What is a hero? What is an American hero?
These were questions raised at a recent workshop at James Madison’s Montpelier http://www.montpelier.org/ . On display in the lobby of one of the buildings, there is a bust of “Jemmy” more than a bit out of proportion to his actual (slight) dimensions. However, artists sometimes exaggerate in order to make a statement; clearly, this sculptor saw JM as a hero.
Hero can be an elusive term, as evidenced by the many opinions the discussion produced. Is George Washington a hero? Malcolm X?
Joseph Campbell http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php , long considered one of the world’s leading experts on mythology, describes the hero as “the man of self-achieved submission”. I offer deep text from his book The Hero with a Thouand Faces:
But submission to what? That precisely is the riddle that today we have to ask ourselves and that it is everywhere the primary virtue and historic deed of the hero to have solved. As Professor Arnold J. Toynbee indicates in his six-volume study of the laws of the rise and disintegration of civilizations, schism in the soul, schism in the body social, will not be resolved by any scheme of return to the good old days (archaism), or by programs guaranteed to render an ideal projected future (futurism), or even by the most realistic, hardheaded work to weld together again the deteriorating elements. Only birth can conquer death–the birth, not of an old thing, but of something new. Within the soul, within the body social, there must be–if we are to experience long survival–a continuous “recurrence of birth” (palingenesia) to nullify the unremitting recurrences of death. For it is by means of our own victories, if we are not regenerated, that the work of Nemesis is wrought: doom breaks from the shell of our very virtue. Peace is then a snare; war is a snare; change is a snare; permanence a snare. When our day is come for the victory of death, death closes in; there is nothing we can do, except be crucified–and resurrected; dismembered totally, and then reborn (16-17).
What does this statement say about heroes? How is it federalist or anti-federalist? Who do you consider a hero, and does this passage align with your notions? Do your considerations include Campbell’s “self-achieved submission”? Are there differences between this view and the essence of a hero who is American? Was the sculptor, attempting to convey heroism through physical properties, right about James Madison? If so, what were some of his heroic acts?
Self-achieved submission–of one’s desires, instincts, and/or will to the greater good. If this serves as an adequate definition, then yes, I think James Madison was/is a hero. His life was one of order, which requires internal discipline (chaos is easy, if the law of entropy is true). He used history as a tool, not as an idol. He was patient with his colleagues, recognizing that they would not all come around at the same time or for the same reasons. He took the time to build relationships of trust and respect, as well as to build his own knowledge base, in order to “train up the country in the way that it should go” (paraphrasing Proverbs). Very federalist, from my point of view.
Heroes are those who help us see and reach beyond our circumstances, beyond ourselves. They help us to form a more perfect union.
Have you seen the movie Hancock? Perhaps that meets this notion of self-achieved submission. It was a PR guy that helped him figure it out!
I think this quote suggests all heroes are Federalists. If it isn’t about returning to the good old days, pursuing an ideal future, or rewarding good old fashioned hard-work, it isn’t antifederalist.
Seriously, I think this idea aligns with my idea of heroism. When starting my classes at the beginning of the year, I thought it essential to address why the study of history was important. It might not surprise you that I relied on a visual model to explain my thoughts on this question. I talked through it, of course, but my understanding has always been more in the form of that model than in the words I used to describe it.
Regenerative, however, is the right word. I believe we have to study our history as a means of preparing for imagining and shaping our future. That’s different from the classic explanation of being doomed to repeat it. It includes a role for each and everyone of us to know our past as a means of making our future.
It’s not a question of pre-determination but one of destiny.
Hey, great words, you two.
“Heroes are those who help us see and reach beyond our circumstances, beyond ourselves. They help us to form a more perfect union.” –Laura
I love this quote because it encompasses so much more than the warrior/ sports star definition. It allows for geeks and teachers and teacher geeks, and it implies a tremendous action or body of actions that adds a significant contribution. (Much more than Michael Jordan’s group of championships.)
It may be my own bias, but in a transitory, transparent age, we are so far away from such heroes.
Of course, realistically, Lincoln and MLK seem clear through the lens of history, but we know they weren’t in their own times. And James Madison has had very few votive monuments, across all sorts of ages and 200 years…
“Regenerative, however, is the right word. I believe we have to study our history as a means of preparing for imagining and shaping our future. That’s different from the classic explanation of being doomed to repeat it.” –Shellee
What grabbed me, initially, is the confluence of ideas in the Joe Campbell passage. My Nat’cademy essay was about using mythology versus government as the best framework for instructing at-risk kids.
Here, I see federalism and mythology meet.
Now, when some hear myth they think “made-up crap”; but we know myth to be wise lessons cloaked in entertainment. And what strikes me is that some myths have that “doomed to repeat it” message, but many–across dozens of cultures– carry a “regenerative” life/death/life theme which history has a hard time articulating.
So, is a hero where myth and history meet..?
