Is Political Action Heroic?Heroism and American Political Culture

490

IS POLITICAL ACTION HEROIC?

Heroism and American Political Culture

AMY FRIED

Colgate University

Although contemporary American political discourse often refers to heroic action, scholars havepaid little attention to the concept of heroism Because individuals’ understandings of politicsare constituted and reflected by the prosaic terms at their disposal, inattention to the concept ofheroism interferes with our ability to comprehend citizens’ values and the political culture. Inaddition, although Tocqueville is often cited as a prescient observer of American life, empiricalanalysts have neglected Tocquevillean individualism. In response, this article analyzes foursubjective views of heroism, with particular attention to the relative importance of public andprivate life. Some perspectives find greatness in both spheres, whereas other conceptualizationssequester one from the other. Implications for the state and study of political culture are discussed.

For if the hero is the embodiment of our ideals, the fulfillment of our secretneeds, and the image of the daydream self, then to analyze him is likely tomean, in the end, an analysis of the hero-makers and the hero-worshippers,who are, indeed, ourselves.

-Robert Penn Warren1

I suggest that in this time of extraordinary change, when new commitmentsto friendship and cooperation are being made among cold-war enemies,there are new opportunities for heroism. I hope for the day when a candidatefor President will rise high in public favorfordoing other service to America;because she gave four years of her youth to the Peace Corps; because shetaught in an inner-city school for 15 years before becoming a politician;because she gave half her time as a young lawyer to provide free legalservices for the poor before she ran for office. &dquo;Peace hero&dquo; may not have

the same ring as war hero. But we could get used to the idea.-Citizen’s letter to the editor during

the 1992 presidential election’

Each nation has its heroes and heroines. In the United States, anumber of political leaders have drawn upon or epitomized Americanheroic archetypes. George Washington symbolized republican valuesAMERICAN POLITICS QUARTERLY, Vol. 21 No. 4, October 1993 490-517 7m 1993 Sage Publications, Inc.

at UNIV OF MAINE ORONO on June 1, 2016apr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://apr.sagepub.com/

491

in the young nation, Andrew Jackson was the populist frontiersmanand war hero, Teddy Roosevelt represented American energy and theadventurous spirit, and Martin Luther King has come to exemplifyleadership for social justice. Others considered by some Americans tobe heroes or heroines include Thomas Jefferson, Betsy Ross, AbrahamLincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Charles Lindbergh, Franklin D. Roosevelt,Mother Teresa, Oliver North, and General Norman Schwarzkopf. Yetthe meaning of these individuals’ deeds has not been uncontested orstatic. Instead, scholarly analyses of opinion and collective memory(Karsten 1978; Wills 1984; Schwartz 1991; and Frisch 1989) haveshown that interpretations of heroic individuals vary historically andduring one era.3

Granted this multiplicity, what difference do debates about heroicstatus make? As the opening quotation by Robert Penn Warren sug-gests, who we call heroic can disclose what values are held most dear.In particular, this article argues that an analysis of heroism revealswhat political actions are considered great, the place of politics inindividuals’ value hierarchies, and the presence and magnitude ofattitude conflict or consensus within a polity. Each of these substantiveissues are important elements of any political culture and have impli-cations for standards of civic behavior, political leadership, and polit-ical coalitions and divisions.

One crucial element of political culture is the perceived importanceof public and private life. Over 150 years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville(1966) argued that individualism-&dquo;a calm and considered feelingwhich disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of hisfellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends&dquo; (p. 477)-was an attribute of American democracy. Tocqueville believed thatindividualism could be kept in check by participatory and communal&dquo;habits of the heart;&dquo; on the other hand, this quality might increase andthreaten the roots of the polity and society. In our time, many lamentthe decline of political participation in the United States (Burnham1987; Piven and Cloward 1988) and some maintain that Tocqueville’scaution has gained new import (Bellah et al. 1985).

Author’s Note: I wish to thank the University of Minnesota Graduate School for fellowshipsupport and Marcus Flathman for research assistance. I also thank Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, JohnL. Sullivan, W. Phillips Shively, Larry Jacobs, Ron Aminzade, and George Lipsitz for theircommentary and advice. Reviewers and the editor of this journal provided useful comments.



492

However, although economic individualism has received scholarlyattention (Feldman and Zaller,1992; Feldman 1983,1988; Hochschild1981; McClosky and Zaller 1984; Sniderman and Brody 1977), em-pirical research on Tocquevillean individualism is surprisingly lim-ited. Economic individualism-the belief that economic success orfailure is dependent on each person’s skills, efforts, and talents-is animportant part of the American political landscape. Yet economicindividualism is not the only sort of individualism that has existed inthe United States. Although economic individualism has implicationsfor the adoption of public policy and for economic voting, Tocquevilleanindividualism has consequences for civic life. Tocquevillean individ-ualism involves citizens’ tendencies to pull away from collectiveaction in the public sphere. As a starting point for studying thisprivatizing orientation, this article explores citizens’ views of therelative importance of public and private by analyzing which sphereis considered to be the primary site of excellence. By emphasizingcitizens’ understandings, this article presents a corrective to certainproblems in political culture research.

RESEARCH ON POLITICAL CULTURE

Realizing that attributes of individuals are connected to the healthand shape of a political system, questions about political values andpolitical culture have long intrigued students of politics (Almond andVerba 1963, 1980; Pateman 1971; Elazar 1972; Laitin 1986;Wildavsky 1987; Gibbins 1989; Ingelhart 1990). For individuals to beinvolved in political matters, they must believe that this sphere isworthwhile. If people view other arenas as more important, thenpolitics will be abandoned or given cursory attention, leading ulti-mately to its decay and corruption.

Given the importance of political culture, some political scientistshave called for renewed research on the topic. However, if thisrevival is to be productive, political science must confront problemsthat have plagued previous studies. To be sure, works from Almondand Verba (1963) onward have made a lasting contribution to ourunderstanding of political values and culture. Large, cross-nationaldatabases have enabled us to better discern some significant differ-



493

ences across nations. However, scholars have not attended to thequalitatively diverse meaning systems adopted across cultures and bydifferent individuals within the same nation. As MacIntyre (1971)notes, political culture studies typically use surveys that assume thatthe meanings of concepts are shared. Thus when Almond and Verba(1963) asked their subjects about how proud they were of their country,the researchers assumed that &dquo;pride&dquo; was a simple quality, whichvaried only in intensity. MacIntyre (1971) argues that these scholarsmisread the situation, for Italians did not apply the concept of pride topublic activities. Instead, pride was a quality that applied to feelingsabout one’s family. By measuring pride along a unidimensional scale,the different conceptualization held by Italians was lost, and insteadItalians appeared to care less for their country than citizens of othernations.4

Although critics of political culture research have often pointed tocross-national variations in understandings, subjective views differwithin nations as well. Value conflicts in a nation may occur between

regions (Elazar 1972), over time or during one period (Thompson,Ellis, and Wildavsky 1990; Bellah et al. 1985; McClosky and Zaller1984; Singal 1984). The research described here analyzes viewswithin one area of the United States. Whatever the particular focus,analysis of individuals’ subjective perspectives necessarily rests on aninterpretive framework.

