Sources for this article can be found at the end of the essay.
Decision making in world politics is dispersed between the personalities who hold power and the organic progression of history. Recorded history is formed by human responses to challenges of both the natural world and actions of decision makers. This is not an equal balance, leading to the question of which roles personalities play in global affairs, compared to historical evolution following new events, thinking and technological revolutions. The ability to discuss this topic through the lens of both history and psychology made this a fascinating topic to choose. “Historical evolution” is a broad term which describes how politics has evolved throughout recorded history. Revolutions in military affairs (RMA) is a perfect example of a historical revolution. Some would argue historical evolution explains the world humankind lives in today. On the other hand, human beings are at the helm of countless decisions which have shaped our history. Leaders are bound to the strengths and flaws of each of their personalities. How they respond to power depends on their mental state, environment, upbringing, hardwired traits and perhaps how much power they have. While some use their position compassionately, others succumb to greed.
Considering the above, what drives history— personalities or historical evolution? In this essay, both roles will be compared and how each has progressed the global political timeline. Early human history studied by anthropologists, as well as events of the 20th century will be referenced. Both global and local conflicts will be used as examples so that a thorough examination can be made in regards to the roles historical evolution and personality perform. It will be argued that while the role of historical evolution has paved the way to our present understanding of history, personalities are the ultimate driving force in global politics today. Credit will be given to counter-arguments in favour of both historical evolution and also a balance shared with personalities. Utilisation of technology will also be cited as a historical evolution.
Why Personalities Drive Change in the Modern Age
In The Historical Evolution of Politie, historian Douglas C. North describes how political and economical changes came about, stating the division of labor among tribes was because of a complex environment “as human beings became increasingly interdependent.” North adds that “complex institutional structures were necessary to capture gains from trade” before arguing that the evolution of politics calls for society to create institutions which would allow for interpersonal exchanges. Placing Douglas’ work in the context of historical evolution, it is first worth noting how early hunter-gatherer communities were nomadic, existing in tribes. Before the introduction of agriculture, law and private property, these groups would forage the land and mingle with other roaming families. Not much violence between these groups existed because of this, but evidence suggests that a tribe member who hogged resources and bullied others were handled much differently than those of the same in modern society. This is where the earliest seeds of political systems were planted. Through examining human remains, archaeologists discovered one body with multiple stab wounds. According to anthropologist and author Richard Lee, a tribe would execute a toxic member by killing him through poison arrows. Lee further adds that the rest of the tribe would each stab the perpetrator to share responsibility. There is familiarity to these theories. In fact, this unpopular tribesman may have been born into the wrong era. It seems modern society would see his behaviour rewarded in the highest places of corporations. This character Lee describes sounds like our everyday dictators, or worse, our bosses.
French Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau seems to suggest that early humankind was driven from a foraging past, after the formations of “civilisation,” which was humanity’s pivot toward greed. Advents of economics, agriculture, technology, scientific discovery and ideological revolutions are examples of historical evolution which established civilisation known today. Historian Rutger Bregman builds upon Rousseau, theorising that as society structured itself around these developments, increased competition stimulated personalities that would have previously been ousted by prehistoric communities. Bregman goes on to say that defective personalities were no longer barred from participation thanks to monetary systems and power structures preventing it from happening. Now, these selfish personalities found in autocrats and CEOs thrive in a winner takes all world. The logic of historical evolution which once drove history has shifted to personalities being the dominant force. However, it can be said the prehistoric practice of abolishing these troublemakers now present themselves in the form of collective security responses. Take the Peace of Westphalia, for example. Before this political agreement, wars were fought not just for land, but prestige. A new system was needed in response to power-hungry, imperialist personalities.
As organised societies emerged, personalities and historical evolution grew up together. The religious wars led by bombastic, righteous personalities cumulated into the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The treaty was much like the early tribe dealing with a pariah. It is here the ingredients of collective security can be found. When a relatively peaceful Europe was shattered by World War I, the power-mongering personalities of Kaiser Wilhelm and other leaders, resulted in the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles which was the poison arrow into Germany. Starving Germany into financial ruin as a punishment for her crimes would later backfire, as the world saw rise to Adolf Hitler and World War II. Following Germany’s second defeat, the United Nations was formed. Direct, violent global conflict between superpowers subsided. This marked the beginning of the cold war where personalities such as John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev played a vital part in conflict management during the Cuban Missile Crisis, especially when compared to the more fear-based approach of Ronald Reagan in dealing with Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union. Following centuries of conflict, a cycle of response is witnessed, echoing into modern times. One atrocious individual, a personality, gives rise to a conflict and in turn, a collective response is implemented. The result? A historical evolution in response to a personality, much like the tribe pulling a thorn from their ranks. Next, a localised example of the role personalities play will show how society has redefined who is rejected from the tribe.
