Heroes

About this Entry
Posted by: dannwigner Original: 4/11/2007 3:23 PM Views: 73 Comments: 13 eProps: 10 Read Comments Post a Comment Back to Your Xanga Site

Tags
Achilles Alcibiades aristocrats bargain books blogosphere Cato class struggle confidence El Cid Francis Drake Garibaldi Hastings hero ideal individualism inspiring laziness leisure Lucy HughesHallett Marxism Marxist mediocrity Nietzsche Odysseus peace postmodern postmodernism postmodernist superman television trick video game Wallenstein West Western

Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps from: A_5ec0nd_Chance massivetruth jesusfareak7 The_Boze Kirisuchan33

Read or Post Comments

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Currently Reading
Heroes: A History of Hero Worship
By Lucy Hughes-Hallett
see related

I have a very interesting tale to relate, but first let me tell you of how this observation coalesced.

I'm in Hastings browsing through the bargain books (because I'm way too cheap to pay full price for a book), and I noticed that they were having a buy 2, get 1 free sale. Naturally, I couldn't resist the urge to pick up a few books. One of them was a book that was simply entitled "Heroes" (no matter what Amazon says -- it doesn't have a subtitle). I thumbed through it and noticed chapters on Achilles, Odysseus, Alcibiades, Cato, El Cid, Francis Drake, Wallenstein, and Garibaldi. Some I knew and liked, some I knew and didn't like, some I had not read about -- but for free, how could I say no? So, to make a long story short (too late), I bought the book.

Then I started reading it -- and I absolutely hate it -- but it is intensely interesting at the same time. Let me tell you why. The person writing the book is a thorough-going Postmodernist (whether this is a philosophical choice or simply cultural influence I cannot yet tell -- since I'm still reading the book). The concept of heroism is absolutely antithetical to a postmodern mindset. There are many reasons, but I'll just tell you two of them. First, heroism is based on the individual -- not the community. Postmodernists place so much stress on the community, that to speak of the individual as having worth apart from and outside of the community is tantamount to heresy. Second, the only kind of heroes which postmodernists (and I realize here that I should define my terms a bit more, I'm speaking of philosophical postmodernism rather than popular postmodernism -- the popular culture has not as of yet become fully postmodern, if it ever will) like are anti-heroes. Anti-heroes may be the protagonist in a conflict or story, but, by no means, are they anything beyond the average raw human. Postmodernists like to appeal to realism at this juncture; although, I think that it is more akin to cynicism. In short, a hero inspires -- an anti-hero justifies. Postmodernists don't like people who remind them that there is more to aspire to beyond the television set, video game system, or blogosphere (oops!).

I'd like to quote a few portions to illustrate further points where a postmodern mindset fails utterly to comprehend the concept of the hero. I'm citing these portions in the order that they appear (except for my last point) in the prologue of the book.

Quote: 1

"But only a fortunate land is confident enough to dispense with heroes. At the time of writing it is fashionable to lament the littleness of those accorded celebrity within our culture - so many footballers [soccer players] and rock stars and models, so few great spirits - but such collective frivolity should be cherished as one of the privileges of peace. It is desperation that prompts people to crave a champion, a protector, or a redeemer and, having identified one, to offer him their worship." -- p.2

Comment: 1

So, in the purview of Postmodernism -- heroes are detrimental, because they can only arise in rough times. To an extent, this is true. Heroes often arise when there is a need, but does that mean that we should cherish a time of triviality -- a time of laziness and leisure. Peace does not always equal leisure -- and heroes do not necessarily need a war to be inspiring.

Quote: 2

"Nietzsche's superman is 'like a star thrown forth into empty space and into the icy breath of solitude.' He has no community within which to hide, no religion, legal system, or moral code as guide, no group or institution to share the responsibility for his choices." -- p.6

Comment: 2

She's a bit more sneaky here. She paints the rugged individualism of the hero -- which is a notable characteristic, but look at the framework she sets him in. Nowhere to "hide," nothing to "guide," no one to share the burden of "responsibility." She looks at individualism very negatively; whereas, these same characteristics mentioned within the quote are often taken as the opposite -- they are positives which equate to freedom. Additionally, she directly correlates the hero with Nietzsche's superman (a concept which he innovates in the late 19th century) -- a "heroic" concept that Postmodernists like. Nietzsche's superman is an amoral being who has evolved beyond the concepts of moral responsibility -- not very compatible with the traditional heroic concept. In contrast to Nietzsche, heroes are often champions of specific moralities and cultures.

