OBJECTIVITY AND THE GREAT MAN THEORY IN HISTORIOGRAPHY

Abstract

The debate on objectivity and the great Man's theory in historical writing is of remote origin. Prominent historians and scholars have adumbrated different sides of this debate. The objectivity debate questions the historian's ability to present an entirely unbiased interpretation of historical facts and historical events in epistemology. It assesses the extent to which the historian resolves the "insider problems" in the reconstruction of a past which he (the historian) is a part of and also the degree to which the historian is influenced by his environment in the interpretation of historical facts. Simply put, objectivity in history evaluates the extent to which the historian reconstructs the past. The great man's theory on the other hand interrogates the selective focusing of history on the activities and exploits of great Men. It raises the question of a complete and comprehensive history of mankind. Carr's emphasis on Ceaser's crossing the Rubicon while many had crossed it before Ceaser buttresses the selectiveness of historical events and the great man's theory. This paper examines the notions and dialectics of objectivity and the great man's theory in historical writing and provides an explicatory critique on both concepts reflecting the views of modernist and postmodernist historians.

Headnote

Abstract: The debate on objectivity and the great Man's theory in historical writing is of remote origin. Prominent historians and scholars have adumbrated different sides of this debate. The objectivity debate questions the historian's ability to present an entirely unbiased interpretation of historical facts and historical events in epistemology. It assesses the extent to which the historian resolves the "insider problems" in the reconstruction of a past which he (the historian) is a part of and also the degree to which the historian is influenced by his environment in the interpretation of historical facts. Simply put, objectivity in history evaluates the extent to which the historian reconstructs the past. The great man's theory on the other hand interrogates the selective focusing of history on the activities and exploits of great Men. It raises the question of a complete and comprehensive history of mankind. Carr's emphasis on Ceaser's crossing the Rubicon while many had crossed it before Ceaser buttresses the selectiveness of historical events and the great man's theory. This paper examines the notions and dialectics of objectivity and the great man's theory in historical writing and provides an explicatory critique on both concepts reflecting the views of modernist and postmodernist historians.

Keywords; Objectivity, Great Man's Theory, Historiography

Introduction

The relevance of historical research cannot be overemphasized, historians and scholars of other fields alike are agreed on the fact that knowledge about past events of man in the society are cognate in finding answers to man's existential questions (who, where, what) as well as circumventing his numerous present and future existential challenges. It should be established that although not only the discipline of history concerns itself with the analytical study of past events, the task of unearthing, interpretation and documentation of historical facts rests with the historian, other disciplines merely take their bearings from the desk of the historian. Similarly, in keeping with the empiricist and scientific objective of reconstructed events, the historian in a symbiotic relationship, employs the knowledge and skills of other disciplines in analyzing and interpreting past events in what is described in scholarly parlance as an interdisciplinary approach to historical study.

However, the extent to which the historian engages with the above-crafted responsibility objectively has evoked intense debate and controversy. The debate takes its bearing first from the inextricable link between the historian and his environment that is the degree to which the environment of the historian influences his/her interpretation of facts. Secondly, the problem of knowledge in history, which questions how the historian reconstructs the past he/she did not witness and, what exactly, does the historian mean when he says he knows the past. In general terms, the argument is that we cannot have objective historical knowledge because we do not have access to a given past against which to judge rival interpretations1. Historians are accused of not just been selective of their fact but of also the events which they study. The Past' does not have a consciousness, hence all we have is the history created by historians as the historians decide who are central to their narratives2. It is the argument over the selective focusing of history on the activities of princes and nobles that constitutes "the great man's theory" of history which also reasserts the question of objectivity in history. Simply put objectivity and the great man's theory in history interrogates the extent to which the historian reconstructs the past as it happened. To lay a strong foundation for the discussion of this topic, this paper will take off by first providing a conceptual clarification and definition of the concept of Objectivity in history, thereafter the paper will provide an explicatory synopsis of the great man's theory. The third part of the work will focus on the critique and dialectics on objectivity and the great man's theory.

