The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models.
Heroism is a very old concept, that can be found even back to ancient Greek and Rome. Back there, heroes were those strong warriors, such as Achilles for example. The concept has evolved over time and it is now much more blurred. In fact, it is very difficult to seize who are the role models in the contemporary society. If a survey was made with the population, hardly a consensus would emerge. Instead, the range of modern “heroes” or role models would be very vast, ranging from singers, such as Justin Bieber, to historical important figures, such as Nelson Mandela. Considering the blurred frontiers of who can be a hero, the fact that our societies don’t have a unique paragon and the fact that behind role models the reality can be very different, I argue that examining the character of man and women that the society choose as its heroes can be misleading.
First of all, as the concept of heroism is very subjective, it is impossible to use as the only indicator of the character of a society. The concept of heroism has lost it meaning with the passage of time. Not that before it was better, but it was more clear who was considered a hero. Nowadays everyone and, thus, no one can be considered a hero. In fact, when you talk to the youth, it is sometimes surprising the kind of people they consider a myth or a role model. As the borders of who might or might not be a hero are blurred, it is more difficult to use this information as an indicator of the character of a society.
A second important factor is that it there is no unique role model in contemporary societies. In fact, we have so many social cleavages that it is almost impossible to agree on who would be the role model. In that sense, it can be more helpful to use role models to understand the different social groups that composed a society and understand how their values are translated in different role models. For instance, a group of feminists, might have as a role model one of the former women that were fighting for voting rights and other feminist agendas. On the contrary, a more sexist group might have as a role model maybe a man that is openly sexist and involved in some scandals. This is totally possible in societies that are increasingly polarized and in which it would be very difficult to reach a compromise to choose an only role model. However, it is useful looking at the role models in order to see that there is a gap between the different groups.
Last but not least, it is important to assume that role models by their own are not enough to reveal the real characteristics of a society. In fact, behind role models, fact and statistics can show another version. For example, a society can have Nelson Mandela as a “hero” and the fact would denote that the society cares for social and racial equality. Nonetheless, statistics can show that there is a pay gap between white and black workers. In that sense, statistics about relevant facts in society can be more important that “role models” to reveal the real character of a society (that might be a bit hypocrite). Role models alone, therefore, are not good indicators of how a society can be.
To sum up, the blurred dimensions of heorism, the polarized society and the fact that role models might not reflect real situations are good reasons to state that analysing their character is not the best way to understand contemporary societies. The argument is not that is not worth it, but that definitely is not the best way.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 266, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...e, a society can have Nelson Mandela as a 'hero' and the fact would den...
^
Line 17, column 331, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ut that definitely is not the best way.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, may, nonetheless, second, so, therefore, thus, for example, for instance, in fact, kind of, such as, first of all, on the contrary, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 46.0 19.5258426966 236% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.4196629213 177% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 31.0 11.3162921348 274% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 51.0 33.0505617978 154% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2914.0 2235.4752809 130% => OK
No of words: 626.0 442.535393258 141% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.65495207668 5.05705443957 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.00199880112 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69678323464 2.79657885939 96% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 215.323595506 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.405750798722 0.4932671777 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 945.0 704.065955056 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.7642254939 60.3974514979 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.071428571 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3571428571 23.4991977007 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.14285714286 5.21951772744 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.270206015431 0.243740707755 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0715211889576 0.0831039109588 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0730808346948 0.0758088955206 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176099518706 0.150359130593 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0697506675509 0.0667264976115 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.1392134831 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.8420337079 118% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.99 12.1639044944 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.38706741573 92% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 100.480337079 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.