The Dictator’s Butterfly and the Problem for History
In the previous post, we explored how the Butterfly Effect might also apply to human history.
To recap: the Butterfly Effect suggests that in some systems, very small events can lead to very large outcomes. For example, a hurricane might (in theory) be caused by something as small as a butterfly flapping its wings.
Using this idea, the Dictator’s Butterfly suggests that small, chance events in the lives of ordinary people can sometimes lead to major historical events and social changes. The lives of dictators are one example of how this can happen.
In this post, we will explore whether this idea creates problems for historians trying to understand the past.
Lost in the Storm
One important aim of history is to work out what most likely happened in the past. To do this, historians rely on sources. When there are lots of sources (for example, in the 20th century), historians can sometimes identify small, chance events and think about how important they were.
Critical Concept: Reliable Source
A reliable source is one that gives accurate and trustworthy information.
To judge reliability, historians look at:
- Nature – what type of source it is
- Origin – who created it
- Purpose – why it was created
- Audience – who it was made for
- Content - what it says
However, when we look further back in time, there are far fewer sources. Writing was less common, and record-keeping was limited. Because of this, historians often only have evidence about major events such as wars, rulers, or famines.
This means historians can sometimes only build a partial picture of the past.
Usually, this is not a big problem, because the missing details are often everyday, unimportant events. However, the idea of the Dictator’s Butterfly challenges this. It suggests that small, seemingly unimportant events can actually have huge consequences.
The problem is that we often lack detailed records of everyday life, especially before literacy became widespread. This makes it difficult to identify these important small events.
As Unpredictable as a Storm?
Historians are not only interested in what happened, but also why it happened. For example, why do new types of societies appear at certain times?
To answer these big questions, historians often use broad explanations called factors.
Over long periods of time, geographical and environmental factors (such as access to resources or exposure to disease) are often used to explain change.
Critical Concept: Ecological Factors
These are features of the natural world that influence human history, such as:
- Climate
- Natural resources
- Disease
- Landscape
Over shorter periods, historians may focus on other factors such as:
- Nationalism
- Militarism
- The actions of individuals (often called “great men”)
These factors are useful because they describe patterns that appear again and again in history. For example, economic collapse often leads to unrest.
There is a common saying: “History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”
This means that while events are not exactly the same, similar patterns can appear.
Because of this, studying history helps us learn lessons. For example, if economic crises often lead to authoritarian governments, we may try to avoid such crises in the future.
The Problem of Chance Events
The Dictator’s Butterfly presents a challenge to this way of thinking.
Unlike broad factors, small chance events are:
- Unique (one-off)
- Unpredictable
- Not part of a clear pattern
Even if a similar small event happened again, it would likely lead to completely different outcomes.
For example, we do not worry that something random in our lives—like changing a name—will lead to major historical consequences.
Because of this, some historians argue that recognising the importance of random events weakens our understanding of history.
It suggests that:
- We may be missing key causes of events
- Even if we knew these causes, they would not help us predict the future
This is because random events are part of a complex system where outcomes are always changing.
Next Steps
In the next post, we will challenge the degree to which chance events undermine historical knowledge.
We will argue that these “sliding doors” moments are not as important as they seem and do not seriously threaten our ability to explain the past.