 |
They were either conscientiously or subconsciously influenced by the dominant Marxist theory that swept through academia, which argued against the "great man" theory of history and instead focused on structural issues in society. The theory was that outcomes were decided by structural issues in a society, not leaders.
I completely disagreed in classes on it. Yes, the "great man" theory was wildly overblown and also completely ignored the critical role of structure and failings in a society. But the structural theory that neo-rationalism is built on ignored the crucial role a leader played. Yet at critical junctures the leader was central, either positively or negatively. If one takes the leader out of the equation, the outcome could have been radically different even with the same structural issues.
A classic example is that of King Louis XVI and the French revolution. A standard theory was that he was a weak not particularly able man unable to handle the structural flaws in the Ancien Regime. However some years ago unknown papers of Queen Marie Antoinette were found in the archives of a prominent figure in the period who had been close to her. She had given her papers to him for safe keeping.
What they showed, first of all, was that Louis XVI was actually a very capable man. He was however seriously ill and she described it in detail. Her description showed unambiguously that Louis had what we would describe as clinical depression. In his case it was to an extreme degree. I happen to have battled clinical depression. Reading her diary entries were shocking and I instantly understood what was happening. His already severe clinical depression was made dramatically worse when his elder son, the first Dauphin, died. He so went to pieces he could barely talk, barely react, barely get out of bed and wash. So, a man who was exceptionally able and might have been able to handle the crisis, was left effectively catatonic by mental illness.
Contrary to myth she didn't seize power. Her diaries show she never wanted power. The trouble was that there was nobody else available while Louis was in a catatonic state. He had two brothers. One was seen as cynical, manipulative and untrusted - the future Louis XVIII. The other, the future Charles X, was an intolerant extreme reactionary unfit ever to be monarch. The new Dauphin was a child so couldn't rule.
Marie Antoinette knew she was unqualified to rule. As the daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Francis she had never been trained to rule, whereas male heirs were. She knew she was out of her depth, but asked herself in her diary "but who else is there?" She reluctantly took on a governing role as there was nobody else in the Royal Family trusted enough and competent enough to do it, and her husband was catatonic.
Had Louis XVI not had extreme clinical depression, the talent he had shown before experiencing the extreme bursts of clinical depression might, just might, have avoided the revolution. It happened because he was severely ill and unable to physically or mentally function, and she wasn't qualified to, and the vacuum led to the revolution.
The more I read the more I felt sympathy for the King and Queen. I knew from experience exactly what he was going through. I could read her descriptions of Louis day by day and recognise things I went through. She was in despair. He was catatonic. There was nobody else suitable to act for the King among the senior royals, leaving her, to her horror, having to do it.
So that example, in that case of the impact of a vacuum at the heart of decision-making, showed that leaders do matter and it is not all about structural issues.
There were major structural issues in society in inter-war Germany. However there was nobody else able to take over and dominate Germany the way Hitler could. His unique personality enabled him to appear to speak for ordinary Germans. Take him out of history and again there is no certainty that the same outcome would have happened.
So while the 'great men' theory overestimated the impact someone could have as what they did or did not do was massively impacted by structural issues, structural issues won't deliver the same outcome without the impact of leaders.
Winston Churchill's pre-1940 career was haunted by many spectacular mistakes. He was desperately unpopular. He became prime minister in 1940 because everyone was tainted by appeasement, and all his warnings about Hitler proved prophetic. World War II would have been profoundly different without the impacts of Churchill, FDR, Stalin, Hitler - notwithstanding the structural issues.
Mearsheimer's problem in Ukraine is that his theoretical framework has always had significant design flaws in the area of the psychology of identity, nationalism, nations and nation-states. It has been an area many liberals cannot understand. It doesn't fit their rationalist theoretical framework. It is why they cannot understand the public opposition to mass migration, why they cannot understand the appeal of the nation state, etc. Mearsheimer's thesis cannot explain why Putin's nationalist view would invade Ukraine as neo-realist theory said he wouldn't. It cannot explain the determination of Ukraine to fight for its survival. It cannot explain why countries invaded fight more aggressively and determinedly than the invader. (The invaded are fighting for their survival. The invader's existence is not dependent on winning the war so they are less motivated.)
Mearsheimer's increasingly desperate efforts to double down, despite a 100% rate of being wrong on the war, are because his entire theory, his life's work, is on the line. If Ukraine wins, his theory is wrong. In the last few weeks he has spun stories of mythical Russian advances - all based on Putin spins.
