The "Hero" Label.

[pErvinalia]

What are your thoughts on it? I've always been a bit bothered by it, mainly the sensationalism associated with it. I often find myself thinking - "That's not particularly 'heroic'. Certainly admirable and commendable, but not something that took a lot of risk to ones own life". Recently we've seen the case in the US of the three girls taken hostage and the super laid back dude who helped save them. I've seen him referred to as a "hero" a couple of times already. And just yesterday there was an incident in Australia where a disorientated man walked off a train platform and fell to the tracks below.



I've already seen her referred to as a "hero" on one news service update.

So what's going on here? What she did was certainly admirable and laudable, but heroic? This is Brisbane. Trains are no more frequent than about 10 minutes in peak hour. It's not like a train could just appear out of nowhere at any time. The train was still about 2 minutes away.

Here's what I want to present as something to consider about these promotions of "heroic" acts. It's a handy and powerful narrative that fits in with other arguably false narratives in society that suggests that the ordinary person is capable of powerful acts, when in reality the ordinary person isn't. The free-market type narrative that suggests that the ordinary person is just one opportunity away from riches and the easy life is a similar one. Essentially, these are narratives that help distract the seething masses from the fact that they don't really have much of a say in the running of society and the world. It's essentially part of an arguably more insidious form of propaganda than say the Soviet people faced under authoritarian communism.

The question for me becomes - Where do these narratives come from? And why? The potential answers could range from the highly conspiratorial "Illuminati" bollocks, right down to random chance. If we take out the unlikely extremes, what are we left with? We are left with the idea that there is an elite political class who broadly except that they are privileged and to retain that privileged status, they need to convince the less privileged that things aren't as bad as they are. Another option is that there is no real coherent agreement on this idea, but the workings of society more or less dictate that these sort of narratives will emerge naturally. That latter option would encompass a situation where it's somewhat inherent in human nature to be optimistic and believe that we as ordinary people have some significant power over our destiny, and the commercial media quite smartly plays on this psychology to present us stories that we naturally want to hear and feel positive about afterwards.

I tend to more or less believe that latter, but I also expect there are a larger number of elites than most people realise who actively think about these sorts of issues.

What do you think?

[SteveB]

You're pretty heroic bringing up this controversial subject.

[Rum]

I agree (with the OP). People whose job it is to be 'first responders' are sometimes referred to as heroes. A child 'battling' leukaemia is sometimes called a hero. The British Olympic team, which did rather well last time were often referred to ad heroes in the media here. - it is used too freely and loosely these days.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"You know what the definition of hero is? It's someone who gets other people killed." The wildly hawt Gina Torres in "Serenity".

[JimC]

The fact that a term is overused or misappropriated doesn't mean that cannot be correctly applied in a given situation...

[FBM]

We evolved to perceive agency in phenomena with a bias towards false positives. I don't think there's any agency involved in this phenomenon, though I stop short of declaring that there isn't. For one thing, I doubt that we have free will, so I see such things as this as the most likely product of prior conditions, none of which are likely to involve agency in the strict sense. But I could be wrong, of course.

[pErvinalia]

Even if there isn't an active promotion of this phenomenon, it's interesting to consider that narratives like this happen. Why are the media so insistent on pushing these narratives? Is it really as simple as it being a case of 'we get what we want'? Like I said in the OP, I tend to believe that it is a combination of the two. There's got to be privileged elites who understand the precarious dynamic that keeps society together and stops it from unravelling. Do they actively promote narratives like this? I reckon there's got to be some who do. Does Rupert Murdoch?

[FBM]

Look to the $$ trail. Maybe some anal-yst noticed that this sort of story gets more hits than some other type, and therefore generates more advertising profits. I honestly don't think the people in control give a rat's ass what narrative it is, as long as it increases their bottom line.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Look to the $$ trail. Maybe some anal-yst noticed that this sort of story gets more hits than some other type, and therefore generates more advertising profits. I honestly don't think the people in control give a rat's ass what narrative it is, as long as it increases their bottom line.

Sums up Fox News nicely.

[PsychoSerenity]

People think and communicate in stories to a large degree. A familiar even if exaggerated narrative is quicker and easier to communicate than a more refined and specific one. I think the overuse of this particular word comes significantly from the way our media have to compete for readership. The main place I see it used is in a sensationalised headline. Use of the word "Hero" implies some great tragedy was averted, and therefore people are compelled to read on in case this story might help them survive in the next instance. I think in the media greater readership, and with it more money and power, is motive enough without the need for a subtle scheming intentions.

However the other main place I see it used is in honouring someone after some specific deed - and this is usually done by people in positions of power. Honours and awards have always seemed quite bizarre to me - and often people interviewed will say "I did what anyone in my situation would do" showing how unnecessary it really is. But I think it comes from the concept of us all as free agents, and the need (and opportunity to have the power) to dole out rewards and punishments on others society - whether or not it's a concious effort to control probably doesn't even make much difference in most cases.

[Cormac]

The fact that a term is overused or misappropriated doesn't mean that cannot be correctly applied in a given situation...

For example - this one.

That girl had no real ideal whether or not a train was going to come down along that line. The man was very confused, and extremely slow moving given the danger he was in.

It is irrelevant that there was not a train due for 10 minutes. That girl - even if conscious of that, couldn't be sure that some other train would not pass through.

She IS a hero (or heroine, for the old-fashioned).

Many others so designated are not - for example, Olympians, and so on.

[Cormac]

Even if there isn't an active promotion of this phenomenon, it's interesting to consider that narratives like this happen. Why are the media so insistent on pushing these narratives? Is it really as simple as it being a case of 'we get what we want'? Like I said in the OP, I tend to believe that it is a combination of the two. There's got to be privileged elites who understand the precarious dynamic that keeps society together and stops it from unravelling. Do they actively promote narratives like this? I reckon there's got to be some who do. Does Rupert Murdoch?

Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias ... ainment.22

(Infotainment and Oversimplification)

And Fox "Infotainment" in action:

http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_c ... orm_public


This is why. Good guys and bad guys - a nice simple "Wild West" version of the real world, where noone has to think too much about reality.

[En_Route]

Even if there isn't an active promotion of this phenomenon, it's interesting to consider that narratives like this happen. Why are the media so insistent on pushing these narratives? Is it really as simple as it being a case of 'we get what we want'? Like I said in the OP, I tend to believe that it is a combination of the two. There's got to be privileged elites who understand the precarious dynamic that keeps society together and stops it from unravelling. Do they actively promote narratives like this? I reckon there's got to be some who do. Does Rupert Murdoch?

I thought your OP was a terrific piece of writing. My own view is that we are sense-making, teleological creatures with a natural predisposition for imposing grand narratives on, and discerning patterns and purposes in, the chaos of our existence. The popular media has a long tradition of painting events in primary colours, filtering the world through the prism of our appetite for drama and pathos, tragedy and triumph, heroism and villainy. This is simply good business and I can't discern any sinister "bread and circuses" agenda behind it.

[pErvinalia]

The question that always comes to my mind in the case of sensationalist media: Is the dog wagging the tail, or is the tail wagging the dog? Or is it a bit of both? Probably a bit of both, I suspect.

[Coito ergo sum]

.dupe