19、階級和種族鬥爭
According to Michel Foucault, in the 19th century the essentialist notion of the “race” was incorporated by racists, biologists, and eugenicists, who gave it the modern sense of “biological race” which was then integrated to “state racism”. On the other hand, Marxists transformed the notions of the “race” and the “race struggle” into the concept of “class struggle”. In a letter to Friedrich Engels in 1882Karl Marx wrote: You know very well where we found our idea of class struggle; we found it in the work of the French historians who talked about the race struggle. For Foucault, the theme of social war provides overriding principle that connects class and race struggle. Moses Hess, an important theoretician of the early socialist movement, in his “Epilogue” to Rome and Jerusalem argued that “the race struggle is primary, the class struggle secondary. With the cessation of race antagonism, the class struggle will also come to a standstill. The equalization of all classes of society will necessarily follow the emancipation of all the races, for it will ultimately become a scientific question of social economics.”
20、馬克思觀點：革命建立社會主義社會
The revolution would lead to a socialist society in which the proletariat controlled the state, that is, “the dictatorship of the proletariat”. The original meaning of this term was a workers’ democracy, not a dictatorship in the modern sense of the word. For Marx, democracy under capitalism is a bourgeois dictatorship.
Even after a revolution, the two classes would struggle, but eventually the struggle would recede and the classes dissolve. As class boundaries broke down, the state apparatus would wither away. According to Marx, the main task of any state apparatus is to uphold the power of the ruling class; but without any classes there would be no need for a state. That would lead to the classless, stateless communist society.
21、馬克思觀點：勞工和資本家之間的衝突是資本主義製度的中心衝突
Marx thought that this conflict between labor and capital was central to the social structure of capitalism and could not be abolished without replacing the system itself. Further, he argued that the objective conditions under capitalism would likely develop in a way that encouraged a proletariat organized collectively for its own goals to develop: the accumulation of surplus value as more means of production by the capitalists would allow them to become more and more powerful, encouraging overt class conflict. If this is not counteracted by increasing political and economic organization by workers, it would inevitably cause an extreme polarization of the classes, encouraging the revolution that would destroy capitalism itself.
22、主要階級鬥爭的例子
An example of this would be a factory producing a commodity, such as the manufacture of widgets （a standard imaginary commodity in economics books）. Some of the money received from selling widgets will be spent on things like raw materials and machinery （constant capital） in order to build more widgets. Similarly, some money, variable capital, is spent on labor power. The capitalist would not be in business if not for the surplus value, i.e., the money received from selling the widgets beyond that spent on constant and variable capital. The amount of this surplus value—profits, interest, and rent—depends on how much labor workers do for the wages or salaries they are paid.
23、馬克思觀點：曆史由社會寫就
After Marx’s conception of a materialist history based on the class struggle, which raised attention for the first time to the importance of social factors such as economics in the unfolding of history, Herbert Spencer wrote, “You must admit that the genesis of the great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown...Before he can remake his society, his society must make him.”
The Annales School, founded by Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch, were a major landmark on the shift from a history centered on individual subjects to studies concentrating in geography, economics, demography, and other social forces.
Regardless, it is clear that how one thinks about history will to a large degree determine how one will record history—in other words, the philosophy of history will forge the direction for the method of history, which in turn affects the conclusions—history itself.
24、地理、經濟和人口分布對曆史的作用大於個人
The Annales School, led by Lucien Febvre, Marc Bloch and Fernand Braudel would contest the exaggeration of the role of individual subjects in history. Indeed, Braudel distinguished various time-scales, one accorded to the life of an individual, another accorded to the life of a few human generations, and the last one to civilizations, by which geography, economics and demography play a role considerably more decisive than that of individual subjects. Foucault’s conception of an “archeology” or Althusser’s work were attempts at linking together these various heterogeneous layers composing history.
25、偉人曆史觀
The Great man theory is a theory held by some that aims to explain history by the impact of great men, or heroes:highly influential individuals, either from personal charisma, genius intellects, or great political impact.
For example, a scholarly follower of the Great Man Theory would be likely to study the Second World War by focusing on the big personalities of the conflict—Sir Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin, Hideki Tojo, et al—and view all of the historical events as being tied directly to their own individual decisions and orders.
