What is heroism?
I first asked this question when the Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) were proclaimed the bagong bayani ng bayan (i.e. the new heroes of the nation). If I remember correctly, this was at the height of the Flor Contemplacion period, complete with the movie starring Nora Aunor. Soon after this initial questioning, the Chameleon acted up, and I found myself pursuing other interests.
Then Angelo de la Cruz happened.
For the American and Australian politicians, he is the man who should have died. For some Filipinos, especially for his relatives and the media, he is the hero who lives. And for others, he is the reason why the country's head now lies in the guillotine of the merciless world. These descriptions do carry with them grains of truth - and, by implication, grains of untruth as well. But I am not here to philosophize on his many titles - his heroism is what I question.
But first, the original question must be answered - "What is heroism?"
CHAMELEON SOFIA
The essence, the eidos, of heroism is twofold:
1) The Intention
The benefit to whatever the hero is a hero for or of (i.e. hero of the nation) should be intended. This intention should be primary in nature, with all other concerns, most notably interests relating to the self, becoming secondary in nature.
This means that there is no such thing as the accidental or incidental hero.
An archer who aims at a deer but hits an eagle instead deserves no praise for downing the eagle. Why? Because the said archer is a victim of fate and not the master of it. The downing of the eagle, while an action performed by the body, was not intended by the mind. And it is this intention, this direction of a subjective action to an object, that is the condition for us to claim responsibility, and therefore credit, for a particular action.
If there is no intention, then the actor, in any particular case, ceases to become a subject and instead becomes an object of outside action. In the example that I gave, the archer is happened to, just as the eagle is. Fortunately for the archer, this brought honor. Unfortunately for the eagle, this brought death.
Indeed, there is no heroism for being at the right place and that right time. For if that were so, heroism would be based on luck and not on merit. Which means that trying to be a hero is futile endeavor. Which is a scary thought, not only for the individual but for the collective.
2) The Action
The heroic act should produce results that, at the very least, approximate what the subject intended by it.
This means that there is no such thing as destructive hero who meant well.
Imelda Romualdez Marcos is not a national hero. The self-proclaimed incarnation of love and beauty may have intended (although this itself is dubious) to spread love and beauty to the Philippines and then to the world. But if she succeeded in spreading discord and ugliness instead - and it may be noted that she succeeded remarkably in this - then she is not to be credited for her noble intentions.
Pure intentions are the property of the self. It is only when they are acted upon that they enter the public realm and can thus be adjudged as either heroic or not.
That her actions were so different from her intentions can only mean two things:
a) That she was not discerning enough or heroic enough to translate her intentions into actions, often compromising them in destructive ways; and
b) That her intentions themselves, when brought down from their loftiness and made more specific, were downright questionable.
So is Angelo de la Cruz a hero?
Is the lucky archer a hero? Is Imelda Marcos a hero?
I know my answer to these questions.
Notes:
1) I am not degrading the profession of OFWs or Angelo de la Cruz and, in fact, hold them in high, albeit not heroic, regard for what they do.
2) I assert ownership over all the contents of this blog.
3) I am not a philosopher. Yet.
Source of picture: http://deseretnews.com
6 comments:
just a thought, sophia. who makes a hero?
is it the person himself who performs the heroic act? or is it rather the public, the ones who view the "heroic act"? i personally believe it's the latter, that jose rizal may not have called himself a hero but the filipino people did and that is why he is considered one. as such, heroism, more than a characteristic, is a perception, and heroes, more than just brave people who act nobly, are socially constructed icons.
take for example people who do noble things unthinkingly. if you are in the path of a speeding car and a policeman reflexively runs across the street and pushes you to safety, wouldn't he then be a hero to you? what if he said he was really just fulfilling a personal agenda against speeding cars because his older brother was killed by one and it wasn't that he cared about you enough to save your life? does his act then become less heroic to you, the one whose life he saved, simply because of a selfish motive?
with regard to angelo de la cruz, did he perform heroically? given that he was begging for his life rather than being willing to give it up for his country, perhaps not, although his is a perfectly natural response.
but from another perspective, wouldn't his family consider him a hero? what if his intentions were not so much "i wanna live" as they were "i don't want to leave my family without a breadwinner. i want my children to continue going to school and having a good life." isn't that just as heroic as being willing to give up his life for his country? or is heroism measured by the quantity of people who benefit? in which case, what if one of his children grows up to be a doctor (because his father lived long enough to continue giving him an education) and discovers the cure to aids, thus saving millions of people worldwide? wouldn't that then make angelo's act more heroic in the long run?
