«A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself.»
(Joseph Campbell, mythologist) 

«The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.»
(Martin Luther King Jr., civil rights leader and activist) 

«A hero emerges where there is a need for transition, change, and the establishment of a new world—an idea that remains relevant to this day.»
(Vladimir Propp, philologist and folklorist)

In this blog edition, Eduard Galazhinskiy, Rector of Tomsk State University, invites readers to reflect on the origins and transformation of heroism throughout history, as well as on who can truly be called the heroes of our time.

— Professor Galazhinskiy, why did you choose heroism as the topic for this blog post?

— This topic has intrigued me for quite some time, particularly in the context of studying human self-actualization. However, it has recently captured my attention again as we enter the Year of the Defender of the Fatherland, officially declared in our country.

This designation aims to preserve historical memory, commemorate the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, express gratitude to veterans, and honor the heroism of those participating in the special military operation (SMO). However, this year is not only about ceremonies, celebrations, and official events—it is also a time for re-evaluating critical themes, including heroism, which has taken on new significance for all Russians since the start of the SMO.

Heroism manifests in many different ways. One such aspect—the formation of a new national elite—is the focus of the state managerial program "Time of Heroes." Launched about a year ago at the initiative of President Vladimir Putin, the program provides training and practical preparation for active military personnel and SMO veterans, equipping them for high-level positions in government bodies and state corporations.

But does this mean that the heroes of our time are only those in the military? If not, then who else qualifies? What defines heroism today? What underpins heroism as a sociocultural phenomenon and as one of the many facets of the human experience? What is the university’s role in shaping heroism in individuals? Can the university itself be a place where heroism manifests?

These questions are complex and thought-provoking. My desire to find answers, along with a well-timed vacation, led me to dive into several fascinating books and articles on the subject of heroism.

— What do you think influences the interpretation of heroism?

— The very question suggests that there can be multiple interpretations. Heroism is a multifaceted concept, and its definition depends on various factors, including historical context, cultural traditions, social norms, political ideology, media influence, individual psychological traits, and even technological advancements.

— So, each historical and cultural era had its own answer to the question of what heroism is?

— Exactly. And here’s what I’ve come to realize: without understanding all these historical, cultural, and other contexts, it is impossible to truly grasp the nature of heroism in the present day. In other words, it’s easy to give a quick answer to the question of what heroism means in the 21st century. But such an answer is likely to be too simplistic, one-sided, or even outright incorrect.

Only by tracing the evolution of heroism fr om antiquity to the present can we attempt to define modern heroism in a way that is historically informed and relevant. The key is to ensure that the criteria for defining heroism remain consistent across different eras. For example, we might look at the values that underpin heroism, the types of heroes most characteristic of different time periods, and the motivations that drive them to their deeds.

— It’s tempting to trace these three criteria across different historical eras.

— As a graduate of TSU’s history department, I found this journey through time particularly fascinating. It reaffirmed that heroism is not a fixed concept but one that evolves dynamically.

In Antiquity, especially in Ancient Greece, heroism was primarily associated with physical strength, military feats, and victories over enemies. It was deeply intertwined with mythology, and moral qualities were not always a defining factor. Many heroes were self-serving, yet this did not prevent them from being revered. In Ancient Rome, heroism expanded to include civic virtue, but its core values remained glory and military prowess. The typical heroes of the era were warriors and demigods such as Heracles, Achilles, and Alexander the Great, whose main motivations were personal valor and the pursuit of immortal fame in legend.

During the Middle Ages, heroism was no longer solely defined by physical strength but also by moral principles, which became codified in strict ethical codes that heroes were expected to follow. Religion, feudal relationships, and the military class played crucial roles. The highest values of the era were faith in God, knightly honor, and service to the monarch and feudal lord. The Catholic Church and the Crusades of the 11th–13th centuries shaped new hero archetypes, including knights, saints, and crusaders such as Richard the Lionheart, Joan of Arc, and Godfrey of Bouillon. Their heroism was driven by a sense of duty to God, the king, and society.

