Abstract
In its ambition to become a “transdisciplinary” field of study, heroism science should leverage the expertise of the “heroism humanities.” This article uses humanistic knowledge to address one of the thorniest issues in the field: Who counts as a hero? After summarizing the “subjective” versus “objective” approach to defining heroism, I suggest the problem exists because we conflate two distinct conceptual categories: “Heroes,” or the ascription of heroic status to persons and “heroism,” or the ascription of heroic status to behavior. “Hero,” with deep roots in classical antiquity, generates a far more diverse web of associations than “heroism,” a modern construction. Using four examples from a recent news cycle of persons deemed “heroes” (a dictator, an astronaut, a victim of abuse, and an athlete), I demonstrate that a deeper appreciation of the Greek heroic tradition reveals that contemporary ascription of “hero” status is often a continuation, rather than a “diminution” of the word’s historic meanings. Finally, I suggest that heroism science shift its focus from the study of heroic actors as natural objects to the study of how heroes function, discursively and symbolically, within their communities.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.