INTERPRETIVISM AND ORDINARY LANGUAGE ANALYSIS

An epistemological and methodological emphasis on meaning is atthe heart of interpretive analysis (Winch 1965; Bernstein 1976; Taylor1979). One of its most important traditions is the interpretive approachdeveloped in anthropology and closely associated with Geertz’s(1973) theoretical and empirical work on public symbols and rituals.Geertz sees the human being as &dquo;an animal suspended in webs ofsignificance he himself has spun&dquo; and culture is &dquo;those webs&dquo; (p. 5).Another interpretive tradition-ordinary language analysis-is influ-enced by Wittgenstein (1958) and focuses on fields of meaning inlanguage. Both approaches reject law-like generalizations and insteadattempt to understand the particularized meanings of symbols orconcepts for subjects, as part of a context of meanings.s This study



494

takes from Geertz his view of culture, but emphasizes linguisticdisputes, as does ordinary language analysis.A primary argument of the ordinary language tradition is that words

are not mere referents, but help to constitute the world. Althoughindividuals within a culture must share a set of common understand-

ings for them to comprehend each other (and, indeed, for them to makeup the same culture), conflict about a concept’s meaning is common.Whether contestation about the meaning of a concept is overt or veiled,linguistic dispute has normative implications and is by nature political(Connolly 1974). For example, because to call someone just is tobestow approval on him or her (among other things), conflict over theconcept of justice (Pitkin 1972) is highly consequential, for it is

implicitly concerned with disputes about the direction the polity orsociety should take.6 6

Over time, predominant meanings shift and these variations marknew ways of thinking about the world. Thus changes in the use of aconcept, such as revolution (Farr 1982), virtue (Bloch 1987), orpatriotism (Dietz 1986; Karsten 1978) reveal much about how politicallife and political culture have been transformed. Conceptual changeand political change are therefore linked, whether or not contestationabout the meaning of a concept is explicit (Farr 1988), as the accep-tance of different meanings of concepts reinforces particular worldviews and supports certain political stands.We can see the importance of conceptual disagreement for the

analysis of political culture by briefly considering one of politicalscientists’ important concepts-trust (Miller 1974; Citrin 1974; Lipsetand Schneider 1983, 1987). Although knowing about the degree oftrust is important for understanding a political culture, a simplemeasure conceals as well as reveals, for it obscures the particularvalues associated with a trustworthy leader, regime, or governmentalsystem. Let us take the case of George Washington in the revolutionaryand postrevolutionary era. If we were able to travel in time to admin-ister a public opinion poll to his compatriots, we would surely findrather high levels of trust. Unfortunately, this trust is rather thin incontent; knowing how much the early Americans trusted Washingtondoes not tell us what they thought about him. Scholarship (Wecter1972; Wills 1984; Schwartz 1987), in fact, suggests that Washington’searly idealization should be understood in the context of a political



495

culture strongly oriented around republican and Enlightenment ideals.Washington’s lack of personal ambition, demonstrated by his returnto Mount Vernon first after the war and then after two terms as

president, was arguably the quality praised most often by his contem-poraries and eulogists. Giving up power rebounded in his favor, forthereby this &dquo;virtuoso of resignations&dquo; (Wills 1984, 3) gained acclaimby appealing to deeply held beliefs about proper political leadership.Unlike &dquo;the European romantic tradition ... with its emphasis onentitlement, privilege, and strength, the ideal of heroic leadership thattook root in eighteenth century America stressed the republican virtuesof obligation, sacrifice, and disinterestedness&dquo; (Schwartz 1987, 193).

Although Washington was generally seen as a republican exemplarin the early days of the American nation, this should not suggest thatvestiges of past understandings were erased as events unfolded or thatan absolute value consensus existed at any one time. However, evi-dence suggests that predominant understandings of Washington shiftedover time. In the mid-19th century (Karsten 1978), Washington was ofteninterpreted as a leader who promoted order. During the Civil War theNorth and the South both claimed Washington for their cause. He stoodfor union in the North and opposition to abusive power in the South(Schwartz 1987). And in the 1920s, Washington was presented bysome as the exemplar of entrepreneurial qualities (Schwartz 1991).Again, if we were able to ask these groups if they trusted Washington,the answer would consistently be in the affirmative. Yet this seeminguniformity across time conflates qualitative differences. Rather thanjudging Washington the same way, citizens at different times tendedto use disparate criteria of evaluation, which were based in theirpolitical culture’s core values. An interpretive approach avoids theproblem of assuming shared conceptualizations when they do not existby instead treating concepts as objects for exploration.

HEROISM AND POLITICAL CULTURE

As a concept among many, heroism has three characteristics thatmake it well suited for analyzing what political values are esteemedand whether private life is judged more important than political action.First, the concept of heroism is highly prescriptive and normatively



496

charged, yet many particulars are unspecified. Throughout the concept’slong history,’ heroic action has been located in a number of differentareas, from the battlefield to the household, market, sports arena, orpodium. Criteria have differed, with yardsticks based on attributesranging from courage to fairness, justice, or kindness. Yet heroismconsistently involves excellence.

Some may view such variability as a great liability, for it makes itimpossible to develop a highly restrictive definition and operationaliza-tion of the concept. However, I argue that heroism’s ambiguity insteadprovides an opportunity, even an advantage.’ Because heroic actioncan occur within or outside of politics, an analysis of heroism helpsus discover whether individuals perceive the political realm to be aprimary site of excellence. If so, this shows that politics has a highstatus as compared to other sorts of activity. Conversely, if the privatesphere is seen as the major site for heroic action, public action holdslower stature and the privatizing individualism Tocqueville warnedabout may well be strong.

In addition, heroism’s indeterminacy allows scholars to track sub-stantive shifts in a political culture in a way not possible with conceptsthat vary in degree. For example, if researchers had used heroism asa conceptual lens to analyze the years of the Reagan administration,they would have noted that Reagan often declared economic achieversheroic, and that economic heroes rose in the public’s estimation duringReagan’s early years and then fell in esteem by the end of Reagan’ssecond term.&dquo; Values that celebrated economic achievers, in partrevived by President Reagan, supported the fiscal and regulatorypolicies of that era. To be sure, economic heroism is but one piece ofthe changing policy mood and accompanying policy swing of theReagan years (Stimson 1991). Despite its limitations, an analysis ofwhat activities are considered heroic would have been a highly validmeasurement strategy for discerning that era’s particular politicalvalues and political culture.

