I strongly disagree with the further assertion that people become heroes simply by being "in
the right place at the right time." If we look around at the sorts of people we choose as our
heroes, we real/ze that heroism has far less to do with circumstance than with how a hero
responds to it.
I concede that heroes are generally ordinary people. In my observation we choose as our
heroes people with whom we strongly identify--people who are very much like us. In fact many
of us call a parent, grandparent, or older sibling our hero. Why? My intuition is that the more a
person shares in common with us----m terms of experience, heritage, disposition, motives, and
even physical attributes-----~e more accessible that person’s heroic traits are to us, and the
stronger their attraction as a role model. And few would dispute that we share more in common
with immediately family than with anyone else.
However, the statement’s further suggestion that people become heroes merely as a result
of circumstances not of their own choosing is simply wrongheaded. Admittedly, circumstance
often serves as a catalyst for heroism. After all, without wars there would be no war heroes. Yet
this does not mean that we should lionize every member of the armed forces. I find quite telling
the oft-used idiom "heroic effort," which suggests that mere coincidence has little to do with
heroism. If one examines the sorts of people we select as our heroes, it becomes evident that
heroism requires great effort, and that the very nub of heroism lies in the response, not in the
circumstance.
Consider the ordinary person who overcomes a personal obstacle through extraordinary
effort, fortitude, or faith---thereby inspiring others toward similar accomplishments. Sports
heroes often fall into this category. For example, Lance Armstrong, a Tour de France cycling
champion, became a national hero not merely because he won the race but because he
overcame a life-threatening illness, against all odds, to do so. Of course, widespread notoriety
is not a requisite for heroic status. Countless individuals with physical and mental disabilities
become heroes in their community and among their acquaintances by treating their obstacles
as personal challenges--thereby setting inspirational examples. Consider the blind law student
who inspires others to overcome the same challenge; or the amputee distance runner who
serves as a role model for other physically challenged people in her community. To assert that
24individuals such as these become our heroes merely by accident, as the statement seems to
suggest, is to completely misunderstand the very stuff of which heroes are made.
Another sort of hero is the ordinary person who attains heroic stature by demonstrating
extraordinary courage of conviction--against external oppressive forces. Many such heroes
are champions of social causes, rising to heroic stature by way of the courage of their
convictions; and, it is because we share those convictions--because we recognize these
champions as being very much like us----~at they become our heroes. Such heroes as India’s
Mahatma Gandhi, America’s Martin Luther King, South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, and Poland’s
Lech Lawesa come immediately to mind. None of these heroes was born into royalty or other
privilege; they all came from fairly common, or ordinary, places and experiences. Or consider
again our military heroes, whose courage and patriotism in battie the statement would serve to
completely discredit as merely accidental outcomes of certain soldiers being "m the right place
at the right time." I think the preposterousness of such a suggestion is clear enough.
In sum, the statement correctly suggests that heroes are ordinary people like us, and that
opportunity, or circumstance, is part of what breeds heroes. However, the statement overlooks
that serendipity alone does not a hero make. Heroism requires that "heroic effort," or better yet
a "heroic response," to one’s circumstances in life.
Issue 21
"The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their
contemporaries."
Can a person’s greatness be recognized only in retrospect, by those who live after the
person, as the speaker maintains? In my view the speaker unfairly generalizes. In some areas,
especially the arts, greatness is often recognizable in its nascent stages. However, in other
areas, particularly the physical sciences, greatness must be tested over time before it can be
confirmed. In still other areas, such as business, the incubation period for greatness varies
from case to case.We do not require a rear-view mirror to recognize artistic greatness--whether in music, visual
arts, or literature. The reason for this is simple: art can be judged at face value.There’s nothing
to be later proved or disproved, affirmed or discredited, or even improved upon or refined by
further knowledge or newer technology. History is replete with examples of artistic greatness
immediately recognized, then later confm-ned. Through his patronage, the Pope recognized
Michelangelo’s artistic greatness, while the monarchs of Europe immediately recognized
Mozart’s greatness by granting him their most generous commissions. Mark Twain became a
best-selling author and household name even during his lifetime. And the leaders of the
modernist school of architecture marveled even as Frank Lloyd Wright was elevating their
notions about architecture to new aesthetic heights.
By contrast, in the sciences it is difficult to identify greatness without the benefit of historical
perspective. Any scientific theory might be disproved tomorrow, thereby demoting the
theorist’s contribution to the status of historical footnote. Or the theory might withstand
centuries of rigorous scientific scrutiny. In any event, a theory may or may not serve as a
springboard for later advances in theoretical science. A current example involves the ultimate
significance of two opposing theories of physics: wave theory and quantum theory. Some
25
theorists now claim that a new so-called "string" theory reconciles the two opposing
theories--at least mathematically. Yet "strings" have yet to be confirmed empirically. Only time
will tell whether string theory indeed provides the unifying laws that all matter in the universe
obeys. In short, the significance of contributions made by theoretical scientists cannot be
judged by their contemporaries--only by scientists who follow them.
In the realm of business, in some cases great achievement is recognizable immediately,
while in other cases it is not. Consider on the one hand Henry Ford’s assembly-line approach
to manufacturing affordable cars for the masses. Even Ford could not have predicted the
impact his innovations would have on the American economy and on the modern world. On the