Moral duality of a civilian, philosophical, or political hero
This essay is the first step into more serious academic exploration of the duality of heroism. The term, coined by some of the contemporary scholars, is, however, limited in pointing to the real scale of the phenomenon: the moral estimation of heroism, in fact, includes not only a subjective attempt to argue about the nature of the act itself, but should also take into consideration the complex combination of heroic motivation, contemporary environment, and on the top of it all the value that can never be predicted — the consequences of a heroic act.
“This
utter'd, straining all his nerves he bow'd,
As with the force of winds and waters pent,
When Mountains tremble, those two massive Pillars
With horrible convulsion to and fro,
He tugg'd, he shook, till down thy came and drew
The whole roof after them, with burst of thunder
Upon the heads of all who sate beneath…”
As with the force of winds and waters pent,
When Mountains tremble, those two massive Pillars
With horrible convulsion to and fro,
He tugg'd, he shook, till down thy came and drew
The whole roof after them, with burst of thunder
Upon the heads of all who sate beneath…”
(1)
Above is a passage from John Milton’s Samson Agonistes, depicting the final act of self-sacrifice performed by the biblical hero Samson in order to not only repent for his mistakes, which led him to captivity within the Philistian theatre that he destroys (or, if we prefer to hold closer to the Biblical version, “a house”), but first of all to stay true to his devotion and faith. Few would argue that Samson was not a true hero; he, according to Milton, “heroicly hath finish’d a life heroic”, contributing to the tradition of a classical hero bringing justice and salvation to people in times of a greater need. Although the connection may not be obvious at first glance, the times of Israel burdened and constantly harassed by their Philistian neighbours to the point that they were unable to hold on to their way of life and to their faith is easily compared to what the world faces now, with high levels of segregation even within previously close communities, aggressive and highly polarised political discourse, and complete inability to move in the same direction or even to agree on the most basic steps in order to tackle the global problems so vividly manifesting themselves in 2020.
The statement that the world of today is in desperate need of heroes may cause slight puzzlement. Heroism, in the minds of most, is closely connected with military prowess and glory on the battlefield; however, if we detach ourselves from the literary epics of Homer, Virgil and Milton, we can see that heroes are rather often civic, and not militaristic, — the times have changed, and courage on the battlefield, although still present, may be of the same or even of the lesser value than the courage of expressing an unpopular opinion or openly opposing a much more powerful political opponent. Modern heroism science, an interdisciplinary branch of humanities with the study of nature of heroism as its primary scholarly and social mission, introduced the concept of a civilian hero — one who serves the society by adhering to or preaching certain principles or philosophies, and staying true to their ideals, aware of being exposed to reputational, financial, or physical risk. You don’t need to be Achilleus, in the end, to become a hero.
(2)
One curious evidence that sculpts the central argument of this essay is that a civilian hero performs the same functions as a more classical, ‘war’ hero: according to modern psychology research, which forms the base of heroism science, besides such functions as inspiring or boosting positive emotions, examples of heroism are able to model “the values and virtues of society”, which essentially means that heroes are indeed able to form social norms, strengthen human relations within communities, and promote healthy and effective communication on every level of social and political discourse. Philip Zimbardow, famous for conducting the Stanford prison experiment, and, later, for providing a foundation for modern heroism science, in his book The Lucifer Effect echoes this, saying that “Heroism supports the ideals of a community and serves as an extraordinary guide, and it provides an exemplary role model for prosocial behaviour.” It is quite clear that today’s polarisation of even slightly different opinions, heavily influenced by the current opposing and politically infused social media rhetoric, that results in the lack of productive communication between people and has negative influence on free speech rights, can hardly be repaired by more debates between opposing sides, since they are now strikingly ineffective. The example of a civilian hero who possesses a strong and independently formed set of ideals, and who is ready to stand for them at any cost, however, can encourage people to check what it is their real beliefs are based upon and ignore the most of the informational noise for the benefit of more argumentative and conscious conversation. Thus a hero — even the one with a different set of beliefs from your own — can become a guide in dark times.
The civilian hero, however, is not just one who openly proclaims their set of ideas; what makes one a hero is a tremendous risk he or she exposes themselves to, wilfully, fully understanding the possible consequences; such risk is a crucial element that completes the transformation of an ordinary person into a hero. Those who lead, or preach, or prophesy without any significant exposure to social or physical (and, in most of the cases, to both) risk are not heroes, but mere advocates of a certain point of view, who cannot perform the functions inherent to heroism and are scarcely in deficit in times of trouble. A simple question can help us with defining the hero: is he or she putting their reputation, social status, and even physical safety at risk in order to defend or preach their ideals? You may think of it as of a “skin in the game” principle taken to the extreme.
