The Story We Tell: Deconstructing Competing Theories of Historical Narrative

Who writes history? Is it a faithful record of events, a precise science of the past carved in stone? Or is it a story, shaped by the biases, beliefs, and goals of the storyteller? The reality is that history is not simply what happened, but a narrative constructed about what happened. This narrative is a battleground of ideas, where different theories compete to explain the great engine of change. Understanding these competing frameworks is crucial, as they reveal that the story of our past is not a settled fact but an ongoing debate. This exploration will journey from the tales of great heroes to the deep, slow-moving currents of society, and finally, to the very questioning of historical truth itself.

The great man theory: History as biography

Perhaps the oldest and most intuitive way of understanding the past is through the Great Man theory. Popularized by thinkers like the 19th-century historian Thomas Carlyle, this perspective posits that history is forged by the will and genius of extraordinary individuals. Kings, queens, generals, prophets, and inventors are seen as the primary agents of change. In this view, the course of civilization is determined by the decisions of a Napoleon, the inventions of an Edison, or the leadership of a Churchill. The appeal of this theory is its simplicity and its narrative power. It provides clear protagonists and antagonists, turning the sprawling, messy past into a series of compelling biographies.

However, this top-down approach has faced significant criticism. By focusing exclusively on the elite, it often ignores the vast majority of the population. It overlooks the powerful undercurrents of economics, social structures, and cultural trends that shape the world in which these “great men” operate. Can we truly understand the Reformation by only studying Martin Luther, without considering the widespread social discontent and the invention of the printing press? The Great Man theory provides a powerful story, but critics argue it is an incomplete one, mistaking the actors on the stage for the playwright and the director.

The Annales school: The long view from below

In direct response to the hero-centric view of history, a revolutionary approach emerged in early 20th-century France: the Annales School. Historians like Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch turned the traditional model on its head. Instead of focusing on political events and powerful individuals (the “history of events”), they shifted their gaze to long-term, slow-moving structures. They were interested in the longue durée, a term for deep historical currents like geography, climate, demography, and technology that shape societies over centuries.

This was a “history from below.” The Annales historians sought to understand the lives of ordinary people: what they ate, how they worked, what they feared, and how they perceived their world. They studied tax records, parish registers, and folk tales to reconstruct the collective mentalités, or mindsets, of past eras. For them, a significant historical event was not a single battle, but a gradual shift in agricultural practices or a change in attitudes towards death. This approach de-emphasized individual agency, arguing that people are often products of immense, almost invisible forces that have been at play long before their birth.

Marxist historiography: The engine of class struggle

Flowing alongside the Annales School, yet with a distinct focus, is Marxist historiography. Rooted in the theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, this framework presents history as a dynamic and predictable process driven by one primary force: class struggle. For Marxists, the fundamental reality of any society is its economic “base,” which includes the means of production (tools, factories, land) and the relations of production (the relationship between classes, such as lords and serfs, or capitalists and workers). This economic base, they argue, determines the society’s “superstructure,” which includes its politics, laws, religion, and culture.

Historical change, therefore, is not the result of great ideas or great men, but of conflict between economically opposed classes. The French Revolution is not simply a story of Robespierre and Danton, but the inevitable overthrow of the feudal aristocracy by the rising bourgeoisie. According to this theory, history moves through stages—from feudalism to capitalism and, ultimately, to socialism—propelled by this dialectical conflict. While powerfully influential, Marxist historiography is often criticized for its economic determinism, a tendency to reduce the complexity of human experience to material and class interests alone.

Postmodernism and the end of the grand narrative

The 20th century’s grand theories, from the Great Man to the Marxist model, were all in their own way “meta-narratives” or all-encompassing explanations of history’s trajectory. The rise of postmodernism in the late 20th century brought a profound skepticism towards such claims. Thinkers like Jean-François Lyotard and Hayden White challenged the very idea that an objective, singular “History” could be written. Instead, they argued, there are only “histories”—plural, subjective, and constructed through language.

Hayden White famously argued that historical writing is a form of literature. Historians, he claimed, use narrative structures and literary tropes (like tragedy, comedy, or romance) to organize the raw data of the past into a coherent story. The historian is not a transparent window onto the past but an author who makes choices about what to include, what to emphasize, and how to frame the narrative. This perspective has been liberating, as it gives voice to the stories of marginalized groups—women, minorities, colonized peoples—whose experiences were ignored by the grand narratives. However, it also presents a radical challenge: if there is no objective truth, only competing stories, does history lose its claim to be a discipline of fact?

In conclusion, the story of our past is far from a settled account. We have journeyed from the Great Man theory, which places history in the hands of powerful individuals, to the Annales School’s deep dive into the long-term structures that shape the lives of the masses. We explored the Marxist view of history as an engine powered by class conflict, and finally arrived at the postmodern deconstruction of all grand narratives, which sees history as a collection of subjective stories. Each of these theories offers a different lens through which to view the past, highlighting different actors and forces. Understanding them reveals that history is not a static monolith but a dynamic and contested field of interpretation, constantly being rewritten.

Image by: cottonbro studio
https://www.pexels.com/@cottonbro