Showing posts with label heroes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label heroes. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

SUPER HEROES


There was a series on TV a few years ago called Heroes that a lot of my friends really liked. It’s one of those stories that you secretly wish were true, that there are people on this earth with superhuman abilities (like the ability of my bowels to tell me which country I am in). You wonder what day—maybe today—you will come to know of your powers. You wonder what those powers will be. You even wonder what you will do with those powers, which leads to the big question we all ponder—your purpose.


I guess the draw of superheroes is that they have such a visible and obvious purpose. They live for something bigger than themselves, they fight for a greater cause. And they win. They know why they are here and that single purpose drives their actions, redirecting them when they lose their way. That must be part of the draw of superheroes, why we like them, or part of the reason why movie after movie is made of the various DC Comics and Marvel superheroes.




Luckily, we have real-life superheroes. They’re called soldiers, the military—people who serve in the armed forces. Because they protect us and risk their lives, they are heroes. Because they serve our country we should honour them as real-life superheroes. Leaving behind the debate of the complexity of war and whose interests war serves, I’ve always been confused by the sentiment that the military serves our country.

It is true the military serves the country, but the way people say the phrase implies “the military serves the country whereas other people do not.” I’ve experienced that thinking as false. There is a host of ways to serve your country. Many people will immediately think police officers and fire fighters. Yes, they serve your country. But there are many more. A public official, elected or appointed, can serve your country. Doctors serve your country. Immigration workers, judges, journalists, and social workers serve your country. Most importantly, teachers serve your country.

The second problem I have with the implication that “the military serves our country” compared to others who do not, is sacrifice. I’ve been told that the military serves our country because they sacrifice their life to do their jobs. I agree; it’s true that many military women and men have sacrificed their lives in the line of duty.  To describe the manner of that sacrifice, I would like to quote General George S. Patton Jr.: “the object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other guy die for his.” I agree with him. Armed servicemen and servicewomen do die, but they are trying to avoid death and sacrifice in the hopes that the other side dies for its country.

Contrast that mentality with a willing sacrifice. Where do you find that? You find that in people who offer a living sacrifice. As powerful as the effects of the death of certain individuals like Martin Luther King Jr., I feel confident in saying that an alive Dr. King would have done more work and more good than the assassinated one. So, a death-based sacrifice does have some meaning, but the more powerful statement is someone who gives their life to something—a living sacrifice.

It is in this way that you begin to see how people like teachers can be a living sacrifice. Teaching when you could be doing something else with your time and degree, teaching in tough neighbourhoods, teaching underserved children, doing a job in which you work nights and weekends and are compensated comparatively less for doing that job, a job based on seniority when you are junior and excellent, or a job based on excellence when you are senior and respected. Doing a job in which the actual responsibilities of your job on day one are the exact same as the responsibilities on your last day of your final year but you’re still expected to achieve all the same duties no matter which day it is—doing such a job is tough. I would like to elevate teachers (among many other service professions both explicit and implicit) to the level of super-hero, for some teachers are super-heroes who serve our country.

FALLEN HEROES


I guess my mind has been stuck on super-heroes because I have been traveling in other countries on a day that means a lot to me—Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and inauguration day for Obama’s 2nd term. I made a decision a few years ago not to treat specific holidays as a day to relax, go hiking, take a 3-day weekend vacation, or have a picnic. I decided to try to honour the day and those in whose memory it was created. That means doing something for Veteren’s Day and Memorial Day and Martin Luther King Jr. day (Labour Day actually is a day of rest). So while reflecting on the day and the events I was missing, I remembered that part of every rite of passage is the accompanying transition of our super-heroes to a state that is not so super.

I met with my weekly bunch of friends for our latest session on our theme of Superheroes. My friend Richard was leading it, and I know he likes to provoke people so I knew what to expect. Right from the start he created a rich multi-media presentation that called Gandhi a racist pedophile who said we shouldn’t fight Hitler, Dr. King a plagiarizing philanderer, Lance Armstrong a crooked drug king-pen, Mugabe a freedom fighter, etc. He systematically sought to unearth, unhouse, and unsettle any notions of heroes and villains we held.

Luckily, I had already gone through such falls from grace of my heroes (plus I wasn’t sure about all his accusations). Not only did I fall with my heroes in the past, but I came out on the other side. My friend sought to shatter the image of the heroes but he forgot one important thing: we are all a mixture of inconsistent actions and thoughts. The point is to take the good and choose the better history. Yes, Winston Churchill is hailed as a god of freedom while at the same time, denying that very freedom to Gandhi and India. Jefferson crafted the Declaration of Independence and said he would fight tyranny anywhere it reared his heads, yet he called Black people inferior while secretly fathering children with at least one slave. I will still quote the true words of Jefferson regardless of his missteps. I will still imitate the dogged determination of Churchill in the name of freedom even though his understanding of it was narrow. Likewise, I will still push for the truths that I have learned while still working on my own inconsistencies.

You see, the (second) problem with Richard’s attempt to bring low my super-heroes is that he thought we saw them as perfect in the traditional sense. Perfection is not a state, it is a process. You never arrive. Instead to be perfect simply means that you willingly and consciously undergo the process of unlearning and relearning, unlearning and relearning, in cyclical fashion. So I don’t admire someone for being “perfect” or faultless or not making mistakes or not making any big mistakes. Instead I admire how someone handles the mistakes she made. It’s what you do when you know you are wrong. That’s why I’ve told people with a clear conscience, “Imitate me. Be like me.” I’ve never meant that in the actual steps but in my honesty with my steps (or my attempts at honesty). I admire a humble, honest leader who messes up 10 times more than one who never makes mistakes. The reason? Even the one who doesn’t make mistakes, makes mistakes. It’s just that the humble one admits it. And that simple act opens everyone into the public process of unlearning and relearning. That act puts the leader on the same playing field with the followers, in the same boat, and creates a relationally more powerful bond of trust that engenders following more than any “perfect” leader could.

You have to be careful, though. I’ve seen leaders, in an attempt to be humble, “produce” missteps. These leaders will publicly admit these “produced” mistakes with great humility. However, you know they are produced because these leaders always feel the need to share a misstep that is safe, something that is a mistake enough to show they are not perfect, but minor enough to avoid endangering perceptions of the leader. In this way the pseudo-leader can be both humble and safe. A true leader, one who acts as a living sacrifice doesn’t think about self-safety, only authenticity that paradoxically increases the safety of the followers, students, community, congregation, group, or family. And you know these pseudo-leaders are not humble because they proudly use this public display of humility to show how humble they are or even to teach that humility, a characteristic they hold, is important.