Few writers have had as profound an impact on American culture as Henry David Thoreau, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that he has had a profound impact on the world. Not too shabby for a goofy heir to a pencil-making fortune. His signature work,
Walden, has been a bible for those who love nature and scorn the assorted destructions of progress, industry and civilization. A simple two word sentence from
Walden--"Simplify, simplify"--has become iconic. The work I've asked you to read, "On Civil Resistance," helped to change the world. While Thoreau did not invent the concept, he articulated the process of civil disobedience and consequently created what stands as one of the greatest political manifestos ever written. Mohandas Gandhi cited Thoreau as an influence in the civil resistance movement that ultimately freed India from British rule. Closer to home, Martin Luther King, Jr. explicitly cited Thoreau as an inspiration in the development of the Civil Rights Movement in America.
Thoreau's refusal to accept a role as a cog in the machinery of government and society has helped define him as the ultimate individualist. It didn't hurt his reputation either that he was socially awkward and introverted, and often perceived by his neighbors as one who was, at best, within hailing distance of normal. HIs efforts at finding even a romantic companion were thwarted not only by his personality, but by his looks. By the standards of the day he was regarded as physically unattractive. A story about him--perhaps apocryphal--is that he once wanted to court a woman he was fond of, only to have her tell him that she would rather hold hands with a twig. (On the other hand, his friends, such as Hawthorne and Emerson, found him sweet, a brilliant and spiritual man. Thoreau frequently played with Hawthorne's children, who apparently were quite fond of him.)
But don't be misled by this picture of a loner individualist. Indeed, Thoreau was very much the individualist. But his goal was not to lay out a plan for how to isolate oneself from one's society, but instead to figure out how an individual can engage in meaningful social action and change. Even in
Walden, Thoreau never advocates retreat as a permanent response to society. Thoreau believed that one did have power as an individual, but because, as he writes, "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation," it was difficult to wake up to one's own power and affect change. Perhaps more importantly, Thoreau was attempting to provide a means of power to the disenfranchised. If you are not a significant member of society, where do you get power? His night in jail attempts to answer that question: your power comes from your refusal to do something. (Sound familiar?) (By the way, Thoreau ended up spending only one night in jail because his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson bailed him out.)
Reconstruction of Thoreau's Cabin at Walden Pond
One question to think about with Thoreau has to do with his advocating that one refuse to vote. That would seem to counter everything we believe as a culture about the significance of voting. How can Thoreau lay claim to having any kind of say in the direction of this country if he's refusing to participate in a fundamental aspect of the democratic process?
A second question centers around his rather blunt--and even disrespectful--comments about the government. We know he advocates resistance. Is he advocating the destruction of governement? Is it possible to have a society full of Thoreaus and still have a functioning society?
For those interested, as I mention in my comment,
here is a link to Throeau's speech, "A Plea for Captain John Brown."
Thoreau has long since been a personal hero of mine. I love his poetry, but more impressive was the principled way in which he chose to live his life. With regards to the issue of voting. Many individuals may argue that a person who does not participate waives his or her rights. However,I think its important to look at the context. Thoreau's not voting was not based upon him being slothful or indifferent, but rather he was reinforcing his views by rebelling against the status quo. He felt the government was corrupt. And on many of the moral issues important to him, I think he saw little difference in the candidates stances. He took active protest against forms of injustices in our society, and was even willing to be imprisoned for his beliefs.I think this is how we are able to distinguish those who "claim" they have conviction, from those who really do. In my opinion, he was a man of high moral standing. Unlike many of his counterparts, Thoreau chose right over wrong. As such, one would hope there would be a host of Thoreau's in all societies.
ReplyDeleteTo add to your comment, Thoreau specifically located that corruption in the issue of slavery. He believed that by cooperating with a government--that is, voting--that not only turned a blind eye to but also facilitated the existence of slavery, one tacitly was responsible for the continued existence of slavery. (Though I would also point out that slavery was not Thoreau's only issue with the government.) In some ways Thoreau anticipates what would become a fundamental precept of Marxism: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you interested to find out more about Thoreau's response to slavery (he was quite vocal about his opposition), I'd recommend reading his speech "A Plea for Captain John Brown." I've placed a link to it in my blog post on Thoreau. It's difficult to explain in a small space how bold Thoreau's speech was, but I'll say that at the time he made his speech, Brown was one of the more despised figures in America, and very few had the nerve to stand up for him.
I find Thoreau quite interesting and admire him for standing up for his principles. Thoreau’s frustration with the government’s unwillingness to confront the cruel and heartless plight of slaves was so intense that he felt he had no choice other than to go to jail for his principles, and we still need citizens with selfless ideals who are willing to fight for what they believe in. I think the key is “selfless” rather than demanding rights solely based on personal want.
