Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau
are often paired together for assignments. This is because Emerson’s “Nature”
discusses both internal human nature, and the external visible world is nicely
complimented by Thoreau’s writings further expounds on the mass of individuals- in this case, “Civil Disobedience” comments on
our political nature as humans. Thoreau addresses on the macrocosmic scale what
Emerson proposes on the microcosmic scale: individualism, self-reliance,
simplicity-all things found in nature. I turn first to Emerson and his
evaluation of the individual with regards to the natural world.
Emerson wastes no time in associating the
individual with nature:
“One
might think the atmosphere was made transparent with
this
design, to give man, in the heavenly bodies, the perpetual presence of the
sublime.”(Chapter
1)
Emerson notes this child-like
awe inspired by nature when people are completely open to it. This adds to the
air of mystery shrouding nature presented throughout the work; nature is a
mysterious counterpoint to the human soul while simultaneously paralleling it,
reflecting emotion. Emerson believes that nature is an arm or an aid of a
simple human life. If the simplicity of our existence is complicated by lust
for money, carnal desires, power, et cetera, then we’ve lost sight of what is
truly important and what truly teaches us about ourselves:
“When
simplicity of character and the sovereignty of ideas is broken up by
the
prevalence of secondary desires, the desire of riches, of pleasure, of
power,
and of praise, -- and duplicity and falsehood take place of
simplicity
and truth, the power over nature as an interpreter of the will,
is
in a degree lost.” (Chapter 4)
Claiming that the poet and
philosopher interact with the power of nature itself in search of both Beauty
and Truth, which are found in nature, Emerson suggests that nature is a “divine
dream” from which we may awake at any moment. Being awoken from this dream may come in the
form of distraction from nature by the superficial worldly elements like power
or money. This distraction and room to make errors, so it seems, may be caused
by our indirect relationship with God:
“It [the world] is a remoter
and inferior incarnation of God, a projection of God in the unconscious.”
(Chapter 7)
We must be sure not to stray
from the pure projection of God’s unconscious-that is, unspoiled nature.
Henry David Thoreau firmly believed that one of the
biggest distractions/obstacles in the way of our direct relationship with
nature is government. Thoreau shares the mentality that “the government which
governs best, governs least.” Like Emerson, Thoreau values individual judgment.
The fact that Thoreau does believe that an ideal state and ideal humans are
possible is shown by this whole piece, acting is a guide on how to achieve
them. He believes that the majority should not always be obeyed, and that
individuals should voice all of their opinions, and we should move on from
there:
“I ask for, not at once no government, but at
once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government
would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it… 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.” (Thoreau)
Thoreau
argues that “wise” (a.k.a. ideal) men should be willing to suffer injustice in
order to rally against it. This means suffering personal injustice, destruction
of property, and going to jail for the cause. He believes that our personal
sacrifice and loyalty to what we think is right will pressure the government to
change its unjust laws, bringing it closer to an ideal state. We must not
pledge allegiance to a country that doesn’t listen; he believes in paying the
minimum amount of taxes and not depending on the state for protection. Thoreau
dreams of a true collective of individuals where no one’s voice is lost among
the masses, and all points of view are taken into account. I agree with his
thoughts on self-sufficiency, but wonder if his world of enumerated individuals
would actually work. Then, it seems, everyone would be the majority. What then?
Your investigation of the relationship between Emerson and Thoreau is quite interesting. I like that you point out that the two authors are often studied in unison and explain some possible reasons why. These authors certainly are approaching very similar topics (as you point out: “: individualism, self-reliance, simplicity”) but they do it with very different approaches. Also, if you consider Walden and other nature-themed works for which Thoreau is famous aside from Civil Disobedience is even easier to make the connection. Also, I like how you parse out Emerson’s authorial relationship with nature; he’s a philosopher-poet who is doing a very important thing by interacting so closely with nature. The ideas of Truth and Beauty that you point out in both authors is also interesting, especially with the ideas of politics and government that Thoreau explores. Essentially, he believes in an ideal citizen in order to approach an “ideal state.”
ReplyDeleteI like your comment that while Emerson discusses internal and external nature on a microcosmic level, Thoreau implements similar ideas but sees them from the macrocosmic perspective, or the political level. I think you’re right to suggest that Emerson believes that human nature (an extension of the more general concept of nature) is limited and infringed upon by power, greed, etc. Thoreau’s beliefs about the government stem from this fundamental principle. Humans need a government that does not interfere with the human faculties of moral judgment. Both Thoreau and Emerson highly value the ability of the individual to make these judgments for themselves and believe obstructions to this method are hindrances. Thoreau believes the ideal individual will endure personal sufferings in order to achieve a greater good, or for the purpose of subverting governmental control. I echo your end sentiments, questioning whether or not Thoreau’s idealization of a governmental system would function if every individual’s voice could be fully appreciated and taken into account.
ReplyDelete