Second, heroism is important because the concept is linked toindividuals’ endeavors and actions and so provides a better under-standing of how evaluations of greatness are granted to political actors.Concepts such as justice or fairness are often applied to governments,societies, or laws; we talk about creating a just society and discusswhether certain procedures and institutions are fair. Individuals can be



497

called fair, but there is no specific term for one other than a fair person.Heroism’s nomenclature, however, is rarely turned to the society atlarge. Instead, terms of individual heroism are commonly used; thuswe refer to heroes and heroines.’o

Because heroism focuses on individual action, analysis of theconcept enables us to comprehend why individuals admire politicalleaders or citizens. Although heroism is not a minimal criterion forholding office, it has been suggested that the 1992 presidential candi-dates drew upon classic heroism motifs such as military activity,facing a difficult task, or meeting a test of character, in attempts toconvince citizens they were worthy of the presidency (Dowd 1992).Heroic archetypes are powerful symbols that can resonate more or lessstrongly depending on the historical context. In the post-cold warperiod, Clinton’s inability to draw upon a history of heroic militaryservice did not significantly harm his candidacy. Whether Clinton’sexperience marks a distinct shift away from the war hero notion towardthe &dquo;peace hero&dquo; idea endorsed by the citizen whose words appear atthe start of this article remains to be seen. But if scholars are tounderstand the impact of the end of the cold war on American politicalculture and standards of candidate assessment, it is worth investigatinghow citizens conceptualize individual political greatness.

Third, because heroism is a prosaic concept, it is well suited touncover everyday individuals’ subjective understandings of the polit-ical world. Although some have argued that Americans have no heroesor heroines (Bloom 1987; Holliday 1988), heroism remains a vital partof everyday discourse. Although heroism has not had a favored placein theorists’ discussions, any review of newspapers, mass circulationmagazines, or visual media reveals that this concept is in wide use. Asa prosaic term, heroism likely has more meaning for the general publicthan concepts employed by social scientists. If the job of socialscientists is, in part at least, to understand the public’s view, prosaicconcepts need further examination.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Given the goal of examining multiple subjective meanings, thisstudy used Q-methodology to investigate diverse citizen conceptual-



498

izations. As Dryzek, Clark, and McKenzie (1989,482) note, &dquo;Q allowsfor the fact that a multiplicity of interests, interpretations, beliefs,emotions, and values can motivate action.&dquo; In a Q-methodology study,subjects express their point of view by reacting to diverse statementswith a procedure known as a Q-sort. Guided by analytical categories,the researcher samples ideas from a &dquo;concourse&dquo; of varied perspec-tives (Brown 1980). Subjects sort items in stages, resulting in a(Q-sort) pattern that is shaped somewhat like a normal curve. Factoranalysis is performed and rotated factors (types) constitute perspec-tives. Q-methodology usually uses small samples and subjects arechosen purposively from groups of people that the analyst suspectshave varied points of view. These groups often are political or issue-based organizations, but can be other kinds of associations or evendemographic groups. Because respondents are not randomly chosen,results cannot be used to make statistically valid projections about thepercentage of people in the population who hold various points ofview.&dquo; 1

How do these Q-methodology techniques enable researchers toinvestigate subjective points of view? First, because types are derivedfrom Q-sorts, subjects’ perspectives are analyzed, rather than proxim-ity to a preconceived conceptualization. Second, completed Q-sortsprovide an explicit context for individual items, and so belief systemsare available for the analyst to interpret. Third, because this methodrecognizes that any individual’s perspective is biased by defmition,items are not designed to be neutral, but to incorporate many biases.&dquo;Fourth, because individuals must make a series of fairly complexchoices, the process is likely to require more sustained attention, aswell as greater cognitive involvement than standard procedures.

In this study, fifty respondents from political and community groupsand undergraduate classes performed the Q-sorts.’3 After completingthe Q-sort, each subject was interviewed to validate the procedure,allow elaboration, and gain additional information. In order to ensurethat diverse viewpoints were included, analytical categories weredevised to reflect heroism conceptualizations and to guide statementselection.&dquo; Subjects were instructed to place statements from least likeyour idea of heroism to most like your idea of heroism. The set ofstatements and the methodological approach were designed to inves-tigate five issues among these citizens:



499

1. What does political heroism mean? Because diverse conceptualiza-tions of heroism could emphasize different political values and activ-ities, this study included a wide variety of possibilities, includingcitizen-soldiers, political activists, courageous political leaders, andfounders of the American nation.

2. Is the idea of political heroism archaic ? One possible view of politicalheroism is that the notion is incoherent or impossible, perhaps becausepolitics is seen as thoroughly corrupt. To discover how differentconceptualizations regard this idea, items were included that deniedthe possibility of heroism in politics altogether or by contemporarypolitical leaders.

3. Has Tocquevillean individualism taken hold? One key concern of thisstudy is whether individuals esteem private activities more than publicand political action. Therefore, the set of statements included a numberof items that referred to private heroic action, such as caring forchildren or giving to charity. If such activities are consistently consideredmore heroic than political action, this indicates a retreat from politics.

4. Does private character matter for political leadership ? Because therelationship between public and private spheres underlies debatesabout whether politicians should demonstrate a good character in theirprivate life, several statements about this issue were included.

5. Does the political culture seem to be characterized by conflict orconsensus? Political cultures can range from highly consensual tostrongly polarized. Highly differentiated attitude structures suggestdeep political fractures, whereas other patterns imply potential polit-ical coalitions. Because this study is concerned with conflict andconsensus in the American political context, the analysis of concep-tualizations is in part comparative.

UNDERSTANDINGS OF HEROISM

Q factor analysis reveals four factors&dquo; that express four differentunderstandings of heroism. These four conceptualizations of heroisminclude the progressives (type one), the defenders (type two), thenurturers (type three), and the entrepreneurs (type four). This sectiondiscusses the important themes for the types, as established by highlyranking statements, aggregated statements, and distinguishing state-ments. Average aggregated rankings are presented in Table 1.’6 Factorscores for selected distinguishing statements are listed in Table 2.Underlined scores distinguish the type in question from all other types.Correlations between types are presented in Table 3.



500

TABLE 1

Mean Rankings of Aggregated Statements

a. Statements refer to activists in the civil rights and women’s movements; rescuers of Jewsduring World War II; Lincoln, Kennedy, and Dr. King; the heroic individual’s self-understandingas part of a larger, mutually dependent community; and the necessity of moral courage forcreating change. A statement on pro-life activists in Operation Rescue is included in the bottomset.

b. Statements discuss great generals, Nathan Hale, and ordinary soldiers, with one itememphasizing the nobility of sacrifice and the ideals they died for and another focusing on theirresponse to their country’s call even though they desired to live quiet lives. A statement aboutthe heroism of war resisters and conscientious objectors is coded negatively.c. Proponents of capitalism are coded positively and include big businessmen, entrepreneurs,and President Reagan as one who restored the free enterprise system and made America strongagain. Statements coded negatively discuss workers and farmers who fought for their rights andPresident Roosevelt’s creation of job programs during the Depression.d. Statements refer to working and paying taxes, parents, volunteers, overcoming handicaps, andefforts of oppressed peoples. The view that heroic action seeks to improve society and is not justliving day to day is coded negatively. The bottom average excludes the statement about oppressedindividuals.e. Statements refer to astronauts; artists, writers, and musicians; athletes; actors and actresses;adventurous &dquo;men like Daniel Boone&dquo;; and charisma.f. The antiheroic category includes statements about the idea of heroism itself. Three deny theexistence of heroism; these argue that individuals cannot influence broad structures, publicrelations has supplanted true greatness, and heroism requires an impossible perfection. Others(coded negatively) focus on the need for a shared past or the need for individual initiative tocreate change, or link the founders’ greatness to their understanding of the past.