Notions and Dialectics on Objectivity in History

The concept "objectivity in history" suffers from a multiplicity of perspective. Even among historians, there is no consensus concerning the question of objectivity in historical writing. The objectivity debate questions the historian's ability to present an entirely unbiased interpretation of historical facts and historical events in epistemology. It interrogates the question of knowledge in history and assesses the extent to which the historian resolves the "insider problems" in the reconstruction of a past which he (the historian) never witnessed, is a part of and also the degree to which the historian is influenced by his environment in the interpretation of historical facts. Therefore, it is imperative to define the term "objectivity" in other to appreciate as well as construe the various sides, controversies and dialectics over the subject concerning historical writing going forward. In doing this one must pose the question what is objectivity? According to Sakul Kundara;

"Objectivity means existing independently of perception or an individual's conception. It is undistorted by emotions or personal bias and is related to actual and external phenomena as opposed to thoughts, feelings etc. something is objective insofar as it is independent of either a particular mind or minds altogether"3.

Based on the foregoing definition, the postmodernist historian debunks the idea of objectivity in history. Postmodernist apologists argue that we cannot have access to a given past because any understanding we develop of the past necessarily will be infused by prejudices arising from our particular historical situation4. They further contended that the idea of a definitive objective reconstruction of knowledge of the past is impossible. This is born out of their conception of what constitutes objectivity. To them, objectivity which is the dissociation of the investigator from the object of an investigation so that an independent investigator can reach the same conclusion5 is not a possibility given that the facts of history only speak through the voice of the investigator and multiple historians will produce multiple interpretations of the same facts. Christopher Blake in his book Can Historybe Objective6 is of the view that hence the historian is concerned with what happened how it happened why it happened and what it meant, written history can never be objective. Jenkins on the other hand argues that 'history cannot provide any objective/universal idea of direction, aim, purpose, meaning, truth, etc.7According to him, historical representations always fail because 'there is no possibility that any historicization of "the past" can ever be true, objective, fair, non-figural [or] non-positioned8'. E.H Carr succinctly argued that the historian is "incurably subjective".9 Barraclough on the other hand asserted that the history we read though based on facts is strictly not factual but a series of accepted truths10. Obiegbu is of the view that absolute objectivity is not attainable even if it were desirable11. To the postmodernist, the historian cannot dissociate entirely from the subject he understudies. The historian is inherently predisposed to bias and external influence arising from his environment, his background or personal touch/ idiosyncrasy with the subject of study. He is also selective of the events as well as the sources he employs in his study. Against such a predisposition, it is impossible to produce an objective account of a particular event.

The postmodernist school of thought suffers a degree of limitation in their conceptualization and theorization of objectivity in history. Granted, from a philosophical point of view the past is inaccessible to us or as far as it is assessable it is not available in the same way the present is to us and its inaccessibility is of a different kind than that of the future.12 The claim of the postmodernist at best is flawed to the extent that it denies the historians possession of hindsightand trivializes the relationship between the past and the present, the historian and his environment. Carr explains this better than the past which a historian study is not a dead past, but a past which in some sense is still living in the present13. The function of the historian is neither to love the past nor to emancipate himself from the past but to master and understand it as the key to the understanding of the present14. In other words, the historian is part of the past which he studies. Since a researcher cannot dissociate from the object of investigation and hence the researcher is susceptible to both deductive and inductive reasoning the postmodernist perception of objectivity in the absolute sense is rigidly implied and inapplicable not only to history but also to science. Passmore argued and one finds his view convincing that;

"If only those inquiries are objective in which the inquirer begins with a blank mind, then no inquiry whatsoever is objective. By the time we begin to inquire, we already have beliefs expectations, interests...even the average and mediocre historian who perhaps believes and pretends that he is merely receptive, merely surrendering to the data is not passive in his thinking [and] this applies to all scientists"15

