“A hero is simply someone who rises above his or her own human weaknesses, for an hour, a day, a year, to do something stirring.” – Betty Deramus
In times gone by, heroes were mythical. Thousands of years ago, they were actually mythical. Hundreds of years ago, they just seemed that way. The average person never expected to meet a hero. No-one really expected to be able to shake the hand of Cassandra of Troy or Robert the Bruce. They certainly didn’t think they deserved to know what either of them had for breakfast.
Fast forward to the modern world where breakfast details are fair game. The shrinking of the world through the advances in communications and computers has changed things for heroes. Not only are the positive stories of world-changers talked about, so are their mundane and negative activities. Our brave new world has made it virtually impossible to pretend to be anything but yourself.
So now each of us is confronted with the humanity of our heroes. They’re all real people. Would your hero still have the title if you found out that they smoke? What about if they make money from their heroism? What if they are racist?
Let’s look at three of the most famous heroes of the last hundred years.
- Martin Luther King, Jr. Had numerous mistresses and drank a lot. Plagiarized in some of his doctorate papers. (source)
- Mother Teresa. Was hypocritical on divorce. Fought against women’s rights. Hid millions of dollars in donations. Was a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud. (source)
- Mohandas Gandhi. Was a sexual weirdo, a political incompetent and a fanatical faddist. Was often cruel to those around him and racist. (source)
What are we supposed to do with this sort of information? That’s tough reading for someone who promotes heroism, let alone someone who lists these people as personal heroes.
Human frailty has to be accepted as we look for heroes. It’s a fact of life. So, how do we balance it? Is there a golden ratio of good versus bad that we can apply to each of our hero candidates? It would be nice to have a hero scale so we can simply add up each of the good things (weighted, of course) and subtract the bad. A net positive results in heroism. Yay. Or maybe it’s a ratio – 1.618 good things for every bad. Beat the ratio and you have a hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Every hero status is subjective according to the viewer. The negatives and positives are weighed up in the individual observer’s mind. I consider MLK and Gandhi heroic because they risked a lot to improve the world for others. I consider Mother Teresa a sham because she sold a lie to both her donors and patients.
This individual nature of defining heroes is why I will accept virtually anyone into the Gallery of Heroes. If the submitter puts together a reasoned and justified case, they’re in. There are numerous entries that I disagree with, but I can see why someone else would think that person heroic.
So, in the modern world, where you can find out what your hero is having for breakfast, remember that as long as you can explain why a person is heroic to you, they get to have the title.
P.S. – I know you’ll be wondering what I had for breakfast now – orange juice, two hot cross buns, and vicoprofen.
Quest Work: (what is this?) Choose one of your heroes and tell us what some of their negative traits or behaviours are. Then explain why those things don’t matter. In the comments, of course.
I don’t have a specific hero in mind (right now), but I think my response varies with a number of variables. On one hand, I don’t think it’s appropriate to compartmentalize heroes, and disconnect heroic achievements from personal transgressions. Heroes should demonstrate a consistent commitment to values such as character, honor, integrity, etc. On the other, personal failings also make heroes more real and tangible, and therefore more accessible as instructional examples.
Chad, I totally agree on heroes needing consistency. I also agree that personal failings can make heroes more accessible. However, there are definitely attributes and actions that can negate any heroism for me. I can’t tolerate a lack of integrity in a hero, for example.
I like Chad’s response. It is foolish on our part to create “superheroes” out of human heroes, we need to take the good with the bad and remember our humanity. How else can we learn from them if they never make the mistakes we do?
What makes a hero for me is someone who intentionally and consistently seeks to make a positive change despite their shortcomings. An excellent hero would be someone who makes efforts to correct the wrongs they have made as they continue towards their life’s goal..
In short, it really depends on where their heart is. If their heart and actions seek justice and good, then their shortfalls are really just “shortfalls” and not their “life’s goal.”
Jensen, exactly right on the consistency, like Chad.
I like your focus on heart too. If the hero is making an effort to do good on a regular basis and slips (knowing the slip is wrong), we can understand because we do the same.
I think that now, more than ever, we WANT our heroes to have a humanizing flaw of some kind. We want to know that we can aspire to hero-dom ourselves.
So many of us see heroes as someone up on a pedestal and then when “the truth” comes out, they are dashed to the rocks, along with our hopes and dreams.