Quote: 3

"The notion of the hero - that some men are born special - is radically inegalitarian, and the majority of heroes throughout history have been, or pretended to be, or aspired to become, aristocrats." -- p. 9

Comment: 3

Well, first of all, the concept of the hero is not always something that deals with birth. There are the Achilles' of the heroic tradition who have goddesses for mothers, but most heroes in literature (and in the real world) rise up to the status of hero, regardless of social status. This statement seems to be deliberately Marxist -- focusing on class struggle as part of the concept of heroism. The only wrinkle here is that the concept of heroism in the West was well-established millennia before the idea of class struggle was created (although admittedly to address a seeming social process throughout history). Regardless, one cannot claim that the hero is absolutely individualistic and then turn around and associate the hero with the community through the process of class struggle -- you can't attack this one from both sides.

Quote: 4

"Heroic status depends on the hero's self-confidence and often also on the confidence trick he (or his sponsors and advocates) pulls on others in persuading them of his superhuman potency." -- p. 10-11

Comment: 4

So, now, heroism (and the heroic ideal which makes postmodernists uncomfortable) is nothing more than a trick?!? In this view, their reputations must be changed to be more grandiose -- because no actual, normal human could do those things -- again, nothing to aspire to, nothing beyond the average. Can't you feel the cult of mediocrity creeping in....

In conclusion, (I saved the best for last) she apologizes that all her subjects are from the West (p. 7). What?!? The concept of a hero is entirely a Western concept -- other cultures do not have it. We translate the similar concepts that they have into the heroic concept which is indigenous to the West. Why apologize for not including those who actually wouldn't fit anyway?

So, if anyone has made it to the end, congratulations! I would like to know what everyone else thinks of the concept of the hero -- and what I've said about the tenets of Postmodernism (I especially would like to hear from the Postmodernists in the audience). What do you think?

Posted 4/11/2007 3:23 PM - 73 Views - 10 eProps - 13 comments

recommend
recs0
share
email
sent0

Give eProps or Post a Comment

13 Comments

Ok so I didn't actually read all the way through... I will eventually but I don't have time right now, I don't really even have time to be commenting.

But I think you're a hero Dann. This mild-mannered ILL librarian facade is just a ploy to keep us all from guessing your true identity --- THEOLOGYMAN!

Posted 4/11/2007 3:57 PM by A_5ec0nd_Chance - reply

LOL

Posted 4/11/2007 4:10 PM by dannwigner - reply

First, I would argue that the East does have heroes. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. That's two of them! Need I say more?

On a more serious note, I have a difficult time separating my post-modern faith from my post-modern culture. As a Christian, the concept of becoming a hero is frowned upon, UNLESS one does so in humility and is empowered by God. To promote one's own glory is anti-Christian to say the least.

It really is a jungle of thoughts I am going to have to weed through. I love comic book heroes, especially those I can relate too. It is a mild form of escapism that let's my creative side dream a little. But the heroes I tend to like, work with others for the greater good. I don't like Batman and the Hulk as much as I like Spider-man and the Green Lantern. If that makes sense.

Posted 4/11/2007 5:28 PM by massivetruth - reply

massivetruth:

First, I'm not saying that the East doesn't have individuals that we would interpret as heroes -- I'm just saying that the concept of a hero is Western -- WE look at them that way. Someone from the East might look at them entirely differently. Although, perhaps, I'm being too nit-picky on this point (it's a minor one anyway).

Second, I see what you are saying about the hero seeking his/her own glory. Personally, I don't think all heroes fit that particular characteristic (although the author of the book I'm reading would say it is absolutely vital -- in a very negative way).