Yet even Russian military bloggers and former Russian generals have rubbished those claims by the Kremlin. They have access to satellite images that entirely disproves the Kremlin claims. Those same bloggers and ex-generals are not pro-Ukraine. Many were enthusiastic supporters of the 'special military operation' but they can see in the data that the Kremlin claims are entirely disprovable. In one case, Russia announced that it was now just thirty miles from a critical target. That was spun by the Russian media as an "advance". Mearsheimer called it a "breakthrough". The bloggers pointed out that one year ago Russia was five miles from the city. Now it is thirty miles. It isn't an advance. It is actually a retreat of twenty-five miles! Furthermore, satellite images show that Russia had retreated.
Not alone that, but in a single month Russia suffered more deaths than the US suffered in the entire Vietnam war, and suffered more deaths than it was able to recruit. Russia's "advance" and it hasn't won more territory than it lost since March, is actually slower than in the notorious Battle of the Somme. One 'Z blogger', as they called themselves, pointed out that at that rate, it would take Russia 261 years to conquer Ukraine!!!
Mearsheimer's core problem is that his theory, his life's work, is being disproved daily by Ukraine. He cannot back down without admitting his theory, and life's work, is wrong. So he must double down on ludicrous predictions, even swallowing disproved Kremlin spin. As a result, it isn't just Putin's Russkiy Mir that risks being destroyed in Ukraine, but Mearsheimer's intellectually dubious claims in his life's work - his theoretical framework.
Some years ago, Putin gave a top military honour to a Russian soldier over his military leadership in Ukraine. One month ago, that now ex-soldier said "the war is lost. We cannot win it." Many oligarchs and generals believe that too. It a comment that Mearsheimer cannot echo. He and Putin are in the same boat, with their reputations dependent on winning in Ukraine, despite all the evidence that at best Russia is not winning. At worst, Ukraine is.
⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.
Thanks for your thoughts on Mearsheimer, his theory and the war in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine is bogged down in a tit-for-tat phase with no side having either a victory nor an off-ramp in view as of now. Neither Putin nor Zalenski, currently, have the humility within themselves to allow for meaningful negotiations. Seems, sadly for all involved, one of them will have to become humiliated.
ReplyDeleteOn Mearshiemer and his theory I hold a different view. I have followed John's commentary for some time now and have just recently subscribed to his new YouTube channel. I hold him in some esteem. He's a pragmatist and a realist, a competent communicator whom I've yet to see or hear become hijacked by his emotions. Because of that I guess he's unlikely to have walked too long with the black dog of depression. Both you and I have trod that path. He knows who he is, has his opinions and unashamedly expresses them. Though you hold a different perspective I think that he illuminates in his theories a fundamental and universal phenomenon that as a grateful recovered depressive and addict I have come to embrace and own; E + R = O
Events plus Responses Equals Outcomes
I too held him in high regard but the number of errors he has made during this war have been seriously high. I fail to understand it. I don't know what explains it.
DeleteHope your black dog is in the kennel and no longer walking beside you. Not a good companion, for sure.
The black dog is effectively euthanized though occasional self-medcation is indulged in! Depression, I've come to understand as a form of self-abdication.
DeletePolitical science is a misnomer. Like economics its a predictive practice - often useful but hardly foolproof. Viewed over time both have their value as models of understanding but most of that is retrospective modelling. Neither are like the laws of physics.
There's a decency and honesty to Mearshiemer and his work and contribution on exposing the Israel Lobby is an important achievement.
I think the black dog sees that form of self medication as an invitation to the party. But whatever gets us through the night.
DeletePolitical science to me means using the scientific method to analyse. The predictive power is something else.
Mearsheimer has done great work on the Israeli thing but I think that is attenuated by his failure to apply the same rigour to the Putin regime coupled with the weakness of his forecasts.
I always found realist ideas easy to grasp in a way that Marxist ones frequently enough were not.
Perceptions of the black dog can be managed. We can see a wolfhound or we can percieve a chow wowa. The externals can be controlled too. Never have a second bottle available, the dose makes the poison. My parties tend to be at home and I've somewhat belatedly come to like my own company.
ReplyDeleteWhere the Russian/Ukraine war rests, at a practical level I've no real skin in the game bar the price of this winters heating. So, my position is one of an a largely uninvolved individual, an amoral observer, not so much concerned with justice but yet interested in human behaviour and who does one's best to accept the just is-ness. Mearsheimer's musings I find useful, their accuracy is way below secondary.
As for Marxism, I've gone from revolutionist to democratic evolutionist- if you meet the Budha on the road ignore him.