ReplyDeleteThe concept that voting implies complicity is an interesting notion. Today we participate in the voting process to effect change or as an endorsement to the status quo in the government. It seems to me that if we all became Thoreaus and opted not to vote then we would be giving our government permission to do whatever it wanted without our say so. If one individual really wants to see change, they need to find others (and lots of others) who are of the same opinion to bring attention to the issue and motivate the voters. There is power in numbers but it can all start with just one person inspiring others to join the cause.
Although I do not believe he sanctioned anarchy, he seemed to somewhat favor the philosophy of modern day libertarians who “seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.”
Cheryl, your point about the failure to vote leading to a government doing whatever it wishes is a good one. That's one of the reasons why I wonder about Thoreau's goals when he writes that the best government is that which governs not at all (a play on Jefferson's assertion that the best government is that which governs least). Is that an indirect way of advocating the destruction of government? If not, then haw can a government not govern?
ReplyDeleteUltimately I wonder if Thoreau is questioning the very value of democracy itself. While the notion of everyone having a say seems ideal (though with the existence of slavery, of course everyone did not have a say), I think Thoreau was repulsed by the group-think implicit in democracy--that is, that a group could determine what was best for the individual. I suspect that the democratic process was part of Thoreau's target when he wrote "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."
Thoreau takes a while to digest.
ReplyDeleteIn “A Plea For Captain John Brown, he says, “I do not believe in erecting statues to those who still live in our hearts, whose bones have not yet crumbled in the earth around us, but I would rather see the statue of Captain Brown in the Massachusetts State-House yard, than that of any other man whom I know. I rejoice that I live in this age, that I am his contemporary. What a contrast, when we turn to that political party which is so anxiously shuffling him and his plot out of its way…”
In reading the speech and what other material I’ve read about Thoreau, who was not a violent person, it seems to me that Thoreau admires not so much Brown’s actions here, but his willingness to act on the courage of his convictions. He is implying that all individuals should be as courageous and willing to stand up for their beliefs, even to the point of risking death. I don’t believe that he is advocating violent overthrow of the government – his own background is not violent (in Walden he even questions whether killing animals is proper) and he alludes to Brown’s “respect for the Constitution, and his faith in the permanence of this Union,” which make me think he shares those principles. What he seems to be saying is that if all were as willing to defend their principles as Brown (and himself) – by simple acts of protest or refusal – the combined effect of each person acting on his own conscience would increase the significance, or voice, of each individual in society. By himself, refusing to vote has little impact; the message is for others to catch on, not because he’s doing (or not doing) it, but because they believe in the principle themselves.
Is it possible to have a society full of Thoreaus and still have a functioning society? I’d like to think so, I believe society would function much better if we all were willing to display the courage of our convictions instead of needing the safety of a group or political party.
I wonder what Thoreau would think of the gigantic bureaucracy we have today. In 1849 our government was still relatively new and nowhere near as intrusive as now. I believe he would be appalled with the elitist attitude of many elected officials and the laws, rules and regulations that control almost everything we do. Living the simple life really isn’t all that simple anymore.
ReplyDeleteThoreau’s very skeptical that voting can change the situation, since people don’t have an opportunity to vote directly on slavery or the war, and politicians often made compromises with their own consciences. Thoreau turns to the issue of effecting change through democratic means. Voting for politicians opposed to slavery does not in itself qualify as a moral commitment to the abolition of an unjust practice; it simply registers the will of the people that one policy should prevail over another. The position of the majority, however legitimate in democratic terms, is not tantamount to a moral position. The country is full of men who defer to majority opinion and the shortcomings of a political process that offers a limited number of candidates and choices. When voting, we often believe that we can legitimately and justly choose the best of the worst.
ReplyDeleteThoreau is denouncing the government's methods for allowing the masses to advocate change. The method of petitioning is slow, and a man will die before the change occurs. Thoreau's central argument in this speech is to resist what your conscience can not support, even if you are in the minority.
Thoreau was an abolitionist. One of the main reasons that Thoreau resisted government was because he did not believe in slavery and felt that he couldn’t in good conscience take part in a government that supported it.
Thoreau shows people comfortably enjoying the protection of a system of government founded upon the exclusion and exploitation of others. The principle of justice at work is obviously democratic; he doesn’t pause to consider whether those on whose shoulders others pursue their beliefs may be properly employed as caryatids. Indeed, he insists that they have a right to pursue thoughts of their own. To understand the situation is to see the necessity for withdrawing support from the system and resisting the apathy by which well-meaning citizens may become party to injustice.
This is Thoreau's call for every man, even one man, to withdraw support from the government. A very transcendental philosophy is at work in this statement. Transcendentalists believe that there is no end to a question; the door can never be closed. In this way, one man who withdraws his support is the beginning of an endless cycle.
Cheryl-- I agree. Thoreau's admonishment to "Simplify, simplify, simplify!" has become very difficult to follow, from all standpoints. Some people do it -- refusing to have computers, cell phones, etc.-- but in today's world that puts them at a disadvantage; if you don't pay your bills online, for example, the company may charge you for paper statements. If you don't have touch tone, you can't access the right telephone number. People may eschew those things but then end up depending on someone else's in order to accomplish what they need to do, so it adds another complication.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the government, one thing I've recently heard from officials is that there is strict accountability for spending stimulus money. If that's true, I don't think Thoreau would have a problem with that particular aspect; I'm thinking of the passage in Walden which contains his accounting for every penny when he built his cabin. But that's another book, I guess...
