Read and annotate the excerpt from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Self-Reliance.” Consider the various arguments Emerson makes, considering specifically what he says about the importance of non-conformity and independent beliefs.
To what extent do you agree with the ideas Emerson expresses in “Self-Reliance”? Consider the virtues and the costs of such emphasis on individualism. Do you believe that there’s too little, too much, or just the right amount of emphasis on individualism in our society today?
As we continue to discuss The Scarlet Letter, consider how Hawthorne might answer these same questions. What does Hester (“little accustomed, in her long seclusion from society, to measure her ideas of right and wrong by any standard external to herself”) suggest about Hawthorne’s beliefs?
The deadline for posting is 11:59p on Friday, April 11th.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
While Emerson may be right that independence and acceptance of contradictory impulses may characterize, or at least allow for, great accomplishment, he undervalues consistency. Those that aim for harmony, recognize their effects on others, and act with some consistency create a durable and smoothly functioning society. Essentially, they build the stage upon which these “great people” may then act.
Emerson suggests that one embrace every impulse saying, “if I am the Devil’s child, I will live then from the Devil”. Mr. Hyde is a perfect example of this: a man who was ruled solely by amoral impulses and had no conscious to restrain him. He was perfectly happy. Yet such a lack of regard for society’s laws and other people is dangerous and, if taken too seriously, promotes anarchy. For a more even distribution of happiness and safety, everyone must submit, to some extent, to society’s rules.
However, individualistic desires inspire innovation due to the competition and emphasis on self-actualization inherent in such a society. Going against society can also be beneficial, such as when one steps up to protest dehumanizing practices. Like all things, individualism must be in moderation. The ideal perhaps, is an individualist society, which emphasizes ones’ strengths and desires, but that recognizes one’s responsibility to others.
-Jule
While I agree with Jule’s claim that individualism must be balanced against a responsibility towards others, I disagree with her assertion that Emerson underrated consistency. It is a desire for consistency that prevents people from admitting their mistakes. Emerson calls it “the hobgoblin… adored by statesmen”, and so it is today when countless politicians fear the label of flip flopper more than threats that will undoubtedly be realized if mistakes are not acknowledged and policies changed.
Emerson’s emphasis upon individualism is well deserved. Many of the world’s greatest crimes have resulted from a lack of critical thinking and willingness and stand against the majority. In the United States those who stood against slavery and segregation refused to accept the status quo. It is interesting to note however that the greatest dissenters often protested within the bounds of the law, and almost always with a respect of basic human rights.
-Galen
I would have to agree with Jule (honestly, it's not a twin-bias!) in that complete disrespect for society could easily result in the eventual breakdown of society itself. The effectiveness of the legal system and a democratic government is based off of the idea that people will agree to follow communal ideas. While Galen makes an interesting point about many of the worst crimes resulting from a lack of a will to resist society, I would like to qualify that statement and point out that - at least in some cases - the only reason they were perceived as crimes and acted against is because those crimes went against social and humanistic norms and conventions, globally if not locally.
As an aside, I would just like to point out the irony of writing a persuasive essay telling people to think for themselves and not listen to what other people say or expect of them...
I agree with Ben and think that it is funny that Emerson is being hypocritical, but somebody needed to say it. I believe that our society thrives on individualism. When Emerson states, “Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind,” I believe that he is saying that we cannot blindly follow society; we must all think for ourselves. Many great leaders have altered society for the better by taking a stand. Therefore, I agree with Galen and believe if the right precautions are taken, then individualism is needed to better our society. However, I also agree with Jule’s point that if there is “too much” self-reliance, thoughtless and selfish actions could eventually create more harm than good. Therefore, everybody needs to think for themselves, but simultaneously, individuals need to consider the overall affect of their actions on society and others.