The postmodernist also deliberately trivialized the inherent relationship between the historian and his environment, wherein the later finds expression in the former. Society and the individual are inseparable; they are necessary and complementary to each other, not opposites.16 The truth is that there is always an element of the human factor that is involved in historical as well as in scientific inquiry.17 The gifted scientist will usually develop a feel for his subject.·.his feel will take him in the direction of trying one kind of experiment rather than another.hence in physical science, the human subjective element can never be entirely excluded18. Moreover, the scientist has evolved pathways and methodologies that ensure that the same conclusion is reached by independent investigators; this is not true of history because of the nature of its object. Therefore equating objectivity in history to scientific or absolute objectivity is the greatest undoing of the postmodernist. The fact that the historian is part of the past he studies and the object through which his environment finds expression renders the postmodernist argument of inaccessibility of the past void. The existence of the human factor does not also imply subjectivity of history the duty of the historian to respect his facts is not exhausted by the obligation to see that his facts are accurate. He must seek to bring into the picture all known or knowable facts relevant, in one sense or another, to the theme on which he is engaged and to the interpretation proposed19. Herein lays the actual goal of history and a justification of thehistorian claim to the reconstruction of the past.

Similarly, the positivists differ remarkably from the views of the postmodernist. Von Ranke, a hardcore positivist and his cohorts insist that Objectivity is the goal of the historian, to look at the past and write history through an objective lens, to analyze and explain events without pre-judgment or bias20. Ranke's work undoubtedly became a rallying point for the positivists who argue that through a conscious training (historical consciousness) of the mind of the historian and by following some scientific principles, the historian can attain objectivity. Olubomehin summarized the approach of the positivist when he wrote that since the interpretation of facts brings discrepancies in historical accounts, historians should avoid interpreting facts. They should merely present the facts as they were and if this is done then history would be able to achieve "scientific objectivity", one that implies the attainment of a single historical point of view21. The crux postulation of the positivist is that the historian should be able to recognize facts, to master them and display them, that historians are not supposed to be judges of the past, but merely to present what happened in the past. The historian should make use of sources and proper documentation22. This class of theorists equates historical research to scientific research. They hold that science is the only valid knowledge and that facts are the only possible objects of knowledge23, therefore the historian should evolve a historical consciousness which would guide rational thought in history in other words they mean that knowledge should be communicated through general law24. They claim that through the use of systematic investigative methods congenial with the natural and physical sciences the same conclusions can be reached by independent investigators.

Consequently, although the positivists appear optimistic in their approach to objectivity in history, their view is at best a conjecture of distorted views of historical research because it undermines the primacy of interpretation which is the bedrock of historical research. The positivists posit that the historian should merely present his facts as they are and not impose any interpretation on them. This exercise according to Collingwood is tantamount to the scissors and paste approach which deviates from what history is. Here the positivist equates the task of the historian with that of the chronicler who assembles facts. You cannot create history by simply collecting what has been written and documented before, cutting out different parts of it and then pasting them together into a more or less coherent narrative25. Interpretation of facts is what distinguishes history from other forms of writing E.H Carr describes it as "the lifeblood of history". The reconstitution of the past in the historian's mind is dependent on empirical evidence. But it is not in itself an empirical process, and cannot consist in a mere recital of facts...The relation between the historian and his fact is one of equality, of give-and-take. As any working historian knows, if he stops to reflect what he is doing as he thinks and writes, the historian is engaged in a continuous process of moulding his facts to his interpretation and his interpretation to his facts. It is impossible to assign primacy to one over the other26. Indeed whether a fact is accepted as a fact of history depends largely on the question of interpretation27. The fact that multiple historians give multiple interpretations to facts does not erode objectivity of history. Perhaps Carr's illustration in his work What is History is apt here;

It does not follow that, because a mountain appears to take on differentshapes from different angles of vision, it has objectively eitherno shape at all or an infinity of shapes. It does not follow that, because interpretation plays a necessary part in establishingthefacts of history, and because no existing interpretation iswholly objective, one interpretation is as good as another andthe facts of history are in principle not amenable to objective interpretation28.

Moreso, the positivist approach to the subject of objectivity also raises the question on the status of history as a science or not. The positivist merely equates the historical process to scientific process and advocates for a general approach to historical research based on general knowledge and methods like the sciences and the evolution of historical consciousness to guide rational thought. In doing this the positivist not only contradicted themselves but also fell into the same error as the postmodernist who view objectivity from the scientific perspective. The attempt to prescribe rules of engagement for the historian is a deliberate attempt to control the historian's thought which is in itself an interpretation of a kind, and hence the positivist does not subscribe to an interpretation of any kind by the historian their argument and claim to objectivity is baseless. The belief in a hardcore of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy29. Scientific objectivity as argued by the positivist is not the goal of history.