The Renaissance, marked by humanism, scientific progress, and a revival of classical heritage, dramatically reshaped views on the world and humanity. People were now seen as the center of the universe, and heroism became associated with intellectual superiority and creative genius. Instead of military exploits, the emphasis shifted to discoveries, exploration, and artistic achievements. Renaissance heroes included artists, philosophers, poets, scientists, and explorers such as Leonardo da Vinci, Francesco Petrarch, Niccolò Machiavelli, Paracelsus, Nicolaus Copernicus, and Christopher Columbus. Some of them, in conflict with tradition, faced persecution by the Inquisition, like Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno. Science and art became the primary expressions of heroism, and the key motivation was no longer serving God but self-actualization, the pursuit of knowledge, and a drive for progress and exploration.

From the 16th to the 19th centuries—an era of revolutions (Dutch, American, French), struggles for human rights, national liberation movements, and wars—heroism took on a social and political dimension, centered on the fight for freedom and change. The core values of this period were liberty, equality, and fraternity. Heroes were revolutionaries, political leaders, rights activists, and reformers, including Abraham Lincoln, Maximilien Robespierre, Alexander II, and Pyotr Stolypin. The revolutions and wars of this time introduced not only the image of the individual hero but also that of the collective hero, embodied by the people, militias, and soldiers. Moreover, any person who stood up for their rights and freedoms could now be considered a hero. The central motivation was the pursuit of justice and independence.

In the 20th century, shaped by the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the world wars, heroism ceased to be the domain of elites and became a mass phenomenon. It was no longer an exception but an obligation for everyone, whether on the battlefield, behind enemy lines, or in the industrial war effort. Even the Cold War contributed to new perceptions of heroism. The key value became self-sacrifice for the greater good. Heroes included revolutionaries, military leaders, soldiers, partisans, spies, military doctors, rescuers, and laborers, such as Georgy Zhukov, Alexander Matrosov, Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, Nikolai Burdenko, and Richard Sorge. The main motivation was defending the homeland and fulfilling collective duty.

— What is happening with heroism in the 21st century?

— Before giving my answer to this question, I want to note that all the previous ideas about the evolution of heroism in historical eras are, of course, very simplified. In reality, things are much more complex. There have always been far more types of heroes than I have mentioned. Some simply dominated at certain times depending on specific circumstances.

We know that Antiquity had its own outstanding philosophers, poets, sculptors, and architects—figures who could be seen as heroes from the perspective of the Renaissance. However, they primarily glorified military heroes, both real and mythical, in their works, poems, sculptures, and temples. Some of them were directly involved in educating and shaping future great commanders. The most striking example of this is the relationship between Aristotle and Alexander the Great.

In the 21st century, we can already speak of a wide variety of hero archetypes. Today, there are different classifications of heroes, depending on the criteria used as a basis—whether professional, cultural, social, psychological, or moral-ethical.

Some researchers identify three main types: military heroes, civil heroes, and social heroes. Others propose four: cultural, traditional, modern, and pseudo-heroes. A third approach divides heroes into warriors, pioneers and innovators, rescuers, philanthropists, inspirers, adventurers, and demonstrators.

There are also very concise classifications. One example distinguishes between extroverted heroes, who are open to society and often ready for heroic action, and introverted heroes, who are less inclined toward spontaneous heroism, as they focus more on analysis and self-reflection. Another categorization separates official heroes, those recognized by the state (military personnel, astronauts, industrial or agricultural pioneers, outstanding scientists, writers, artists, and musicians), from unofficial heroes (volunteers, rescuers, environmentalists, adoptive parents who have created thriving large families), whose names rarely appear in official media but gain recognition through word of mouth and social networks.

— Can the same person be considered both a hero and an antihero in the same era?

— In essence, this has always been the case, depending on which social group is making the judgment and what ideals and values—whether military, socio-political, economic, moral, or cultural—that group prioritizes. The influence of that group within society and its own historical trajectory determine whether a person is remembered as a hero or an antihero.

From this perspective, Christopher Columbus is seen today as both a great discoverer of America and the initiator of colonial policies. The same applies to Napoleon, who for some is a brilliant military strategist, reformer, and statesman, making him a hero. For others, he is a ruthless conqueror and a "villain," as Leo Tolstoy described him, which makes him an antihero.

