what does it mean to be an "american hero"

Source: Pixabay

In one of my college classes, I used to ask the students to write down the names of three people who were their "heroes" and then to reflect on why they had chosen those particular people.

Only some of the respondents were able to come up up with three names for their list. Many included only people from their families, perchance a mother or father or older sibling. Sometimes, they identified a loved one who was dealing forthrightly with a severe mental or physical challenge.

Equally ane might await, the lists had many "public" figures, names the rest of us, or at to the lowest degree the members of their generation, would recognize. Of these, sports stars, actors, and musicians were predominant. Significantly, important politicians, business executives, or military figures rarely appeared.

Instead, people listed leaders of social movements, non-establishment figures like Martin Luther King Jr. or Cesar Chavez. Pointedly, the students considered such people and their ethics to be of continuing pertinence to their generation. Entirely absent from the lists were great figures from the "distant" past, that is, more l years ago.

The students besides noted people, or categories of people, whose names they did not know. There were "those firemen from nine/eleven" or "that captain who landed his plane in the Potomac."

I should acknowledge that both male and female students tended to list the names of male person heroes, not surprising in a culture that gives prominence to that sexual activity. That having been said, many female students did list inspiring women. In contrast, rarely did a male list a adult female who was not a family member. In much the same manner, minority students might list prominent people from their social category, especially those who represented that group well or were fighting for its rights.

Predictably enough, the names of sports and entertainment figures shifted dramatically throughout the years. Michael Jordan gave way to LeBron James. Mia Hamm surrendered to Alex Morgan. Favored musicians and actors seemed even more fluid. What remained consistent, however, was that the students did not admire people younger than themselves. Instead, they preferred their idols to be a few years older, at the height of their powers, and thus providing a model of the fully realized life.

None of this, the reader would say, is especially surprising. Even so, information technology is worth noting that American practices of hero-identification accept changed through the years. At least that is the argument of a great American historian, Daniel Boorstin, in his 1961 book, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America.

As Boorstin saw it, 20th-century Americans viewed heroism differently than citizens of the 18th and 19th centuries did. In earlier times, news of public events traveled slowly. For that reason, heroes typically rose slowly in public consciousness, over months or even years. Once those heroes became widely known, they tended to maintain their high level of regard. People knew of them primarily through printed media or discussion of rima oris. What they looked similar, if this was known at all, was much less important than their deeds.

Most importantly, heroes were understood to be those who had contributed to the public adept, sometimes at the cost of their own lives. For that reason, political and military figures might occupy those high stations. So might scientists, explorers, educators, writers, and religious leaders. In any instance, heroism equated to profound societal contribution, usually marked by difficulty or danger.

How were the 20th-century people dissimilar? By that time, people got their "news" (for this was the term) quickly through media sources like newspapers, magazines, radio, and boob tube. Movies, including movie newsreels, were popular. So were phonographs. All this allowed people much closer contact with the activities of prominent people, not only as a recording of their mean solar day-to-solar day doings just also their physical images and even their voices. Afar figures became familiar. In some cases, people felt they knew their favorite Telly stars amend than they did their neighbors downwardly the street.

Different too was the sense that people became prominent through public support. The more the population attended sports events and movies, read mag or newspaper accounts, or otherwise gave attention to the person in question, the bigger those events and their stars became. Because of that, notable people became attentive to their images, the outward (and strategically crafted) manifestation of who they are.

For their part of the deal, the population sensed that they had a newfound ability to create or, alternately, destroy their idols simply by offering or withholding back up. Such, as Boorstin saw information technology, was i effect of the autonomous society: a place where ordinary people vote, not only for their governors just also for their "leaders" in other realms.

Well-nigh important of all was a shift in the criteria used to determine social importance. Admired now, or then it seemed, was success, and especially career success, in any field of one's choosing. The sports star, leading actor, comedian, pop singer, or telly evangelist received greater attention than the behind-the-scenes heads of less glamorous institutions. Publications trumpeted attendance figures and salaries.

Boorstin calls this transition the shift from heroism to celebrity. People became famous non for good deeds but for their loftier status in fields of public amusement. Put almost simply, they became famous for existence famous.

Would anyone merits that the 21st century has reversed or even softened this change? The age of interlinked computers and satellite television means that people now receive worldwide exposure. Bombers, drug lords, and porn stars leap onto the stage of history, flicker briefly, and vanish. Institutional leaders become famous not for their years of hard work but for their moral indiscretions. Not everyone, but perhaps anyone, can become famous for a few minutes, as long equally his or her beliefs is curious plenty and captured on camera. All that is required is a clever publicist, aggressive lawyer, or garrulous newscaster.

Boorstin's full general thesis is that the earth is now flooded with "pseudo-events." These are occurrences staged primarily for the sake of their being attended, recorded, and discussed. Think of movies, television shows, musical productions, sports events, press conferences, award ceremonies, openings of stores, and all way of commercial messaging. Add together to that all the goings-on found at websites and social media venues. Happenings there would not exist without their audiences. The larger those audiences, the more important those occasions become.