Moreover, the perspectivist theorist disagrees with both the postmodernist and the positivist view and approach to objectivity. The thesis of this theory is that every historian considers the past from a particular standpoint. According to the perspectivist, any historian is a product of two factors viz: the first is the subjective element of the historian what Walsh describes as "point of view, and second the evidence upon which his account is based30." This school of thought differssharply from the postmodernist view that interpretation of facts breeds subjectivity. To them, the idea of interpretation does not negate objectivity in history. They also differ from the positivist who argues that the historian should refrain from interpretation in other to evade bias. The perspectivists contend that it is not enough for a historian to collect his materials and write them down as they occurred. That would amount to what Collingwood calls the scissors and paste approach to history31. According to this school of thought, objectivity is perspectival that is objectivity in history is a function of the historian's standpoint informed by the materials and facts at his disposal. They opine that whatever interpretation a historian gives to an event must be based on the available facts and evidence at his/her whims and the historian should allow intellectual honesty to guide his interpretation. The important point is that regardless of what the perspective of the historian is, he/she must allow himself to be led by the evidence at his disposal. If the evidence at his disposal is at variance with his/her point of view, intellectual honesty and the need for objectivity demand that the historian should base his account entirely on the evidence before him32. To achieve objectivity in history, Walsh a protagonist of the perspectivist theory suggested that;

"First the historian must properly scrutinize his evidence, secondly he accepts conclusions only where there is good evidence for them and thirdly he must maintain intellectual integrity and honesty in his arguments and presentations".33

Although the argument of the perspectivist appears immensely compelling, their postulations are not without limitations. The danger in accepting the truth of the perspectivist is that it pigeonholes history writing to the social sciences where theories are formulated to explain historical events based on certain points of view or perspectives. Admittedly, the use of theories are often not enough aid to the historian's interpretative process, the historian may have to brook with substituting real events with imagined reality (even when the facts suggest the former) in keeping with the theory in use. When this happens, objectivity becomes a mirage and reconstructing the past may be reduced to mere fiction or propaganda which negates historical research. Similarly, the idea of writing history from a point of view is a strong limitation for the historian whose job is to present the multiple interpretations of events. Here again, Carr's definition of history as a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the past the present becomes imperative in grasping the essence of historical research. By approaching history from a perspective, the historian automatically limits his interpretations to his point of view neglecting other important points of view which may also be critical in grasping the past. This in itself portrays the historian as biased from inception and rubs the historian of the cognitive process of history writing.

Synoptic Overview of the Great Man's Theory

The idea of the "great man's theory"is credited to Thomas Carlyle a nineteenth-century historian who opined in his lecture published in 1841 that "no great man lives in vain. The history of the world is but the biography of great men". Carlyle further argued that "heroes shape history through the vision of their intellect, the beauty of their art, the prowess of their leadership and, most importantly, their divine inspiration"34. The trappings of this theory are first; that the experiences and exploits of great men constitute the subject of history, secondly the activities of great men were instrumental in the making of societies and thirdly that man, was at the centre of history-making an attempt which we describe as "gendering pattern of history" based on the assumption of patriarchal superiority. Carlyle elucidated on these tenets in the following lines

"For, as I take it, Universal History, the history of what manhas accomplished in this world, is at the bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here. They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modellers, patterns, and in a wide sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or to attain; all things that we see standing accomplished in the world are properly the outer material result, the practical realization and embodiment, of Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men sent into the world"35

Carlyle's aphorism undoubtedly was elicited from the nature of written historical works that predominated the nascent evolution of historiography particularly in the oriental and later occidental hemisphere in the periods before the 19th century. Perhaps the offshoot of the great man's hypothesis can be credited to the oriental (western) historical tradition which dates back to the writings of Herodotus (C.487 BC- C 425. BC), Thucydides (C453.BC), Polybius (198 B.C- 117 B.C), Livy (59 B.C- AD. 17), and Plutarch (AD. 50-120)36. Historical works produced within these periods placed a premium on significant and monumental deeds of warlords, kings, princes, the rise and fall of empires and territorial expansion. For instance; Thucydides in his seminal works paid more attention to the heroic events of the Peloponnesian war, Livy on his own focused more on the glorification of Rome and their exploits in territorial expansion, Herodotus, on the other hand, documented much of the PersianWars.

