Chris Hatfield is a hero. So I’ve been told. Twice in the last couple of days, on the news. Chris Hatfield is a hero because he’s the first Canadian astronaut to walk in space. A bit taken aback, I went to look up the word in my dictionary and found the following definition:
a. a man distinguished by exceptional courage, nobility, fortitude, etc.
b. a man who is idealized for possessing superior qualities in any field.
Granted, this is taken from Collins English Dictionary, and perhaps the British have a slightly different notion of heroes than we do. And my edition was published in 1986, so perhaps there have been updates…
Had someone asked me how I would describe Chris Hatfield (towards whom I bear no ill feeling whatsoever), ‘hero’ probably wouldn’t have been the first word to come up. For me, a hero is, for example, someone who would spend a (good) part of his/her life helping the less fortunate, doing some good in his/her community. Someone who selflessly save another human being in dire circumstances.
Chris Hatfield would fall in the second category of heroes described above (and even that, I guess, could be open to debate, although the definition is fairly broad). But so would Bill Gates. Oddly enough, I’ve never heard Bill Gates called a hero, even though his contribution to society at large probably surpasses that of Chris Hatfield.
Must the definition of what constitutes a hero change with the times? Is it a function of the culture/world in which we live?
It sounds like your definition of hero is someone who lives their life for the sake of other people.
I suppose there’s multiple definitions for any word but I’ll go ahead and add my two cents. My basic definition of a hero would be someone who does something so well, or with such dignity, that they serve as an inspiration to others. That means that even people like Michael Jordon could qualify.
I don’t believe that mere excellence or perseverance are enough to make a hero. Take Michael Jordan as an example. Certainly he excels in his field, and he has definitely worked hard. However, this does not change the fact that his job consistents of throwing a plastic ball through a ring. To be a hero requires risk, courage in the face of real danger, and more than a little bit of fate. One cannot plan heroism, and I would argue one can’t work at it either. It’s something that happens in the heat of the moment, be that moment a battle, a natural disaster, or national upheaval. Heros happen by accident, because no rational person would take heroic action given time to consider the ramifications.
Now that I’ve said all that, there is leeway in the definition of heros. My heros won’t synch completely with yours, and maybe not with anyone else. However, that’s just interpretation of the criteria, not a change in what is heroic.
With regards to the question in the OP. The definition of hero does change with the times because one civilization at one time is so different from another that it’s hard to fit one definition to every society. In ancient Greece, a hero was a person who risked life and limb in a physical battle. Today, we still have people who put their lives in danger regularly (firefighters, police) or who may be expected to do so (military) and these people are sometimes viewed as heroes. However, their moment of glory tends to be rather short, and the media loses attention pretty quickly.
In my opinion, someone who becomes a hero in the history book sense must fit two qualities: (1.) Willing to accept risk and danger, and (2.) Taking a course of action never tried before. The most famous example in recent American society would be Martin Luther King, and he is, in fact, widely recognized as a national hero. Of course, the “risk” factor doesn’t have to include physical danger, it may simply be risk to your reputation, your career, or something else. Most heroes in fields of scientific discovery or business probably do not put their lives in danger.
I’d lean on Joseph Campbell’s explanation of a hero, when thinking about the “historical” hero. Roughly, a person who goes off to some risky unknown where others are hesitant to go - or even follow - and survives it, and comes back to impart the new knowledge, vision, etc… gained thereby, and changes his society for the better.
My personal definition of a hero would approximate that of Trucido:
But I would add someone like Mother Teresa to the list. Where does she fit in? Like MGibson said:
Yes. The concept of abnegation - for lack of a better word -is key, in my opinion. It is one aspect, but an important one.
ITRchampion said:
That’s probably what I was trying to get at with the OP: the essence of heroism. Is there one element, common to all or most societies, upon which heroism is based?
I believe I already brought up one essense that is common to all heros. They do something so well or with such dignity that they serve as an inspiration to others. I think you’ll be hard pressed to find any heros which do not fit this definition.
To make a hero, one needs a loaf of French bread, 6 or seven slices of cheese, 9 slces of pastrami, lettuce and tomato, mustard, mayonnaise–
Oh, you mean hero of the human kind. Ok.
The problem today is the cult of celebrity, that makes it hard to distinguish real heroes from those media-made. And some try to bask in the shadow of a true icon for their own ends, and the lesser’s deeds fall way short of that of the original hero. As a result, the threshhold of being declared a hero is reduced to my pastrami sandwich I was justmaking.
Don’t you see your replies detract from the intrinsic nobility of the OP. This being my first try, I figured you’d all put some (deep) thought into this. Re-reading myself, I notice that I got a bit carried away at times. But I’m a newbie in this forum. It is to be expected that I not master all the intricacies of the oratory sparring. But coming from you habitues, I must say I’m a bit disappointed.
[gets on high horse]I think that the recasting of moral concepts, accompanied by the steady degradation of the English language, has taken the concept of heroism straight down with it. “Hero” as it appears to apply today means “object of adoration” with no reference to why the object is adored. We want there to be famous people, and we care less and less how they achieve fame or whether there is a difference between fame and notoriety. We could all be heroes, if only there were enough “famous-ness” to go around.[dismounts]
I always thought a hero was someone that you either wanted to be, or wanted your ideals(or whateeve) to match that of the hero.
therefore, Captain Kirk is my hero because i want to go into space and shoot some klingons and meet green women, but micheal jordan is not because i don’t care to play basketball. To someone else (Evil Tars Tarkas), Micheal jordan would be his hero because he wants to play basketball, and Captain kirk is not, for he is not interested in shooting klingons and meeting green women.
So a hero is whatever you make of them.
excuse me while i go shoot me some klingons…(no green women around here)