Of course, there have always been historical figures who are almost universally perceived in either a positive or negative light. For instance, Yuri Gagarin is widely regarded as a hero, while Hitler is unequivocally seen as an antihero. However, as we know, in some countries, small groups exist that consider even the latter a hero. The key is ensuring that such groups do not become dominant in society.

— If we were to define the overall functions of heroes in society, what would they be?

— I would highlight the following. First, heroes serve a sacred function, shaping values and driving the progress of civilizations. They embody the ideals that are either already accepted or desired within a given society, which is especially crucial for younger generations. This is particularly relevant for teenagers, who, through the images of heroes, learn to overcome challenges, develop empathy, and strive for high aspirations.

Second, heroes help society construct an "ideal image of a person", influencing both individual behavior and national consciousness. They serve as motivators and moral reference points, helping people distinguish between "good" and "bad." It is important to note that during times of crisis and cultural decline, the need for new heroes who can inspire and serve society becomes even greater.

This suggests that heroism is always a response to the challenges of the time. It is not just a personal choice or an individual act of bravery but also a social construct—a powerful sociocultural mechanism that, among other things, shapes a society’s identity. Every hero recognizes their belonging to a particular cultural community through identification with its values and role models. Conversely, each cultural community instinctively recognizes its heroes because they share the same cultural codes.

— What factors should be considered when defining heroism in the 21st century?

— We need to take into account the factors that have influenced its transformation. One of the most significant is globalization. Modern technology and media have provided access to global representations of heroism, expanding the range of heroic figures and popularizing characters from different cultures and contexts. This is especially evident in the emergence of a new type of hero—or rather, pseudo-hero—the celebrity, who has begun to replace traditional heroes. The "celebrification" of heroism is closely linked to the commercialization of mass culture, wh ere heroes have become a commodity, marketed through television, cinema, and social media.

As a result, globalization has broadened and, to some extent, diluted the concept of heroism. In modern society, the term "hero" is often used to describe any positive action, which sometimes diminishes its significance. This brings to mind a quote fr om the Burgomaster in Mark Zakharov’s film That Very Münchhausen: “Going to work every day may not be a feat, but there is certainly something heroic about it!” I’ve even heard people refer to young men giving up their seats for pregnant women or the elderly on public transport as acts of heroism. In the past, heroism was associated with far greater sacrifices and risks. Today, it can include actions that improve society but do not radically transform it—such as working for charitable organizations, environmental protection, or supporting vulnerable populations. While this makes heroism more accessible, it also reduces its exclusivity.

Other factors that have reshaped the perception of heroism include the COVID-19 pandemic, environmental crises, media influence, digitalization, the rise of networked societies, and artificial intelligence. The first two have elevated doctors, volunteers, and activists to the highest ranks of heroism. The latter four have created a completely new type of hero—the IT innovator or "cyber-hero," represented by figures such as Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, and Pavel Durov.

Social media has also significantly altered the way people perceive heroes. Heroic acts can now gain rapid recognition through media platforms. However, the risk of media saturation and digitalization is that public attention may shift toward "momentary heroes" or even pseudo-heroes, fabricated solely for media impact, at the expense of more enduring and meaningful figures. This is reshaping traditional perceptions of heroism. While past heroes remain in cultural memory, an increasing number of people—especially young people—are turning their attention to contemporary heroes through social networks.

— This raises an important question: is the perception of heroism influenced by generational differences?

— Extensive sociological research, conducted both before and after 2022, confirms that generational differences play a key role in shaping views on heroism. The reason lies in the differing social attitudes and life experiences of different age groups.

Older generations typically emphasize military heroism, considering it the highest form of self-sacrifice. The image of the rescuer—whether a doctor or a firefighter—is universally recognized as heroic across all generations. Young people, however, tend to value everyday heroism, such as volunteer work and charity. At the same time, they often perceive "top-tier" heroism as celebrity status, embodied by famous musicians, singers, and bloggers.