At the heart of the progressives’ understanding of heroism is anemphasis on critique and active engagement. People who work againstinjustice and struggle against oppression are considered heroic, in-cluding social change activists in the civil rights movement and thewomen’s movement. As Table 1 shows, this type ranks statements oncritical action higher than other types. The progressives hold thatindividuals can make a difference and can act to create a world of

&dquo;enlightenment and justice.&dquo; They disagree that individuals are help-



501

iar~sMu

e4w

fIJ

P~1 ’A-.1~H . .512

590

1V

.2cuetn



502

’2I18«

N0

11r15II)

It-50

IiAu°/j2.8I.0

.~?a

.2

.4’0

.~S’3c:

...,a~

fl0z



503

TABLE 3

Correlations Between Types

less to influence events and that there are no great political figurestoday. Thus the progressives extend their sphere of activity beyondimmediate circumstances, hold that heroic action is possible andshould seek to overcome injustice, and contend that systems in Amer-ica are neither just nor benign. Activities that are not heroic to theprogressives include military involvement and actions associated withthe unconstrained free market. In addition, the progressives are setapart from other types by a disagreement with the idea that one’spersonal life must be largely free of blemish for an individual to beconsidered heroic. Thus the progressives draw a distinction betweenpublic and private morality, with public activities alone salient forassessments of heroism.

The defenders’ view of heroism emphasizes military action and theendeavors of the founders of the United States. Whether soldiers are

portrayed as reluctant warriors or noble fighters, these individuals areconsidered quite heroic. Because the defenders define American war-time activity as praiseworthy, then those who would not go to war areignoble, possibly cowardly, and not supportive of their country. Thedefenders’ persistent emphasis on military activity is further demon-strated by its highest average ranking of these statements. In addition,the defenders celebrate the American founders, strongly assentingwith items about the founders’ bravery, goals, and accomplishments;Nathan Hale, and founders’ connection to a common legacy of histor-ical events.

Like the progressives, the defenders have a strong commitment tothe idea that heroism has existed and remains possible. The defendersdisdain the views that individual action usually has no significanteffect on events compared to the import of broad patterns, and thatgreat political figures have been supplanted by creatures of public



504

relations. To the contrary, they hold that heroes are necessary todevelop cohesion in a heterogeneous nation, and that heroic individ-uals can make a difference. The lowest average ranking of &dquo;antihero-ism&dquo; statements demonstrate the defenders’ rather strong support forthe idea of heroism. By and large, a view of heroism that focuses onday-to-day actions does not seem to be particularly salient for thedefenders, for statements focusing on such themes tend not to be eitherstrongly endorsed or rejected.Many individuals closely associated with the defenders served in

the military during World War ll, an experience that surely forged theirviews of military activity and its place in their understanding ofheroism. As noted earlier, the progressives argue against the idea thatmilitary action is heroic. Yet the defenders and the progressives bothcelebrate (+4) &dquo;incredibly heroic people who risked their lives andthose of their families to help Jews survive&dquo; during World War II. (Incontrast, the nurturers and entrepreneurs place this item at zero.) Inaddition, the defenders and the progressives concur that individualaction can make a difference. However, this shared broad perspectiveon heroism is often associated with different core values. The pro-gressives’ view is connected to action to overcome oppression, whereasthe defenders’ position is linked to the nobility of American militaryaction and the founders. Still, at times the types agree on substantivematters. Not only do both see the rescuers of Jews from the Nazis asheroic, but both the defenders and the progressives herald AbrahamLincoln, Martin Luther King, and John F. Kennedy and have positiveaverage rankings of statements on critical action.

In contrast, the nurturers’ perspective turns away from politics,orients itself toward the personal and the domestic, and questions thevery possibility of heroic action. Such a view is also decidedlydistinctive; the nurturers are the least correlated with other types. Inaddition, of the nurturers’ twelve distinguishing statements, nine ofthem occupy extreme positions (+5, +4, -5, -4) and six of the seven+5 and +4 statements distinguish the nurturers. The nurturers celebratethe unselfishness of parents as well as mothers who refrain from

working outside of their homes in order to devote attention to theirchildren. In addition, the nurturers believe heroic individuals mustmanifest high standards of private morality. Although the caring andmoral environment of the (largely) traditional family provides a locale



505

for heroism, praiseworthy activities do not have to take place withinits bounds. Volunteers who teach us about caring for each other areconsidered heroic as well.

Yet, even when little or no mention of concern for others is present,ordinary activities are sometimes deemed heroic. In one statementendorsed by the Nurturers, heroic activity is nearly commonplace andparameters to heroic action seem nearly unrestricted, including every-one who pays taxes, as well as people who work on farms and infactories. Only a clause that refers to &dquo;voluntary gifts&dquo; gives thisstatement any emphasis on nurturance. Sports figures are deemedheroic as well, perhaps because they &dquo;bring us together and inspireus.&dquo; The personal struggles of individuals who have fought handi-caps and worked to recover from accidents also have a place in thenurturers’ privatized view of heroism. Whereas these efforts to recoverfrom chance misfortune are probably seen as heroic in themselves,they probably also are to be celebrated because of their pedagogicalpotential.A rather negative evaluation of public figures complements the

nurturers’ approbation of the private and the domestic. Only thenurturers agree that &dquo;there are no great political figures today.&dquo; Thenurturers’ repudiation of public figures extends to the founders of theUnited States and to the idea that public figures can exhibit politicalcourage. Political alienation is also demonstrated by the nurturers’unique reaction to statements that have to do with the idea of heroism;this type alone had a positive average for antiheroic sentiments.

Like the progressives, the nurturers consider military action andeconomic free market actors to be a negative element in their idea ofheroism. This commonality, however, occurs within different contextsof beliefs. Both types deny heroic status to military and economicachievers, and both are critical of the political system. However, thenurturers view politics cynically, do not think that individual actioncan have much of an effect, and therefore do not toast people who havesought to transform social and political realities. In contrast, theprogressives are committed to transforming oppressive systems andsituations, and herald those who have devoted their lives to suchefforts. Thus the nurturers’ view of economic and military actors ispart of its generally cynical attitude, whereas such views fit within abroader pattern of critique and political action for the progressives.



