Martin Luther King Junior used the direct action method effectively. He lived in a society that valued the whites and ignored the black American citizens. The human rights rules in Birmingham were selective. He had to lead his people and those who believed in his American dream to fight against selective justice.
The role of civil disobedience in contemporary society
Socrates was a great philosopher of his time. His ideals became useful in our contemporary society. He did not see the need to give up philosophy for the chance to live a few more years. Upon his conviction he was given a chance to choose the kind of sentence he thought befitted him. He would have opted for exile to save his life but he chose to die for his course.
In contemporary society most governments are democratically elected. The laws are made and passed by people through their elected representatives. The courts exist to protect and interpret the laws. The media is used to relay information.
Civil disobedience has a role in contemporary society. It helps to force the ruling class to make a decision. It creates tension in the mind that coerces an individual to take direct action towards seeking redress of the problem.
The whole essence of civil disobedience is to answer the question, “what is the morally right thing to do?” It is not about what is advantageous or what is pleasing. Socrates chose to suffer death at the hands of his accusers because he did not want to be seen running away from his philosophical thought.
Direct action also seeks to create room for another chance at negotiation. Once the authority feels threatened by the civil disobedience, they start opening up for discussion.
Workers unions can also settle for direct action if the legal and political solutions are not available to the concerns of the workers. When fighting an economic injustice consumer groups may discover that some of the merchants are corrupt. They bribe the courts and politicians to pass laws that favor them. Consumers are left with nothing else to do but to demonstrate so that their voice can be heard.
Contemporary society and the acts of civil disobedience
Contemporary society should tolerate acts of Civil disobedience. It seems the most unwise thing to do today. But if it is the only way that a people can get solutions to deliberate injustices caused to citizens then it ceases to be unwise.
There are so many social injustices happening in communist countries. The courts cannot solve the problems because they eat and dine with the molesting regime. The media cannot voice their concerns because of stringent state rules. The only option becomes civil disobedience.
Higher goals require hard choices. One must adopt a life style that enhances purity. When Socrates knew that he was going to die, he was not afraid of the afterlife. He was even happy to die because he knew his actions were good and right. He had made peace with his gods.
It is true that there have been some economic, political and social advancement. But this has not been felt in all countries fully. Even some 1st first world countries have not yet fully come to terms with the current generation’s appetite for true information.
The unexamined life is not worth living for men
It is a life without purpose. One should live a higher life if one knows that life is eternal. As Socrates made a choice knowing that life is eternal, one must search his or her soul to determine the higher values of life.
The natural law is innate in every man. One can choose to live doing what is good for others. As mentioned earlier, man’s choice rules his life. The higher values include maintaining and spreading peace. It is also the choice to live peaceably with others.
One must examine one’s spiritual life carefully. It determines ones future. One must also fight to ensure social justice is maintained. If human rights are supposed to be enjoyed by all citizens, then there has to be equal distribution of wealth and state resources.
One must stop waiting for things to happen. A patient is not called a patient because he waits for a doctor. He is called a patient because he is sick and needs medical attention. The initiative that this person takes to visit a hospital plus the urgency to meet a doctor is the same zeal one must have.
It is understood that the oppressor cannot just wake up and decide not to be an oppressor. The oppressed person must fight for that right. It is the persistent effort of the oppressed that enables him to attain freedom. Freedoms of mind, freedom from slavery, and independence have all come with a fight.
Another area one can change is the desire to live with others as brothers and sisters. The color of the skin does not make anyone lesser than the other. The dialect that one speaks does not give superior influence over the other.
The argument of self-reliance versus civil disobedience has been the most significant controversy in many countries. There are many ways for human beings to learn the truth. According to Ralph Emerson and Henry Thoreau, following one’s intuition is best needed, especially when they are up against conformity to society. Emerson and Thoreau also highlight the significance of nature and its connection with humans. Both authors investigate self-reliance and civil disobedience topics but from different perspectives. Ralph Emerson contrasts it as the perfect “City of God” to the City of Men or Society in his essays “Nature” and “Divine School Address.” They claim that people can no longer see nature and that their bonds with one another have weakened significantly. The main argument in both their articles was how humans neglect to use their intuition and conform to society, which motivates the government to control them.