These preferences were somewhat expected, at least before 2022. But looking deeper, it becomes clear that some young people, who took their cues from celebrity figures, were entirely unprepared to adequately understand and assess the events that unfolded in February 2022.

This conclusion is supported by a study conducted in late 2021, which explored the opinions of young Russians aged 17 to 25 on contemporary heroes, the concept of heroism, and heroic professions. It’s worth noting that the survey sample was relatively small—just over 50 respondents, primarily from Russia’s largest cities. While this number is insufficient to generalize findings to the entire Gen Z population, such studies should not be ignored altogether.

The results were striking. Nearly half of the respondents—over 45%—could not name any qualities or actions characteristic of real heroes. Only about 20% associated heroism with "saving lives" through the work of doctors and firefighters. The third most common response—given by more than 7%—was "uniting opposition forces in Russia." After that, small and nearly negligible percentages (ranging from 5.6% to 1.8%) were attributed to qualities such as "caring for the people, society, and national development" and "achievements for the benefit of humanity."

When asked to name contemporary heroes, many respondents listed public figures later classified by the Russian Ministry of Justice as foreign agents, such as Morgenstern, Yuri Dud, and Ilya Varlamov.

I encourage our readers to examine this fascinating study and draw their own conclusions.

For reference: The study in question is the sociological research "Social Networks and Electoral Potential," the results of which are presented in the academic article "Generation Z and Its Heroes" (2022) by N. S. Evsegneyeva. 

— Has the special military operation changed young people’s perception of heroism, making them more inclined to recognize military heroism?

— It has, but not to the extent necessary for our society at this historical moment. Researchers emphasize that in recent years, young people have become increasingly focused on their inner selves and are generally less inclined toward actions that serve the greater good. For most of them, the concept of a hero remains vague and highly subjective.

These findings were obtained in late 2022, after the start of the SMO, through a study on young people's attitudes toward heroism in none other than Belgorod Oblast. Unlike previous small-scale surveys, this research involved more than 400 participants. The authors not only conducted a situational analysis but also sought to identify the reasons behind this trend and even forecast its potential consequences.

"The main reasons for the lack of popularity of heroism among young people in the city of Belgorod are insufficient awareness of heroism as an alternative moral choice, the shift in young people's focus toward themselves and their internal experiences, and the diminishing significance of heroic acts. It was also noted that young people showed little interest in attending events dedicated to heroism and its moral alternatives, as one-third of respondents had never participated in such activities.

When asked to define a hero, responses were fragmented—some described a hero as a courageous and brave person, while others emphasized self-sacrifice and willpower. This suggests that young people do not have a unified image of a hero; rather, their perception is subjective and shaped by upbringing, societal values, personal experiences, and other factors.

It is worth noting that when assessing knowledge levels, the 15–19 age group demonstrated the lowest level of understanding, while the 30–34 age group had the highest. This indicates a generational decline in awareness of heroism as a moral alternative, which may eventually lead to a complete loss of its significance among young people. The most critical outcome would be the total disappearance of heroism as a recognized phenomenon, relegating it to an outdated concept.

Young people in Belgorod have mixed attitudes toward self-sacrifice as a heroic trait: half of the respondents rejected it, believing that individuals should act according to their own personal feelings, while the other half viewed it positively, recognizing its importance for the development of modern society. This suggests that young people are transitioning into a new phase of social consciousness, wh ere personal identity takes precedence over working for the common good. This shift has also contributed to the decreasing importance of heroism in their worldview."

(Kalugina N.A., Valieva I.N. Heroism as an Alternative Moral Choice for Youth / Sociology – No. 5(81), 2023)

— Do you agree that the main reasons for the unpopularity of heroism among young people are their "lack of awareness about heroism" and "failure to attend relevant events"?

— In my opinion, this is a very superficial judgment. Young people can be well-informed and actively participate in events, yet remain completely indifferent to heroism. This is especially true when informational and cultural programs are carried out merely for the sake of formality. We need to look deeper. The key is to cultivate critical thinking and values that are meaningful both to individuals and to society as a whole.