506

The entrepreneurs’ view of heroism is firmly inclined towardeconomic figures, highly aggressive and pragmatic. The entrepreneursare also the most negative toward civil rights figures and are the onlytype to reject the notion that personal struggles are heroic. Businesssuccess holds a special place for the entrepreneurs’ view of heroism,and this emphasis clearly distinguishes it from the other types. Onlythis type considers corporate and independent economic actors heroicand the entrepreneurs have the highest average ranking of statementsabout economic achievers. The entrepreneurs’ view of heroism joinsadmiration for successful capitalists with a proclivity toward prag-matic action. One distinguishing statement holds that heroes needpractical organizational skills and a flair for creating and runningcomplex systems in order to accomplish their tasks. The entrepreneursadmire qualities of toughness, aggression, and unstinting efforts to reachone’s goals and herald Daniel Boone, described as &dquo;tough, adventurous,courageous, and able to blaze new paths and conquer new frontiers.&dquo;

In part, a point of view can be understood by knowing what itrejects. Using this criteria, the entrepreneurs’ understanding of hero-ism is clearly defined by its negative views toward critical action andeveryday types of heroism. The entrepreneurs’ average ranking ofstatements about critical activism is the lowest of all types. Peopleranked low included civil rights fighters, women in the women’smovement, working people and farmers involved in populist eco-nomic organizations, war resistors, individuals from groups who havesuffered oppression, and persons who act against injustice. The entre-preneurs’ marked antipathy toward potentially heroic action in every-day life also sets it apart. Personal struggles, such as working toovercome handicaps and injuries sustained in accidents and &dquo;peace-time heroes&dquo; who &dquo;remind us to care for one another&dquo; are not heroic.

Only the entrepreneurs have a negative average ranking for statementsabout everyday struggles.

Although these findings demonstrate that the four conceptualiza-tions of heroism agree and disagree about a range of political issuesand priorities, some might argue that the types are essentially reducibleto ideological groups. In response to this possible argument, let usexamine how ideology is related to perspectives on heroism. On a3-point scale (in which 1 is liberal, 2 is moderate, and 3 is conserva-tive), the individuals who define the progressives have an average



507

ideology of 1.5, the defenders 2.7, the nurturers 2.0, and the entrepre-neurs 3.0. Although these results are intuitively pleasing and reflect arelationship between ideology and heroism conceptualizations, hero-ism is not a mere proxy for ideology. If ideology and heroism wereequivalent measures of the same attitude, one would expect theprogressives to be most similar to the nurturers and the defenders mostsimilar to the entrepreneurs. However, an examination of correlationsbetween types (presented in Table 3) shows that the progressives andthe nurturers are related at only .06. The ideologically similar defend-ers and entrepreneurs have a stronger correlation (.22) than the pro-gressives and the nurturers. Yet the defenders’ view of heroism is mostlike the progressives’, with a correlation of .36, despite their ideolog-ical divide. Furthermore, an emphasis on ideological similarity blursimportant differences between ideologically similar groups. For ex-ample, to call the defenders and the entrepreneurs both conservativesignores their divergent views on individualistic action.

HEROISM IN AND OUT OF POLITICS

What does the existence of nonpolitical forms of heroism portendfor political culture? Might it be associated with the specters of

increasing individualism and the abandonment of political involve-ment that Tocqueville feared? Or could both spheres be consideredimportant simultaneously? Let us imagine a continuum running froman emphasis on heroism as nonpolitical to heroism as political. Thenurturers take an extreme position on one end; this type is quitealienated from politics. At the other end, we find the progressives; thisgroup emphasizes politics far beyond nonpolitical actions. In themiddle we have the entrepreneurs and the defenders, with the entre-preneurs inclining toward a privatized view of heroism and societyand the defenders tilting toward a politicized vision. Starting with theends of this continuum, we see that the nurturers and the progressivesexclusively favor either political or nonpolitical activities, so that onlyone sphere is the site of heroic action. Although both types areconcerned with caring for others, this is defined quite differently.

The progressives conceptualize care for others as primarily a matterof social justice and attribute inequalities to the oppression of one



508

Figure 1 : Continuum-Hernism Outside and In Politics

group by another. Injustice occurs in and arises out of conditions in avariety of areas, including politics, society, and the economy. Powerdifferences and social ideologies are reinforced and inculcated by aseries of socializing devices. Although helping activities that focus onshort-term demands fill a real need, they are not highly heroic, for theydo not get at the roots of social problems. In order to grapple with theseinequalities, concerted political action is necessary. Proper politicalaction is aimed at far-reaching changes, and those citizens and leaderswho work for such transformations are heroic risk takers. Because

politics is the premier sphere for heroic action, a heroic figure’s privatemorality is not all that significant. The progressives thus stronglydistinguish public from private, and political from nonpolitical, withprimacy unquestionably granted to the political sphere. Other arenasare not heroic because they simply do not contribute enough to theprogressives’ broad goals or might even obstruct those goals. Becausepolitics is the means to build a just community that will emphasizeequality, justice, and care for others, this type is strongly committedto politics as a sphere of action.

In contrast, the nurturers’ emphasis on care for others is rooted innonpolitical arenas. In the nurturers’ privatized and domestic vision,heroism is something that happens day to day-as parents go off towork in the morning and come home at night to feed their children,check their homework, and put them to bed. Heroes and heroinesovercome misfortunes dealt them by fate, and devote their time to thesick, illiterate, and addicted. Such acts are perennially unrecognized,a fact which rebounds to the heroic person’s favor; in fact, the publicitysought by and granted to political leaders and activists is a cause of



509

suspicion in itself. Because heroism is inextricably embedded inprivate life and orientations, public figures’ private lives and moralconduct are consequential and they provide another source of misgiv-ings. Unsure of the motivations and ethics of people in politics, thenurturers turn away from political action. Because their attentions areoften focused on the intimate circles of family and familiar others, thenurturers tend toward the individualism Tocqueville wrote about. Butthe nurturers do have somewhat of a communal orientation, albeitclearly unpolitical. Caring is the basis of that neighborly connectionto others; thus the raw self-interest of economic heroism offends.Indeed, the nurturers’ sentiment of caring could become a bridge to agreater community orientation and might help to develop certain&dquo;habits of the heart.&dquo; However, the nurturers’ profound alienationtoward politics prevents them from journeying into forums of collec-tive decision making, a step Tocqueville argued was necessary tocreate civic virtue.

For the progressives and the nurturers, politics and nonpoliticalactions counterbalance each other so that one sphere gains at theexpense of the other. However, in the cases of the defenders and the

entrepreneurs, both arenas are highly significant and are judged to bepotential realms of extraordinary action. As this latter pair demon-strates, however, the terms of this balancing act are not given, forconceptualizations of heroism in and outside of politics are themselvescolored by differing views about individuals’ proper relationship toand responsibility toward the community.