Discussion
The two works, Emerson’s “Self-reliance” and Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience,” differ in genre. For example, Ralph Emerson’s “Nature” is composed in a speculative essay. The author wishes to be as objective as possible, so he frequently uses the personal pronoun “we.” The use of personal pronouns characterizes the article’s point of view, which motivates the readers (Emerson 8). It promotes Ralph’s belief that nature and humanity are connected by reflecting on his experiences. It should be noted, however, that “we” can also refer to humanity or society since it represents a significant number of people (Green 198). In this regard, one might conclude that Emerson’s use of “we” demonstrates his desire to maintain objectivity.
Another critical comparison to consider is how these authors perceive nature. Emerson, for example, associates nature with God, writing, “Within these plantations of God, a decorum and sanctity reign… We return to reason and faith in these woods” (Emerson 188). Furthermore, he regards nature as a living being capable of responding to a person. This response, according to him, is determined by the person’s mental state or spirit. He says that nature only assimilates the colors of an individual’s heart (Green 198). According to Emerson, people should only see themselves as an indistinguishable component of nature or a “particle of God” (Green 211). The author believes that an individual can be enlightened and free through nature. The essential focus he wants to communicate is that for God, and thus for nature, all people are equal, regardless of social status.
Emerson expands on this idea in his “Divinity School Address,” stating that the rules established in societal structure refute the laws of God. He claims that an individual can assess the moral standards or moral depravity of one’s actions through “intuition,” which should serve as a guide to human behavior (Emerson 222). The main concern is that individuals frequently disregard it in favor of external laws. Furthermore, Emerson claims that the church misinterpreted Jesus Christ’s main ideas; his precepts are only declared, yet they are not followed (Green 201). In his opinion, these qualities can be acquired via nature; this concept is expressed in his book “Walden.” According to Ralph Emerson, nature is a representation that individuals ought to follow.
Henry Thoreau does not see nature as a metaphor for God but believes it is an animate being. For example, he emphasizes capitalizing “Nature herself” throughout the text (Lombard 154). The author wishes to demonstrate that people should not be scared of tranquility because it allows them to reconnect with nature. he says that he has never found a more companionable companion than nature (Green 235). He contends that a person can still feel lonely even amongst other people. Thoreau says that he is a monarch of the survey, and it is his right to explore nature that no one can dispute. Thoreau believes that only nature can bring people true joy.
It is wise to consider these writers’ works together as their ideologies only complement each other, especially when it comes to intuition and self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency implies the capacity to make independent choices (Green 200). Furthermore, Ralph Emerson and Henry Thoreau contend that nature is alive. As a result, rather than discussing these authors’ works separately, it is wise to examine them from the perspective of transcendentalism (Green 221). The main difference is that Emerson explores nature mainly about human society; he holds that individuals ought to follow their gut feelings, which is the most natural way (Green 222). Unlike him, Thoreau does not make comparisons between nature and society; instead, the author rejects these notions; for him, nature is a means of becoming independent of other people.
Emerson and Thoreau assert individualism and personal expression in various ways in their essays “Self-Reliance” and “Civil Disobedience.” Emerson urges individuals to voice their opinions and resist societal conformity in “Self-Reliance”(Emerson 64). Thoreau urged Americans to publicly express their views in “Civil Disobedience” to enhance their government (Lombard 196). The perception of how people could form government and society differs significantly between Emerson’s and Thoreau’s philosophies as articulated in “Self-Reliance” and “Civil Disobedience.” Emerson believes that a person ought only to follow his conscience and intellect, not the opinions of others (Emerson 112). Emerson contends that it is feasible to defy society’s everyday habits and beliefs and to be understood in the community.
