A Response to Emerson's Self Reliance

    
Emersonian Dystopia:
The Implications & Consequences of Emersonian Self-Reliance

    Upon reading Emerson’s Self-Reliance, not for the first time, I was reminded of how much of his beliefs and sentiments hinged on the concept of human beings as intrinsically good natured. Now this is not a new debate, nor is it one that ended with Emerson, nature versus nurture (biology versus society) has been surrounded by an ongoing discussion that often polarizes those discussing it for ages. We see it in twin studies when scientists research parallel development between twins reared in the same home and those reared in different homes. We see it during court cases regarding sexual predators and murderers, can they be rehabilitated? Was their crime a result of societal influence, family dynamics gone wrong, or were they simply “born that way”? In the classic novel, Lord of the Flies, the question of whether or not children are born good or evil and what role society plays in the development of those characteristics is explored when a group of children (those who’ve been least impacted by their previous society) are stranded on an island alone, forced to create their own society from the ground up. Will they be able to establish a new and peaceful society or will they resort to warfare and separation? These are more extreme examples, yes, but they illustrate the prevalence of varying opinions on the subject and lack of satisfactory answers.

In this essay I aim to take some of Emerson’s more problematic statements in regard to self-reliance and expose some of the dangers they present when enacted in a society that is less utopian than the one Emerson seems to prescribe to. Below you will find my understanding of possible implications and consequences of an Emersonian mindset in a not so Emersonian world.

“They do not seem to me to be as such; but if I am the devil’s child, I will live then from the devil. No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. […]The only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.” Though it could be argued that Emerson’s tone in the first statement (regarding being the devil’s child) was probably intended more as an overstatement to shock his doctrine-pushing adviser, I would still like to point out that this isn’t a onetime occurrence. Emerson mentions numerous times throughout this essay that one of the tenants of self-reliance is “living wholly from within” and following one’s own nature. In an ideal world, this is great. Even in a less than ideal world this is great. But Emerson fails to account for what real world implications would occur if all people actually DID follow their own nature. I believe he neglects to account for the possible negatives because he is of the belief that people are intrinsically good, so in that way it makes sense, but I don’t believe he offers enough (if any) evidence to prove that people actually ARE good by nature. So then, if there does exist a group of people whose motivations are less than noble, what then would Emerson say? Would he still tell them to that the only law sacred to them should be their own or would he remind them that one person’s rights end where another’s begin? Personally I believe the latter, not because I believe people are born ‘bad’ but because I know that even those with good intentions can often times trample the rights of those less positioned to defend their own.

“Else, if you would be a man, speak what you think to-day in words as hard as cannon balls, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today.” I find this quote to be a bit tricky, not because it’s particularly complex, but because it’s easy to fall into what Dewey refers to as “either or” thinking. I disagree with Emerson when he advises people to speak in words as hard as cannon balls day in and day out for a few reasons. One, Emerson doesn’t account for the quality of character that comes with admitting one’s wrongs. I remember back to the election race between George W. Bush and John Kerry, many people argued that John Kerry wouldn’t make a good president because he was what they referred to as a “flip-flopper” whereas GW was very set in his ways. Now, there is a serious gender norm behind this that I haven’t failed to notice, we’ll get there next; but for now, back to point one. What was often not discussed was whether or not the things both men had either flopped or stuck to were agreed with. For example, maybe Kerry changed his mind on whether or not he supported free upper level schooling for students nationwide, maybe he went from saying he opposed to saying he agreed. Now is he a weak leader because he changed his mind or is he a strong leader because he realized his misjudgment and made an effort to correct it? His words were certainly not hard as cannon balls, though he did back his stance on both accounts; he did change his mind and acknowledge that he did, so what would Emerson say?

