Citation

Curry RM. J. Humanist. Psychol. 2018; 58(5): 571-584.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0022167817697797

PMID

unavailable

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.

Language: en