Social responsibility is essential in Emerson’s “Self-Reliance.” The implication is that there comes a point in an individual’s life when they realize that they have a reason, a fate, and the obligation to achieve their goals if they can tap into their spiritual nature. Emerson says that the most muscular man in the world is the one who stands alone (Green 200)). He refers to the belief in individualism and trust in one’s intuition. Emerson observes that famous men and women are commonly misunderstood merely because of their viewpoints, ideas, and thoughts; however, they are revered precisely because of these misconceptions. One central point in “Self-Reliance” is that people should not comply with society but rather be self-sufficient.
Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” shares the same philosophical ideas as “Self-Reliance.” Social responsibility is frequently emphasized and used to define how all individuals are obligated to bring justice to those in need. In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau meets a prison inmate who has been imprisoned for torching a barn. Nonetheless, Thoreau sees his roommate as honorable simply by trusting his intuition (Green 199). Furthermore, Thoreau writes that the government is the best which governs least, based on the idea that people should not correspond to society but rather operate independently and accept their perceptions, objectives, virtues, and moral standards.
“Self-Reliance” and “Civil Disobedience” are both relevant in contemporary society since they prevent conformity, a significant issue in today’s world. Humans are inclined to side with the majority, but they should be imparted to stand their ground (Lombard 113). Both essays discuss the government and the issues it faces (Green 199). The government has not improved since they were written; it may have deteriorated. Government is best when it governs the least —this viewpoint should still be applied to today’s system. The government now attempts to regulate every aspect of everyone’s life, but, as Thoreau suggests, it should allow its individuals to choose on significant issues.
Thoreau claimed that individuals should disobey laws enacted by the government deemed unjust to each individual. He, therefore, states that he would not wish to be regarded as a member of any society he had not joined (Lombard 121). He attempted to explain how he would not take part in things he did not believe were right in his heart, so he chose not to pay the tax and was imprisoned. He disobeys the government because he believes paying taxes is wrong and does not want to be a part of the government. It is also tied to somewhat Emerson said. He urges people to trust their minds and know that every action they take from their intuition is with great consequence (Green 197). Therefore, they should be able to decide how they want to be governed and not let the government lead them astray.
The two authors, Emerson and Thoreau, complement each other’s work. Therefore, it is difficult to determine which of the two authors has the more effective message. Emerson mainly discusses it in terms of divinity, believing it to be God’s masterpiece, whereas Thoreau mostly talks about the concept of spiritual solitude (Green 134). Nature, he claims, fills the void inside that society cannot. Nonetheless, Emerson’s ideas appear to have far-reaching implications since he notes that man’s rules, and even those of the Christian church, frequently refute the primary law of nature, love.
Conclusion
In conclusion, intuition works best because only people can tell what is best for them. Intuition gives people the confidence they need to ensure democracy in the government. This is because individualism leads to the projection of independent ideas, which overrules the fear of being misunderstood. Therefore, intuition promotes the moral objectives of the people as they hold up their ideologies, beliefs, and ethical standards.
Work Cited
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Self-reliance. Lulu. com, 2019.
Green, Jeffrey Edward. “Self-reliance without self-satisfaction: Emerson, Thoreau, Dylan and the problem of inaction.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 47.2 (2021): 196–224.
Lombard, David. “Henry David Thoreau: Civil Disobedience.” (2021).
George W. Bush once said: “Even 7,000 miles away, across oceans and continents, on mountaintops and in caves – you will not escape the justice of this nation” (Bush, n.d.). The President was right because civil disobedience is the most powerful weapon used to attract public attention to specific problems. Civil disobedience is an effective measure against injustice, which is indicated by many past events.
Narration
“Sit-Ins” in the U.S. is the most vivid examples of civil disobedience. Segregation policy is among the many reasons that led to the strike. This problem continued for several centuries until people dissatisfied with the situation decided to take essential actions. “Sit-Ins” had a special value for sufferers – black people, who were forced to live in more minor gentrified areas or faced bias when applying for a job.