Personally, I see the greatest worth of the hero is to inspire. I like comic book heroes too, but they just don't have the power to inspire like real ones. I mean, c'mon, Spider-man is cool and all, but is he really anything compared to St. Francis?

: )

Posted 4/12/2007 11:37 AM by dannwigner - reply

Dann, you are my hero!

Posted 4/12/2007 3:36 PM by jesusfareak7 - reply

I'm glad you brought up St. Francis. I figure postmodernism and the emerging church work kind of like a venn diagram for a lot of things, and this might be one of them. On the one hand, the notion of a hero is definitely something that grates hard against my desire for everyone to be on a level playing field. I don't like to think that anybody could be born with anything that makes him better than anybody else, but at the same time I think this hero worship deal (and that might be more strong of a term than I'd be comfortable with, but maybe hero appreciation . . . ) can build community more than tear it down, though it probably comes at a great cost to the heroes.

There are a couple of trends in the emergent church that line up perfectly with the hero appreciation ideology. First, the modern mindset kind of held that pre-enlightenment people were stupid and had very little to offer us. I think postmodern-ish Christians are moving to tear down that view by digging for gold from the early church as well as the medieval period. I'm sure that you know more than me about trends celebrating the spirituality of the mystics. I'm in the middle of a book right now called The Lure of Saints: A Protestant Experience of Catholic Tradition, and I'm finding it to be an incredibly valuable tool in my own spiritual life. Kevin's comment was spot on when he talked about becoming heroic being frowned upon for Christians unless it is a humble, for the glory of God type of heroicism (is that a word?). I think more and more people who could be classified as postmodern Christians are going to be revering the saints and practicing the spirituality of John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Bernard of Clairvaux, Julian of Norwich . . .

Second, the emergent church movement itself tends to be fueled by dynamic, charismatic leaders, but their hero status builds community for their followers. I was having a conversation not to long ago with some guys who go to school here at A&M, and they asked me, "Who do you read?" I wasn't sure how to respond, so I just listed some of the books I'd been reading. They didn't recognize Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren or Tony Campolo (if they did, they would have had my immediate respect and thereby validated my point even more), but when I said I had been enjoying reading Rob Bell, Shane Claiborne, and Don Miller they connected and decided that my opinions were worth their consideration. That's what I meant when I said that rallying around heroes can build the community that postmoderns value. I think this dude's great + you think that this dude's great = we can be friends.

Individualism is bad, but I still think you'll always see heroes raised up for the good of a community. On a slightly different note, I think that the rejection of individualism might be why the new NBC series Heroes resonates with all of us so well. Dann, you may be happy with some alien Superman coming in and doing all of the work all alone, but I want to see a superhero who might screw up and needs to use his or her unique gifts in conjunction with others to try to save the day.

I don't know, but the book sounds interesting.

Posted 4/12/2007 3:57 PM by The_Boze - reply

The_Boze:

Adam, I am also excited by the possibility of rediscovery of pre-modern saints and mystics in the Christian tradition. That possibility of rediscovery in connection with the emergent church is what is fueling my doctoral studies (well, proposals at this point).

I like what you have to say about how a hero can help and build a community. Although, I happen to like individualism (I've always been more of a modernist anyway) -- I really want to see how the community and the individual can work together -- without one overshadowing the other.

Posted 4/12/2007 5:16 PM by dannwigner - reply

Quote #2:
This is why I like Crime & Punishment so: the protagonist tries to make the leap into Nietzschean 'superman' status by murdering a despicable loan-shark, estimating that it was for the good of society. His conscience torments him to the point of turning himself in to the authorities. He thus fails to achieve amorality, which according to Nietzsche would have enabled him to independently decide to do what is best for society. Boondock Saints, anyone?

I think this woman was absolutely wrong in looking at ancient heroes with a postmodern bias. That's just plain anachronistic. Is there some system in literary interpretation by which people are held accountable for crappy mishandlings of literature like this? You couldn't get away with such irresponsibility in the biblical studies field -- not for long, at least.