In the entrepreneurs’ economistic orientation, for example, heroismis imbued with pragmatism and a rejection of communal values.Although all other types consider heroism to be linked to care forothers, the entrepreneurs reject this conviction. Altruistic actions aresimply a matter of individual choice, no more heroic than other usesof one’s leisure time. Instead the successful businessman, dedicatedto building capital and profit, stands out as the entrepreneurs’ heroicarchetype. Although the economic hero may yield social benefits,these are externalities or side effects of his actions, not its motivations.Thus the selfishness of individuals is not only justified, but heralded.The entrepreneurs’ disregard with care for others extends also to thepolitical sphere. Although integrity and judgment are endorsed as



510

important values, they are continually linked to an instrumental pre-dilection in which getting things done and fulfilling one’s missioncounts most.

Although the entrepreneurs are similar to the defenders in that bothsee heroism in political and nonpolitical spheres, the entrepreneursalso resemble the nurturers in a curious way. Both the nurturers andthe entrepreneurs hold individualistic views, although they clearlyemphasize different values. The nurturers’ individualism leads it tofocus on personal concerns to the extent that political action is fearedand community activities are defined as wholly unpolitical. In con-trast, the entrepreneurs’ individualism does not cause it to see politicsas a worthless or corrupt endeavor, but it does restrict the entrepreneurs’political imagination. Politics is not a sphere for pursuing the collec-tive good, but is yet another arena for concerted, self-oriented instru-mentalism. Tocqueville (1966) argued that self-interestedness mightmotivate an individual to become involved in politics, but that involve-ment would eventually breed communal &dquo;habits of the heart,&dquo; asself-interest became &dquo;properly understood.&dquo; The entrepreneurs, how-ever, demonstrate that these positive consequences need not followpolitical activity; individuals might not move beyond the selfishmotivations that brought them into politics.

Although the entrepreneurs repudiate the idea that individuals haveobligations to a broader community, the defenders’ conception ofheroism is based on the ideas of responsibility and sacrifice. In itspolitical vision, heroic figures show courage and the willingness togive of themselves; they include citizen-soldiers, the founders of thecountry and several other leaders, as well as less than radical politicalactivists. Outside of politics, heroism is largely joined to sacrifice andthe imperative burden of care for others. Heroic individuals serve asrole models, care for strangers and loved ones, and do so over extendedperiods, without concern for recognition or material reward. Like theprogressives, the defenders believe that the social system does notserve all equally. However, because the defenders lean away from thestructural sorts of explanations favored by the progressives, they aremore likely to accept and endorse the symptom-oriented remediesoffered by charitable work. The defenders see heroism in both politicaland nonpolitical spheres, and these exemplary actions have a strongcommunal orientation.



511

CONCLUSION

In response to a number of gaps in political culture research, thisarticle examines political heroism, a prosaic concept not well studiedby political scientists, but part of the repertoire citizens use in viewingthe world. Because notions of heroism are part of citizens’ subjectiveperspectives, political leaders call upon heroic images to boost theirpopularity, influence bases of assessment, gain election, and promotea set of values and policies. In asking what is greatness in politics, thisproject has discovered four views that have implications for the tasksof comprehending the political world and making assessments ofpolitical leaders, citizens, and the political world itself. Conceptual-izations of political heroism differ in how they weigh the relativeimportance of political and private life, an issue that can serve toindicate potential privatizing and individualistic tendencies.

Besides these substantive findings, this study supports the notionthat political cultures by nature incorporate both conflict and consen-sus. As one historian argues (Singal 1984), characterizations of Amer-ican political culture that emphasize either conflict or consensusignore the reality of shifting patterns over time, where periods ofrelative disagreement or agreement alternate. Thompson, Ellis, andWildavsky (1990) point out that rejecting dualism does not mean thatinfinite schisms exist,&dquo; and their &dquo;grid-group&dquo; analysis identifies fourmajor orientations in all political cultures. Heroism conceptualizationsanalyzed here evidence both consensual and divergent views. Allunderstandings of heroism distinguish heroic persons from celebritiesand each conceptualization shares elements with other views. Al-though lines of agreement between the progressives and the defenderswere perhaps the most striking and unexpected, many particularsreveal underlying tensions and commonalities, which could poten-tially be mobilized by political leaders.

As this is an initial effort to systematically study political heroismand Tocquevillean individualism, I suggest three directions for futureresearch. First, subjective research on heroism should be used as thebasis for large, random sample surveys to examine the relationshipbetween heroism conceptualizations and behavioral and attitudinalvariables.&dquo; Second, research on heroism and political culture moregenerally should use a Geertzian (1973) paradigm and examine cul-



512

tural indicators such as the granting of awards (e.g., the Medal ofHonor); monuments and commemorations, the naming of days forindividuals (such as Martin Luther King); the naming of towns, streets,and other public facilities; popular songs; and book sales. Althoughthese phenomena may not be easily interpretable, they are unobtrusivemeasures of popular and elite values, which can be either studied ontheir own terms or used to indicate developments that deserve to befurther investigated. 19 Third, empirical research is needed on the issuesfor American political culture raised by Tocqueville (1966), mostparticularly individualism. Results from this study suggest that forsome the private realm takes precedence over public. Yet this prioritiza-tion takes several different forms. Privatization may appear as a

rejection of nearly all political life in the face of the perception thatthe polity is irremediably corrupt and the private sphere a caringrefuge. Or an instrumental economistic orientation may drive individ-uals toward a self-interest that is not &dquo;properly understood.&dquo; But theseproclivities are not undisputed, for others maintain communal orien-tations and care for the polity-in a phrase, civic virtue. In futureresearch, scholars should experiment with measures of Tocquevilleanindividualism and use extensive methods.

In renewing the study of political culture, scholars should take thetime to establish research on the footings of subjectivity and language.As the emphasis here on Tocquevillean individualism and understand-ing of excellence demonstrates, such an effort does not mean that theanalyst loses the capacity to interrogate about important theoreticalissues. Rather, if a rekindled research program is to move forward, aconcern for understanding is essential.

NOTES

1. Robert Penn Warren, In Introduction to Wecter 1972, xiv.2. Carolyn Johnsen, Letter to the Editor, November 1, 1992, New York Times, sec. 6, 16.

Reprinted with permission.3. For several other works on heroism, see Klapp (1972), Wilkinson (1984), and Salisbury

(1993). For studies of how fictional characters can represent and promote cultural values, seeSchulte-Sasse (1983); de Lauretis (1984); Cook (1985); and Rogin (1987). As research onheroism has shown, this concept incorporates symbolic, cognitive, and affective elements.



513

4. Along the same lines, Schwartz (1984) has pointed out that political scientists oftenassume that participation has a simple, readily understood meaning, even though multiplemeanings exist, and these variations depend on the context of other meanings and values.

