Heroism

This one was mine; for some reason it came to mind and got put on the list, and for some other reason people thought it would be a good topic.

What doubt could there be about what a hero or heroism is?  We all know a hero when we see one, don't we?  Well, not so much.  We can agree that a hero does something valiant, probably risky, a good deed that benefits others more or rather than the hero him/herself.  But what acts in particular are heroic?  Rescuing a drowning person may be considered such an act, but probably not if the lifeguard performs it.  That is a lifeguard's job, after all.  There are acts that are heroic to some and villainous to others; people who fought for more rights than they were given compared to others are just one example.  They are heroes to the people who benefit from their efforts and those who simply feel strong allegiance to ideals of equality among persons, but to people who supported the old status quo, for whatever reason, they are simply bad or deluded.  A hero is often held up as an example of good behavior.  Heroes of history and myth have qualities that we teach children to admire and emulate as much as possible, and in the case of real historical figures we often bury or ignore their faults.  Some say that superheroes found in comic books and movies are the new "mythological" heroes, with their amazing adventures and powers.  They represent another part of heroism and the development of ideal heroes, which is the abilities they have that are out of reach for the majority of people.  Many superheroes are mutants (X-Men) or aliens (Superman) with special powers, and the ones that are not are super rich (Batman).  All of them have access to things we do not, be it innate ability or wealth to develop or obtain technology to mimic ability.  We seem to need our heroes, though, finding them if not in our streets then in our minds.

Our Doctor praised the preliminary writings of the Leader and the Philosopher, remarking on the necessary bravery and the unplanned nature of heroism.  He also reminded us that words exist because they are necessary, we need to have a specific term to describe concepts and things if they are important to us.  He also spoke of unsung heroes.  Many soldiers are part of a heroic group, but the individuals are not considered heroes by themselves; spouses or family members may care for a loved one for years without recognition for their sacrifices.  A hero needs to resolve a difficult situation, not just experience it.  Later one, he mused that we all resolve difficult situations, and in fact it is in human nature to consistently go above and beyond, so we might all be considered heroes.  At the same time, we make heroes of others who happen to solve our problems.  The Doctor then talked about the propaganda that goes with heroism and villainy, saying that we get told to worship the heroes who help the authority and shown how badly it goes for the villains who go against it.  The warning is not to be a hero if that means fighting the status quo; however, sometimes the status quo is the wrong side of history and will be ground down by people who will become heroes.  As a doctor, he let us know that psychiatrists in hospitals are often among those unsung heroes, treating suicidal patients who are suffering an illness, the treatment of which will return their will to live.  Until the treatment is found and takes effect, the doctors know they have to deal with people who will do what most find unthinkable.  It is a constant strain, but they manage to resolve difficult and human problems.

The True Philosopher gave us some thoughts on the real life people who get called heroes, devoting time to the figure of the "national hero", somebody who may give up life for the country or people and/or exemplify the ideals of the nation.  In his contribution, he contrasted personal and collective heroes, saying that the latter or tools for training people to serve the group over the self, with the pros and cons of that behavior.  Personal heroes, on the other hand, include what he referred to as "existential heroes", those people who might commit an act of bravery and self-sacrifice without planning to do so, ever.  This existential heroism is completely unplanned and unpredictable.  It is often connected with justice, as when people stand up for a victim of oppression or bullying on the spur of the moment.  He also gave us examples of military heroes, soldiers of the Second World War, who were not only skipped over as individual heroes (all glory went to the officers), but later on relabeled as war criminals when the family they had "persecuted" during the war came back into a position of power.  In the end, he stuck with his view that true heroism is a fleeting thing, visible only in the moment of its happening, unexpected and unrepeatable.

The Animal Warrior had brought up the idea of universal heroism, saying that surviving makes every person a hero.  However, she also mentioned war journalists, who travel into dangerous areas with the purpose of gathering information, and sharing the "truth" of the events with the world.  Some of them die, accidentally, some of them return with mental and physical scars.  Some are intentionally killed.  Recent events in Syria reflect this last occurrence.

The Leader agreed that heroism has an unpredictability, an unscientific factor to it, but he also insisted that heroes have little to do with justice or ethics.  He also said there is a need to distinguish between acts and behavior, since somebody who is generally brave or competent is more likely to continue to be so in more stressful situations, or at least will face more expectation to be so, whereas a person who tries to blend into the background will stand out much more upon performing an act of bravery.  He later pointed to saints and national heroes, saying they are held up as examples of ethical behavior, but upon close examination there is little to recommend them ethically.  The most exaggerated or sanitized versions of their acts are publicized.  He also talked about the need for heroes, chalking it up to those in power seeing use in them for controlling the rest.  He wondered why problematic countries need so many heroes; if they are supposed to be examples of good behavior, why is there so much unrest where they are celebrated?

A Recent Arrival was sure that propaganda was the main driving force behind the existence of heroes.  They are useful to those in power, therefore they are paraded around to be good examples for the citizenry.  He felt that a look at the people who were accepted as heroes - national heroes, folk heroes, heroes of the day - showed the accuracy of his words.  They are meant to represent the valued characteristics of the people, not to be examples to follow in real life.  For this reason, they are exaggerated or inhumanly good.

Wrapping up the meeting, we heard the story of one Participant's uncle, who died several months after heroically shutting down machines in a power plant during a fire, saving the surrounding area from fire or explosion.  He was not considered a hero because he was only doing his job, it was his duty to shut the machines down in case of emergency.  Not only that, but the company refused to give his widow and children a pension because he had not died on the actual job, but months later in the hospital.  That's no way to be a hero.