You wanted feedback from the postmodernist (or at least more postmodernist than you) readers, so:

I think you're right about the realist, anti-hero trend thing; I am an ultra-realist in my view of drama and certain areas of art, including theories about worship styles. I find no problem with realism in our literature (which are mostly screenplay scripts and no longer novels), and personally am at home with only normal people in my movies and stories.

I like most war films of the last two decades. You notice that recent war films are apolitical and amoral in nature? They simply show that people on both (or all) sides struggle and die. I almost (almost!) even like some gritty crime films like The Departed, because of their ultra-realist approach to storytelling. So obviously you can see postmodernism has a powerful voice in the arts, which makes sense from that it started from the artists who then influenced the thinkers. Although I don't think realism is nearly synonymous with postmodernism, and doesn't overlap to the whole of the other, I can see why you relate the two:

you know (as it irritates you a bit) that Batman is my favorite superhero, because, well, he's just an angry ex-ninja. No ways to cheat -- no, I meant superpowers, just a guy whose heroic acts often are as justified as the criminals he fights. So, I think what often separates the postmodern hero from the common crowd is his or her mystery -- they are usually really -cool- people, with lots of flair and "a taste for the dramatics," like Batman and V from (that terrible postmodernist, anti-Bush propagandist movie) V is for Vendetta.

Oh, I'm about to derail my train of thought on V for Vendetta. Oh my GOSH -- that movie -- grr.

Ok. I could roll my eyes at the Bush-hating in that movie. It was the fact that the directors included a detour from the plot, in which a young woman discovers she is a lesbian in grade school.

She falls in love with a girl in high school, and tells her parents while holding the hand of her lover. The father, by his traditional morals, becomes furious and kicks her permanently out of the house. The two young women move out to the country and live happily ever after -- that is, until a Hitleresque dictator comes into power. The military take the two young women, and the first youth bravely faces her death, wasting away in a prison. She dies a brave martyr for lesbianism.

This irks me -- yes, it alludes to Hitler's genocides, which included the homosexuals, but in order to make a postmodern stab at the Bush administration for its intolerance of plural sexualities in American society.

I've spent enough time writing. I should do homework. I wish we could ceaselessly talk about things that really matter, like superheroes, but school, rather irritatingly, hinders our progress.

Your brother in Christ,
BB.

Posted 4/13/2007 12:10 AM by Kirisuchan33 - reply

Kirisuchan33:

I also think Hughes-Hallett is looking at things terribly anachronistically; however, I hate to burst your bubble but that kind of thing happens all the time in biblical studies. Have you ever heard of reader-oriented criticism? It basically states that whatever the reader determines about the text (out of his/her own experience) is a valid interpretation of the original meaning (not an allegorical or devotional one). One of its most prominent proponents is Walter Brueggemann. His stuff reads good -- but it is closer to poetry inspired by Scripture rather than serious exegesis (or even eisegesis), in my opinion.

I like the term "ultra-realism," but I'll still keep calling it pessimism

: P

If you want a good war movie that has come out in the last few years, watch "To End All Wars." In my opinion, it is the very best movie at showing Christianity without every expressly (and in movies, usually distortingly) talking about Christ.

I've also watched V for Vendetta -- there are a lot of things that irk me about the movie (most notably, the unrestrained "good" that is anarchy). Kenneth and I had a very long discussion after seeing the movie. He views V for Vendetta as full-blown nihilism. Personally, I think it is a more entrenched nihilism through anarchism -- which still carries a naive optimism that if we destroy our current government -- then something better will arise in its place. I don't think that it was specifically against Bush (not that such a stance would necessarily bother me, 'wink'), and, especially, the graphic novel is not about that situation -- it was written in the 80s concerning the British government (the U.S. was hardly more than an afterthought).

Posted 4/13/2007 9:19 AM by dannwigner - reply

Oh, I know there's irresponsibility in the biblical studies field!

I thought perhaps, though, with the scholarly community there would at least be rebuttals by more sensible people, who read the journals and books and would find crap like that.

I wish someone would write a book on how to come to conclusions in a responsible manner, if the rules of scholarly conclusion extend beyond the logic textbooks.