In 1977, Dennis Kucinich is elected mayor of Cleveland at the age of 31, dubbed the “boy mayor” having been the youngest US mayor at the time. Cleveland had a string of mayoral elections promising to move away from the enrichment of private interests who displaced residents. However, every mayor fell in line with white collar interests each time. Disillusioned with the establishment, council member Kucinich won the mayoral race on a pro-worker platform. His views were shaped by his experiences growing up in a struggling family who would often face homelessness. Kucinich ensured dishonest businessmen would struggle to thrive in the city under his leadership. His promise would be tested when Cleveland was being pressured into privatising its electric grid by selling to Cleveland Electric Illuminating (CEI), a private rival. The headstrong mayor refused. The public was convinced by Cleveland’s corporate power structures that not selling the grid would be a missed opportunity to reduce the city’s debt. After refusing, Kucinich would go on sabotaging white collar crime, eventually attracting an assassination attempt by the local mafia. The hit was avoided when the mayor was hospitalised with a bleeding ulcer the day it would have taken place. Voters, influenced by the corporate spin, chose not to re-elect the mayor. As it would turn out, the city honoured Kucinich in 1998 for sticking to his guns, as his move saved the city an estimated $195 million in electric costs between 1985 and 1995 which would have been hiked under private ownership.
Back to the global scale, it becomes easier to identify the role personalities play. This is often debated using hypothetical scenarios. For instance, if Ukraine would have been invaded if not for Putin. Another would be if a war in Iraq had happened under Al Gore… A fascinating question would be if past revolutions had succeeded without the charismatic personalities that led them. As singer-songwriter Phil Ochs described how change could come to 1970s America, “…if there's any hope for revolution in America, it lies in Elvis Presley becoming Che Guevara.”
In an age of social media influencers, the importance of a personality is magnified. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a cinema action hero and comedian before his rise to leadership. Much of the world saw humility and bravery in placing himself in the centre of conflict, all the while rocking a plain t-shirt. His brand contributed to his popularity in Ukraine and beyond. Without a doubt, this further enrages an egocentric dictator like Putin. From local to international politics, personalities both steal the show and steer the ship.
Counter-Arguments: History’s logic after all?
The Kucinich controversy also serves as an argument to why the role of historical evolution could actually have dictated the outcome in that scenario. These two concepts, personalities and historical evolutions, can switch roles interchangeably and are not defined by good and evil. Political systems evolved to the point where Kucinich, despite good intentions, was cast out much like the greedy tribe member. Because the structure of Cleveland favoured private interests, even criminal, the more humanistic personality was rejected both by the powers that be and the community. Historical evolution can lead to a reversal of which personalities are accepted by a population. That said, one could argue Kucinich was exiled because he possessed the key traits of our prehistoric jerk, but with different intentions. Regardless of the young mayor’s personality or agenda, a system evolved from centuries of political events drove the policy of Cleveland. To defend this counter-argument, one would be required to cast aside the idea that these political systems were not by the design of a personality.
Another counterpoint is that historical evolution has brought forth various tools, not only in terms of industry and weapons, but political bureaucracy. These achievements may have incapsulated humanity into political systems which will drive the rest of our history. Institutions are protected from those wanting them destroyed because of multiple bureaucratic layers of government. The bureaucracy seen within the federalist government of the United States shows it takes more than the election of an autocratic-minded leader to dismantle the institution that brought him there. The aftermath of the insurrection in the US Capitol on the 6th of January, 2021 did not result in a crumbled system. Instead, the insurrectionists such as the Oath Keepers would not realise Trump’s victory due to protections firmly in place following the evolution of America’s political system. Occupying a space would not be enough to succeed because the idea of democracy exists beyond a physical chamber, protected by vast layers of laws, judges, non-partisan officials and supported by a majority of citizens who choose to participate. The military has no connection to this system, thus it cannot effectively be overthrown— for now. An uncomfortable amount of political leaders in the US attempt to change laws and appoint their own judges who could potentially overturn elections. What the insurrection also demonstrated is how social media tools such as Twitter give powerful people the ability to mobilise mobs, as Trump used the platform to orchestrate his crowd during the attack. The misuse of social media is a revolution in military affairs because of the capability to censor others or utilise misinformation to incite a political outcome. In December of 2022, Twitter-founder Elon Musk, a right-wing elitist with a devoted cult following, censored multiple press outlets on the same platform he owns. The self-proclaimed “free-speech absolutist” claimed he did so because of his private jet being “doxxed.” The ability for leaders to take advantage of this technology argues innovations are again leading international politics, just as advances in tech had before it. In the face of these arguments, there is clear complexity between these two roles. In the ten thousand years humans have been at war as documented by archaeologists, it is not unimaginable the challenges of international relations today could take thousands more to fix.