i guess what i'm really driving at is that heroism cannot simply be defined by the person's intentions at the time or the act's benefits in the immediate or short term. it's a perception, given by certain people to others, and no one is an absolute hero or a hero innately, essentially.
just a thought. :)
jaclyn
We are in agreement about heroism being a social construct. But I also think that heroism being a social construct means that there is a need to examine the standards that underlie it. After all, just because the majority perceives something as true does not mean it is actually true. And that is what I've tried to do, at least on the personal level. So, true, heroism may be a perception. But there is still that need to evaluate why we perceive something to be that way.
As to people being personal heroes for us because of what they they have done (i.e. the policeman with good reflexes), I can't dispute that. People perceive what they want to, and, psychologically, that makes sense. But on the societal level (and we are talking about the societal level because we agree that heroism is a social construct), personal reasons like that are inadequate. There has to be a standard for conferring (in a societal way) the title of hero on somebody. And those standards cannot be arbitrary. It is only when a standard is thought through that it becomes owned and, hence, valid.
As for Angelo de la Cruz, yes we agree yet again. I don't doubt - and in fact stolidly believe - that he is a "family hero." And while I'm not related to Angelo, I can very well imagine why he'd be considered so, not only by his family but by the rest of the nation. But while he is a family hero, I do not think he deserves to be called a "national hero." (Well, he does, if you argue that being a hero of a family is being a hero for the country and being a hero for the country is being a hero for the world.) My reasons?
First of all, I think heroism demands direct - and not indirect or coincidental - contribution to something. You can't just "happen" to contribute to the country and be considered a hero for it. Because then, if we agree with the definition of a hero being at least proactive (and I think we do), the perception of heroism would not be justified. As I stated, a reactive hero actually steals the glory from coincidence, who rightfully deserves the title.
Second, heroes cannot be made out of conjectures, however logical (i.e. He might do this, which will lead to this). People cannot be considered heroes based on their potential to be heroes. Cause then, everyone would be a hero. The potential has to exhibit itself before the title of heroism is bestowed. Even Jose Rizal was perceived as a hero only when he did something. And it is this exhibition of heroism that we analyze, not the potential for it.
On the last point, I agree with you that no one is an absolute hero. But I do point out that there are minimum, albeit not exhaustive, requirements for heroism. And my two criteria comprise that. They're not the only factors, true. But that they must be present is, I believe, true as well.
My thoughts on your thoughts. :)
Jac, enjoyed commenting on your comment (i.e. forensicking). Will be posting something of this nature soon. Keep the comments coming!!! :)
from your comments on my comments, sofia, it would seem that we are in agreement on a number of points. and i do grant that if we take the potential to be a hero into account, it may just turn us all into heroes, and thus no one will be a hero, though i must point out that this is a very optimistic view of humanity, that each of us acts in such a manner that eventually, these acts will produce some good. and yes, heroism being a social construct does present the need for there to be standards, such as those you suggested.
several comments then.
first, while i agree with you on principle that an act is heroic given the right intention, more so than if the heroic result is a by product of an action with a different intention, it is virtually--no, absolutely--impossible to know anyone's intentions. we aren't psychics, and as we have no idea what is really going on in another person's mind, all we can do is assume they have heroic intentions and that the results of their actions is exactly what they intended.
that brings me to my second main comment, which is that, given our premise of social heroes rather than personal ones, it is those who influence public opinion--i.e. the media-- who mainly decide who these heroes are. since there are few who pretty much everyone agrees is heroic (i guess a daddy saving his kid from a burning house and being written up in the papers will be seen by most as a hero), i suppose the true reporters of who the heroes really are as decided by society would be the historians.
once again, even given the "set criteria" for heroism you proposed, different historians will have different perspectives, and their perspectives will certainly color who they tag as heroes. some say history is written by winners, and i suppose we are both in agreement on that at least. (if not, oh well, work with me here anyway :) ) as such, it is actually very possible that people who we take for granted as heroes today (i.e. rizal) became heroes mostly because the group that "won" (in this case, the americans over the spaniards) declared him so, whereas if the outcome had been different, we might have been considering magellan our national hero instead.