Confirmation
Civil disobedience is an opportunity to change the situation for better, at least in a challenging way. For example, one anecdote says: “We passed resolutions condemning everything that we did not like. However, they did not seem to have much effect. Now I go in for domesticity, and look after my family.” Practically, “Sit-Ins” still occur today, but in a different form. I often find out in the news about the division of U.S. districts and how African Americans are trying to “win back” the right to equality. The battle for integration continues today; similar phenomena could be observed in the 60s. The situation improves every time; protests lead to good changes, even in 3.5% of the population (Robson, 2019). If the problems of that kind are not solved it will affect the society as a whole in a negative way
Refutation
However, civil disobedience is not only a path to better changes but also mass riots. History had many cases when a nonviolent demonstration turned into chaos, and a compromise between people and authorities was not reached. Moreover, to date, “Sit-Ins” are unlikely to bring many benefits, and people solve the problem of inequality in other ways. The modern world requires more “sophisticated” approaches and actions.
Conclusion
Therefore, one must state that civil disobedience is one of the best ways to influence change. This statement can be confirmed by referring to a historical fact – “Sit-ins” starting from the 40s and ending with the 60s. Nonetheless, people should remember that any changes do not happen instantly and require more modern ways to combat injustice; thus, “Sit-Ins” continues today but in a different format.
Gandhi, the great humanitarian world has ever seen, had his ideologies and principles regarding freedom and war. His teachings, based on truth, non-violence, and Satyagraha are relevant even in the present world. Satyagraha was the most effective weapon used by Gandhi during his lifetime to fight morally against the British and the whites of South Africa to attain freedom. Gandhi has proved before the world that Satyagraha is the noblest form of revolution that could win even great battles without bloodshed. His concept of Satyagraha was focused on the different concepts like love, truth, non-violence, non-stealing, chastity or Brahmacharya, poverty or non-possession, bread labor, fearlessness, control of the palate (asvada), tolerance, Swadeshi, and removal of untouchability, and never did he like to call it as only a “passive resistance”. Gandhi proposed some principles for the members of the Satyagraha and insisted that these principles must be followed to achieve the desired effect.
The principles of Satyagraha never supported any form of violence and it was a war without violence. It never encouraged anger and insisted that the volunteer should not retaliate against the opponent but should pardon him. The main feature of the Satyagraha volunteer was that he learns to control his natural passions which often lead him to all the calamities. When Gandhi anticipated the principle of Satyagraha, he thought that its main object should be to wipe out the evil or to reform the opponent.
Henry David Thoreau’s concept of civil disobedience is somewhat similar to Gandhi’s principles of Satyagraha. Both Gandhi and Thoreau were united in the case of slavery and they strongly opposed it by tooth and nail. Thoreau, like Gandhi, believed in the principles of self-reliance, personal integrity, and spontaneous intuition. He also promoted the spiritual energy that lies within every human being. Thoreau advocated simplicity, interdependence, magnanimity, and trust in his principle. The main goal of civil disobedience was to call attention to an unjust public law that tries to suppress the people physically and mentally. The volunteers of the civil disobedience protested against injustice within the framework of obedience. Thoreau, like Gandhi, encouraged people to love each other. Through this civil disobedience, the followers tried to appeal to the majority’s sense of injustice and forced them to reconsider and change their public policy. Thoreau began his civil disobedience by refusing to pay the poll tax as a protest against slavery. It was like the Satyagraha movement of Gandhi, based on non-violence. Thoreau strongly opposed the unjust laws and thought that they require their action to work properly. The followers of civil disobedience had the belief that if the abolitionists withdrew support of the government, then there will be a peaceful victory for the revolutionaries.
Gandhi exhorted his people to be courageous and insisted that only through strength and discipline they can achieve the aim. If there is no unity in living things, things will be topsy-turvy. His concept of Satyagraha was deep-rooted in the soil of truth and the word “Satyagraha” itself means “clinging to the truth”.
To conclude, one can see a lot of similarities between the concepts of Gandhi and Thoreau. Both of them had worked and suffered much in their attempts to abolish slavery and finally, they won in their endeavor. Gandhi used the weapon Satyagraha to protest against injustice and Thoreau also did the same with his civil disobedience. Satyagraha was the weapon of the weak. Civil disobedience never preached anarchy like criminal disobedience and always followed the way of peace. The volunteers of Satyagraha and Civil Disobedience obeyed the laws and regarded it as their duty to do so. But they violated it whenever they felt that they are unjust. Anyhow it is evident that Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha has a wide application. But the Thoreau’s concept of Civil Disobedience is applied mostly at the political level.