Again, why exercise we intendance about such things? Pseudo-events fill the world with news; they create excitement, they provide rhythm to our lives. Every bit consumers, nosotros enjoy the idea that these happenings are created to stimulate and amuse us. For many of us, a day without activities of this sort ("Did you see terminal nighttime'due south game?") would exist insufferable.

Most of united states would respond that we are articulate enough that a sports event, game show, or reality-Idiot box drama is non an entirely "real" or "natural" affair. We know these are staged presentations. However, Boorstin argues that the omnipresence of these events is causing u.s. to lose our sense of what is important in our lives.

Bogus enjoyments at present take up a good portion of our imagining. We coordinate our ain schedules with those of the event-makers. Their challenges and characters fascinate us: "What if I could become a professional athlete, movie role player, celebrity chef, rock star, top model, or professional person video-gamer? Wouldn't that be k?" At any rate, these are the people whose posters we hang on the wall.

Allow us return to my students, that younger generation whose development seems crucial to our social welfare. Almost of them recognized that their idols were non quite heroes in the traditional significant of that term. (That, after all, is the reason they nominated their own loved ones for that honor.) They acknowledged that some idols are purely celebrities and zip more. Consider Paris Hilton or afterward, the Kardashians. However, they besides confessed, honestly enough, that the model provided by such public figures—rich, popular, immature, proficient-looking, sexy, well-traveled, and seemingly unfettered in every other fashion—was appealing. Wealth, prestige, and power (who cares today almost knowledge) are pleasant poisons, delicious in their combination.

Interestingly, the students too introduced a 3rd concept, the "role model," which stands between the 2 previous categories. Part models are those who provide realistic goals for our own lives. Role models are aware that other people look up to them and, because of that, take seriously their responsibilities to them.

Adults tin be role models without reaching the exalted condition of heroes. Although we envy the wealth and popularity of the famous athlete or movie star, they are non role models unless they behave themselves in ways that fulfill their responsibilities to those non and so favored. On-screen or on-courtroom beliefs is not plenty. When they make significant contributions to disadvantaged people, perhaps through foundations or benefits, they enter the venues of heroism.

Be clear well-nigh another signal. Contemporary people seem to have their own, or "personal," idols. That is to say, my favorite rock star, histrion, or basketball histrion is typically different from yours. More complexly, I may orient to a star performer in a field of attempt—mayhap skateboarding, hip-hop music, or professional poker—that you lot know nothing about. People'due south heroes, or so it seems, are meant to represent their own distinctive circle of commitments. That is why they rarely list politicians, soldiers, and business organization leaders, and why they practise include family members (whom no ane else in the room would know).

In Boorstin's view, in that location were earlier generations of Americans who shared a registry of national heroes. They learned of the contributions of these seminal figures in school. They observed their countenance on money and stamps. They pondered their lives on designated holidays. At that place was some sense that these people—explorers, soldiers, politicians, scientists, business people, educators, and the similar—had contributed in an exemplary style to nation-edifice. That appeal to nationhood was set up above social allegiances of family unit, form, ethnicity, and region. Those leaders could telephone call us, even from their graves, to sacrifice ourselves in public service.

People today know that many of those ancestral figures were flawed, sometimes profoundly. They might be racist, sexist, homophobic, and xenophobic. Some were slave-owners. Some brutalized the people they allowable or otherwise were insensitive to human suffering. Some sought fame as much equally public contribution.

We too know that the "catechism" of heroes was overly narrow, a celebration of the contributions of prominent people from certain categories (typically socially advantaged men of Northern European ancestry). Today'southward Americans empathize that people of various circumstances built the land nosotros live in. More that, nosotros accept become suspicious of leaders and their claims. Information technology seems their visions embrace only sure people (essentially, those that vote for them) and that they enjoy besides much their positions of dominance.

Like my students, most of united states of america have grown accepted to a fragmented, if not openly partisan, America. That is why nosotros reveal our political enthusiasms primarily to people we know and trust. That is why we maintain our own guarded registries of the other public figures we adore.

Nevertheless, there is something sorry near this declination of back up for broadly American heroes. To be certain, those people (commonly long dead) care nothing for such acts of remembrance. Instead, what is at pale is our own pondering of the ethics that guide u.s. as a people. That commitment should extend beyond the social divisions and then prominent today. It should keep alive the concept of a public good that transcends our selfish trajectories. It should reanimate the spirit of public responsibleness as an important characteristic of the American tradition.

Surely, it is correct that we have our own listings of the people we admire. Just let usa too honour those who contribute to the welfare of the millions seemingly non like us and who call us to go more expansive, compassionate versions of ourselves.

smithenalland.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-pathways-experience/201907/the-decline-the-american-hero

Share this post