Throughout the annals of human existence, the question of the individual’s role in shaping history has been a subject of fervent debate. Some believe that individuals are mere pawns in the grand game of history, their actions preordained by the inexorable forces of time and circumstance. Others hold that individuals are the architects of their destiny, capable of defying the odds and altering the trajectory of human events (Hobsbawm, 2011). This essay delves into the intricacies of this ongoing debate, examining the interplay between individual agency and historical determinism, while also exploring the crucial role of cooperation and social relations in shaping the human narrative.

At the heart of this discourse lies the concept of individual agency, the notion that individuals possess the capacity to make choices, take actions, and influence the world around them. Proponents of this view argue that history is not a predetermined script, but rather a dynamic tapestry woven from the countless threads of individual decisions and deeds (Habib, 2002). They highlight the transformative actions of individuals who have dared to challenge the status quo, defy expectations, and alter the course of history.

However, the concept of historical determinism poses a compelling counterpoint. It suggests that individuals operate within a framework of historical forces, societal structures, and economic conditions that exert a profound influence on their choices and actions. The deterministic view emphasizes the constraints imposed by the prevailing historical context, arguing that individuals are not entirely free agents but rather products of their time and circumstance.

Karl Marx, the renowned social theorist, struck a nuanced balance between individual agency and historical determinism. In his seminal work, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, he declared, men make their history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. (Marx, 1994). This assertion captures the essence of Marx’s dialectical approach, recognizing the power of individuals while acknowledging the limitations imposed by history.

Marx’s emphasis on individual agency is evident in his critique of quietism, the philosophical doctrine that advocates for non-intervention in the historical process. He argued that practical human activity is not inefficacious, asserting that individuals have the capacity to make a difference in the world. Their actions, informed by their understanding of the historical context, can serve as catalysts for social change and transformation.

To understand the role of individuals and their deeds, we must place them in the definite social and historical conditions under which they exist. However, much deeper than all societies and social relations is the process of cooperation, which is common to all human societies.  The notion of cooperation lies at the very heart of human history. From the earliest hunter-gatherer societies to the complex civilizations of today, our ability to organize, collaborate, and pool our collective resources has been instrumental in our survival and progress. Cooperation has enabled us to overcome formidable challenges, achieve remarkable feats, and shape the world around us (Harari, 2014).

For any human individual to sustain themselves, they have no choice but to enter into relationships with other individuals who, as a group, are able to subsist. Throughout history, the success of the human species has been due to our ability for large-scale cooperation (through organization into various social groups). In their quest for survival, men enter into definite social relations under which they take upon different roles to produce their means of subsistence (i.e., the means – food, clothing, shelter etc. through which they can continue to be alive). These relations, being so fundamental to the sustained existence of human beings, occupy an important place in social history. Without these relations, no society would be able to cooperate and sustain itself, and thus no society would exist without these. Hence, it is these relations that constitute the basis of all other social relations. All other social relations (religion, ideology, state etc.) are “determined” by these social relations. Marx based his theory of historical materialism on this fundamental fact of life (Marx & Engels, 2011).

However, this notion of “determining” is very different from our everyday understanding of the term. To say A determines B is not to simply say A causes B. That would be so simplistic to the point of being ahistorical and wrong altogether. The use of the phrase “to determine” in Marx’s context, is very different from what we understand today. To Marx, as to mathematics, “determine” meant “to set limits” (Marx, 1994). When we speak of a determinate series of integers, we mean that there is a limit until which the series goes on. It is not an infinite series (think of all odd numbers less than 100 – that is a series for which there is a limit). Likewise, Marx says the relations in society are limited by the relations in production. For example, in a slave society, we cannot have a religion that condemns slavery, an ideology that condemns slavery or a culture that is overtly anti-slavery. That society would never be able to reproduce itself and its relations in such a condition. So whatever religion, culture or ideology develops in that society, must be confined to a certain limit – in that it cannot criticise slavery. Hence, when it is said that relations of production determine other social relations – it simply means that the spectrum of cultural ideas that a society can develop is limited by its system of reproduction of life (production of the means of subsistence), in the sense that culture cannot contradict the relations of production. If it did, then we would experience widespread social change.

Marx’s socio-historical dialectic does not negate the efficacy of individual will. The actions an individual chooses can be determined by social conditions, yet those actions may still realize their intended goals. The distinction between the determination of actions and the effectiveness of those actions is also crucial in understanding the interplay between individual agency and broader societal forces. The fact that an event takes place/an action is performed doesn’t mean it will always be successful. While individuals can influence the fate of their societies, the possibility of doing so is shaped by the given social context. The notion of historical pivot positions serves as a magnifying glass, highlighting an individual’s significance. However, Marx warns against attributing this significance solely to personal power, emphasizing that another individual might have played a similar role in different circumstances.

The analysis aligns with Marx’s overarching thesis that historical efficacy requires suitable social conditions. Nevertheless, this acknowledgement of social causation does not negate the individual’s agency. The example of a crew facing economic challenges underscores this point; their performance is influenced by both the prevailing social conditions and the personalities of the crew members. Marx contends that greatness is not merely a reflection of expressing the needs of the times but a fortuitous alignment of personal qualities with the demands of the historical moment (Harman, 2014).

The concept of the “great man” as an exceptional individual who single-handedly shapes history is fraught with complexity. Marx argued that such individuals if they do emerge, rise to prominence because they possess qualities that align with the needs of their time. Their greatness is not solely a product of their attributes, but also a reflection of the historical context that provides a platform for their impact.

It would be apt to say in the conclusion, that only if the human social condition is understood within its broader socio-historical context, limited in all directions by the system of social reproduction, can events in history be truly understood for what they are. In doing so, we gain a richer understanding of the intricate tapestry of human history and the multifaceted factors that contribute to its unfolding.

References:

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2011, June 1). The German Ideology. Martino Fine Books.

Marx, K. (1994, January 1). The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York, International.

Harari, Y. N. (2014, September 4). Sapiens. Random House.

Hobsbawm, E. (2011, May 12). On History. Hachette UK.

Harman, C. (2017, May 2). A People’s History of the World. Verso Books.

Habib, I., Panikkar, K. N., Byres, T. J., & Patnaik, U. (2002, January 1). The Making of History. Anthem Press.

***

Harshith Subramaniam is an undergraduate student of Sociology at DG Vaishnav College, Chennai.