over the issue of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings is perhaps the best recent example of
Levi Fox
Page 3
2/16/2016
historical (and popular) interest in the words and deeds of “great men.” The Jefferson-Hemings
case is an excellent illustration of the power and influence which the words of these men can
have in cases where they take on the persona of national heroes, and prompt an oft related
societal response bent upon determining the ‘true’ meaning of their words. At the same time, it
is an example of how public perception of character and importance can influence how historical
sources are used, viewed, and interrogated.
Indeed, in this case, it would appear as if competitive American iconography and “great
man” history have indeed played a role in the interpretation of documents and sometimes
functioned to buttress a particular view of Thomas Jefferson. The widespread notion that
Jefferson is the man who best exemplifies America ranges across divergent political and social
groups. As a result, different groups often offer up competing interpretations of the recorded
words of Jefferson and other ‘founding fathers’ that are used as authoritative support for certain
ideological positions. Indeed, if as many historians seem to agree, the American public holds the
notion that “if Jefferson was wrong, America was wrong” then definitions and arguments over
Jefferson can be seen as relating directly to larger cultural fights over American self-definition
(Lewis and Onuf, 125). At the same time, any disagreement with the idea of Jefferson’s
greatness can be seen as a direct challenge to the ‘rightness’ of America. This leads to a drive to
claim and defend, for ideological purposes, not just Jefferson but a certain view of Jefferson as
the exemplar of American greatness. Moreover, when the this view of Jefferson as a classic style
hero, worthy of reverence and emulation, free from the flaws and shortcomings of normal men,
was seriously challenged over the issue of Sally Hemings, both the public and the historical
profession fought over the question of how to reconcile Jefferson’s thoughts with his actions and
how to best understand his thought in light of the historical record.
Levi Fox
Page 4
2/16/2016
Thus it is under the public eye and influence that the question of what Jefferson did or did
not write, mean, and do enters the field of American history writing. While most historians
conscientiously attempt to avoid ideological bias in their historical study, often more consciously
in cases of deep cultural conflict such as that of Jefferson-Hemings, other forms of bias can
result from “great man” history. Indeed, the very categorization of Jefferson as a “great man”
who penned important words that continue to embody wisdom, leads to an overvaluation of these
words and a subsequent source bias that can negatively impact attempts at historical scholarship.
The existence of widespread societal interest and divergent critical interpretations of the life and
character of Thomas Jefferson has fostered ever deeper and more complicated readings of his
works in an attempt to arrive at the ‘true’ meaning of his words and, in effect, to recreate and
reclaim his ‘true’ mind. Scholars in a wide range of fields have closely read and widely
interpreted Jefferson using any number of techniques and strategies. Indeed, while most
historians would argue that documents must be seen and understood in light of their historical
context, little primary source material (which is what Jefferson’s words function as in the history
of his life and thought) has received as intensive study as have Jefferson’s culturally important
words. While depth of understanding with regards to the historical background of any source is
beneficial, problems begin to occur when intense study and ideological considerations alter the
perceived credibility of evidence and influence what becomes seen as historical “truth.”
In this case these source bias problems were manifested in the reification of Jefferson’s
words, and their subsequent use as firm historical data. One major point of contention in the
debate over Jefferson-Hemings was the problem of reconciling Jefferson’s recorded thoughts on
socio-political issues like race and miscegenation with his actions as documented in the historical
record. Some scholars felt that the Jefferson they knew from careful reading of his writings
Levi Fox
Page 5
2/16/2016
would never be able go against his ideals and questioned the validity, accuracy, and authority of
those documents which indicted Jefferson. For them, Jefferson’s carefully crafted philosophical
opinions on certain issues held more historical weight than ‘ill-documented’ accusations of
personal indiscretions by individuals of questionable motivation or background. Other scholars,
who were convinced of Jefferson’s actions by some of these same sources whose validity they
choose to take stock in, worked instead to understand these actions as they related to his recorded
public views. They simply moved to study how exactly one reconciles’ Jefferson’s actions with
his thoughts and to reinterpret his writings in light of a new and, in their minds’, better historical
perspective. What both groups share is the deeply rooted notion that Jefferson’s personal
philosophy, character, and life are worthy subjects of study and that his writings deserve
consideration as legitimate and powerful pieces of documentary history towards this study.
This case provides a demonstration of how the contemporary study of certain history and
the above notions about Jefferson has been influenced by subtle biases rooted through long
chains of reasoning back to the beginning of the field. The contemporary cultural presence of
these notions is manifest in the interest and debate over the meaning and context of Jefferson’s
words, which are simultaneously implicitly elevated in importance and reified in the process.
Moreover, these particular notions of the importance of Jefferson’s words come out of a general
cultural view that wisdom lays contained within the words of “great men,” a view which finds its
origin in the ‘founding documents’ of western historiography. Ultimately, this view of Jefferson
as a classical American hero, whose words and deeds are worthy of intense study, supported by
persistent historical and popular notions about the importance of “great men” is a subtle bias that
influences both the scrutiny and authority which his words garner. And when this influence
shapes what passes for historical ‘knowledge’ we begin anew the cycle of skewed interpretation.