5. Within the discipline of political science, ordinary language analysis has had a greaterinfluence than anthropological approaches. For rare exceptions, see essays by Pekonen andRengger in Gibbins (1989) and Thompson, Ellis, and Wildavsky (1990). For reviews ofdevelopments in anthropological culture theory, see Keesing (1987) and Ortner (1984).

6. In other cases the normative terrain is more complex. For example, patriotism often hasa positive connotation, and a patriot is someone who loves his or her country. Some may viewpatriotism as largely supportive, whereas others define it in terms of caring criticism, intendedto improve one’s country. (Other visions are also possible.) Often the individual who adopts oneconceptualization also approves of that course of action. Yet even if two individuals agree thatpatriotism entails support for government authorities’ actions, one person may approve and theother disapprove of this civic disposition.

7. The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed., vol. 7, 171) notes heroism’s roots in ancientGreece. Earliest meanings focused on the excellence of mortal men favored by the Gods.

8. All political concepts include a certain amount of vagueness, of course. If not, they wouldnot be contested and disputes about their meaning could be arbitrated without controversy orpolitical import. However, the idea of heroism has been applied to a great many areas of life andto more sorts of action than concepts such as patriotism or justice.

9. See President Reagan’s 1984 State of the Union address for a good example of hispromotion of economic heroism. On shifts in the public’s view of economic heroism see Phillips1991 (especially pp. 71, 214) and Newsweek, January 4, 1988.

10. Heroism’s focus on individuals’ capacities to rule circumstances may have reached itsapex with the Carlylean ([1841] 1908) notion of the hero as great man, capable of moving historyby bending events to his will. With an increasing recognition of the influence of constrainingsystems and institutions and a growing disquiet with Thomas Carlyle’s commitment to author-itarian leadership, this 19th-century persuasion has fallen from favor. However, the notion ofheroism nevertheless retains the idea that individuals can make a difference, whether this occursin the short term or if it implies broader social change. Feelings of efficacy are important becauseif people do not believe that anyone can have an effect on entrenched or immobile political andsocial systems, they may very well abandon political action and retreat into private concernsTheir commitment to the idea of heroism might not fade away entirely, but might becomeconnected to private spheres of action.

11. That is, it is not possible to say what proportion of the population holds particular viewsabout heroism. Some argue that the nonrandom nature of subjects implies that the types orperspectives that emerge in one study could be quite unlike those found from another set ofindividuals. But Brown (1980) demonstrates that repeated Q-studies on the same subject findrather similar points of view. Although some conceptualizations, particularly the more idiosyn-cratic ones, may be absent from a particular study, if subjects are chosen for valid theoreticalreasons, commonly held viewpoints will be represented. Thus the Q-methodologist cannot arguethat all understandings are included, but the ones uncovered surely exist also among othermembers of the public.

12. If the researcher has included a broad variety of items, the subject will find statementsthat fit his or her beliefs. Q-sort studies must include adequate pretesting to ensure that thiscondition is met. In this study, pretesting of the items led to the inclusion of a fuller array ofideas and more clearly worded items in the final statement set.

13. Research was carried out during the spring and summer of 1989 in the Minneapolis-St.Paul area of Minnesota. Five individuals each were involved in the Veterans of Foreign War,



514

Women Against Military Madness, the Rotary Club, local unions, an Evangelical Free church,a Lutheran church, the Independent-Republican Party, the Democratic-Farmer Labor Party; tenwere students.

14. Analytical categories incorporated conceptualizations of heroism as system support(seven statements), criticism and activism (seven statements), military action (five statements),military endeavors (five statements), personal qualities (seven statements), everyday life andstruggles (six statements), celebrities (six statements), and antiheroism, a rejection of the ideaof heroism (six statements). Statements varied in valence. Numbers in each category variedbecause some required more nuance and diversity. Some statements were sampled fromeditorials, articles, and letters to the editor in mass circulation magazines, such as Time,Newsweek, Ms., U.S. News and World Report, The Nation, and The National Review. Otherswere drawn from political eulogies, Fourth of July orations, campaign and inaugural addresses,and commencement speeches published in Vital Speeches of the Day during the past thirty years.Statements were also gleaned from secondary literature on heroism and American politicalculture, as well as discussions with a variety of individuals about heroism. Several statementswere composed by the researcher and all statements were pretested.

15. Factors with an eigenvalue of one or above were retained, and the four factors explained58% of the variance. Following Brown’s (1980) advice, factors were rotated judgmentally.Judgmental rotation sought to (1) gain factors that were not highly correlated, and (2) avoidsplitting respondent’s Q-sorts between two factors.

16. Calculated averages should not be thought of as scales, but illustrations of how the typetends to react to particular ideas. Most aggregations were derived from the statement categoriesthat were used to sample statements. Average rankings demonstrate the texture and complexityof responses, provide context, and help us see how views of different matters are integrated intoa conceptualization of heroism.

17. In some ways, the classification scheme of Thompson, Ellis, and Wildavsky is similarto the conceptualizations of heroism discovered here. It has been suggested that the progressivesare egalitarians, defenders are hierarchalists, nurturers are fatalists, and entrepreneurs areindividualists. Although the "grid-group" classification scheme has a certain resemblance, thereare a number of differences. First, using a Tocquevillean notion of individualism, this study findsthe nurturers, not the entrepreneurs to be more individualistic. Tocqueville’s definition does notemphasize self-interest (which he described as egoism), but privatization. Second, the defendersare not deeply attached to hierarchical systems of power, but instead support action against unjustauthority. Third, Thompson, Ellis, and Wildavsky hold that hierarchialists are more likely toform alliances with individualists than egalitarians. However, if the heroism types are equivalentto their groups as outlined above, the similarities between defenders and progressives counterthis prediction.

18. See Theiss-Morse (forthcoming) and Sullivan, Fried, and Dietz (1992) for examples ofhow Q-methodology can serve as a foundation for large sample research projects that cangenerate statistically valid findings about relationships between values, behaviors, and socialcharacteristics.

19. At the end of the 1980s, for example, books celebrating economic figures sold less than

they had earlier in the decade, whereas books about the environment gained popularity See theNew York Times copyrighted article by Roger Cohen, printed in the Star Tribune (Minneapolis,Minnesota), May 1, 1990, page 1, section E. Cohen argues that this shift may well portend a new

spirit in the United States. The article quotes the president of Bantam Books, Linda Grey, assaying, "What we are seeing in the books that are selling is the turnaround from the celebrationof greed to the denigration of greed." In addition, Howard Kaminsky, a top executive with theHearst Trade Book group, is quoted as asking, "What businessmen as heroes are left?" A recent



515

book by Wallace (1993) concerns environmental activists who, a flyer for the volume proclaims,are "a new breed of heroes—they do not expect quick victories, they may not be exceptionallyglamorous or talented, they are peaceful, their tactics are nonviolent, they rely on grass-rootssupport and most of their work is educational." Changing views of who qualifies as heroicindicate new values.

