I have them. You probably have them. Most everyone has a hero or three, someone to look up to, someone to admire and emulate. There are downsides to heroes, no matter how fine they may be, and this article aims to bring those problems to your attention.
The Appeal of Heroes
Heroes fill a few needs in human minds
and cultures. Heroes are often associated with cultural origin myths
and serve to explain & justify the existence and structure of a
people. A hero may be a literal or mythical ancestor of an entire
people, or one of the group who's exploits are recognized as defining
something important about the group. These heroes' legends
encapsulate and provide language for group identity. George
Washington filled such a role for the American peoples.
Heroes also provide a way for people to
enjoy a shared glory without participatory effort or risk, simply by
being part of the same conceptual group. In this way normal people
may enjoy a sense of pride or victory without paying the price.
Hercules filled this role for some of the ancient Greeks, General
Patton did so for many Americans.
And on the personal level heroes
provide an aspiration, an antitype worth emulating, if on a smaller
level. Arnold Schwarzenegger fills this role for many bodybuilders.
We cannot be indifferent to our heroes;
our heroes are inside of us or they wouldn't be heroes at all. This
is their power and with it comes risks.
Dangers of Heroes
Our investment in our heroes presents a
risk at both the individual and social levels. It is on some level
inevitable that we would associate our heroes with ourselves. The
desire to think well of ourselves -- well-founded or not -- leads us
to think well of our heroes not in proportion to their traits or
actions. This in turn tempts us to dismiss or overlook what should
be examined, which can lead to mental and moral dullness.
This can lead us to simplify or falsify
heroes to avoid uncomfortable truths about them or our relationship
to them. One brilliant part of a hero's life is (presented as?)
compelling enough that the dirt, complexities, and “outdated”
aspects are brushed aside, by ourselves in the case of a personal
hero or by the social systems in the case of a public one.
Alternatively our mental identification
with our heroes can lead us to exercise subdued judgment before
adopting the ideas or attitudes associated with them. The
subconscious assimilation of in-group beliefs is an important
mechanism for getting “up to speed” with life but the effluvia
flows as easily as the good.
The singular hero often dwells in the
public imagination at the expense of many lesser contributors. The
one face is always easier to remember than the many, which is why the
US president is looked on as a sort of emperor while the
Congress...what do they do, anyway?
These behaviors towards heroes are
common to men and easily exploited. How often are men of poor
character elevated by state or media to a sort of sainthood to
legitimize another trait or act? How often are such men endorsed by
such systems, then brought back down to the disappointment and
demoralization of their followers?
Heroes We Have Known
George Washington is an example of a
national hero. He is (or was) the figurative father of the people and
literally a cultural origin character. Most of us know a little of
him and know that some stories are falsehoods. What lessons can we
acquire from Washington, the hero?
Washington is presented as the pivotal
military figure in the American Revolution. It is true that he made
critical contributions. It is also true that he was a member of what
passed for the Colonial cultural elite, which included members of the
press with an interest in shaping the narrative around the existing
hierarchy at the expense of the many commoners of the militia
fighting their spontaneous conflicts without consulting or involving
their betters.
Washington's presence (along with the
aging Ben Franklin) helped to legitimize what became the US
Constitution when the delegates had only been assigned to update the
existing Articles of Confederation between the thirteen free states.
Would the Constitution have been dismissed as the work of disobedient
stinkers without the presence of reverend heroes? Quite possibly.
Later, during his presidency,
Washington led forces against the members of the Whiskey Rebellion,
common folk revolting against a bad tax policy engineered for the
benefit of financial insiders. How often do you hear about that?
Lastly, Washington's ownership of
slaves runs counter to modern values. The man once raised above us
all is plunged down in our opinion below what he would have been if
we hadn't elevated him in the first place.
Abraham Lincoln has a similar history.
Exalted as the freer of slaves, his Emancipation Proclamation applied
only to those states that no longer considered themselves part of the
Union. Considering that not all slave states seceded this is not a
trivial distinction.
However bad their motives, the southern
states only wanted the same political autonomy that the original
thirteen colonies had demanded from their mother empire. The
separation was declared a rebellion (master framing by the victors)
and crushed.
Assassinated before he could really
screw his career up (a clever move emulated by JFK), Lincoln is
remembered today as a racially-progressive preserver of freedom. He
was neither of these things, and his legend serves to deflect
inspection of the complex and putrid facts of his time, his actions,
and their consequences.
Martin Luther King Junior is another
icon that demonstrates the power of the managed hero. A courageous
risk-taker, he was also a womanizer. The complexities of his life,
good and bad, have been flattened into a beatific cartoon to be waved
in whichever direction the puppeteers want the crowds to smile.
Disliking the man is socially incomprehensible because he is no
longer a man but a simple story forced onto a character of convenience.
In our own era there are dissenters who
may well be set up, either as pressure-relief valves or as pied
pipers. Jordan Peterson comes to mind. When his (artificial?) star
is quenched how many people will be disappointed or jaded?
Conclusion
It would be easy to say that we should
dispense with heroes and focus entirely on principles. After all,
why would we admire a hero other than his embodiment of a principle,
and if so, why not cut out the middle-man and direct our attention to
the principle itself?
We don't do that. A few of us can, and
do, but humans by and large are wired to love heroes. We can rail
against it to no lasting effect or we can accept it and work with it
as best we can.
We need heroes. They are part of our
social nature. They fact that they can be subverted does not mean
they are fundamentally bad or unimportant.
Since we must have heroes, let them be
good ones. The personal hero is close to us; his faults may be
understood and his story less likely subverted by the great powers.
The less-popular heroes of the past also merit inspection; being
safely dead they are less likely to disappoint, and being separate
from the popular currents they are less likely to be inappropriately
sanitized for foul use.
As with the rest of life, choices
matter.
Comments
Post a Comment