While speaking on the topic of political obligation and civil disobedience, it would be relevant to note that the discussion and analysis of the issue of political obligation can be regarded as one of the most permanent characteristics of democratic political thought. If to regard a legal political obligation and a moral obligation, also called a ‘natural duty’, then it is necessary to dispute on the topic whether or not common people can have a moral obligation (‘natural duty’) to perform the required legal political obligations.
If referring to liberal political theorists, the term of moral obligation “is often thought to be concerned less with external conduct than with internal motivation, in the sense that acting morally is said to require acting with a particular attitude or sense of duty” (Hart, 1973, pp. 188 – 189).
Discussion
Following this, it might be pointed out that liberal political theorists suggest that the issues of legal obligation and coercion should be regarded as inseparable ones, thus, it is impossible to deem obedience to the law within the context of a genuine moral motivation or intendment. Nevertheless, such coercion helps in the process of separation of legal obligation and ‘natural duty’ – moral obligation.
The disparity between the issues of legal political obligation and moral obligation makes it hard for liberal political theorists to analyze the natural duty and the moral basis of any person’s submission to his or her government and law.
The “Consent” theory designed by liberal political theorists suggests the model involving a person’s “consenting” to obey and respect the law. Thus, the issue of “consent” moralizes the act of a person’s obedience to the law and a person gives himself or herself certain moral cause to obey the law without pressure and freely. Hereby, it is possible to state that people might perform their political obligation only in the case if the law, as well as political obligation, becomes for them a sort of act which they freely ought to perform if they are to act morally.
The “Consent” theory defines obedience to the law and political obligation as a certain act people are morally obliged to perform. Such an act should be performed for a person’s motives rather than for fear or self-interest, so that “by consenting to obey the law, individuals may be said to obey their own wills when they obey the law, rather than be subjected to dependence on the wills of other persons” (Adler, 2002, p. 244).
Various liberal and democratic political philosophers support the idea that the moral legitimacy of truly democratic and liberal government comes from “the consent of the governed,” a thesis that is generally based upon Locke’s assumption that “no man can be… subjected to the Political Power of another without his own consent” (Locke, 2005, vol. 2, sec. 95, p. 374). According to Locke’s statement, it is possible to conclude that one’s consent is an essential condition to his or her being lawfully subjected to the exercise of political authority and power by other ones.
Hereby, it heuristically follows that the moral right of the democratic and liberal government to subject its own citizens to the exercise of political authority and power would, necessarily, demand the consent of those citizens subject to obeying the laws of society with liberal and democratic values.
While discussing the topic of political obligation and civil disobedience, it is necessary to take into consideration the issues of moral obligation as well as moral justification. The issues of freedom and autonomy must be analyzed and taken into account, as they are frequently used to reconcile the process of having a moral natural duty to obey the law with maintaining a person’s individual rights for the above-mentioned freedom and autonomy.
Following these statements, it might be suggested that when an individual freely participates in an election process, he subconsciously consents to obey and respect the law. Liberal and democratic theorists argue that the democratic ideal of “government by consent may be used in an entirely non-hypothetical sense, referring to the actual consent of individual citizens” (Fowler, 2000, pp. 46 – 47).
The above-mentioned procedure can be described as an exact act performed by particular people at selected periods of time rather than as an unapprehended vague process. But, it must be pointed out that, if defining the act of voting as a “method of consent” that applies to the ‘natural duty’, it is possible to “distort the normative significance of electoral participation as this participation is defined in the liberal and democratic tradition of political thought” (Fowler and Orenstein, 1997, pp. 128 – 129).
If referring to Locke’s political thought, which holds a contrary position and establishes a “coherent non-consent theory of political obligation and political legitimacy”, it appears that consent is used as a hypothetical and rhetorical obligation. Within this context, consent, by itself, is used to propose what would be relevant and rationale for any person to consent.