If there's not a method of doing so, and there aren't people out there doing police work in the field, I'll gladly write more "Contra" rants once I actually start knowing what -I'm- talking about.

Which, if I can find you today, will be what we'll perhaps talk about. I'm seeing that the presence of God is with me whether I've correct knowledge about Him on one point or the other. Christ is my rock in this postmodern ocean -- not my ability to swim and navigate to land. Faith in God himself is all the more important when you don't trust the sea of theological literature itself. (The fact I call it a sea instead of a structure of some sort, I'm sure, is a sign I am postmodernist and not modernist.) More on that later, in person or in blog.

As for V, from what I hear the Wachowski brothers actually intended it to speak against Bush. If that's true, what you see is that it completely did not communicate that effectively, or at least that's what I concluded. You don't say it's an anti-Bush rant, then keep everyone British, and include nothing that could more than remotely be perceived as a direct comment about the White House. You are right in your observation about the graphic novel -- in fact, I hear the author of the graphic novel was very upset at the Wachowski brothers for taking his anarchist work and allegedly degrading it into a commentary on the Bush administration. I haven't actually read that, though -- just hearsay.

Anyway. And ultra-realism is not necessarily pessimism, if you realize that Jesus was and is completely real and entirely beyond what the optimistically-designed superheroes are. Ultra-realism is a desire to accurately testify about reality and what goes on in it. This unfortunately can include crime films (like the Departed) if they are not romanticizing crime (like The Godfather, though I'm sure The Departed is also somewhat romanticized), because that stuff really happens. It also includes films that realistically show the lives of humble people living for Christ, because that also actually happens in reality.

BB

Posted 4/13/2007 11:48 AM by Kirisuchan33 - reply

Brandon,

I agree that Christ is the rock in our often tumultous ocean -- though what do you mean exactly by "correct knowledge," if I may ask? Personally, I think that "correct knowledge" can often be a misnomer. After all, many seem to think that they know exactly what God wants -- while diametrically opposing themselves to others who are just as sure. I take solace in the fact that Christ is the rock -- He is truth; our interpretations may be flawed -- but He is not -- and He desires that we should come to Him -- and learn from Him.

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about the pessimism comment. The reason for that is most people I know that see the worst in life (those who I would call pessimists) often refer to themselves as realists. I think it can be inconsistent.

I consider myself a realist, but I can be optimistic about things too. When you have movies where everyone simply ends up dead (and for no reason), that isn't "realism" -- I think it really only qualifies as morbidity. I wasn't aware about what the Wachowski brothers intended -- is there anywhere that I can read about their intentions (i.e. an interview, or something like that)? I know Alan Moore's intentions, and they are often very dark indeed.

Would you have liked the movie better if it was more direct in its anti-Bush stance?

Posted 4/13/2007 12:31 PM by dannwigner - reply

I am sorry, but Spider-Man makes a better wall-crawler than St. Francis any day.

Posted 4/13/2007 1:57 PM by massivetruth - reply

Ah, I think I am very different from most, because of what came to my mind, to explain "correct knowledge" --

Yeah, often for some reason I know someone's joking and answer seriously. I always say pessimism is equally unrealistic to optimism. Pessimism is an automatic tendency to assume the negative, and optimism tends to assume the positive. Realism sees things for what they are.

"Correct knowledge" I define relatively. A conclusion about something can be a mixture of correctly and incorrectly viewed or connected facts. People can be closer to the correct conclusion about something than the other, but only God, who correctly sees all the points that make existence, can have absolutely correct knowledge. When I said "correct knowledge" I was thinking "whether I am far off on X amount of things."

Are you referring to a specific example in your reference to 'realistic' movies? If you reference 'The Departed', I'd say that's a matter of opinion on whether there's a strong enough reason for everyone to have died in that movie. And if you have sufficient reason to say that, not every movie is going to be perfectly realistic, of course.

BB

Posted 4/13/2007 5:47 PM by Kirisuchan33 - reply

Choose Identity

Xanga Network

Anonymous (Sign up for free!)