Back to GW, again, for example’s sake, let’s say Dubya came out as being anti-puppies. Let’s say he’s allergic to them so he decided to ban them nationwide. The people were outraged, the ASPCA was on the attack and children everywhere were crying themselves to sleep. BUT, being the ‘hard as cannon balls, non flip-flopping’ guy he is, he stands his ground and puppies are banned. Yes, he stood his ground, but he stood his ground on something the people he governed were staunchly opposed to. So, is there still value in his consistency? According to this Emerson quote, I’d argue yes, because he spoke his words and refused to take into consideration the wants of other parties. Again, these are silly examples, but they show real life consequences of Emersonian self-reliance. It tends to neglect the good of the group in favor solely of the good of the individual.

In the same quote, we can also see some gender norms being played out and reinforced. Qualities that are considered masculine (hard, being unapologetic, speaking your mind regardless) are considered the desired traits, whereas those same traits are rarely used to describe anything feminine and, when referring back to the quote, we see that the opposite way of dealing with your words is strongly aligned with what’s considered feminine in our society. This is just one of a few examples of Emerson reinforcing, whether intentionally or not, the gender norms our society has been plagued by for generations. Now I wouldn’t argue that people should do the opposite of Emerson’s suggestion, but I would push for some balance. We should, by all means, voice our opinions and stand behind what we say but we should also know enough to know that no one is ever right or unchanging 100% of the time. Sometimes it takes a much stronger person to admit fault or wrong doing than it does to stand blindly behind your word in spite of your mind.

“Man is timid and apologetic. He dares not say ‘I think’, ‘I am’, but quotes some saint or sage.” “The roses under my window make no reference to former roses or to better ones; they are for what they are; they exist with God today. There is no time to them. […]But man postpones or remembers; he does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or, heedless of the riches surround him, stand tiptoe to forsee the future.” Here we have another example of gender norms being reinforced, to be man (in Emerson’s ideal) is to be unapologetic, a quality characteristically assigned to masculinity. Though the bigger issue with these quotes have less to do with gender norms and more to do with Emerson advocating for a complete disregard for history and the lessons it can offer us, and on top of that, he also expresses dismay for those who look to the future. Now, I understand that one can get caught up in the past or future and neglect the present, and if these were the only instances of Emerson saying this I might chalk it up to that point. But throughout Self-Reliance Emerson devalues history or the wisdom of those who’ve come before us by making them out to be easy-outs for men who can’t act in the present. This reminds me of the saying “those who can’t do, teach” except that for Emerson it’d go more like “those who can’t do, look to those who have done.”

I won’t argue that that saying wouldn’t apply to anyone, because I could name a few people from my personal history that it definitely reflects, but Emerson seems to believe this is true in all cases and I can’t get behind that. I understand too well the value of history, of looking to those who’ve gone before for inspiration, advice, ideas, etc. Just look at the Seneca Falls essay, the women who fought for the rights of all women used their knowledge of past events to inspire and make better their own fight. If you look at the LGBT movement of present day you can see strong similarities between the struggles of the African American communities of the ‘60s and the women’s right movement of the ‘20s. You can even see some joint efforts between historically oppressed groups, the idea of strength in numbers.  Again, I see the value in living in the present and, in keeping with Emerson’s rose analogy, “stopping to smell the roses” but I also strongly believe that if we live solely in the present, neglecting the wisdom of our past and the hope of our future, we miss out on important aspects of learning and we ignore vital resources that we are lucky enough to have access to.

This is by no means the last instance of Emerson paying no attention to the limits of self-reliance, but I hope it offers a small taste of what I feel is lacking in Emerson’s understanding of self discovery. Throughout his essay he leaves out the social and interactive aspects of human development and plays into stereotypes that reinforce less than helpful ideas of male dominance and weakness in rethinking one’s choices. I don’t write this piece to denounce all Emerson says, in fact, I enjoyed a lot of his ideas when word choice and utopianism could be ignored, and I do realize that at the time this was all incredibly revolutionary, but I do feel that with an essay that has withstood such lengths of time that we do need to remain critical so that we don’t inadvertently take for granted the ideas held within.