Junior high students love to be worthy of pity. I remember, as a 7th grader, having this baffling realization that we all were jostling one another for the highest, unofficial title of "most worthy of pity." I remember wondering why on earth we were doing this. Why am I doing this? The weirdest part was that we weren't seeking actual pity; as soon as someone expressed something like "wow, I'm so sorry this is happening to you. I'm glad I don't have to go through that" it was no longer desirable. In high school, and even college, it became a battle to demonstrate to one another how little we slept, which, as a functional insomniac, I readily engaged in.
I didn't notice it so much among my friends at college, but I did read a recent article, written by a college student, that pointed out the pervasiveness of the "busy-ness" competition: "Oh? You think your schedule's bad? Just wait 'til you hear mine."
This trend among youth is just a trickle down effect of a Nietzschean idea that might be called the glorification of a victim. (By the way, when I say Nietzschean, I mean that Nietzsche talked about it, not that he advocated it).
Here's the thesis: Everyone wants to be considered a victim, not because we enjoy suffering, but because it is the easiest way to being considered a hero.
Implicit in the word "victim" is the idea that an individual is suffering, has endured suffering, or died because he or she suffered. The Latin word victima (from which we receive our English derivative) referred to an object used for sacrifice; usually this was an animal, though in some particularly dark circumstances it could be a human being. Generally, we use victim to mean someone who suffers: Victims of serious crimes all the way down to victims of busy schedules have, in some way, been subjected to suffering.
Heroes are a different matter. In classical Greek myth, a hero was term used for a mortal man of great ability with divine parentage--a demigod--and especially one who had benefited mankind. Heracles (also known by his Roman name, Hercules), who notably saved cities from terrible monsters, is a prime example of this. In Homer's era, it became a term used to refer to warriors as a whole (those strong men who protected the city), which we have some remnant of in our cultural term war hero. Nowadays, however, it is best preserved in the ever-popular superhero.
Heroes, like victims, certainly suffer, but they suffer on behalf of someone else (and usually to save that person, or persons, from suffering) not because they find themselves persecuted in particular. It is a different kind of suffering. Still implicit in that definition of even a comic book superhero is the idea of someone suffering so that another might not. A victim endures suffering, a hero saves a victim, or potential victim, from suffering.
These days the status of a victim and the status of a hero have become functionally the same thing. We see this in the way people talk about victims of gun violence, victims of oppression, and victims of discrimination. We talk about them as if they are heroes simply because they suffered.
I do want to clarify that victims and heroes are not mutually exclusive: the mother who lost her child because a drunk driver hit her car, who then works to ensure that the amount of drunk drivers on the road is reduced, certainly is both a victim and a hero. The boy who grew up in poverty because of poor parental choices and lives his life with intelligence, frugality, and wisdom to ensure that his children do not go through the same things is also a victim and a hero. Their suffering makes them victims, their actions to prevent others from suffering the way they did makes them heroes. The two categories are not mutually exclusive, but they are not the same thing.
I'm about to say something rather controversial and potentially offensive, and I want to preface it with this caveat: we need to remember victims; we need to recognize their suffering and deal justice where we can. We have a duty to every victim of true injustice.
Nevertheless, we should not glorify them. Why? Because we need to preserve the difference between a victim and a hero. If every victim automatically becomes a hero, then our culture is encouraging its people to accentuate their own suffering in order to be noticed. Where, then, is the encouragement to act in order to alleviate the sufferings of others? Is that the kind of culture we want to create?
To the Christians: We are told to act like Christ. He certainly suffered, but he did so willingly, and at the hands of those he intended to save. He is the ultimate hero and we are called to act like him. But the culture of glorifying victimhood in the place of heroes is killing that attempt.
So here's the conclusion: we must give justice to the victim. That is the duty of a civil society created for the protection of its citizenry's wellbeing and safety. To the hero we must give honor in order to create a civil society that encourages self-sacrifice and virtue. But we must not confuse the two, or else poor, misled junior high students all over the country will continue to believe themselves heroes simply because they feel like they're suffering.
Best wishes,
Nicole
