The Problem with Heroes

The thing is this. In the main there is actually nothing wrong with heroes. They are admirable role models who have excelled in something many of us wish we had the opportunity to do too. There will never be another Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson, Albert Einstein or [insert appropriate name]. Not necessarily because they were outliers or extremely talented people who showed up at the right time, but mainly because you cannot replicate other people. Mimic yes, but I am not so sure about replication.

The problem with heroes is that we place them on pedestals that they have never asked for.

Nelson Mandela lies in a hospital very close to the end of his life. For his supporters he is the ultimate hero. One who endured some of the most isolated times in a prison for the crimes he committed when a member of the ANC. An icon. But for others he will remain a criminal or terrorist if you will. From the Church St bombing to suggestions he condoned violence against the system as well as other black South Africans.

Just typing the fact that he committed or oversaw criminal activity is an issue for me. I don’t want it to blemish his record, but the fact is it is still there. Whilst many want to focus on just the positive points a biography is not well rounded if we cannot admit to the fact there was a darker side (if you pardon the pun) to his legacy. In many ways after his role in the Truth and Reconciliation Committee there are still those who would say that the elder statesman sold out economic power in favour of a weakened political power base.

This does not mean there is no room for putting people on pedestals. We have done so for time immemorial. That is part of a human nature. To elevate others regardless of them wanting it or not, to highlight all their good points and willfully ignore the blatantly negative ones and confer on them the secular equivalent of sainthood. Or where applicable, in the case of the religious, sainthood.

The problem with heroes is that we want them to be without flaws.

It is amazing how quickly people want to jump to the aid of those who are considered their heroes.
Think of Michael Jackson and child abuse allegations. Likewise for those who defended Joe Paterno the famous football coach. Many a hero when placed under the spotlight have flaws. Whether it is the alleged sexual proclivities of the aforementioned or fraudulent and challenging behaviour by leading industrialists and entrepreneurs.

Recently the journalist Aditya Chakrabortty took one of my personal heroes Sir Richard Branson to task about the business model behind Virgin Trains. My initial reaction was it was easy to critique someone who spent their time building wealth and not doing it yourself. Reading the comments section on his article I realised I was not alone, but then it made me think. Maybe the writer has a point. Why did I default to defense? Was it because he is one of my heroes that it touched a nerve? Would it have bothered me if it was Donald Trump someone was writing about? Likewise, I realise I bristled when someone was critical of Karen Brady, another of my business heroes? Hmm.

The problem with heroes is we forget like us they are just simply human.

Ignoring those whose who want to be famous for the sake of being famous sometimes when we scratch beneath the surface and we are challenged on our heroes it can be uncomfortable. Last week Americans celebrated independence day. The irony of that day being an independence day when blacks were still being held as slaves and Native Americans were being slaughtered in the name of progress has not escaped me. In addition, the quote by Thomas Jefferson that “all man are created equal” while himself being a slave owner strikes me as somewhat incredible. Those who would laud Jefferson as a hero would dismiss that fact in light of “the bigger picture” of independence. Or so I am told.

As humans whilst we aim for ideals often we are victims of our own circumstances, environments and temperaments. Same it is for “heroes” as it is for ordinary folk. Revolutionaries like Mohattma Ghandi and Mother Theresa, who dedicated their lives for peace and reconciliation, were also known for their opportunistic, misogynistic views and terrible tempers respectively. Puritan preachers who would rail at the pulpit around sexual impropriety and the “curse of homosexuality” have in so many instances been caught out actually being proponents of the things they speak out about. Politicians, sports stars and even the most recently tainted TV Presenter Jimmy Saville have all had their halos removed. In the latter case he managed to escape it whilst alive.

For me this does not mean we should not be able to celebrate heroes. Of course they can be the one who inspire us, who push us to do things, to reach higher heights. They give us a sense of possibility. They demonstrate that the human spirit along with the right support network and a drive that can sometimes seem superhuman will lift others.

Margaret Thatcher will forever polarise people but for all intents and purposes people will forgive her distaste for Nelson Mandela or treatment of the unions. She will be remembered mostly as the first female Prime Minister of the UK. For all his sexual peccadilloes Martin Luther King will still be remembered as a freedom fighter, and his I Have A Dream Speech. Che Guevara will always be remembered for his revolutionary stance in spite of the fact he is quoted as seeing African blacks as inferior to white Europeans. Bill Clinton will be forever forgiven for receiving fellatio by a young intern whilst President as people focus primarily on his role as a global ambassador. Colin Powell will probably be remembered as the calm soft spoken former General who distanced himself from rampant Republican ideology when many will never forgive him for having a hand in the death of Patrice Lumumba.

It’s not that heroes cannot or should not be made, it’s just that people should be prepared that when we do that, not to forget these heroes are human. That they are possibly hiding a host of flaws which would never emerge had we not put them on the pedestals they most probably did not want, or deserve to be on.


3 thoughts on “The Problem with Heroes

  1. Everyone hides their flaws. No one is perfect. It’s one of my problems with the entire evangelical super stardom that’s dominated Christianity in the United States. There’s a hubris in fame that I’m not sure any human is capable of dealing with effectively. I don’t envy people who are put on pedestals.

  2. Puritan preachers are the worst, because through their railing at the pulpit they attempt to hide their own nature (which would be beneficent to all, had they accepted it). What you write about here is the legacy of Greek society’s dealing with heroes, fame, and with men being legally superior to women, children, slaves, and boys as well (kinda makes one wonder how that could be, but the explanation is they thought of boys as “not-men”, because the dogmas of their predecessors had not yet been passed on to them). So in that society, they railed against abuses and elevated reason above all, but at the same time supported all those abuses on a daily base (slavery etc). Abuse was not “bad” because of a concern with equal rights for all, but because abuse said something bad about the character of the “hero” (the person in power). Their concept of fame was a totally Light one, no Dark side whatsoever – which is impossible because a real hero has managed to bridge his Light and Dark sides, becoming fully balanced, therefore Good. A song lyric from Russia says: “We dug to the bottom: there is no Light above the height of the bridge!”

    And because I mentioned the nature of preachers here, and in another article (which is not “reply-ible” 🙂 you mention that no-one should “force religions to perform gay marriages”, I will first say I agree with you about force… no-one should force anyone to do anything. (For example, “Feminists” who force their ranks to never be happy with a man *IF they wanted to* because it would “deny the feminist principles” are no feminists; because the feminist ideal, let’s say, is to support human individuals, both male and female, as themselves, not as part of an “organization” that oversees their every move fitting in.) HOWEVER….. there is a big however here…… you should know that religion NEVER had at its core a “rejection of homosexual relationships”. There would be NO religion at all, in our world, without the existence of the gay folks. THEY invented it (they were called “The Holy Ones” in the past) and the idea where two people care for each other their whole life, comes from them! Not from the heterosexual population! So I find it extremely hypocritical when “religions” deny gay folks their marriage rights, by making them believe they are somehow “inferior”. It’s a case of intellectual theft, or cultural appropriation, which religious institutions turned around to suit them. (First I don’t see why gay folks should want recognition from a hegemonic church, because obviously the two are incompatible….. but beyond that, the real reason why churches have become so hegemonic is centered on this particular issue).
    Last but not least, religious texts actually tell of straight men who often pretended to be gay in order to gain privilege (e.g. access to women’s chambers), or where straight men would engage in homosexual acts in order to *humiliate* an enemy. THAT’s what religious texts say is abhorred by God. Not gay men acting in accordance with their own nature.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s