However, in terms of serious literature, we still live in the Age of the Antihero -- and in certain Hollywood movies. By definition, antiheroes are not heroes. In terms of serious literature, the heroic orientation faded slowly over the centuries, giving way eventually to mock-heroic and eventually to the antiheroic. Shakespeare was a pivotal figure in exploring the limitations of the heroic orientation. In effect, in his new book Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics (W. W. Norton, 2018), Stephen Greenblatt discusses Shakespeare's exploration of the limitations of the heroic orientation -- with passing references to Trump.
In general, I tend not to use much psychiatric terminology. However, OEN's Rob Kall likes to use psychiatric terminology. For example, see his recent OEN article "How Did a Malignant Narcissist Psychopath Become the Most Powerful Person in the World?" (dated June 22, 2018):
Now, in Brooks' contrast of Athens v. Jerusalem, antiheroes may not align well with either.
In Brooks' contrast of heroic characters v. ordinary human characters, antiheroes in serious literature and in Hollywood movies are ordinary human characters.
In Brooks' contrast of our hunger to do something heroic v. our deep hunger to be in close relationship, antiheroes, by definition, do not do something heroic. But they may not be in a close relationship either. However, in his piece, Brooks does not devote as much time and energy to discussing our deep hunger to be in close relationship as he does to discussing our hunger to do something heroic. I'd like to have seen him say more about our deep hunger to be in close relationship.
In Brooks' contrast of competitive virtues v. cooperative virtues, antiheroes may not manifest much of either competitive or cooperative virtues.
In light of the prevalence of antiheroes in serious literature and in Hollywood movies, perhaps the various manifestations of the heroic that Brooks discusses should be welcomed as potentially positive developments -- or at least not denigrated.
I hasten to add that I am not opposed to the cooperative virtues that Brooks discusses, and I certainly am not opposed to having parable-based religion urge people to cultivate a close relationship in their lives. I agree with him that we have a deep hunger for close relationship.
But I am arguing that Brooks should recognize that our hunger to do something heroic may be emerging in superhero movies, videogames, and sports to countervail over against the spirit of the Antihero in serious literature and in certain Hollywood movies.
In conclusion, in all honesty, I do not have any programmatic ways to recommend to promote to urge people to recognize their deep hunger for close relationship -- and neither does Brooks. I'm not ruling out the possibility that there may be programmatic ways to promote to urge people to recognize their deep hunger for close relationship. In the meantime, parable-based religion should persist in urging people to love one another as they love themselves, provided that they do love themselves in healthy ways.
FURTHER READING
For further discussion of Aristotle's views of thumos, see Barbara Koziak's book Retrieving Political Emotion: Thumos , Aristotle, and Gender (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000).
For a wide-ranging discussion of male agonistic tendencies (from the Greek word agon, contest, struggle), see Walter J. Ong's book Fighting for Life: Contest, Sexuality, and Consciousness (Cornell University Press, 1981), the published version of Ong's 1979 Messenger Lectures at Cornell University.
For further discussion of the King archetype in the male psyche, see Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette's book The King Within: Accessing the King [Archetype] in the Male Psyche, revised and expanded edition (Chicago: Exploration Press, 2007).
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