This cannot be achieved through occasional efforts or by the efforts of a single educational institution—whether a school, college, or university. Ideally, it requires a collective effort across all spheres of society, including its fundamental unit—the family. However, even within a single educational institution, much can be accomplished if the work is ongoing and systematic. This means that critical thinking and values should be integrated into the content of all subjects, all practical activities, and all interactions between students and educators, not just during dedicated lessons or advisory hours.

Of course, competing with social media in shaping young people’s values is difficult if we see it purely as a rival environment. But if social media is used as a tool to communicate important ideas and recommendations in an engaging way, it becomes an opportunity rather than a challenge. For instance, recommending high-quality films that, in one way or another, explore the theme of genuine heroism—whether military or everyday—can be highly effective. Just recently, while traveling, I watched the film Breath about the heroism of Russian doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a powerful and deeply moving film that conveys more than any number of dull educational lectures on the subject.

— In your view, do Russian and Western traditions of understanding heroism differ?

— Until recently, it was commonly believed that Russian heroism was associated with liberation, sacrifice, patriotism, and collective values, while Western heroism was linked to personal fame and individual success. However, I believe that this distinction applies primarily to older generations in Russia. If we take into account the research findings I mentioned earlier, the understanding of heroism among a significant portion of Russian youth today closely aligns with Western notions. And in this regard, we have a tremendous amount of work ahead of us!

—    In your opinion, what qualities are essential for a hero beyond having strong values, patriotism, courage, bravery, and a willingness to sacrifice for others? For example, is a striking charisma a necessary trait for a hero?

— Undoubtedly, possessing a strong charisma is a significant advantage for a heroic personality. Charisma allows a hero to inspire others and exert a profound influence on society. This is especially true when charisma is not just an inborn trait but also a result of personal growth, overcoming hardships, and achieving inner harmony. It serves as a kind of bridge between the hero and society, as well as a gift that enables them to resonate deeply with people. Charisma allows a hero to communicate their ideas and values effectively, embedding them into public consciousness and motivating others to act.

However, there is a hidden danger in this. In a consumer-driven civilization, charisma is increasingly being exploited to create pseudo-heroes. The mass media often glorifies individuals who do not possess genuine charisma but merely project an appealing image. In today’s digital networked society, charisma can be "manufactured" through technology. Such artificial charisma is dangerous because it appeals to basic instincts, manipulates public perception, and turns people into an unthinking crowd.

We are familiar with the concept of "crowd psychology" fr om the works of 19th-century French social philosophers Gustave Le Bon and Gabriel Tarde. Their discoveries and conclusions have been validated by historical experience and have only grown more relevant with time. Many modern techniques of mass psychological influence are based on their ideas. That is why it is crucial to distinguish between genuine charisma and its imitation in order to preserve the true value of heroism as a sociocultural phenomenon.

Summary of Crowd Psychology by Gustave Le Bon and Gabriel Tarde

• Key characteristics of a crowd: anonymity (a sense of impunity), susceptibility to "viruses" (rapid spread of opinions), suggestibility (the crowd can be made to see things that are not there), and an urge to immediately act on implanted ideas.
• The psychology of a crowd resembles that of primitive societies: the crowd is impulsive, unpredictable, irritable, and incapable of reasoning; it lacks critical thinking and is highly emotionally reactive.
• The crowd does not experience doubt: it gravitates toward extremes, wh ere even a minor suspicion can become an undeniable certainty.
• The crowd respects only power.
• Its ideas are upheld solely through categorical belief and have no connection to reality.
• Crowd reasoning is simplistic, based only on stereotypes and associations.
• A crowd can process only vivid images: the more striking the image, the better it is absorbed. Miraculous and legendary narratives are more persuasive than logical and rational arguments.
• A crowd requires a leader: intelligence is not a prerequisite, as intelligence breeds doubt. A leader must be active, energetic, and fanatical. Only someone who blindly believes in their own idea can infect others with their conviction.

From this perspective, a true hero is not simply a "leader" with a striking charisma—something that can have various origins—nor is it just someone who happens to perform an act later classified by society as "heroic," even if their motives had nothing to do with self-sacrifice for others. That happens, too. A person might have been trying to save only themselves, but in the process, it turned out they saved others as well—a fortunate coincidence of interests, as they say.