26、黑格爾觀點：曆史由偉人寫就
After Hegel, who insisted on the role of “great men” in history, with his famous statement about Napoleon, “I saw the Spirit on his horse”, Thomas Carlyle argued that history was the biography of a few central individuals, heroes, such as Oliver Cromwell or Frederick the Great, writing that “The history of the world is but the biography of great men.” His heroes were political and military figures, the founders or topplers of states. His history of great men, of geniuses good and evil, sought to organize change in the advent of greatness.
Explicit defenses of Carlyle’s position have been rare in the late 20th century. Most philosophers of history contend that the motive forces in history can best be described only with a wider lens than the one he used for his portraits. A.C. Danto, for example, wrote of the importance of the individual in history, but extended his definition to include social individuals, defined as “individuals we may provisionally characterize as containing individual human beings amongst their parts. Examples of social individuals might be social classes, national groups, religious organizations, large-scale events, large-scale social movements, etc.”.
The Great Man approach to history was most popular with professional historians in the 19th century; a popular work of this school is the Encyclopedia Britannica Eleventh Edition （1911）which contains lengthy and detailed biographies about the great men of history.
27、對偉人曆史觀的反駁
Explicit defenses of Carlyle’s Great Man Theory were rare in the second part of the 20th century. Most philosophers of history contend that the motive forces in history can best be described only with a wider lens than the one he used for his portraits. For example, Karl Marx argued that history was determined by the massive social forces at play in “class struggles”, not by the individuals by whom these forces are played out. After Marx, Herbert Spencer wrote at the end of the 19th century:“You must admit that the genesis of the great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown... Before he can remake his society, his society must make him.”
Thus, as Foucault pointed out in his analysis of the historical and political discourse, history was mainly the science of the sovereign, until its reversion by the “historical and political popular discourse”.
28、對偉人曆史觀的批評
Today the Great Man Theory is out of favor as a singular explanation for why things happen. Historians look at other factors such as economic, societal, environmental, and technological which are just as or more significant to historical change. Many historians believe that a history which only follows around single persons, especially when their significance is determined primarily by political status, is a shallow view of the past, and that sometimes such a view excludes entire groups of people from being parts of the study of history. A broader view is provided by a people’s history approach.
This critique has spread to other fields such as literary criticism, in which Stephen Greenblatt’s New Historicism argues that societies play roles in creating works of art, not just authors.
29、兩個反對偉人曆史觀的例子
The editors of the influential 18th century French encyclopedia Encyclopedie were ideologically opposed to biographies because they believed too much ink had already been spilled on hagiographies of church fathers and deeds of kings, and not enough about the average person or life in general. To this end Encyclopedie had almost no biography articles. However, this policy was contentious among the encyclopedists and so some biographies were “hidden” inside articles; for example, the article on Wolstrope, England is almost entirely about the life of Newton.
An opponent of the Great Man Theory in its own time was Leo Tolstoy, who devoted the entire non-fictional beginning of the third volume of War and Peace to critiquing it, using the Napoleonic wars as an example.
30、領袖魅力的常規化
Charismatic authority almost always evolves in the context of boundaries set by traditional or rational （legal） authority, but by its nature tends to challenge this authority and is thus often seen as revolutionary. However, the constant challenge that charismatic authority presents to a particular society will eventually subside as it is incorporated into that society. The way in which this happens is called routinization.
Routinization is the process by which charismatic authority is succeeded by a bureaucracy controlled by a rationally established authority or by a combination of traditional and bureaucratic authority. For example, Muhammad, who had charismatic authority as “The Prophet” among his followers, was succeeded by the traditional authority and structure of Islam, a clear example of routinization.
31、領袖魅力的特質
Though very difficult or even impossible to define accurately （due to a lack of widely accepted criteria in regard to the trait）, charisma is often used to describe an elusive, even indefinable personality trait that often includes the seemingly “supernatural” or uncanny ability to lead, charm, persuade, inspire, and/or influence people. It refers especially to a quality in certain people who easily draw the attention and admiration （or even hatred if the application of such charisma is perceived to be negative） of others due to a “magnetic” quality of personality and/or appearance. Related terms and phrases include:grace, exuberance, equanimity, mystique, positive energy, joie de vivre, extreme charm, personal magnetism, personal appeal, “electricity”, and allure, among many others. Usually many of these specific qualities must be present within a single individual for the person to be considered highly charismatic by the public and their peers.
