I really enjoyed the reading by Corfield which explained how the great importance of History is, in large part, due to the fact that all ordinary and common people are “living histories.” I never truly thought about History through that lens before and was surprised and saddened that I hadn’t before. To hold the mindset that every ordinary person’s actions or behaviors are both results and causes of historical events and patterns is very eye-opening and introduces new self-importance or meaning. It certainly made me rethink my actions and overall life in a way that gave more value to my seemingly small blip of existence. This new outlook an attitude toward History can definitely tackle some of the objections to the subject which Corfield mentions. Instead of focusing on the winners or the most influential people throughout history (which is, in fact, biased), emphasizing the importance of the common people can instill a newfound responsibility in the public to their nation or to the world as a whole. It can make people really rethink their actions and consider the long term or short term consequences of them.
I also found it interesting how, on the other hand, Bass focused on the other side of History and leadership by mentioning kings, dukes, Machiavelli, and countless other examples of people, mostly men, in important, great positions of power. He aimed to define and further understand leadership by focusing on how leaders were depicted throughout historical texts like the Bible. He consistently and solely mentioned the actions of the leaders and why or how they may have come to those decisions, while also focusing on the success or failure of their reign. Bass also emphasized the more negative, “hortatory” side of leadership where the leader dominates and exploits the “subordinates”. He places less emphasis on the “subordinates” or followers by even using negative tones towards them and focusing on the “heroes” or heroines”. In terms of history, it is very important to give those who didn’t have a voice or power in the past another chance by telling their story and learning valuable lessons pertaining to leadership and followership. I believe that Corfield’s outlook is more challenging than Bass’s and is a more efficient and overall better way to study History and leadership.
I agree that Corfield’s outlook is an overall better way to study history and leadership, because unlike Bass’s outlook it is not biased and is not opinionated about the “heroes” and “heroines” in history. With Bass heavily focusing on men that are in great positions of power we would only understand the actions of those leaders and how they have come to certain decisions. Which would mean we would only know half the story about important historical events.
I felt the same shift in perspective while reading Corfield’s articles. It is interesting to think that all of our history comes from those specific, important leaders that you mentioned, and when we think of a certain time period, our impressions and understandings of the people may be completely different than how it actually was because we only have the perspectives of the few great men. Thinking from this perspective definitely changes the way I think about how I live my life, and reminds me of the importance and significance of keeping journals and other logs of my seemingly mundane day-to-day life.
I agree with your view on Corfield’s article. I feel that it’s really important to understand how common people’s actions affect our history every day. I feel that we really only read about “heroes” which are partly myths in our history; but, understanding how everyone affects historical events is important because it wasn’t just historical figures who shaped our world today.