Ideally, a true hero is an integrated, value-driven individual with high moral qualities and empathy—someone who consciously chooses the "warrior’s path" in pursuit of a just cause and performs an act of heroism involving great personal risk to their life or health. This "warrior’s path" always begins with an "initiation"—a form of symbolic induction into the ranks of potential heroes.

But as I’ve said, this is the idealized and most generalized portrait of a hero across all times and cultures. It has existed and continues to exist in every civilization, regardless of its specific identity.

— How did you arrive at this definition?

— My perspective was shaped by my recent engagement with three remarkable books, each based on years of cross-cultural research: The Golden Bough by British ethnographer James George Frazer, The Hero with a Thousand Faces by American scholar of mythology and religion Joseph Campbell, and The Historical Roots of the Wonder Tale by Soviet philologist and folklorist Vladimir Propp. The first was written in the late 19th century, while the other two date back to the 1940s. Together, they form a vast and profoundly insightful analysis of global and national (for each author) folklore, mythology, magical rituals, and pagan traditions.

The research of Frazer, Campbell, and Propp reveals just how deeply mythological structures are embedded in culture, religion, and human psychology. Myths and folktales are not just stories—they are essential elements of both collective and individual consciousness, shaping literature, art, and even reality itself. These three authors demonstrate that across all cultures, the archetype of the hero is universal and is invariably tied to the hero’s journey and the initiation rite—both of which reflect not only external events but also the internal transformation of the individual. As Propp put it, their fundamental purpose is the transformation of chaos into order, as well as the personal evolution of an individual into a hero.

— So, to clarify: according to the three authors you mentioned, there exists a highly generalized and universal archetype of the Hero that is inherent in all peoples across all eras, regardless of their cultural identity. This archetype essentially encompasses all other types and subtypes of heroes, which may differ from culture to culture and over time?

— You could put it that way. But I would refine it further. The universality of the Hero archetype lies in the fact that, regardless of cultural, historical, or geographical differences, it represents the journey of an individual who overcomes challenges, undergoes transformation, and returns with newfound strength. In all cultures, the structure of the Hero archetype includes values, motives, the hero’s path, initiation, and other sacred elements. However, the specific content of these elements varies among different peoples and historical periods. This is precisely what we discussed at the beginning of our conversation.

Initiation as a form of symbolic "rite of passage" plays a crucial role in the making of a Hero. It generally consists of at least three stages:

1. separation from the familiar world or detachment from a previous state,
2. a phase of uncertainty, trials, and conflicts, often culminating in a form of sacrifice,
3. a return to the familiar world in a transformed state, having gained new qualities or status.

The duration of these stages can vary—sometimes they are brief, sometimes they unfold over long periods. One way or another, initiation is always a transformative, often traumatic experience meant to reshape the initiate’s inner world in a necessary way.

— How relevant is initiation in today’s world?

— Initiations, as rites or "passages," have always existed and continue to exist. While in modern societies initiation no longer exists as an ancient religious practice, it has evolved into secular cultural forms and meanings. However, its objectives remain unchanged: integrating an individual into society, introducing them to its norms and values, testing their resilience—whether moral, intellectual, or physical—elevating their social status, and fostering personal growth or identity transformation.

Throughout life, every person undergoes various transformations and corresponding "initiations," marking transitions such as moving from childhood to adulthood, graduating from school and entering university, getting married, and so on. Joining an elite professional circle can also be seen as a form of initiation. The process of preparing and defending a dissertation is another example, not to mention being elected as the leader of a major company or an entire country.

One of the most profound and significant forms of initiation, undoubtedly, is entering military service and serving in the army.

— So, does that mean every person is a hero?

— According to some researchers, the "genes" of heroism exist in everyone, but they do not manifest in every individual. Their expression depends on many factors: upbringing in the family, teachers, and the socio-historical environment. Sooner or later, every person faces a choice—whether to become a hero or not. And at that point, it all depends on whether they can overcome the challenges before them. The most significant of these challenges is overcoming oneself, one’s own fears. It also depends on whether the person is willing to sacrifice their life and well-being for others.

