Abstract
Scholarly heroism describes heroic scholars as scientists or nonscientists whose commitment to the pursuit of truth is so strong, and whose achievements are so important, that they are willing to navigate professional difficulties, even give up income, security, and status, to stay true to themselves and their calling.
A living systems perspective on heroism begins with considerations of the reality of the term, “heroism.” Consider Alfred Korzybski’s famous phrase “the map is not the territory.” This truism suggests that the word “heroism” is not the thing heroism. But we tend either to forget the distinction or assume that the word represents the thing. “Represent” assumes there is something real or factual (heroism) out there. Something to be researched, theorized, and applied. Whether or not there is an objective thing or fact that we label “heroism” is not a trivial question. Perhaps “heroism,” an abstract noun, is best thought of as a concept (not an objective thing) that takes on specific meaning in a particular language and culture, and that meaning changes over time.
Furthermore, the original denotations, connotations, and symbolic meanings of a word when it is first coined and used can change over time. Words and concepts can be hijacked to support dominant cultural narratives and the interests of the powerful. Examples include “sustainability” (green rhetoric camouflaging unending growth and development), “inclusion” (which only has meaning in societies that are inherently non-inclusive), “systems thinking” (as a tool to control or deliver impacts via KPIs and other metrics), and “heroism” (as if heroic leaders can save civilization from collapse, or at least save national economies and reclaim the social status of groups losing their traditionally superior status, such as working and middle class white males in America).