Although the period of humanism opposed the western and medieval historical traditions, the humanist historian could not liberate themselves from the "great man's" hypothesis. The proliferation of biographic writings during the humanist period added impetus to the adumbration of Carlyle. As man became the centre of humanist historical works, during this period, history was not only selectively written but also selectively thought in the palaces of kings, among princes, statesmen and warlords. Great Man Theory reigned as the most popular theory of explaining leadership well into the mid-20th century, supposedly explaining the influence of big names such as Abraham Lincoln, Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great37. More importantly, the huge market for historical biographies indicates that the 'Great Man Theory' continues to resonate with readers outside the narrow confines of academia38. However, of note in the modern and postmodern era of history writing is the liberation of history from the confines of the great man hypothesis. Historians are much more aware than they used to be of the role played by women, not just in society generally but within areas of history including politics, religion and even military history from which it had long been assumed that they were excluded39. Therefore, Thomas Carlyle great man's theory seems a piece of romantic claptrap. It is interesting for what it tells us about Carlyle and his place in the history of ideas. But it is certainly not a working theory of history40.

Clarifying the Goal of History: Between Historical Objectivity and Scientific Objectivity

Moreover, having shown the various arguments over the debate of objectivity suffices it to state that historical objectivity is distinct from scientific objectivity; the claim to objectivity in history is not total or absolute as in the sciences. Mark Bever argued convincingly that even though we cannot grasp historical facts as immediately present truths, we can have objective knowledge of the past that is neither relativistic nor irrational41. He further argued that objective interpretation of history are those which best meet rational criteria of accuracy, comprehensiveness, consistency, progressiveness, fruitfulness and openness42. Therefore the postmodernist and positivist conception and approach to the subject of objectivity in terms of scientific objectivity is highly problematic, misleading and an aberration of the historical process. History gives a series of different but not incompatible portraits of the past; each reflecting it from a different point of view i.e. the contention would be that objectivity in history is achieved if the facts are depicted accurately and that disagreements in history would not contradict each other but complement one another to attain objectivity43. At this juncture, it is imperative to consider the reason why scientific objectivity is difficult to reach in history.

To begin with, scientific or absolute objectivity in history is problematic because of the intricate relationship between the historian and, the past and the environment. It follows that a historian's environment influences the kind of history he writes and the interpretations he gives to facts. Separating from the environment in other to write an objective account of an event embedded in his environment is the first challenge which confronts the historian in writing history. Herein is the challenge of "insider problematics" in history. Carr validated this assertion when he wrote that;

The predicament of the historian is a reflection of the nature of man. Man, except perhaps in the earliest infancy and in extreme old age, is not involved in his environment and unconditioned subject to it. On the other hand, he is never totally independent of it and its unconditional master. The relation of man to his environment is the relation of the historian to his theme. The historian is neither the humble slave nor the tyrannical master of his facts44.

However, against the widespread perception that interpretation of facts is subjective, the historian who understands his responsibility must interpret facts within the context of the environment whose past is studied. This is because events and their interpretations vary from one environment to another. Carr remarked that the function of the historian is neither to love the past nor to emancipate himself from the past but to master and understand it as the key to the understanding of the present45. This approach is different from scientific experiments and research where the investigator or researcher has no direct relationship with the variables he understudies.

