The Modern Hero

Man, how great was that New Yorker profile of Rory Stewart? I’ve been fairly interested in Stewart for a while now: I was interested enough to pick up his book about walking through Afghanistan in 2002, The Places in Between, but not interested enough to finish it… 

  The most interesting aspect of the profile was how conscious Stewart is of cultivating an image of a “hero.” A lot of this has to do with his affinity with the past, and in particular, “great men” from the past — Alexander, Napoleon, Lawrence of Arabia etc. As the writer 

  It’s a pretty uncommon thing for a public figure in any field — politics, arts and even sports — to identify and associate themselves so clearly with historical figures the way Stewart does — he has a particularly big man-crush on T.E. Lawrence. It’s hard to know whether to appreciate the honesty of these thoughts* — or his answer of “Yes, that’s kind of it” when asked if he thinks he should be Prime Minister — or be doubly suspicious of these motives. 

But the way he talks about “great men” and the “great men” he includes in his discussions give a pretty good insight into his own self-conception: 

“In the courtyard, Stewart took off his tie and described a book about heroism that he had tried to write in his twenties: ‘We imagine, in the modern world that heroes are accidental heroes.’ His enunciation is careful, as if giving street directions to a foreigner. ‘But, historically, many of the people who were heroes in their society set out to be heroes. They emulated other heroes, were obsessed with being a hero, wanted to be godlike. In contemporary society, that disqualifies you. If you’re trying to be a hero, you almost by definition can’t be. But Achilles wants to be a hero. When he gets grumpy, he says to his mother, “You told me that if I agreed to die young and far from home I’d be the best among the best, now and in perpetuity!” ’ (Stewart struck the table in emphasis.) ‘Then Alexander the Great wants to be Achilles, and has ‘The Best Among the Best’ put above his tent. Caesar wants to be Alexander. Napoleon is obsessed with being Caesar. Byron models his carriage on Napoleon’s, and buys locks of his hair. Lawrence of Arabia travels with the Illiad and ‘Le Morte d’Arthur’ in his backpack. There’s a narrative there which people aren’t quite taking seriously.’”

I would disagree with Stewart’s comparison of modern notions of heroism and more Romantic ones. These days, it seems like people dedicate themselves to certain causes or ideals that are deeply felt, and then raise to prominence because of the timing and situation. Of course there is large degrees of self-promotion, vanity and egotism involved in that and one side can outweigh the other in certain cases. Whereas a hero of the past is almost solely driven by these forces; if there are any ideals involved its in the superiority of their culture or their own personal greatness. I think the ambition and drive the challenge and/or prove onself is there in any time period. It’s just a large deal of the intentions and the end goals that differ. 

So it’s intriguing that Stewart chooses to name-drop Napoleon and Byron, where as Barack Obama speaks of Martin Luther King Jr. and Lincoln. I guess that was my qualm with reading this profile of Stewart. Maybe it’s just how the profile was written, but it was hard to discern Stewart’s real political beliefs. Yes, he is lucid on withdrawing from Afghanistan, but he’s foggy on Iraq — where he served as a Deputy Governorate Co-Ordinator of some sort — and doesn’t seem that overly troubled on a moral level by Western imperialism or the War on Terror.

Yes, he wanted to live in British housing projects for two years to understand urban poverty before he became a politician, but he never did that. Yes, he espouses the Tory line on deregulation, the inefficiencies of bureaucracy and the opening of markets, but in this profile he admits that if the opportunity of running for Parliament had been otherwise, he would have joined Labor.**  

This grey area could derive not just from the contents of the profile, but the timing of the profile; it comes at the start of Stewart’s political career — he was recently elected Conservative MP from a part of Britain that he had never visited until he decided to run in the primary. 

While the profile is weak on Stewart’s real/applicable views on the world — it mostly contains views of himself, which I guess is to be expected in profiles but is definitely not always the case — it shows his conscious effort to find a suitable political identity. The writer profiler, Ian Parker, sums it this effort up pretty well here, ”Stewart is self-conscious about how easily he inspires confidence and how pleasurable esteem can be. One senses his anxiety: if a man is going to be admired, then let it be for a cause.” 

In another passage Parker summarizes Stewart’s political transformation: 

“Stewart, who was once on the left, now describes himself as a Tory. He alludes to Edmund Burke; he talks of restraint and ‘common sense’; he believes only in modest political interventions nationally or internationally. But these positions lack adventure and moral leadership. The heroes of Stewart’s youth did a lot of intervening. So Stewart seems to strive for a synthesis. Stewartism (if it comes to that) may describe a kind of splendid anti-idealism: the vigorous and manly pursuit of not too much.” 

This anti-idealism*** seems like an approach I can definitely get behind, and one that is much needed in today’s world. The profile attaches onto this anti-idealism as the foundation of Stewart’s political thought and from the little that I’ve read by Stewart on his pet issue, Afghanistan, I can see this at work. 

But it is a bit of a surprise to hear this come from someone who so enthusiastically associates himself with figures of idolization. Yes, Stewart seems to knows the realities and details behind the myths, but it doesn’t seem to damper his affection for these figures. I think this is rather odd because I assume most interested/intelligent people who look deeply into historical figures who have acquired mythical dimensions roughly follow the same course: 1. they are exposed to a story of a mythical and are inspired by it 2. they look into it closely and realize that many of the facts of the myth greatly complicate their understanding of the figure 3. they get frustrated that they were led astray about the truths and realities of this figure, and 4. they get frustrated that the mythical content from the figure’s life distracts people from really taking away the important things about this person’s life. 

In fact, this profile makes a thorough case of how Stewart has let others embellish and romanticize his own life in numerous cases — and from reading it, it’s not hard to see how Stewart could have stopped this from happening. It also shows how Stewart is now facing the unwanted consequences of letting people conjure up these ideals of him. 

So I guess the two interesting questions to see about Stewart’s future careers will be 1. How can a figure who is so attracted to idealistic figures, prone to letting people turn him into one of those figures — and who later rebels against that effort — espouse a political philosophy that takes anti-idealism as its basis? and 2. Can this anti-idealism attach itself to a real political program that achieves real results and makes things better or will Stewart’s own idealistic sensibility — and his personally admitted egotism — get in the way?

——————

* I usually think that public figures should be more open about their intentions even if they are less than crystal-clean. On this subject, Stewart has Obama by a long shot. 

** Yes, that’s a pretty striking admission, and it makes the opening of this campaign speech seem pretty hypocritical or at least makes him look even more opportunistic.

*** A great quote that Stewart is fond of on this subject is, “If we can do less than we pretend, we can do much more than we fear.”