Teri - Can you imagine how many permits and inspections would be required for building that cabin today! You can't even do a little renovation on your house without having the proper paperwork.
ReplyDeleteCheryl--
ReplyDeleteI do not know if Thoreau was a proponent of anarchy per se, but if so, it was situational. I think he believed those in charge of the government had become so corrupt, and distorted,it was his duty to stand against them. To his credit, he refused to be associated with a system of treachery.To put it in his own words. "Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it". Henry David Thoreau
Cheryl-- Good point; we visited Walden Pond a couple years ago and saw the replica cabin. It would be interesting -- and probably fairly easy to find out -- what red tape was involved in building that cabin, and how much it cost! Would make an interesting comparison...
ReplyDeleteI visited the cabin back in the early 1970s, and the most distressing thing I remember was the souvenir and food stands on the outer edges of the site. Apparently a sense of irony was not one of the characteristics of the developers. Teri, is the area around the cabin still over-developed? (In my mind, any development around Walden Pond is over-development, given what Thoreau tried to accomplish there.)
ReplyDeleteThere's not a huge amount of buildup in the immediate area, thanks perhaps to the movement Don Henley started in the 1990s; I heard a while ago that a plan for condos proposed for the edge of Walden Woods had been defeated.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall seeing a food stand; there is a gift shop in what appears to be a converted house. It doubles as the headquarters for the Thoreau Society, so perhaps they think that justifies the commercialism! There was a fee for parking in the park lot, and parking along the road was prohibited. A bathhouse at the beach on that end of the lake was being renovated.
There was an interpretive kiosk or two on the beach end, with walking tour maps.
There's also a statue of Thoreau, holding a book, near the cabin; it may have been put there since you were there. I found the replica cabin interesting from a spatial standpoint.
We arrived very early to avoid crowds, and walked the mile or so back to the original cabin site, marked by concrete posts and nearby the cairn which Emerson is said to have begun. We found much more of a sense of Thoreau there; we were the only ones there for a long time and it was quiet, peaceful and unspoiled. There and at the nearby backwater,"Thoreau's Cove," it was possible to imagine we were experiencing what he did. I thought about him playing his flute.
On the way in and out, we were unable to walk on the edge of the lake; a fence has been installed due to substantial erosion. But there was no barrier at the end where the original cabin stood.
We didn't spend time at the beach -- it seemed sacriligious. But I wanted to at least stand in Walden Pond near the original site. I was repaid by having my toe pinched by a crayfish, and the moment captured on film. It brought me right out of my Transcendentalist reverie!
So yes-- there is still a park with the replica cabin and gift shop across the road from the beach. It's touristy on that end. But making the 10 or 15 minute trip to the other end of the pond is a completely different experience which gives a much better sense of what Thoreau was all about.
Thoreau compares voting to playing a game. He expresses that voting in the mass only leaves the outcome up to the majority instead of the individual. Thoreau placed great importance on a person’s voice in society, which is especially evident in his jail scene. I admire both Thoreau’s strong beliefs and his commitment to them. I like how Teri said, “the combined effect of each person acting on his own conscience would increase the significance, or voice, of each individual in society.”
ReplyDeleteIs Thoreau advocating the destruction of government? No, I think he’s searching for a change in the government. “I ask for, not at once no government, but once a better government.” If that means opposing or refusing until it values the individual, then so be it. Thoreau simply yearns for respect of public as individuals rather than a mass audience. “Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it” (page 1739). Ultimately, he does not want his money to support anything that he, as an individual, is against. Is it possible to have a society full of Thoreaus and still have a functioning society? I think in today’s world, Thoreau’s way of thinking is encouraged. Everyone over 18 has the right to vote and get his voice heard. As long as he avoids violence, he has the right to express his opinion about anything. I believe we have many potential Thoreaus out there, but perhaps some are afraid to speak up?
On another note, I’m very interested in visiting Thoreau’s cabin. I’m glad that it’s possible to enjoy and understand his experience at Walden Pond without too many “touristy” attractions. I would love to check out the site, but I feel it would need to be a private experience, like Teri’s was, in order to appreciate its purpose.
Thoreau did not like the way that the government was ran. He wanted change. If you don't like something you step up and try to change it. That is sort of what Thoreau did. We was willing to do whatever he it took to express the way he felt about a certain issue.
ReplyDeleteThoreau is not trying to destroy the government. He is trying to change it and make it better. He wants what would be best for the public as a whole.
I think that it is possible to have a society full of Thoreaus and still function. We live in a democratic society where everyone has a right to voice their opinions and change something if they don't like it. They have the right to a peaceful protest to change something or voice an opinion to possibly benefit society as a whole.