Secondly, the ideological inclinations of historians arising from their membership of a particular race, religion, social status, class, etc. are potential inhibitors of absolute objectivity in history. Ideology generally denotes a system of practical beliefs developed by and characterized by a group whose members share common practical, economic, religious, or cultural bonds46. As a result of the nature-nurture controversy, individuals are intoned towards the prevailing ideological atmosphere of their various environments. It is practically impossible that historians would free themselves from ideological inclinations47. While some historians are attracted and influenced by the doctrine of Marxism, socialism, capitalism, others are influenced by the ideological appeals of racialism, religion, nationalism, among others. It has been shown how imperial historians chose to be ignorant of the African past to be able to justify colonial rule; how the nationalist historians often make ridiculous and sometimes extravagant assumptions to glorify the pre-colonial era; how Marxist historians cannot see beyond modes of production and relations of production theories which they impose on48. The point has been made is that a historian often does not rise beyond his ideological learning which is often reflected in his writings. It is also instructive to point out that an ideology provides a pathway to understanding the historian as a person and a standpoint for the understanding and critiquing of his work. However, it must be said that unbounded ideological commitment only serves to destroy history. The purpose of historical research and writing is not to vindicate a point of view of personal prejudice but to provide knowledge about the past49. Historians seeking to be objective must divest from the limitations which underline ideological inclinations.

Moreso, the argument over the selectivenature of historical events presents another challenge to the attainment of scientific objectivity in history. The argument here is that no single historian can write down every detail concerning a particular event. It used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is, of course, untrue. The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context50. The historian selects only the facts and events which he considers important in the reconstruction of the past; therefore, by been selective of his facts, the historian is accused of undermining certain facts or events as a result of his reasons hence the subjectivity of history. Atkinson puts this clearer that "in making selection, historians will be expressing their personal and class prejudice"51. Although all forms of research and inquiry are selective, the selection which the historian makes is of a different kind from that of the scientist. Whereas the selection of the scientist may not influence the results of his investigation, the historian's selection will to a large extent determine the form which his account takes52. However, it should be stressed that historians are rationally and naturally selective of facts. By natural selection, the historian selects only facts which relate to his subject and rationally subjects them to interpretation. This is what distinguishes history writing from other forms of fictitious writings in the Arts. In doing his work the historian is encouraged to downplay his idiosyncrasies in other to produce an account that is neither "relativistic nor irrational".

Going forward, scientific objectivity is problematic in history because of the multiplicity of interpretation which historians bring to bear on events. It is often the case that no two historians investigating an event will produce the same results. This is as a result of the diversified methodologies applicable in historical research. While the sciences may have evolved generally accepted methods of research to arrive at a given conclusion, the historian must interpret his facts and hence he does not have direct access to the past which he studies, his interpretation is based on the available sources (in form of oral traditions, artefacts, numismatics, language, etc.) at his disposaland usually from his standpoint or point of view. Against this background, two or more historians are likely to give different interpretations to the same events which automatically questions the objectivity of such interpretations. This is not so in scientific research where one follows a general rule to arrive at a conclusion or interpretation which is scientifically objective. Notwithstanding the strength of this argument, it should be emphasized that the existent of multiple interpretations to facts does not undermine objective knowledge of historical events; even the science is not free of this predicament. Interpretation of facts is the only way the historian makes sense of his facts. Robert smith describes it as the "Why" and "How" aspects of history. The historian must therefore endeavour to downplay his emotion and sentiments on his subject of study. A historian must demonstrate a high degree of intellectual integrity and honesty in his work. When a historian has followed these procedures, his account becomes objective. On the contrary, if he ignores them in his work, then his account may be considered subjective53.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the pursuit of objectivity in history has preoccupied the mind of the historian for ages. There is no denying the fact that absolute objectivity in history is as much problematic as it is desirable. The nature and the associated methods of writing history even though it compounds the challenge of objectivity do not deny the reliability of written histories. This is because the past which the historian studies is not a dead past and hence the historian is part of the past which he studies he can relate with events in line with Carr's imperative of history as a continuous interaction between the historian and his facts and an unending dialogue between the past and the present. Any historian who desires to be objective in his account must resist the inclination towards bias, personal interest, class, prejudice, among other functional indicators of subjectivity discussed in this paper. To attain this level of intellectual honesty and sophistication, historians must see themselves as a special breed of personalities for expressing the good, the bad and ugly sides of the society to provoke a genuine desire for societal progress.