Even in ancient times, not every initiation ended with victory over oneself and circumstances. Instead of the symbolic "death" of the hero—an essential part of initiation—there could be an actual, irreversible death. But even in that case, an individual could still become a hero, albeit posthumously. That is why many nations have a tradition of awarding the title of Hero posthumously. The degree of sacrifice and the values and motives behind it play a crucial role. These elements together determine whether a person becomes a true hero. Genuine heroism is marked by selflessness and moral integrity, whereas false heroism is driven by ego, manipulation, or a desire for recognition.

— Can someone commit a truly heroic act spontaneously?

— Yes, they can. In fact, that is how it happens most of the time. There are studies showing that most soldiers and officers who performed heroic deeds acted instinctively, almost automatically, with emotions overriding logic. But this instinct and emotional response don’t emerge out of nowhere. Everything that preceded the moment of heroism—their upbringing, training, and beliefs—constituted their personal "hero’s journey."

Neither Alexander Matrosov nor Nikolai Gastello knew when they would be called to perform their acts of heroism. When the moment arrived, they made their decision in mere seconds—or rather, their deep love for their homeland and hatred for the enemy compelled them to sacrifice themselves for others.

The more time a person has to rationally consider a heroic act, the harder it becomes to commit to it, as the instinct of self-preservation—one of the oldest instincts in both humans and animals—begins to take over. Additionally, while an act of heroism might seem instantaneous to an outside observer, for the hero, time often appears to slow down. This is reflected in the well-known phrase, "my whole life flashed before my eyes."

— Does heroism exist in science?

— Numerous real-life examples show that it does. The desire to validate their hypotheses often drives scientists to take great risks, not to endanger others but to protect them. The scientific and academic communities have always been full of courageous and noble individuals, willing to make sacrifices not only in laboratories but also on the battlefields of their homeland.

You can find their names inscribed on the monument dedicated to the faculty and students of Tomsk State University who perished during World War II, located in our University Grove. The daily heroism of Tomsk scientists between 1941 and 1945 is vividly depicted in the work of Sergey Fedorovich Fominykh, particularly in the book he edited, "Their Feat is Immortal." It is essential that our faculty introduce these works to students because, as mentioned earlier, a lack of awareness among young people is one of the reasons for their disengagement from the concept of heroism.

As for contemporary Russian science, it is still searching for new heroes. The theme of scientific heroism, and scientific work in general, remains significantly underrepresented in the media.

"According to the latest open research, more than 70% of Russians are interested in scientific and technological achievements, and this interest has grown over the past two years. However, 92% of respondents admitted that they do not know or cannot recall the name of a single contemporary Russian scientist or engineer.

Today, Russia’s science and technology scene lacks widely recognized heroes. While there are undoubtedly leading figures in the field, they remain outside the public eye. The image of a modern hero—a scientist, engineer, or technological entrepreneur—has yet to be clearly defined and communicated to society.

This is why the scientific community, with the support of public organizations, financial institutions, and government authorities, must take an active role in informing the public about its work and explaining the significance of advanced technologies for the country's future."

(Source: Sevastopol.su)

I firmly believe that universities should not rely on the media to tell stories of scientific heroism and their own scientific heroes. They must take the initiative and communicate these stories themselves—clearly and engagingly—to the widest possible audience. Fortunately, we now have social media and messaging platforms to help with this. Events should also be organized and held, not just as a formality, but to actively shape historical memory among young people. After all, this is a crucial part of the university's third mission—its social and cultural role.

Eras change, the types of heroes evolve, but the universal archetype of the Hero endures through the ages. However, even this archetype could eventually fade if we fail to pass on our understanding of true heroism to younger generations—not through fairy tales and myths, but through the contemporary narratives and formats of our time. This is our duty and an honorable responsibility. Otherwise, we risk depriving future generations of the ideals they need to aspire to.

Eduard Galazhinsky

Rector of Tomsk State University
Member of the Council for Science and Education under the President of the Russian Federation
Vice President of the Russian Academy of Education
Vice President of the Russian Union of Rectors

Interview recorded and materials compiled by
Irina Kuzheleva-Sagan