American philosopher and psychologist William James was primarily known for his theory of the relationship between “Great Men and their Environment”. Through the late 1800s, William James investigated “The Great Man Theory” by trying to describe how the environment affected great men and how great men affected the environment. Taking a compromising stance, William James theorized that environments and individuals shaped each reciprocally.
In William James, “Great Men and Their Environment”, William James closely follows Darwin’s philosophy of evolution, in that the environment selects those that have characteristics suitable to that environment. In other words, those that are most suitable to that environment will survive and lead. On the other side, whichever man the environment “chooses” has the chance to modify the environment in an entirely original way. He has the chance to make social changes that will affect the environment, such as modifying the constitution. In his indirect comparison to Darwin’s evolution, William James theorized such phenomenon as “Social Evolution”.
Generation after generation, “mutations” in society arise from the social changes that prominent individuals make. In this accidental incident, an environment gave the power of authority to a man that decided to lead society in a whole new direction. Because the environment depended solely on this man, the man had the power to be an initiator of the social movement.
However, every man’s position is not absolute. Incompatibilities of great men and their environment exist. William James supported, “not every ‘man’ fits every ‘hour’…a given genius may come too early or too late.” In other words, a prominent individual might make important social changes but remain unrecognized in an environment that is not yet suitable for him in the environment’s specific time period. For example, William James theorized that if Peter the Hermit, a key figure to the First Crusade, were born in today’s generation, he might be sent to a lunatic asylum.
All in all, “social evolution” stresses the importance of the Great Man’s relationship with his surroundings. Environments and individuals shape each other mutually, just as environments and individual members of animal species do in the Darwinian Theory. Both Great Men and the environment are essential in order to make social change. A Great Men cannot succeed without the support from his environment, and the environment deteriorates without changes by made the Great Men.
Some questions to consider:
- Do you agree that the environment and the Great Men influence each other equally in making history? Or is there a misbalance?
- What is an example of a given genius that was born in the wrong “hour”?
- What are the similarities and differences between William James’s Social Evolution and Darwin’s Evolution by Natural Selection?
Leadership for Social Change | Saint Louis University 
This idea of the “Great Man” interests me. I do not necessarily agree with it, but I can see how it works and holds its beliefs. If no one is chosen to lead or appointed to by another, then how can we go on? However, I do not believe that it is a given right based on lineage, unless the right to lead has been earned another way. Yet, I am still fascinated by this idea that the “great man” only is great at his time, and if he were to appear in a different time whether it be now or later in the future, he probably would not be received or accepted in the same way. If this happened, then he would not be able to be a “great man” would he?
The environment and the Great Man constantly interact and influence each other. The Great Man makes changes based upon what is needed and also available in his environment. In return, the environment acts upon the Great Man by either granting followers, or granting inspiration. Both are necessary for change to happen in the world, and both have to be at the same point in time. If the Great Man wants to make a drastic change in technology by creating a time machine, but the computer has not yet been invented, then the Man is at a disadvantage and is ahead of his time. In this way, both the Great Man and the environment need to be on the same page for change occur.
I can see how the concept of the Great Man and his environment holds some truth to it. Changes in society may prompt a leader to make certain changes. Reversely, a rise of new leader could cause a change to the community. Many times in history one sees how the situation and the leader must occur simultaneously for any significant shift to happen. If one is too early for the other, the time is not right for change and nothing happens. But why can’t a Great Man cause a change in the environment and make it the right time for a change? If he is truly a Great Man and leader I believe that he would have the ability to change the environment even if the environment may not be ready for him to change it.
I think of all of the “Great Man” arguments, I tend to agree with William James the most. I think that because he took a view on both sides of the argument, it seems more logical to me. The environment shapes the man just as much as the man shapes the environment and society.
William James brings up the idea that the environment has to be ready for change in order for change to occur in the final few sentences of his essay and I agree with him. He says that ” the impulse dies away without the sympathy of the community.” When the community or environment
(sorry for the two posts) When the community or environment is not ready to accept change, the change will not occur. In a sense the environment has to become a follower of the cause for change to happen. This illustrates that the leader has to be aware of the environment and develop a strategy that will foster sympathy and untimely change.
