The devastating consequences of hero worship are well documented and widely known. A similar human weakness, which is scarcely less damaging for men and women, usually gets much less attention. It is the conjugate tendency of ‘villain’ disparagement.
It is natural to criticise or loathe villains, of course; just as it is natural to revere or admire heroes. What can be problematic, and very often is, is the fact that as a rule there is no such thing as a pure hero or an unadulterated villain. Heroes, being human beings, inevitably come with their weaknesses. Villains, for the same reason, have their share (even if it is a small one) of virtues as well. The former fact is comparatively widely understood, even if many folks leave a great deal to be desired when it comes to putting this understanding of theirs into practice. It is the latter that for some reason many people find hard to wrap their heads around.
Popular cinema, literature and political commentary all reinforce this concept of perfect heroes, who can do nothing wrong; and consummate villains, who are equally incapable of thinking and doing anything good. The fact of the matter is that real men and women all have good and bad sides to them. Shakespeare understood this better than most. The merits of his plays owe as much to his masterful characterization based on this understanding, as to his incomparable powers of expression. Most classics, to varying degrees, have a nuanced approach when it comes to presenting heroes and villains. Alas, nobody reads the classics anymore.
Binary moral classification– that is, all good or all evil with nothing in between– is too convenient for many individuals to resist. In contrast, any nuanced understanding necessitates a great deal of thought. In 1925 Betrend Russell had famously observed: ‘Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do.’ He might as well have 2025 in mind.
It does not help that in addition to a chronic allergy to thinking, human beings also have this deep-seated urge to dominate. Unfortunately, few of them possess the ability or the opportunities to prevail over others– for good or for ill– in any real sense. For the rest, it is one of two options. One: accept the reality of their place in the grand scheme of things. This is reserved for the select few that possess wisdom. Two: resort to ‘winning’ meaningless, trivial, second-hand, and empty battles. This, unfortunately, is what the majority opts for. I have known individuals who loathed a particular automobile, not on account of its technical or aesthetic features (or lack thereof) but, because somebody (whose guts they hated) drove it. Because how anything associated in any way with such a person could possibly have any merit whatsoever!
Like hero-worship, villain-disparagement encourages thinking in us-versus-them terms. The resulting mindset is especially conducive to ad-hominem: dismissing unpleasant things out of hand after summarily labelling them unacceptable on account of the source – all based on one’s dislike for the latter. Intellectual honesty offers no such convenience. It is hard work for it never stops demanding the full use of one’s mind. Any wonder it is not everybody’s cup of tea?
The flattering ‘rational animal’ label notwithstanding, homo sapiens have traditionally given a rather poor account of themselves when it comes to thoughtful behaviour. They are past masters at putting the cart before the horse. Their adoption of heroes/villains invariably has emotional or psychological roots or are based in poor chance, try though they might to convince others and themselves that there is anything rational about it. The ‘reasons’ for their choices are searched for later and are always found in abundance. In almost all cases, it is much more about the hero-worshipper or the villain-disparager than it is about the hero or the villain. Most of the public passion in political or sports rivalries has less to do with teams, players or politicians and more with the supporters’ egos. Even the brouhaha over religious or social causes is rarely on account of sincere adherence to them. As a rule, at its root is an injured ego crying out loud, ‘How dare you fail to appreciate MY religion or cause!’
One hardly needs reports of elaborate studies conducted at Johns Hopkins University to know that likes and dislikes can be extremely unreliable when it comes to devising man’s conduct in general. Most people like to overeat, oversleep and overtalk. That hardly means that any of these things is particularly advisable. In fact, feelings are extremely poor guides as to what action is called for in any given situation. Many people are scared stiff of wall lizards– something they know cannot possibly harm them– for example. And yet, they cannot help how they feel. By allowing one’s arbitrary likes and dislikes to be decisive, ‘villain’ disparagement facilitates mental laziness like few things can. In contrast, the Quran points out that it is entirely possible for one to dislike a beneficial thing and to like a harmful thing instead.
Like hero-worship, villain-disparagement encourages thinking in us-versus-them terms. The resulting mindset is especially conducive to ad-hominem: dismissing unpleasant things out of hand after summarily labelling them unacceptable on account of the source – all based on one’s dislike for the latter. Intellectual honesty offers no such convenience. It is hard work for it never stops demanding the full use of one’s mind. Any wonder it is not everybody’s cup of tea?