Despite the strong emotions they so often induce in others, charismatic individuals generally project unusual calmness, confidence, assertiveness, dominance, authenticity, and focus, and almost always possess superb communication and/or oratorical skills. Although the etymology of the word （“divine gift”） might suggest that charisma can’t be acquired, and despite the persistent inability to accurately define or even fully understand the concept, it is believed that charisma can be taught and/or learned. Others disagree with this assertion and maintain that it is an inborn trait, or acquired through growing up, and that it cannot be learned, taught, or “gained” at will.
32、領袖魅力權威Ⅰ
The sociologist Max Weber defined charismatic authority as “resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him”. Charismatic authority is one of three forms of authority laid out in Weber’s tripartite classification of authority, the other two being traditional authority and rational-legal authority. The concept has acquired wide usage among sociologists.
33領袖魅力權威Ⅱ
Charismatic authority is “power legitimized on the basis of a leader’s exceptional personal qualities or the demonstration of extraordinary insight and accomplishment, which inspire loyalty and obedience from followers”. As such, it rests almost entirely on the leader; the absence of that leader for any reason can lead to the authority’s power dissolving. However, due to its idiosyncratic nature and lack of formal organization, charismatic authority depends much more strongly on the perceived legitimacy of the authority than Weber’s other forms of authority. For instance, a charismatic leader in a religious context might require an unchallenged belief that the leader has been touched by God, in the sense of a guru or prophet. Should the strength of this belief fade, the power of the charismatic leader can fade quickly, which is one of the ways in which this form of authority shows itself to be unstable. In contrast to the current popular use of the term charismatic leader, Weber saw charismatic authority not so much as character traits of the charismatic leader but as a relationship between the leader and his followers—much in the same way that Freud would transform Gustave Le Bon’s crowd psychology through the notion of identification and of an Ideal of the Ego. The validity of charisma is founded on its “recognition” by the leader’s followers. This recognition is not （in authentic charisma） the grounds of legitimity, but a duty, for those who are chosen, in virtue of this call and of its confirmation, to recognize this quality. “Recognition” is, psychologically, a completely personal abandon, full of faith, born either from enthusiasm or from necessity and hope. No prophet has seen his quality as depending from the crowd’s opinion towards himself, although his charisma risks disappearing if he is “abandoned by God” or if “his government doesn’t provide any prosperity to those whom he dominates”.
34、領袖人物的定義
The term charisma, derived from Ancient Greek was introduced in scholarly usage by German sociologist Max Weber. He defined charismatic authority to be one of three forms of authority, the other two being traditional （feudal） authority and legal or rational authority. According to Weber, charisma is defined thus:
A certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which （s）he is “set apart” from ordinary people and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These as such are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as divine in origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader.
35領袖人物的三大特點
Charisma has also been studied as a set of behaviors/traits; for example, a modern psychological approach posits that charisma is basically aggregative, a conglomeration of distinct personality traits that meld well in certain individuals to form the broad quality known as charisma or “personal magnetism”.
Theatrically, charisma can sometimes be “performed” on-stage and in films, and is encapsulated in both verbal and non-verbal communication.
Professor Richard Wiseman says that a charismatic person has three attributes:
1.They feel emotions themselves quite strongly;
2.They induce them in others;
3.And they are impervious to the influences of other charismatic people.
36、領袖人物心理學
The study, recognition, and development of charisma in individuals is of particular interest to sociologists/psychologists, popular （usually national） politicians, public speakers, actors, movie-stars/movie-producers, casting directors, pop-music stars, trainers/coaches targeting the upper-echelons of the business community （CEOs）, and academics or others involved in leadership studies or leadership development, among others.
In some cases highly-extroverted and brutally controlling charismatic leaders have used their personal charisma in extremely destructive and damaging ways throughout human history, for example, Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones.
Pierre Bourdieu did not have a very different position from that of Weber’s, but he stressed that a leader has charisma only if other people accept that （s）he has it. Bourdieu argued that charisma usually depends on an “inaugural act” such as a decisive battle or moving speech after which the charismatic person will be regarded as such.
37、韋伯觀點：具有領袖魅力的領導人不一定具有積極影響力