In this episode, the hosts of Lady Science bring up several interesting points about the discussion of women in history, particularly in regards to the Great Man Theory. The hosts of our podcasts subscribed to a version of history very different than the Great Man Theory, believing that history is not shaped by the feats and leadership of an individual, rather it is shaped by larger movements in which class and gender play an increasingly large role. I really liked in the beginning when the hosts discussed the larger existential questions about the field of history, such as ‘what even is history”, “who decides which stories are told”, and “what stories do we not know?” The idea of history as a selection process leaves out a lot of information, and I think one way to explain this selection process is that our modern, more colloquial field of history is not the accurate rendition of factual information, but resembles somewhat more of an entertainment platform. Studies of great battles, deadly war, and powerful men are entertaining and are more widely known than the stories of smaller, marginalized communities. Great men in these stories have often been created into larger than life figures, men who wielded immense power and ushered in eras of serious change. These stories are entertaining, but they leave out many integral people and events that played a big role in human history. This also calls into question: how important does a person have to be to be a historical figure? What does “important” mean? Is there historical use in recording “the people’s history?” The work of more modern scholarship questions the real meaning of history and tries to tell the unknown stories of women and minorities that have not received as much attention.
The hosts also make a strong effort to not simply substitute a singular woman into the spotlight of the “Great Man Theory.” Their thinking is similar to some of the ideas we have discussed in class about how easy it is to attach an entire movement to a singular figurehead (like MLK and Civil Rights in the 60s). Due to our own human nature, we want to praise the achievements of a singular man or woman, rather than looking at the entire movement they were a part of and the people who helped them become so famous. Of course, this requires historians to delve much deeper into a time period by looking not just at the individual, but also at the environment and people who supported them. This is a contradiction of the Great Man Theory. I think it was interesting as well that the podcast hosts were so critical of substituting any well known woman in the place of the Great Man Theory, believing that this does not solve the issue. I am not quite sure as to why the hosts seem to expend so much energy fighting critics on Twitter, (people whose opinions will not change by a tweet) but they seem to be dedicated to the cause of unearthing gender and social movements that played a larger role in modern science than any one person ever could have.
I also really liked how the hosts were careful not to simply substitute a woman into the Great Man Theory idea, because the point they are trying to make is that historical movements don’t happen because of the achievements of one person. Instead of attributing one person’s achievements, whether it is a man or a woman, to an entire movement or event, we should recognize the many people who were involved whose stories might not have been heard.
More often times than not, individuals are glorified as “heroic” in history, while greater amounts of people are overlooked. Truly, one leader could not and can not make substantial impacts without help along the way. Also, glorified individuals are remembered more for being themselves instead of affecting the movement(s) they were part of. Should we continue to acknowledge the persons who leave as legends, yet forget the standing legacies of today?