you may say it's futile to discuss those we currently regard as heroes, simply because this is the way history has played out and for this moment in time, given our history and past events, the view that such people are heroes are pretty much a given. granted. which is why that last paragraph was mostly just... musings, i guess...
but anyway, the significance of heroes being chosen by historians, or fine, taking the present context as well, the media, given that they cannot know the intentions of the individual, there is a tendency to romanticize the intentions of those to whom they are partial and to mess up the intentions of those they don't like. for example, historians have painted a picture of rizal as an idealist-intellectual who wanted freedom for his country, when in fact, we really cannot tell for sure what he really intended to do. you may cite noli, el fili, mi ultimo adios and his death and all, but those are all open to interpretation, which as we both know, can never be completely accurate. (by this i mean no disrespect for rizal, coz i really do like him as our national hero and i like his works as well)
or for example, those who organized people power I. they are lauded as heroes, having catalyzed the people to fight back against an oppressive regime, etc etc. yet their intentions may (read: may, because we can never be sure either way) just have been to set up political dynasties of their own and control the country's resources rather than to free the people from the marcos regime.
you may say that the important thing is that the results of such acts were beneficial for the majority, and since we cannot know their intentions for sure, it is natural to assume that they meant well. to that, i must remind you that your second essential characteristic of heroism states that the result of the act must at least approximate the intentions of the so-called heroes. and since we can never really know the intentions of others, how then can we tell if the results of their actions were in fact the results of their intentions?
quite obviously, it isn't as simple as taking their word for it, that if rizal said he wanted freedom for filipinos, it is necessarily true, because heroes themselves may sugarcoat their own intentions to suit their agenda.
given all this then, how can anyone be declared a hero?
jaclyn
p.s. seriously, sofia, the way we keep commenting and forensicking in here, one would think we don't text or call or see each other at all! ;p
This discussion that we are having actually takes place on two levels: the ideal and the practical. The criteria that I have stated belongs to the ideal scenario (i.e. what should be), while the valid concerns that you have raised belongs more to the practical arena (i.e. the achievement of what should be). This discourse, therefore, revolves not so much around the validity of my criteria, as you yourself have agreed that they are perfectly acceptable in ideal circumstances, but, rather, around the feasibility or applicability of such criteria in a world that is far from ideal.
Having cleared that up, allow me to raise a couple of points:
First of all, I agree with you that we are not psychics and cannot, therefore, tell exactly what the intention of an individual is. But to say that complete accuracy is impossible is not to say that that the determination of the intention should not be done in the first place. In fact, what I do say is this: in the pursuit of the true intention, we might not be sure that we are doing it correctly, but it is nevertheless of supreme importance that we continue to do it.
In fact, if you look closely at the historians that you have cited, particularly in the case of Jose Rizal, you would see that they themselves were under pressure to determine his true intentions. Such is also the case for those who wish to discredit him as the national hero. Their rallying cry in this case is that Rizal's intentions were not directed towards the Philippines but were instead directed to Spain.
If we extend this analysis, we would reach the conclusion that, behind the various agendas of historians or hero-makers, there is still that criterion on intention that they have to conform to. That such a requirement exists points to the fact that intention is an indispensable criterion in determining who a hero is. So that's resolved then - the determination of intention is important.
This brings us to the second and secondary issue: we can never be sure if the intentions that we have determined are true. Here, I can only agree with you. That's true. Objective data on this matter can be interpreted along different lines, and the subject himself/herself may have only lies to tell. But to this, I say: so what?
The absence of absolute certainty and the presence of politicization are facts of life. They cannot be done away with. But if what you are saying is that these facts of life nullify the idealistic goal of searching for the true intention, then I would have to say that I disagree with you completely.
To better explain this, consider the examples of other ideals that we never really achieve but seek nonetheless. Consider justice and peace and other values that Ms. Universe contestants answer when they are asked just what it is they would wish for the world. Those are ideals as well. The process of attaining these things is not perfect; sometimes, the goal is attained, and sometimes it is revoked.
This is especially the case for justice, where you may argue that we can never really know what is true and, therefore, just. But the pursuit of these ideals exists nonetheless. The reason for this is simple: it is the ideal that gives rise to the validity of the process and not the other way around.
Third, let's talk about heroism as defined by our media. Again, I agree with you that people have to make conjectures and assumptions about the hero and his/her actions. I have no problem with that. What I do take issue with is their process of making all of these conjectures and assumptions.
