Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 May 8

= May 8 =

Historiography
What is the opposite of the 'Great Man theory' of history? 210.246.57.23 (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have a name for it, but it's the idea that broader changes set the stage for an inevitable event, and the "great man" can be anyone who just happens to be in the right place at the right time to take advantage. This is perhaps most obvious in science, when many scientific discoveries/inventions seem to be produced nearly simultaneously by different people.  The discovery of the structure of DNA is one such example.  Note that this also applies to infamous "great men".  For example, under this theory, if Hitler hadn't taken control of Germany in the 1930's, some other violently nationalistic leader would have, as a result of Germany's humiliation from the terms of their surrender after WW1, and the economic disruptions they suffered following that war. StuRat (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See People's history, Social history, Cultural history, and Nouvelle histoire for some candidates. Tevildo (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Odd that we have no article on historical inevitability. Is that not a thing? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The opposite of the great man theory of history is simply the rejection of the great man theory of history.
 * An alternative theory need not be defended to reject a proposed theory. One can write history without theory; some historians pride themselves on such.
 * Many, not just one, alternative theories have been proposed, some linked above. Historical determinism might be added to the list. See also philosophy of history, esp. its section on The validity of the Great man theory in historical studies. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Zeitgeist. "The concept contrasts with the Great Man theory ..." Card Zero  (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

what did he do during 1939-1945 ?
Otto Franz Walter Stahmer (* 5. October 1879 in Altona (Elbe); † 13. August 1968 in Kiel) he got famous in the "Nürnberger Prozesse" as a lawyer but there is no information what he did during his life from 1939-1945 - was he not a nazi? --Ip80.123 (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Mmm. de.wiki is silent on the matter (translation). He was an allied approved lawyer for the Nuremberg trials, and was a high court judge from Kiel ... so a question is whether judges in nazi Germany joined political parties. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Our article Denazification says: "In October 1945, in order to constitute a working legal system, and given that 90% of German lawyers had been members of the Nazi Party, the British decided that 50% of the German Legal Civil Service could be staffed by "nominal" Nazis". That's not to say that Herr Stahmer was a Nazi, but he could have been and still been allowed to practice, provided that he hadn't been involved in anything too unsavoury. Alansplodge (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Why did Stanisław Mackiewicz went back to Poland?
Hasn't he lost his citizenship of being a polish citizen? --Ip80.123 (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find anything directly relating to Stanisław Mackiewicz, but I did find this comment about his colleague Melchior Wankowicz who returned to Poland from the US in 1958: " It is good that Wankowicz returned to Poland. If he had remained in emigration, he would have died a bitter man, in poverty, and quarrelling with the Polonian establishment." Melchior Wankowicz: Poland’s Master of the Written Word by Aleksandra Ziolkowska-Boehm (p. 23). While in Poland, Mackiewicz wrote under the pseudonym of Gaston de Cerizay, so we can assume that conditions there were not ideal for him.   Alansplodge (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * According Cenckiewicz & Gontarczyk, Mackiewicz collaborated with Poland's Communist secret police. Source: http://niniwa22.cba.pl/cat_mackiewicz.htm. If you don't read Polish, please let me know; I may be able to translate some fragments or provide a short summary. — Kpalion(talk) 00:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Corporate culture in non profit and government organisations
Do all organisations including charities, emergency services, hospitals/healthcare organisations have an element of corporate culture with a corporate ladder, controlling managers, backstabbing etc? 2A02:C7D:B957:F500:F1D7:940E:2CA4:F445 (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Any question with the word "all" in it can usually be answered with "no" because, when dealing with thousands and thousands of options, at least one will probably be different. You've asked variations on this question here dozens of times.  If you rephrased it, or tried some different question, you may get some more satisfying answers.  But these "Do all companies..." type questions are not answerable with simple references.  The best I can do is point out some organizations which do not have the standard corporate organization.  For example, W. L. Gore and Associates has a very different organizational structure than a normal company, known as Open allocation management.  -- Jayron 32 23:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The reference to "controlling managers, backstabbing etc" as if they were a necessary part of a corporate culture, suggests to me you're not genuinely seeking knowledge but just here to make a WP:POINT. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You might take a look at diseconomies of scale, and in particular Diseconomies_of_scale, as many of the negative aspects you describe are more common in larger operations. For example, "backstabbing" would be less likely at a small company, where everyone would soon know who can and can't be trusted, so such behavior would backfire.  On the other hand, in a large enough organization, a person who moves around from department to department might avoid getting the bad reputation that would otherwise result from such bad behavior. StuRat (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "יֵצֶר לֵב הָאָדָם רַע מִנְּעֻרָיו" - "inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood" (Genesis 8:21). This is not endemic to the corporate culture. --Dr Dima (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Evil" seems a bit strong, but the basis of capitalism is that people will do what is in their own best interest, regardless of whether it's in the interest of the general good or not. The problem, then, is that large organizations tend to set up an environment where what's in the personal interest of the individual is not in the interest of the organization (and other employees).  This is because one employee's behavior, no matter how bad, isn't likely to single-handedly bankrupt a large company, but quite possibly could at a small company, losing that employee his job. StuRat (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)