Courage and Cowardice in The Hurt Locker

Article topic: 
The Hurt Locker

Aristotle argued that every virtue lies between two vices. Courage lies between cowardice and foolhardiness. But his terminology can be misleading. Although cowardice is a 'vice of deficiency' and foolhardiness a 'vice of excess', the scale is not really quantitative. It is not a matter of how frequently one faces down danger. It is rather a matter of behaving appropriately with respect to danger.

The virtuous person is sensitive to the presence of danger, the likelihood of a bad outcome, and the severity of that outcome, and knows how to respond to ensure the right result. The coward sees danger where there is none, or sees bad outcomes as more likely or more severe than they really are; in being out of tune with reality, the coward will not ensure the best outcome. Foolhardiness, on the other hand, is the failure to recognise the presence of danger or the likelihood or severity of a bad outcome, and thereby also leads to bad results.

The three main characters of The Hurt Locker might initially seem to illustrate this triad. Sanborn is clearly a model of Aristotelian courage. Not only is he adept at assessing the risks worth taking and those not worth taking, he also knows how to take the ones that are worth taking. His talk of a future family life indicates that he knows too what this job is worth in the larger scheme of things. Eldridge does seem somewhat cowardly, overestimating the likelihood of his demise, and focusing on it at the expense of other aspects of life, even at the expense of developing strategies for avoiding it.

But is the central character, James, best understood as foolhardy? Absolutely not. He is far more interesting than that.

Jon went on to write a longer paper called Virtue and Vice The Hurtlocker which can be found here:

http://www.jonathanwebber.co.uk/articles/VirtueAndViceInTheHurtLocker.pdf

More articles on the same film

Representations of Warfare and The Hurt Locker

As a teacher in the School of Journalism at Cardiff University my first reactions to this film were through my concern for the way that images and representations of warfare serve to either aid or confound the way that the public understands wars, who fights in them, who is harmed by them and why they are fought. With massive financial cuts across news organisations there has been an increased reliance on stock footage and photographs supplied by specialist corporations.

Psychiatric Disorders and The Military

Active military service is well recognised as a risk factor for the development of psychiatric disorder. Perhaps the most commonly discussed condition is post traumatic stress disorder; characterised by re-experiencing of the traumatic event, for example through nightmares or recurrent distressing thoughts of what happened, avoidance of thinking or talking about it, emotional numbing and hyperarousal including increased vigilance, increased startle reaction, irritability and sleeping difficulties.

The History of Shell Shock and The Hurt Locker

In a review of the film, the Guardian film critic Peter Bradshaw explained that the “hurt locker” is a name for the physical trauma of repeatedly being in close proximity to the deafening blast of explosions – or, as Bradshaw put it, ‘basically Shell Shock 2.0’. The term “shell shock” was coined in the early months of the First World War. It originated among the troops as a way of describing the condition experienced by some soldiers caught up in blasts, who might be physically unharmed but suffered strange symptoms such as deafness, blindness, mutism, or amnesia.