Must it be the case that the assumption or conjecture picked as the truth is always the least reasonable one? Before I go on, allow me to point out that there are cases where these conjectures are reasonable. In the example of a dad saving a kid from a fire, the reasonable assumption would be that the dad was doing something heroic, and objective data about the intention would suffice to prove this. The intention thus being determined as heroic is justified.
But barring extreme circumstances like that, I think that this process of conjecturing is highly questionable. Let's take the example of OFWs. Instead of media picking the most logical conclusion that OFWs are familial heroes, they jump into the assumption that they are national heroes, without even the attempt at verification of this.
Like I said, I will be the first to tell you that the process of determining intention is not fool-proof. But I also think that willfully adding to its deficiency with unreasonable conjectures like that is downright inexcusable. Here, I am forwarding not only the ideal of fairness, but also the practical benefit of eliminating errors and minimizing imperfection.
I propose. ;)
Jac - See you later in Collateral! And for the game on Sunday! WOOOHOOOO!!! I am so excited!!! By the way, this reminds of our letter-writing marathons. Will bring the Snoopy notebook you gave me so you can see. Keep the comments coming. :)
Sofia,
Since we both pretty much agreed before The Terminal (how on earth did you ever think we were gonna watch Collateral <=) ) that we're both getting tired of talking about heroism (as unfortunately, there are no real-life Jems or Ninja Turtles who are the fun types of heroes ;-p ), I will make this short, sweet, and, above all, non-point of information-ey.
I agree that our point of contention seems to be the ideal (which you propose) and the practical (which I stubbornly refuse to let go of), and I do agree that the mere fact that ideals are, by definition, unreachable should not deter us from attempting to reach them anyway. As in Miss Congeniality, rather than "harsher penalties for parole violators," we should aspire for "world peace, Mr. Judge :D". Hehe, seriously, I do agree.
And granted, the media has totally hyped up the Angelo de la Cruz thing, with the government trying to present him as a national hero, when the logical conclusion is that he is a familial hero. Just a thought though, did they actually call him a national hero or simply a hero, a term that could refer to a lot of kinds of heroes (i.e. the familial hero)? Whichever it is, yes, I do grant the perception being propagated was of him being a hero for the country, and yes, I do agree that his actions were not so much for his country as they were for his family and thus at this particular moment he's much more a hero to his family rather than to his country. All granted.
That being said, just wondered about the effects of his being presented as a national hero. In my opinion, there are at least two reasons heroes are talked about and hyped up, and the way hero stories spread so quickly has less to do with honoring the hero per se (one reason) as it has to do with fostering a sense of pride, achievement and hope in people, particularly the people for whom the heroic act was done (the second, and for me, more important, reason). Stories of heroes (here I speak of both the fictional and the historical) facing insurmountable odds to stand up for something they believe in inspire people to face their own personal battles and continue fighting for what they personally believe in. Also, accounts of our Filipino heroes like Rizal, Bonifacio, etc etc, inspire pride in being Filipino, pride in living in this country. In a more micro setting, when Larry Fonacier injured his ACL, he was hyped up by Ateneans, and whether or not he truly is a hero as per your definition, Ateneans treated him as such and hung banners dedicating their efforts in future games to him. In a sense, his record and injury (the things that made him a "basketball hero") at least partially inspired his teammates to push themselves further, to fight battles on the court with new intensity, with more hunger.
With that in mind, Angelo de la Cruz being named a hero by the media inspired a greater awareness and appreciation of the dangers OFWs face in their struggle to create a better life for their families. And for those who believed that he is a national hero, their perceptions of OFWs were raised along with their national pride, that a Filipino could risk life and limb in the name of providing for his family, certainly a very Filipino virtue. Given this, his being hailed a hero may very well have had immeasurable positive effects on Filipinos' pride and perception of their country and countrymen.
I realize that this goes against your basic tenet against the accidental hero, and granted, this in itself still does not make him a hero in my eyes. However, if his being thought of as a hero by some Filipinos increases their pride in their heritage and increases the respect accorded to OFWs, then, in my opinion, they should just go right on ahead and continue thinking of him as a hero.
And of course, since we're both eager to move on to discussing another topic, and since I did keep on stressing that what I've been writing are my own opinions and thus not actually points of contention with your comments, what say you post something else we can discuss and we let this particular one rest? :)
jaclyn
Post a Comment