(3)
Socrates is a brilliant example of a civilian hero willing to pay the price for publicly defending his philosophical ideals, which were strongly disliked by Athenian leadership of that time. Eventually, Socrates was brought to court and executed for the ideas he believed in. Later, a Stoic philosopher Epictetus in his Discourses used him as an epitome of heroism, emphasising Socrates’ strong will to adhere to his principles even to the death: “For he did not choose, he said, to save his poor body, but to save that which is increased and saved by doing what is just, and is impaired and destroyed by doing what is unjust.” Such examples of civilian heroism have always been rare, but of the recent ones, the case of Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalnyw, who was supposedly poisoned (he himself has no doubts about it) by Vladimir Putin, is impressive because of how well it fits into the model of civilian heroism. In his first interview after poisoning with nerve agent Novichok — that is, according to the coalition of medical experts and the Charité University Hospital, where he spent about a month — most of it in coma — he gave the following answer about why he is willing to return to Russia, where he would again be exposed to a great amount of danger:
I was pleased that no one in my circles even thought that I wouldn't return. Not going back would mean that Putin has won and achieved his goal. And my job now is to remain the guy who isn't afraid. And I'm not afraid! When my hands shake, it's not from fear — it's from this stuff. I would not give Putin the gift of not returning to Russia.
This indeed is a prominent example of civilian (in this case political rather than philosophical) heroism, and it doesn’t really matter which exact political course Mr Navalny is suggesting; the model of thinking and holding to one’s ideals is what matters — he himself is dedicated not to a particular ideological agenda, but, as he says in the same interview, to the core principles of human rights, striving, for instance, “to create a coalition of all forces that stand for the alternation of power and for the independence of the courts”, which will in result help Russia to “follow the European path of development,” establishing and supporting the functioning of state democratic institutions.
It is not the aim of this essay to delve deeper into the debris of Russian or of any country’s political struggles, but with both classical and contemporary examples to illustrate how heroism, including its civilian form, promotes critical thinking and conscientious debates. Heroes are not only serving as examples of standing for their ideals, but also, as the cases with Samson, Socrates, or, indeed, Mr Navalny illustrate, emphasise the importance of a careful and reasoned approach to making choices — when people are reminded about the risk involved, they tend to act less rashly and with more responsibility, which contributes to open and respectful conversation and prevents further disconnect between different opinions, which currently prevents many from engaging in a mindful and effective dialogue.
(4)
There is, however, a downside to heroism: heroes can be wrong, and their actions can lead to rather undesired consequences, as in the case of a legendary hero Achilleus, whose courage and valour were equalled by the devastations caused by his uncontrollable rage, or Niccolò Machiavelli, who remained loyal to his homeland and its leadership — the Medici, even after being imprisoned, tortured, and afterwards — for the most part neglected during his lifetime, but famously advocated for highly immoral ways of conducting politics to the point that he was called “a teacher of evil.” The reasons for such a phenomenon are still a matter of debate, however, it would not be entirely wrong to give an outline to the two opposing points of view on the matter. One of them claims that a negative effect of heroic actions is produced due to the inability of heroes to adequately assess the probable consequences of their actions: they can either be blind to everything except their goal, or unable to control the force that gives them impact to act heroically in the first place, therefore producing collateral damage. Another viewpoint, which is more accepted in the circles of heroism scholars, argues that heroes bear non-dualistic thinking, which, as Dr Scott Allison puts it in his paper “Heroic Consciousness”, refers to a “broader, dynamic, imaginative, and more mature contemplation of perceived events”, allowing them to assess both the situation and the consequences of their action at a higher level. Therefore, common contemporary observers are often unable to make a correct assessment of their deeds and to see what can be seen from the hero’s perspective (here we are indeed pointed to the concept of greater good). One might suggest that in such a case those heroes were right in their own eyes, and possibly even in the eyes of some of their contemporaries, but the effect of their actions in the end violated the widely accepted moral standpoint, were at best proclaimed not heroes, but evil geniuses — and the world history knows a number of such examples, the counting of which can be started with the names of some of the most infamous dictators.
But let us excuse ourselves from this scholarly debate and return to the practical lesson — what matters in the end is that, as stated by Georg Hegel, a hero can be “gravely wrong in some way”. It is only logical to assume that the modern hero, be it a political figure as Mr Navalny or a philosophical hero, as Socrates was, can indeed be mistaken in some of his or her actions, which we probably will find out about only later, in retrospect. This, however, does not lessen the role of a modern hero as a guide and as a model for adjusting one’s own set of ideals and behaviour; rather, it adds up to the amount of risk the hero is ready to be exposed to, which, in its turn, strengthens their social image and the impact their actions are capable to produce. At the same time — and here I again relate to Hegel’s Lectures on Fine Art, where he studied the nature of heroism by examples of Sophocles’ tragic hero Oedipus, — if a person is able to witness the negative consequences of his or her actions, and then takes full responsibility for them, even if it wasn’t possible for them to be predicted, which deprives the society of moral justification to blame this person, it serves as another important marker of heroic behavior.
What is there for each of us, curious observers of the current state of affairs, or those who are meticulously analyzing the past, or trying to enhance their understanding of the concept of heroism and of its modern appearances? I, as a proponent of heroic behaviour, be it in literature or in real life, would certainly encourage those who read this to cherish heroism and to listen to heroes, and this essay is essentially my contribution to the call for heroes; however, in my pursuit of equilibrium of opinion, I feel obliged to, first of all, attract your attention to the old motto which I slightly rephrased to render a light touch of admonition to it: choose your heroes carefully.