I really agree with James when he says that “not every ‘man’ first every ‘hour’… a given genius may come too early or too late.” I believe that great leadership is not only depending on characteristics of the person wanting to lead, but also the society or environment of those that he wishes to lead. Without the proper elements influencing the minds of the common people, they are much less likely to accept the new ideals of the leader.
I agree with Alli when she talks about Jame’s quote about the time period great leaders are born in. A lot of time influential leaders aren’t recognized until society can mature. Radical people may in fact have good ideas, but society isn’t always open to change at the moment they are ready to change it. Also, I really like James’s theory that the great man and his environment influence each other equally. The whole idea whether nature or nurture is more important becomes relevant here. Is a great man born or is he created? Or both?
I think the most interesting thing about the Great Man Theory is the fact that while the Great man and the arena in which he leads appear like separate entities, they are in fact interdependent and cannot exist without each other. The Great Man may be full of great knowledge and charisma, but without some sort of platform, created by his environment, he has no means to excercise his skills.The environment needs the Great Man to help shape it and progress it forward. Therefore a balance exist between the Great Man and his environment. Neither can be complete or advance forward without the other.
Considering that “a given genius may come either too early or too late” makes me wonder how many geniuses have come and gone without recognition. It is also interesting to think about what the people that we consider modern-day geniuses within the world of technology would have done in the 1800’s. Without the proper set of instruments, their talents would have gone unnoticed.
I was once taught that there are two very different schools of thought within the field of psychology. Some psychologists believe that nature shapes the individual while some believe that nurture and one’s environment shapes what kind of person someone becomes. Based on the blog on James, I feel that he would most agree with the psychologists that believe nurture shapes an individual, the side of psychology I most agree with. I believe that one’s parents, teachers, friends, hometown, etc. all decide whether a rising star or a falling meteor is born. The same goes for the great man: a leader is only as strong as their constituents.
The idea that great men must appear in an environment that is suitable for them is very important. Great artists from the past were almost never admired during their lifetime; no one recognized their talent until after their death. If people are proposing revolutionary ideas or new concepts in an environment that is not suitable to accepting it, there is no way for that person to make the change they are trying to make. They may even be viewed as crazy during their lifetime.
I think that the idea of the environment determining the Great Man and the Great Man changing the environment is a very interesting concept. I agree with this idea James’ . If the environment and the timing of a Great Man emerging do not coincide, then that man may not be able to prosper as a great leader. But if a Great Man does not provide any change to the environment that he was brought in, then is he really a great man? I believe that timing, environment and then the Great Man’s influence on that environment are essential in creating change.
I think Vincent Van Gogh was a genius that was born in the wrong time. It’s obvious why. His paintings are so valuable these days: they’re worth millions and millions of dollars, but when he was alive, he couldn’t find anyone who would buy his paintings.
I think that Henry David Thoreau and Edgar Allan Poe could both be considered men who were born in the wrong “hour.” Neither of these men truly gained fame until after they died. Thoreau’s works were far from popular while he was living, but later his writing gained wide popularity and inspired great leaders such as Gandhi. Similarly, Edgar Allan Poe was not very popular while he was alive, but his writing became very popular years later.
I believe that the Great Man has a stronger influence on the environment than the environment has upon him. Although there is a relative balance between the two, the impact of the environment is strongest in his upbringing, while his impact upon the environment dominates from then on. This continues throughout the rest of his life. He continues to impact the world around him. There remains to be continuous interaction between the two but the influence of the man on the environment is still greater. This is, after all, what makes him great.
I think the right idea here is to realize that if a leader is born into the wrong time period, his views will not be taken seriously; however, if a man is born into the right time and his views are inspirational, but his environment has squelched his passion to act on his views, he can’t be taken seriously either. There has to be a happy medium between being born into the right time and living in the right environment that shapes you into who you need to be.