-Alisha
Okay, I may sound like a broken record with this No Country for Old Men stuff, but there's a character in that movie who fits this concept perfectly. The hitman Anton does many things that are considered extremely immoral by societal standards, but all his actions are based on his own personal moral code which he follows incredibly strictly. As Jule has pointed out, literature is rich with examples of people who have caused great harm by going against the grain of society. No Country for Old Men is yet another example of why complete autonomy from society is not a good thing. In the real world too, we are constantly seeing examples of rebels who damage society by ignoring society's moral code. Therefore, while individuality is essential and should be prized, complete individuality may be too much of a good thing. - Dan N
I agree with previous points made that nonconformity can lead to the destruction instead of the bettering of society. However, I mostly agree with Emerson that to be self reliant, to make ones own judgments and think for one’s self, is a essential component of greatness. Jule makes the very sound claim that a “lack of regard for society’s laws” is dangerous, but what about cases when the destruction of society is just what is called for? For instance, Hester was able to shake the foundations of a rigid, suppressive society by keeping with her self-reliance, which in the end allowed the Puritan community to become more accepting of her.
In today’s world, while individualism is encouraged at times it can also be looked down upon and overlooked by the safety provided by conformity. People are told to think for themselves, then deemed insane when their thoughts stray too far from the norm. This also goes along with Emerson’s statement that, “to be great is to be misunderstood”.
-Henrietta
Dan N. makes an excellent point when he says that complete individualism is too much of a good thing. Because the excerpt we read was by Emerson I am reminded of the failed transcendental-era utopia of Brook Farm. The people who started it were not skilled laborers, and they spent a significant portion of their lives building a huge barn for their community only to have it struck by lightning five days after its completion. This project would have likely been more successful if the utopia members had not isolated themselves so much. Individuality for the sake of distancing oneself from conformity is not a healthy code to live by, nor is conformity for the sake of a fear of a trivial label or a hesitation to change the status quo (as Galen pointed out about modern politicians). I think it can be argued that every one of the individuals that Emerson mentions in his final paragraph is highly respected today as a contributor to modern society. I think the real test of whether or not a person has found an acceptable balance between individualism and conformity is whether or not a person’s label of being misunderstood in his or her lifetime becomes respect in the present day, or is still viewed as misunderstanding.
-Aaron
I disagree with Emerson’s idea that “Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.” Although society is imperfect, its purpose is to better the lives of its members. Without society, chaos would ensue. Also, Emerson seems to have a lack of concern for the rest of humanity as he “must do all that concerns [himself], not what the people think.” However, his idea about the importance of individualism has value. Though, contrary to Emerson’s ideas, I think that it is individualism that fuels society. Society is the union of the unique ideas of its members so that, as Jule said, “harmony” can be created among the people. I also agree with Jule that Emerson does not give consistency enough credit. Though complete consistency would disable people from reevaluating flawed ideas, complete inconsistency disrupts the harmony of a society, when it may not be necessary. In our society, I think there is an overall moderation between individualism and conformity. Nonetheless, extremes exist: some people conform to the point of blindly following society, while some disregard the importance of respecting society’s norms so that they become criminals that are oblivious to the well-being of others.
-Emily
I agree with parts of what everyone has been saying so far, especially Galen in the sense that Emerson places well-deserved emphasis on individualism. I would however like to make a distinction between individualism and rebellion. Jule raised the point that society could crumble if people disregard its laws. However, I do not think that that type of rebellion and individualism are synonymous. Although I do not agree that "Society everywhere is a conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members," individualism among members of a society is vital. Emerson's personal views are extreme for today's standards, but some of what he suggests is present in society. People are encouraged to be individuals and not to conform to the status quo (to a certain degree). Not everyone fits the same mold and that is accepted.
It would be arbitrary for everybody to live by their own set of rules, like Emerson suggests and I do not agree with him in that aspect. But individualism is necessary in today's society because without individualism, there would be no progressive thought.
-Dan F.
I think Dan F. brings up an excellent point in that there should be a distinction between individualism and rebellion. But rebellion almost seems like an extreme form of individualism, maybe a form in which someone got carried away with being an individual. There is definitely a difference but I also think it is hard to tell when someone stops trying to be an individual and starts rebelling just for the sake of rebellion. It seems to me that, in his essay, Emerson is almost walking the line between individualism and rebellion. He disdains the idea of being rewarded for simply doing one's work, as if this is too menial for any one to consider. He also claims that conforming makes one "false in all particulars". This seems a fairly extreme position for individualism yet his motives do not quite go so far as to be rebellious.
