Breeze Perspectives: Celebrating the insignificant

Are “heroes” who die from tragedy really worth our reverence?

Despite what their respective Web site “shrines” want us believe, Matthew Shepard and Rachel Scott are not heroes. Despite what countless bumper stickers, bracelets and T-shirts would like us to think, victims of cancer, sexual assault, gang violence and so on are not heroes either. We celebrate these people for basically doing nothing.

In the cases of Matthew Shepard and Rachel Scott, we should recognize exactly what it was that these people did: they simply passed away. In 1998, Matthew Shepard, a University of Wyoming student, was beaten to death because of his homosexuality. Rachel Scott was the first of many victims who were shot during the Columbine High School massacre in 1999.

Though their deaths may have been particularly gruesome and may have occurred under extraordinarily despicable circumstances, this does not amount to any positive action for which they should be celebrated. Neither died in the name of a cause in which they believed. Rather, they died unexpectedly in very tragic incidents.

In the cases of the survivors and victims of various diseases we should recognize a few key elements. First, these people’s survival was largely dependent on doctors and specialists. It is not as though these people cured themselves. Second, humans and animals alike strive to maintain their existence, and this occurs independent of any conscious effort. So can we really celebrate these people for acting on instinct?

It might seem unnecessarily crass and cynical to tamper with these pieties, but I worry that they are symptomatic of deeper problems in our society. All of our reverence is poured into victims. Not only is this problematic, it is nihilistic. Is there really no one and no thing singularly great that we can revere and be inspired by?

The glamorization of victimization seems to feed off of our ever-increasing capability for passivity. Victimization is generally a passive process. Not only are the victims themselves passive, but the causes identified with them often require no real activity. Frequently, these causes are aimed at the nebulous concept of “raising awareness.” I have yet to discern exactly what this entails, but I am not confident that it entails more than the distribution of stickers and ribbons and possibly some fundraising efforts.

Those who rally around cancer survivors and victims of violence can participate in their respective causes by such simple means as wearing a bracelet, displaying a bumper sticker or occasionally handing out a flyer. This is hardly what one might call active. At best, it could be called reactive.

I do not mean to vilify or degrade victims. Rather, I wish to reframe who it is that we celebrate and glorify. We should find heroes in activity and not passivity.

Peter Weems is a senior philosophy major.