I believe that James Madison should be considered a hero. JM, is a hero for all of the reasons that Laura already stated. Why has he never been received as a hero? It is interesting how heroes come to be formed, what qualities make a hero? Thomas Jefferson has certainly been treated in heroic terms, without a warrior background. Why does Madison always seem to be in the shadow of Jefferson? What qualities have Americans found inviting about Jefferson? What does our choice of heroes reflect about our time and place in history? Who are considered American heroes today?
I would be interested in knowing if you consider the following people heroes:
Thomas Jefferson
Abraham Lincoln
Robert E. Lee
Susan B. Anthony
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Teddy Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Rosa Parks
Martin Luther King, Jr.
I agree that JM’s a hero, too. And TJ’s a good case study when looking at why James Madison hasn’t garnered the attention of #3 or others on your list. Because recognition is important to hero status!
Legacy, Looks, and Legend are my three keys.
TJ’s legacy is better known to your average American. He is credited with penning the Declaration, championing rights, achieving Westward Movement (the Louisiana Purchase + Louis n Clark adventure).
Most people know he was something of a Renaissance man, yet one that was more vigorous than old Ben. He cut a dashing figure, and to this date he provides one of the better profiles on currency. Plus, this dude was edgy! He wasn’t exactly a boy scout when he was preaching continued revolution, and he gets credit for penning the very passionate Declaration. Plus, today he’s got street cred for the Sally Hemmings affair.
A beautiful university and well-known landmark home feed into the legend. And when JFK, a heroic figure himself, compares a room full of Nobel Laureates to the man’s knowledge, that doesn’t hurt either. Top that off with a July 4th death, and it adds up to “destiny”.
Of course, we know better. I won’t enumerate JM’s list of accomplishments, but suffice it to say that he was helping TJ much of the way and doing a ton while Jefferson was gallivanting about France. Additionally, he led the charge toward a working, living document that is the growing fabric of our nation then proved himself human by refusing to prolong his death until that milestone date.
I believe time will elevate his status, but he needs some of Shellee’s PR.
K2, I’m intrigued by your list, but I’ve said enough for now. I’ll let someone else talk!
The list of people I put together very quickly and don’t know that I would include all of them on a list of heroes but this morning I noticed that most of them are most notable for challenging the status quo of their time. It is interesting to think about how that plays into our ideas about a person. I also think American heroes are often people who we feel reflect our favorite qualities as a nation, even if on closer inspection they may not accurately reflect those qualities. Abraham Lincoln, the rail-splitter, who taught himself law, failed consistently, but became a great president. Susan B. Anthony, fighting for women’s suffrage, fought against inequity. Teddy Roosevelt, the trustbuster and conservationist, a rugged individualist fought to improve America.
James Madison might suffer as a hero because he is most noted in history not for fighting against something but for creating something that would provide order and structure to society. There has been a constant strain in this nation between liberty and order since 1776. We seem to glorify liberty, individualism, and challenging the system but subconsciously we want order and structure. This seems to result in making heroes out of people who challenge the system or display individualism and rarely noticing the people who create the systems, structure, and order we desire. Rarely, are the heroes the ones who actually create or change the system. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison may as a pair reflect this better than any other two people in American history. Jefferson’s vision of liberty for the United States would not have survived at all without Madison’s system. Looking at it through a Federalist/Anti-federalist lens as a people we desire the structure and systems of Federalists but prefer to glorify the past in an Anti-federalist fashion.
Well said!
Heroes as challengers of the status quo is a great insight. Somewhere else, I think, Stepwinder mentioned that America loves innovators yet usually doesn’t recognize operators–if I’m not misquoting, I think your comments gel.
My students frequently judge heroes based upon previous generations. For instance, the folks on coins and dollars must be big, since someone put their faces there. It’s a neat exercise to separate Presidents from “Others”, then get kids’ impressions on their contributions. Once some learning has taken place, these profiles can be re-examined and re-evaluated. American kids love to challenge the status quo as well as those heroes we elevate!
Back to Jefferson. Today, I was reading McCullough’s 1776–a gift from a student–and I came across this beautiful plate, a close-up of John Trumbull’s iconic painting of the writers presenting the Declaration.
TJ’s nicely framed, his reddish hair fuzzy and halo-like. But the most startling thing about his image are the hands: they’re GIGANTIC! Of course, for the readers who believe such myths, this might indicate more of Tom’s, er, Southern charms. However, I think the message is more layered than a Pan painting. The hands suggest an agrarian spirit, perhaps, but moreso the power of a writer.
Because of Jefferson’s work, his hands have grown out of proportion–or at least the artist wanted to make ‘em stand out on this massive mural in the Capitol’s Rotunda.
TJ stands taller than the rest; but it is his hands as symbols of his mind that convey him as a giant.
(Here’s a link, but you’ll have to zoom in on the five authors to see what I mean.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumbull's_Declaration_of_Independence