Heroism and Masculinities

The conception of masculinity is developed out of the image of gender as “an achieved status which is a function of socialization and has social, cultural and psychological concepts.”1 Gender identity is assessed by the interaction of the individual view or belief of belonging to a particular gender, called self-identification, and by social codes, considering a person to be masculine or feminine according to his or her behaviour, called others’ identification. Although the concept of masculinity is not inherent and prone to adjustments, “[m]asculinity has traditionally been seen as self-evident, natural, universal; above all as unitary and whole, not multiple or divided.”2 Recent developments, on the contrary, indicate the rise of different forms of masculinities according to influences like the two World Wars, the Sexual Revolution in the 1960ies or the Hippy Movement in the 1970ies, which contribute to a revolution of femininity. Besides, certain verbal expressions or experiences of society seem to foster the idea that various actions can contribute to the development of a boy into a man, suggesting that male behaviour does not come without help. “Indeed, we simply can’t say whether any particular kind of quality or aptitude is ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’. There is no way of telling. Most, if not all, of our behaviour is learned.”3 Doubtless, different men have different experiences as man what leads to a continual modification of gender. Thus, “gender concepts […] depend rather on current cultural, political, social and historical determinants,”4 questioning the clear definition of a universal masculinity.

First of all a limitation of the term hero seems inevitable, as it frequently is applied in a relatively broad sense. On the one hand many a person, occupying the main part of a literary work, is often referred to as hero. However, allusions to “the main character in a narrative or dramatic work”5 are of no importance in this investigation. In such cases “[t]he more neutral term protagonist is often preferable, to avoid confusion with the usual sense of heroism as admirable courage and nobility, since in many works the leading character may not be morally or otherwise superior.”6 Thus, on the other hand the term hero also can receive a more restricted meaning, alluding to classical virtues and ethical nobility, which characterize a heroic person. In literature, this person is determined as a narrative social construct, emerging out of a crisis or appearing by incidence, as things happen to him. Able to change the current situation by combining action and reflection and battling for the benefits of the community, he rises to heroism. Despite his vices and virtues, with which the hero has to struggle, certain universal characteristics obviously have eternal validity. Consequently, he functions as an ideal, representing the controlling ideas of the time. As these ideas are dynamic, being influenced by historical, individual, cultural or sociological features, a more general definition of the term heroism seems problematic. The ideal of heroism undoubtedly is bound to various circumstances, like history or culture, and the average desirable expectations, projected upon the hero, are prone to change. Thus, it has to be renewed from epoch to epoch according to individual experiences or collective manifestations. These diverse representations of the hero and his heroism mainly originate in the acceptance of or the rejection by society.