When you hear the word âhero,â what kaleidoscope of images cross your mindâs eye? Do you picture a well-defined physique and a cape billowing in the wind? Do you visualize a badge or a uniform? Perhaps you see a monument to fallen heroes or you recognize someone who demonstrates heroism. For many of us, the definition of hero can be both universal and personal. We would like to believe that given the opportunity we could be a hero ourselves. Yet, such a title was not always available to the common man.
Early mythological heroes boasted supernatural abilities and performed legendary feats that tested their physical, mental, and emotional tenacity. Historically, those same ancient heroes belonged to one of two categoriesââdeified human beings (esp. historical figures) whose great deeds had raised them to a rank intermediate between gods and humans, and who were venerated or worshipped; and demigods, said to be the offspring of a god or goddess and a human.â1 The term âheroâ itself comes from the classical Latin hÄrĆs (plural hÄrĆÄs) meaning âman of superhuman strength, courage, or ability, favoured by the gods, man with heroic qualities.â2 However as humanity evolved, so too did the definition of hero. No longer literal intermediaries, many heroes today are defined as âsomeone who helps without anything expected in return. Their gesture may be big or small, profound or not, it doesnât make imâ any less of a hero.â3 Although the ideals and qualifications of heroism are changing, heroes are still the âidols of cultureâ4 that help shape humanityâs progression.
However, there is a dark side to having idols. The onset of print text and media means that our lives are now saturated with heroic images. No longer the godlike man of ancient times, every CPR performer, cat-from-tree rescuer, and whistle-blower is now lauded as hero. An embodiment of society, the hero figure is often manipulated and reconfigured as needed. As the world changed, so too did the image of the hero. The deified human and the demigod hero became the warrior hero, the warrior hero became the noble knight hero, and the noble knight hero became the distinguished gentleman hero. The industrial and French revolutions saw the distinguished gentleman hero become the self-made man hero, and the technological revolution saw the rise of the little man hero. Cultures establish a symbiotic relationship with a symbiotic ideal. As American historian Dixon Wecter explains in his text, The Hero in America: A Chronicle of Hero Worship, a hero âis selected because he seems to fit the mould desired by the massesâand, once his work is done, he is idealized to fill that mould even better.â5 For sociologist Orrin Klapp, âHeroes state major themes of an ethos, the kinds of things people approve.â6 And, for theologist Paul Kooistra, âHeroes express the kinds of things which a culture approves. They are human expressions of idealized social values.â7 And although these three scholars are writing within decades of each otherâwith Wecter publishing in 1941, Klapp publishing in 1961, and Kooistra publishing in 1989âtheir observations all point to the same thingâgodlike or not, we need heroes.
It is baffling, however, that among this cry that lauds our need for heroes is a whisper that taunts our need for criminals. Villains, scoundrels, bad apples, badmen, rabble-rousers, murderers, thieves, degenerates, psychopaths, racketeers, ingrates, bandits, outlaws, undesirables, pariahs, and convictsâyou may call them many things, but what you canât call them is forgettable. So, while we may need heroes, we want criminals. More than that, it is about balanceâa balance that the criminal and hero figure provide. As much as we need heroes, we need criminalsâsocietal stability depends on the presence of both. Kooistra explains that our want of criminals may be influenced by three factorsâthe psychological perspective that posits them as âa response to fundamental problems facing the human species,â8 the cultural perspective that posits them as âsymbolic expressions of cherished cultural values,â9 and the sociological perspective which examines âhow social conditions influence the interpretations of the lawbreakerâs character and deeds.â10 These three perspectives come together to create a figure whose very existence is contingent upon societyâs need for themâmuch like the hero.
Like the term âhero,â the term âcriminalâ finds a portion of its origins from the Latin crÄ«minÄlis, but the term also has French roots as seen in the French criminel.11 In the Anglo-Norman and Middle French criminel means âimpious, wicked, pagan, that constitutes a crime, guilty of a crime, that relates to crime or its punishment.â12 In the classical Latin crÄ«minÄlis, the term was used to reference âof or relating to crime (2nd cent. a.d.).â13 In post-classical Latin, the term was taken to mean âsinful.â14 However, much like the definition of âhero,â the definition of âcriminalâ also changed as humanity and, more specifically, culture changed. Modern popular cultural vernacular has also been saturated with the term criminal. Some of its more recent demarcations have included, âwhen something is completely and utterly bad,â âwhen someone is so good looking it should be a crime,â âA person with a propensity toward violence, but not enough capital to start a corporation,â and âwhen something is uber cool in any way.â15 With this shift, the term becomes conflated with something not necessarily good, but not necessarily bad either.
Just as we find heroes and criminals throughout history, we also find those ambiguous figures who serves as both criminal and hero. And, like our hero and criminal figures, our heroic criminals are also present throughout history. As Kooistra explains, âthroughout history we find a handful of individuals who have robbed and killed in clear violation of law, but who were not considered wicked or depraved.â16 These ambiguous figures are what this collection examines. By looking beyond the conventional definitions of criminal and hero, we can begin to âreconceptualizeâ the application of the term criminal hero, and discover that at its core, the paradox of the criminal hero finds it conception in discontentmentâusually motivated by some corrupt authoritarian figure or regime.17 Their formulaic backstory is also usually the same,
They are driven to a life of crime either as a victim of injustice or for committing an act which the state, ...