Conclusion

This paper has presented the various sides to the debate on objectivity and the great man's theory in history. Among other things, the paper clarified the various notions of objectivity in history citing the various schools of thoughts and their limitations in demystifying the concept. Let it sit well here that the paper did not favour one school of thought against the other but merely exposed the neglected sides to the arguments thereof. This paper has established that scientific or absolute objectivity as prescribed by some historians is not the goal of history and that multiple interpretations of facts by historians do not undermine the objectivity of historical documents. Carr's imperatives that "because a mountain appears to take on different shapes from different angles of vision, does not imply that it has objectively either no shape at all or infinity of shapes" is pertinent in any understanding of objectivity in history. The great man's theory, on the other hand,is an extension of the argument over objectivity in history but the theory itself does not hold sway because historians have liberated history writing from the confines of the great man in history and from the patriarchal superiority which pervaded the period up to the twentieth century.This is evinced in the upsurge in gender studies as a branch of history. The imperative, going forward is that historians should divest themselves from the subjective tendencies and elements which may impinge on their interpretation of facts.

Footnote

1 Mark Bevir, 'Objectivity in History' History and Theory, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1994, p. 335.

2 Vincent Colapietro, 'The Historical Past and the Dramatic Present: Towards a Pragnatic Clarification of Historical Consciousness' European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy VIII-2, 2016, p. 13.

3 Sakul Kundra, 'Objectivity in history' http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=389988 20, February 2017 (accessed on 14 March, 2020)

4 Mark Bevir, cited work, p. 336.

5 Ogunyemi Olusegun S., "Postmodernism and the Validity of History", Journal of the Students Historical Society of Nigeria University of Lagos chapter vol. 21, 2013, p. 8.

6 Christopher Blake, 'Can History be Objective' Mind Volume LXIV, Issue 253, 1955, p. 69.

7 Keith Jenkins, At the Limits of History (London: Routledge, 2009), p. 15.

8 Ibid, p. 150.

9 Edward Hallet Carr, What is History (England: Penguin Books, 1961), p. 93.

10 Geoffrey Barraclough, History in a changing world (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1956), p. 114.

11 James Ngozi Obiegbu, 'Historiography and the Training of Historians', in Olubomihien O.O. (ed) Issues in Historiography (Ibadan: College Press and Publishers, 2001), p. 51.

12 Edward Hallet Carr, cited work, p. 95.

13 Ibid, p. 95.

14 Ibid, p. 112.

15 John Passmore, "The Objectivity of History" in Patrick Gardner (ed.), The Philosophy of History (England, Oxford Publishers, 1974), pp. 145-160.

16 Edward Hallet Carr, cited work, p. 132.

17 O.O. Olubomehin, "The Issue of Objectivity in History" in Olubomehin (ed) Issues in Historiography, (Ibadan: College Press and Publishers, 2001), p. 38.

18 Arthur Marwick, The Nature of History, (London, Macmillan Press, 1981), p. 100.

19 Edward Hallet Carr, cited work, p. 147.

20 Andreas Boldt "Ranke: Objectivity and History", Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice Volume 18, Issue 4, 2014, p. 10.

21 O.O. Olubomehin, cited work, p. 43.

22 Arthur Marwick, cited work, pp. 39-40.

23 Ibid, 100.

24 Ogunyemi Olusegun S., cited work, p. 3.

25 Edward Hallet Carr, cited work, p. 190.

26 Ibid, p. 129.

27 O.O. Olubomehin, cited work, p. 43.

28 Edward Hallet Carr, cited work, p. 127-128.

29 Edward Hallet Carr, cited work, p. 212.

30 O.O. Olubomehin, cited work, p. 44.

31 Ibid, p. 44.

32 Ibid, p. 45.

33 William Henry Walsh, An Introduction to Philosophy of History, (London: Hutchinson's University Library, 1951), p. 95.

34 Thomas Carlyle, 'On Heros, Hero Worship and the Heroic in History' in David R. Sorenson & Brent E. Kinser (eds) Rethinking The Western Tradition (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2013), p. 137.

35 Thomas Carlyle, cited work, p. 142.

36 James Ngozi Obiegbu, cited work, pp. 2-3.

37 Historical snapshots "The Great Man Theory", IMSA Leadership Education and Development (2019), p. 1.

38 Sarah Brown Ferrario, Historical Agency and the 'Great Man' in Classical Greece (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 87.