-Zoe
I think everyone here has made some great points. I especially agree with Alisha, as she said that our society thrives on individualism. Once at a dinner table my brother brought up his thesis for a paper he had written; greed and individualism fuels the nation. I was a bit outraged at first because I associate greed with negative connotations and thought that it was better to think with a collective interest in mind, but this essay opened my eyes. I think that without individualism nothing novel and great would come about. I also believe that there is a fine line between going against society and not conforming to it, for as Emerson says, “imitation is suicide”. Also, I once read a book called The Uglies (I definitely do not recommend it) that was about a nation that collapsed, but a new one emerged where not a single soul questioned society or the operation that was done on them (that actually took part of their brain). That book and this essay bring up the question of how far some are willing to go along with a society even if it is very wrong.
-Michelle
I think Alisha did a good job with taking parts of what Jule and Galen said to come up with a more moderate view. I agree with Alisha that there should be a balance between the individual and the society because individualism impacts the society while society itself might influence the individuals. I really agree with Emerson when he says, “To be great is to be misunderstood…” because the leaders of the past and present are misunderstood until the society changes and realizes how the leaders transforms the society. As a result, the society sometimes view these leaders as rebels because their actions are against what the society are used to. Therefore, when Zoe and Dan F. brought up the differences between individualism and rebellion, I believe that rebellion is a form of individualism.
~Mary
I agree with Emily’s point that even if society may have some inherent flaws, but people to need to work together to some extent to keep it from degenerating into chaos. When Emerson says “What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think,” he does seem to have a basic inability to connect with his fellow man. Suggesting that his entire essay is meant to promote himself as one of the ‘great men’ that did not give into the “join-stock company” of society. However, I also believe that Michelle has a point in saying that too little of individualism can get out of hand, leading to people believing ideas that are completely illogical. The point at which individuality becomes too much or too little is a fine line and I believe that Emerson’s belief that people can throw away and idea of community and pave their own path in the world is an example of too much individualism.
-Stephanie
I think that everyone has brought up very good points, but I especially liked Aaron’s example of Brook Farm. Brook Farm was a transcendentalist Utopian experiment where Thoreau and Emerson’s ideas were actually put into practice to see if they could be carried out with success, and the experiment eventually failed. In this way, I do not think that these ideas can work as a whole, but I think that their ideas can work when there is some balance. Therefore I believe that our society is able to realistically balance individualism with conformity because people have the freedom to step out of the crowd, but they are not necessarily required to. However, in relation to “The Scarlet Letter” I do not believe that the Puritan society had an adequate balance of individualism and conformity, as people were afraid to commit sin or do anything wrong. Hester was punished for adultery because the Puritan society viewed it as wrong even if Hester’s inner God said that it was acceptable.
-Susannah
I think everyone so far has made strong arguments, and I especially liked Aaron's example of Brook Farm. I decided to include my own outside example as well. In California there is a commune called Black Bear Ranch that has been extraordinarily successful for more than 30 years now. I think this example shows an excellent contrast to Aaron's example, and to much of what Emerson states in this essay. I also thought that the religious aspect of this piece was especially comparable to the scarlet letter. Emerson states "If I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil". I think this quote in particular highlights the parallels between Emerson and Hester. Both were extraordinarily driven by individual motivation, and both resented and cast away the constraints that society placed upon them and lived outside of the community. In terms of individualism in modern society, I believe that, as with all things, moderation and compromise are key. I agree with Stephanie that Emerson seems to take his views on the importance of individualism a little too far. I also think that Emerson made an excellent point when he stated that living under anything other than your nature is to inhibit oneself.
-Jeremy
Jeremy draws a clear parallel between Emerson’s views and Hester’s; he says the “both were extraordinarily driven by personal motivation.” However, Emerson chose his isolation because it complied with his transcendentalist philosophy, whereas Hester was forced into self-reliance, and Hawthorne makes it clear that it is not something she enjoys. I believe Hester was driven by a certain personal passion and strength, but not in the way Emerson was; Emerson ran off into the forest, unlike Hester, who was forced to live at the edge. In a sense, Emerson was the rebel and Hester was the unfortunate citizen forced to live in a shanty town.
Like many others have said before, a balance between conformity and individualism needs to be established for society to run smoothly. And it is also the divide between these two poles that creates political philosophy today; the spectrum between anarchy and communism. Individualists push for anarchy, and the more group-oriented people push for communism.
-tim
Post a Comment