Conclusion
To summarise the understanding between personality and historical evolution, the two concepts have affected one another throughout history. How personalities are perceived and dealt with collectively has changed vastly compared to prehistory. Those once considered outcasts by our ancestors, now thrive today. That said, personalities have indeed directed human trajectory after the forming of civilisation, despite counter-arguments. This is because humanity corrects its own mistakes in response to renegade behaviour and can be further demonstrated by treaties enacted following actions of tyrannical leaders. However, new technologies and industries shaped much of our world, regardless of who held power. Which role prevails depends on the environment they exist in; a competitive system provides a playing field for toxic personalities. Those opposing this status quo are now driven out, just as the unpopular tribesman from prehistoric times. While personalities dominate the global political landscape today, history allows the evolution of systems to counteract these forces. The digital age of social media and how it is used by leaders is a form of historical evolution, even if it brings humanity harm. This can be argued as a revolution in military affairs because of its capability to inspire violence. Time will tell if current bureaucratic structures will withstand the current state of global politics. The tug of war between these two aforementioned roles will continue throughout the future of global politics. However, these two roles are not an equal influencer on global politics and personalities are now the dominant force. Sources:
North, C. Douglas (1994) The historical Evolution of Politie. Page 385, Part V. International Review of Law and Economics, Volume 14, Issue 4. ISSN 0144-8188,
Kim R. Hill et al. (24 June 2014) ‘Hunter-Gatherer Inter-Band Interaction Rates. Implications for Cumulative Culture’, PLoS One.
Bird, N. (1982). [Review of The !Kung San : Men, Women and Work in a Foraging Society; Demography of the Dobe Kung, by R.B. Lee & N. Howell]. Cambridge Anthropology, 7(1), 89–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23816182
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1762) The Social Contract. Specifically a quote: “The first man who [took land]," and “took it into his head to say, ‘This is mine,’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society… Be sure not to listen to this imposter… the fruits of the earth belong equally to us all…”
Bregman, R. (2019) Humankind: A Hopeful History, Chapter 3: The Rise of Homo-Puppy, Section 3, Page 77. Bloomsbury UK Publishing.
Gideon Rachman (5 Feb, 2013 ) The roots of World War I and the risk of US–China conflict (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, ) and; ‘The shadow of 1914, falls over the Pacific’, Financial Times.
Gray, C. S. (2011) War, peace and international relations, Chapter 8: The twenty-year armistice, 1919–39, Page 106. Routledge Publication.
Shimko, Keith L. “Reagan on the Soviet Union and the Nature of International Conflict.” Political Psychology 13, no. 3 (1992): 353–77. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791603.
Simmons, L. (June 24, 2021) Interview with Dennis Kucinich: Power to the People,
Paragraph 9. Tinkun.
https://www.tikkun.org/dennis-kucinich-power-to-the-people/
Uncredited Author (6 July, 2022) Dennis Kucinich on the Battle for Muny Light. Corporate Crime Reporter.
https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/dennis-kucinich-on-the-battle-for-muny-light/
and; Uncredited Author (6 January, 1985) Former ‘Hit Man’ Says He Once Had A Tentative Contract On Cleveland Mayor. AP News.https://apnews.com/article/37e507e432ff928d2ea23bbd7cce79bd
Lamb, D. (November 22, 2006) “Boy Mayor' Kucinich Took Charge in Utility Debt Crisis” Common Dreams. Retrieved from LA Times, January 23, 2003
https://web.archive.org/web/20061122032858/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0123-04.htm
Ochs, P (1974) Gunfight at Carnegie Hall. Recored Live, 27 March, 1970. Live Music Album. A&M Records.
Holmberg, E.S. (Fall 2021) Lessons from Trump’s Suspension. Introduction, Page 311. Volume 35, Number 1. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.
Grynbaum, M. (16 December, 2022) Musk Flexes His Media Muscle. New York Times Article.
Turchin, P. (2016) How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth Ultrasociety. Chaplin, and; Pinker, S. (2011) The Better Angels of Our Nature. Why Violence Has Declined. Violence in Human Ancestors. Pages 35-48. Also see Figure 2-1. London Publishing.
Comments