Read the two passages below regarding historical methodology.
Passage A
In contemporary historiography, the "Great Man" theory—which attributes historical causality primarily to the exceptional character of prominent leaders—has rightly been marginalized in favor of systemic analyses of economic and social forces. However, historians must be wary of overcorrecting. While broad economic conditions undoubtedly create the dry tinder of historical change, specific individuals often act as the spark. To completely write out individual idiosyncrasies and personal agency from historical narratives is to produce an overly deterministic account of the past. A leader's unique temperament can accelerate, delay, or subtly alter the trajectory of a social movement, even if the ultimate outcome was structurally inevitable.
Passage B
The methodological shift toward structuralist history provides a vastly superior framework for understanding historical change than the romanticized biographical focus of the past. By examining demographic trends and modes of production, we can identify the genuine engines of history. Some critics argue that this macro-level approach inappropriately diminishes human agency, pointing to "catalytic" historical figures. Yet this objection fundamentally misunderstands causality. So-called catalytic leaders are themselves entirely products of their socioeconomic environments. Their specific actions are merely the inevitable expression of underlying structural pressures; if one leader had not emerged to fulfill a structural mandate, another would have emerged to achieve the exact same historical outcome. Thus, assigning independent causal weight to a leader's unique temperament is an analytical illusion that distracts from actual historical causation.
Is the following statement true or false based on the texts provided?
The authors of Passage A and Passage B disagree over whether a historical leader's unique temperament can alter the trajectory of a structurally inevitable movement.
Answer: Answer