REFERENCES

Almond, G., and S. Verba. 1963. The civic culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.—, eds. 1980. The civic culture revisited. Boston: Little, Brown.Bellah, R., R. Madsen, W. W. Sullivan, A. Swidler, and S. Tipton. 1985. Habits of the heart:

Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Harper & Row.

Bernstein, R. J. 1976. The restructuring of social and political theory. New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich.

Bloch, R. H. 1987. The gendered meanings of virtue in revolutionary America. Signs: Journalof Women in Culture 13:37-58.

Bloom, A. 1987. The closing of the American mind. New York: Touchstone.Brown, S. 1980. Political subjectivity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Burnham, W. D. 1987. The turnout problem. In Elections American Style, edited by A. James

Reichley, 97-133. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Carlyle, T. [1841] 1908. On heroes, hero worship, and the heroic in history. Reprint. London:

Dent.

Citrin, J. 1974. Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. American PoliticalScience Review 68: 973-88.

Connolly, W. 1974. The terms of political discourse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Cook, T. 1985. The Newbery Award as political education: Children’s literature and cultural

reproduction. Polity 17:421-45.de Lauretis, T. 1984. Alice doesn’t. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.Dietz, M. G. 1986. Populism, patriotism, and the need for roots. In The new populism: The

politics of empowerment, edited by Harry C. Boyte and Frank Riessman. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.

Dowd, M. 1992. Of knights and presidents: Race of mythic proportions. New York Times.October 10, 1.

Dryzek, J. S., M. L. Clark, and G. McKenzie. 1989. Subject and system in internationalinteraction. International Organization 43:475-503.

Elazar, D. 1972. American Federalism. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

Farr, J. 1982. Historical concepts in political science. American Journal of Political Science26:658-708.

—. 1988. Understanding conceptual change politically. In Political innovation and con-ceptual change, edited by Terence Ball, James Farr, and Russell Hanson. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Feldman, S. 1983. Economic individualism and American public opinion. American PoliticsQuarterly 11:3-30.

—. 1988. Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values.American Journal of Political Science 32:416-40.



516

Feldman, S., and J. Zaller. 1992. The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses tothe welfare state. American Journal of Political Science 36:268-307.

Frisch, M. 1989. American history and the structures of collective memory: A modest exercisein empirical iconography. Journal of American History 75:1130-55.

Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Gibbins, J. R., ed. 1989. Contemporary political culture. London: Sage.Herzik, E. 1985. The legal-formal structuring of state politics: A cultural explanation. Western

Political Quarterly 38:413-23.Hochschild, J. 1981. What’s fair? American beliefs about distributive justice. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Holliday, J. S. 1988. Have celebrities replaced heroes? The Commonwealth, 422-27. Publication

of the Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco.

Ingelhart R. 1990. Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Karsten, P. 1978. Patriot-heroes in England and America: Political symbolism and changingvalues over three centuries. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Keesing, R. M. 1974. Theories of culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 3:73-97.—. 1987. Anthropology as interpretive quest. Current Anthropology 28:161-76.Klapp, O. 1972. Heroes, villains, and fools: The changing American character. San Diego, CA:

Aegis.Laitin, D. 1986. Hegemony and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lipset, S. M., and W. Schneider. 1983. The confidence gap. New York: Free Press.—. 1987. The confidence gap during the Reagan years, 1981-1987. Political Science

Quarterly 102:1-23.MacIntyre, A. 1971. Is a science of comparative politics possible? In Against the self-images of

the age, edited by A. McIntyre, 260-79. London: Duckworth & Co.

McClosky, H., and J. Zaller. 1984. The American ethos: Public attitudes toward capitalism anddemocracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Miller, A. H. 1974. Political issues and trust in government: 1964-1970. American PoliticalScience Review 68:951-72.

Ortner, S. B. 1984. Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies in Society andHistory 26:126-66.

Pateman, C. 1971. Political culture, political structure, and political change. British Journal ofPolitical Science 1:291-305.

Phillips, K. 1991. The politics of rich and poor: Wealth and the American electorate in theReagan aftermath. New York: HarperCollins.

Pitkin, H. 1972. Wittgenstein and justice: On the significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein for socialand political thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Piven, F. F., and R. A. Cloward. 1988. Why Americans don’t vote. New York: Pantheon.Rogin, M. 1987. Ronald Reagan, the movie and other episodes in political demonology.

Berkeley: University of California Press.Salisbury, H. E. 1993. Heroes of my time. New York: Walker and Company.Schulte-Sasse, J. 1983. Toward a "culture" for the masses: The socio-psychological function of

popular literature in Germany and the U.S., 1880-1920. New German Critique 29:85-105.Schwartz, B. 1987. George Washington: The making of an American symbol. New York: Free

Press.

—. 1991. Social change and collective memory: The democratization of George Washing-ton. American Sociological Review 56:221-36.



517

Schwartz, J. D. 1984. Participation and multisubjective understanding: An interpretivist ap-proach to the study of political participation. Journal of Politics 46:1115-41.

Singal, D. J. 1984. Beyond consensus: Richard Hofstadter and American historiography.American Historical Review 89:976-1004.

Sniderman, P., and R. Brody. 1977. Coping: The ethic of self-reliance. American Journal ofPolitical Science 21:501-21.

Stimson, J. A. 1991. Public opinion in America: Moods, cycles, and swings. Boulder, CO:Westview.

Sullivan, J. L., A. Fried, and M. G. Dietz. 1992. Patriotism, politics, and the presidential electionof 1988. American Journal of Political Science 36:200-34.

Taylor, C. 1979. Interpretation and the sciences of man. In Interpretive Social Science: A Reader,edited by Paul Rabinow and William M. Sullivan, 25-71. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Theiss-Morse, E. Forthcoming. Conceptualizations of good citizenship and political participa-tion. Political Behavior.

Thompson, M., R. Ellis, and A. Wildavsky. 1990. Cultural theory. Boulder, CO. Westview.Tocqueville, A. 1966. Democracy in America. New York: Harper & Row.

Wallace, A. 1993. Eco-heroes: Twelve tales of environmental victory. San Francisco: Mercury.Wecter, D. 1972. The hero in America: A chronicle of hero worship. 2d ed. New York: Scribner.Wildavsky, A. 1987. Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of

preference formation. American Political Science Review 81:3-21.Wilkinson, R. 1984. American tough: The tough guy tradition and American character.

Westport, CT: Greenwood.Wills, G. 1984. Cincinnatus: George Washington and the enlightenment. Garden City, NY:

Doubleday.Winch, P. 1965. The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. New York: Humanities

Press.

Wittgenstein, L. 1958. Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan.

Amy Fried is assistant professor of political science at Colgate University Previouslypublished work has focused on abortion politics, patriotism, and the combination ofresearch methodologies.



Is Political Action Heroic?Heroism and American Political Culture

Documents

Transcript of Is Political Action Heroic?Heroism and American Political Culture