39 "Is there still value in Great Man History", History today vol.69, (2019) www.historytoday.com. (Assessed on 3 July, 2020).

40 Ibid

41 Mark Bevir, cited work, p. 338.

42 Ibid, p. 291.

43 Philosophy of History Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2007 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/ (accessed on 11 April, 2020).

44 Edward Hallet Carr, cited work, p. 229

45 Ibid, p. 26

46 Patrick Corbett, Ideologies (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1966), p. 124

47 Muyiwa Okuseinde "Ideological Issues in African Historiography" in Olubomehin, O. O. (ed) Issues in Historiography (Ibadan, Print Mark Ventures, 2007), p. 64

48 Ibid, p. 62.

49 Ibid, p. 64.

50 Edward Hallet Carr, cited work, p. 211.

51 Ronald F. Atkinson, Knowledge and Explanation in History: An Introduction to the Philosophy of History, (London, Macmillan Press, 1978), p. 73.

52 O.O. Olubomehin, cited work, pp. 40-41.

53Georg Wilhelm Hegel, The Philosophy of History (New York: Dover Publications Inc, 1956), p. 124.

References

References

Atkinson, R.F., (1978), Knowledge and Explanation in History: An Introduction to the Philosophy of History, (London, Macmillan Press).

Barraclough, G., (1956), History in a changing world (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press).

Bevir, M., (1994), "Objectivity in History" History and Theory, Vol. 33, No. 3.

Blake, C., (1955), "Can History be Objective" Mind Volume LXIV, Issue 253.

Boldt, A., (2014), "Ranke: Objectivity and History" Rethinking History: The Journalof Theory and Practice Vol. 18 Issue 4.

Carlyle, T., (2013), 'On Heros, Hero Worship and the Heroic in History' in David R. Sorenson & Brent E. Kinser (eds) Rethinking The Western Tradition (New Haven & London: Yale University Press).

Carr, E.H., (1961), What is History (England: Penguin Books).

Chang'ach, J.K., (2015), Development of Philosophy of History since 1900, (New York: Open Science Publishers).

Colapietro, V., (2016), "The Historical Past and the Dramatic Present: Towards a Pragnatic Clarification of Historical Consciousness" European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy viii-2, http://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/627 (accessed on 18 February, 2020)

Corbett, P., (1966), Ideologies (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World,)

Ferrario, S.B., (2014), Historical Agency and the 'Great Man' in Classical Greece. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hegel, W.F., (1956), The Philosophy of History. (New York: Dover Publications Inc)

History Today, (2019), "Is there still value in Great Man History?", Vol. 69 Issue 9 https://www.historytoday.com/archive/head-head/there-still-value-%E2%80%98great-man%E2%80%99-history (assessed on 3 July, 2020)

IMSA Leadership Education and Development, (2019), The Great Man Theory https://digitalcommons.imsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&cont ext=core (accessed on 11 April, 2020)

Jenkins, K., (2009), At the Limits of History (London: Routledge)

Kundra, S., (2017), "Objectivity in history" http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=389988 (accessed on 14 March, 2020)

Marwick, A., (1981), The Nature of History (London: Mackmilan Press)

Obiegbu J.N., (2001), 'Historiography and the Training of Historians', in Olubomihien O.O., (ed.) Issues in Historiography, (Ibadan: College Press and Publishers)

Ogunyemi, O.S., (2013), 'Postmodernism and the Validity of History', Journal of the Students Historical Society of Nigeria University of Lagos chapter.

Okuseinde, M., (2007), 'Ideological Issues in African Historiography' in Olubomehin O.O., (ed) Issues in Historiography. (Ibadan: Print Mark Ventures).

Olubomehin, O.O., (2001), 'The Issue of Objectivity in History' in Olubomehin O.O. (ed) Issues in Historiography. Ibadan: College Press and Publishers.

Passmore, J., (1974), 'The Objectivity of History' in Patrick Gardner (ed), The Philosophy of History. (England: Oxford Publishers)

Walsh, W.H., (1951), An Introduction to Philosophy of History, (London: Hutchinson's University Library).