Both Ralph Waldo
Emerson and Henry David Thoreau shared similar sentiments on the perfectibility
of humans, though their perspectives on the notion differ slightly. Emerson, in
his essay “Nature” offers a direct challenge to the Calvinist belief of human
depravity, suggesting that in our progress towards perfection, we become closer
to our true nature, rather than distanced from it. Through his poetic discourse
on nature and natural beauty, Emerson illuminates the spirituality and
perfection inherent in the forms of nature, which can refresh and restore the
human spirit: “The simple perfection of natural forms is a delight. […] To the
body and mind which have been cramped by noxious work or company, nature is
medicinal and restores their tone.” All natural beings share an element of God
within them, and humans, being a part of the universe, are created with this
pure goodness inside them. “Standing on the bare ground, -- my head bathed by
the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space, -- all mean egotism vanishes.
I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the
Universal Being circulate through me; I am part of particle of God.” As
children, we begin life more closely linked to this essential spirituality,
though existing within society often can lead us astray. Striving to stay close
to our childlike selves is one method for returning to this innate purity. “The
sun illuminates only the eye of the man, but shines into the eye and the heart
of the child. The lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are
still truly adjusted to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even
into the era of manhood.”
Thoreau’s view on government
echoes Emerson’s view that existence in society leads us away from our true natural
perfection. Thoreau clearly believes that government should be limited and kept
from interfering with those who it, because he views the individual as the
source of morality and a higher power. The American government, however, has
come to obstruct the ability for the people to freely exercise their moral
judgments. The government forces people to commit to it, rather than remaining loyal
to their morality. “Must the citizen ever for a
moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why
has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and
subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so
much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to
do at any time what I think right.” Thoreau looks toward a government which
will fully esteem the power of its people, rather than focusing on its own
concerns of power. “There will never be a really free and enlightened State
until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent
power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him
accordingly.” Individuals possess the ultimate
perfection and power, and lend this to the government to assist them, yet the roles
have been reversed. Thoreau urges that we must return to the realization that
the people are the true origin of power, much like Emerson believes that humans
must remember that they, as a part of nature, possess the communal spirit of
nature.
The running theme with Emerson and Thoreau revolves around the individual as naturally good, therefore individuality is a positive thing. But the argument could be made that individual concern is actually a negative. Governments require a degree of control over populaces, which would be a limit on the individual’s freedom, but sometimes that could be necessary. An enlightened thinker would argue that someone is capable of thinking through their situation enough to become naturally peaceful, but enlightened thinker are in the minority. It is considerably more likely that the individual acts out of self-interest, violently or otherwise. Besides, “pure goodness” is subjective. People can rationalize any number of heinous acts, if they need to rationalize at all. Of course, the heart of the argument of this innate goodness is that humans are part of nature. But nature has its own examples of violence and overconsumption. The individual in a vacuum is not the solution. The individual has to look to nature not as a fairytale land of pure goodness, but as a cruel world where individual creature band together for survival and protection. Doing “what any time I think right” is not the thought process behind progress, but behind survival. Real progress comes at the cost of the individual’s right to do as they please. The reverse danger is of course the government over stepping its bound, sacrificing individuals for the good of the group. The one must learn to respect the others or else the group becomes nonviable. There has to be a happy medium.
ReplyDeleteI really like the comparison you make between Emerson and Thoreau. In Emerson's "Nature," we see Emerson's take on the individual's sense of nature. Emerson expresses that the individual come to understand nature in a stronger, more personal way so that we may perceive our lives in a more holistic way. Using nature as a centric force, Emerson asserts that a return to childlike innocence makes us better appreciated and understand our true nature. Much like Emerson, Thoreau applies these principles to the concept of government. In order to understand government and how it should function as society, government must be broken down, picked apart, and studied to truly come to understand how a good government works. Government is made up of people; furthermore, it is for the people. A better understanding of the individual, their interests, and their importance to society as a whole is an essential step government oftentimes oversteps and overlooks. Where Emerson discusses the individual's betterment of themselves through nature, Thoreau asserts that the betterment of government (a body of individuals)can be realized by appreciating the individual. Respect, goodness, and conscience all inherently are a part of the human person. Government must remember these very tenable attributes when deciding what is best for the people at large. Government cannot solely function as government, or a ruling body. Thoreau warns government of this, while also putting forth his ideal state and how it can be perfected and realized. What optimism transcendentalists have!
ReplyDelete