Now, when we see a “regular Joe” that rises above, we cheer for them, want them to be more heroic, and often say “If HE can do it, so can I.”
I can’t pretend to know if this is something that is new, or if we’re just feeling the same kind of “new hero” uprising that the early pioneers of any hero might have felt (early religious leaders, early political figures). Remember, Jesus wasn’t a Christian. It was up to his followers and believers of his message to raise his esteem posthumously. In fact, I would wonder if most heroes aren’t acknowledged as such by the masses until after their death… probably when the “bad stuff” has had a chance to evaporate from our recent memories?
I think part of heroism means inspiring others. You can do good works, be a good person, or think big ideas, and still lack the ability to inspire folks. If you can’t inspire others, who will be around to tell your heroic tale after you die?
Using heroes as inspiration is key. The more we can relate to them the better. Certainly that inspiration needs to come from some sort of charisma. That’s why I was let down by Greg Mortenson when I saw him speak. My immediate thought was, “Man this guy is a horrible speaker.” I wanted him to inspire me and all I got was a poor retelling of a story I’d already read.
This is really interesting Matt.
I remember when Rough Stone Rolling, a biography of Joseph Smith written by scholar Richard Bushman, came out a few years ago. For many people, including Bushman, Joseph Smith is truly, truly heroic, and yet, because this book explored Smith’s complexity, it was tough slogging for many. Whenever we begin to see our heroes as people, rather than archetypes, we are confronted with their humanity, and in turn our own — with the fact that none of us are either good or bad. We are both good and bad. And when truly grow up, we are able to smile at this in ourselves, and in others.
Thanks for that thought Whitney. Every hero looks at themselves as something less than heroic. We commonly hear, “I only did what anyone else would have done”.
Thanks also for spreading the news on Twitter. You brought my biggest day of traffic ever.
Yes! I am going through the power of myth with my cohort of int’l baccalaureate students. I was wondering if you have any ideas about the heroism of Jake Barnes from
….sorry. South Am internet café woes…at least I can write café and abraço with heroic typographical dexterity.
…from ‘The Sun Also Rises.’ His impotence makes me think of the fisher king. I think there is something highly heroic about the “wounded healer.”
Love to hear your perspective on the Fisher King/wounded hero
What particularly are you looking for? There’s not a lot of focused info on the Fisher King.
Alas, I haven’t read “The Sun Also Rises”.
Perhaps an example of the “wounded hero”? The Fisher King comes to mind. Jake Barnes (TSAR) lost his “member” in the war. The question: how to “fertilize” the wasteland w/out a “potent” leader.
Is there an underlying assumption here that heroism is some sort of character trait, that a hero is something that one is or isn’t or even is to varying degrees?
It strikes me that it is heroic behavior that counts, whether the practice of a lifetime or rising to one single occasion. So, if there is something that MLK or Mother Theresa did that deserves honor, admiration, or emulation, then that thing or those things are what we should attend to in encouraging and fostering heroism.
The Congressional Medal of Honor is a good model. It is given out for particular acts of courage, self-sacrifice, and heroism, not for being an overall good soldier.
It is heroism, not virtue that make a hero, and we should not expect our heroes to be saints or even > 1.6:1 saints:sinners.
Henry, I very much agree that heroism is based on actions and not character traits. Ultimately character traits are only noticed through actions anyway…
My point is that when one person performs an action we consider heroic and follows with something we consider un-heroic, is there a balance? Or is there a ratio? My thought is that the decision ultimately rests with each individual observer.
I take your point. Unheroic deeds should not be ignored. I guess, though, that what I worry about is our habit of judging people. We know, thanks to Zimbardo’s work, that our lives and actions are shaped by context. It is a marvelous thing when we rise above our ordinary expectations. When we fall short, it is usually not due to malevolent intentions, but simply a response to the expectations of our peers.
Absolutely right. Judging people to be a certain type by a single action is troublesome at best. Unless we know our heroes, it’s hard to see the big picture – the series of actions every day that better inform us of a person’s values.
I learned this early on, so I never had a hero. There could be traits of a person that I liked and wanted to pick up the trait myself. But there was never anyone I wanted to be like. Plus, I liked being my own self and didn’t want to be exactly the same as anyone.
Thanks a lot for commenting Mike. You’re one of the lucky ones