Athletes

Early this semester we talked about whether athletes could be considered heroes or not, with many deciding that they aren't truly heroes because they do not achieve something of worldly value, i.e. saving a life or generally improving the conditions of others.  For the vast majority of athletes, this is most certainly the case, however under a more general definition of heroism, such as Campbell's, I believe that all competitors can be heroes.
This is especially clear for athletes who previously lived in poverty, struggled with chronic injury, death in the family etc.  They overcame hardships to accomplish their life goal or dream, and this is something that most people would look up to as heroic.
However for those that didn't have these clear-cut difficulties, for those that grew up in middle-class, functional families, the line between hero and citizen is not well-defined.  I mentioned the concept of the underdog in class as an example of a competitor taking on heroic qualities despite being otherwise quite ordinary.  The truth is that all competitors are underdogs at one time or another, struggling to become a member of the elite or even just recognized.  The obstacles they must overcome are inherent to competition: failure, doubt, disrespect, loss of motivation.  For those truly driven individuals, these are problems every bit as serious as poverty or tragedy.  Competition is a perfect example of the setting out on a personal or spiritual journey that Campbell pins down as the defining characteristic of a hero.  Competitors live a primarily tortured existence; they feel the need to prove themselves through success that they know cannot be attributed to anything but their own merit, which is in many ways both a blessing and a curse.  When glory is finally achieved, it was all worth it, yet for many it is unattainable.