Thus, according to Pitkin, “consent is used as a hypothetical means of expressing a theory of the kinds of ends and purposes a government ought to promote in order to ‘deserve’ obedience” (Pitkin, 2004, p. 999). Such an interpretation established by Pitkin has been strongly supported by another political theorist – Cassinelli.
Alleging to Locke, again, it is necessary to point out that he excludes personal consent as a necessary and essential condition of political obligation as a ‘natural duty’ as well as political legitimacy. Oppositely to him, another theorist Jules Steinberg suggests the model of “morally diverse and pluralistic society” and asserts that “liberal political ideas are applicable primarily to a morally diverse and pluralistic society, that there is a ‘normative logic’ characteristic of liberal political thought that is incompatible with the normative logic characteristic of the consent theory of political obligation” (Steinberg, 2004, p. 8).
Tracing the problem of the political obligation and civil disobedience with the regard to political theorist – Rousseau, it is necessary to point out that he connects the issue of moral autonomy with his own theory of consent. The theorist also suggests certain ways in which the performance by individuals of moral autonomy might be combined with obedience to the law and political obligation.
In his political thought, Rousseau suggests solutions with the view “to reconcile obedience to the law and moral obligation in terms of a conception of an individual consent that is intended to demonstrate how moral autonomy may not be violated by obedience to the law” (Reiman, 2003, pp. 3 – 4). Contrary to Rousseau’s viewpoint, Locke and his successors – liberal and liberal-democratic political theorists, consider the principle of personal autonomy as ‘privatized’. According to them, this principle becomes capable of being exercised when a person is not compelled to obey the law and political obligations.
Conclusion
After describing, comparing, analyzing, and critically evaluating all of the above-provided materials on the topic of the political obligation and civil disobedience and of understanding the above mentioned political obligation as a ‘natural duty’, it might be concluded that individual does not have a congenital moral obligation or ‘natural duty’ to obey the law and political obligations, although obedience to the law and political obligation is morally justified. Therefore, it might be stated that a person has a natural moral duty to obey a law and political obligation as it is morally justified.
A number of political philosophers argue that the concept of a ‘natural duty’ or moral obligation can not be regarded as equivalent to moral justification. For example, an individual might be morally ought to fulfill an act without having any obligation to do that. As such, it is possible to conclude that person does not have a moral obligation or natural duty to obey and respect a morally justified law or political obligation.
Following this, it is necessary to note that moral obligations, called natural duty, appear when some people commit themselves to do something for other individuals “with the commitment establishing what may be called a ‘relationship of obligation’ involving an individual, the performance of an act, and another individual to whom the act to be performed is ‘owed’” (Taylor, 1973, p. 107).
Thus, it is possible to assert that ‘natural duty’ creates certain moral reasons for any person to perform an activity where this moral reason was previously absent. In accordance with political theorist Gewirth obligations “make what was previously indifferent or optional for a particular person into something he must do” (Gewirth, 2000, p.132).
What happens, nowadays, is that citizens are not convinced and do not feel that freely voting actually means freely consenting. Consent is considered as a necessary and essential term of political obligation, particularly, in the context of liberal and democratic order government.
References
Adler, M. J. 2002. The Idea of Freedom. Doubleday, New York: vol. 1, pp. 224-249.
Fowler, R. B. 2002. Political Obligation and the Draft, in Obligation and Dissent, eds. Donald W. Hanson and Robert Booth Fowler. Little Brown, Boston: pp. 46-62.
Fowler, M. J. and Orenstein J. R. 1997. Contemporary Issues in Political Theory. John Wiley & Sons, New York: pp. 117-137.
Gewirth, L. 2000. Political Justice. Mandarin, London.
Hart, H. L. A. 1973. Legal and Moral Obligation, in Concepts in Social & Political Philosophy, ed. Richard E. Flathman. Macmillan, New York: pp. 187-200.
Pitkin, H. 2004. Obligation and Consent. Macmillan, New York.
Reiman, J. H. 2003. In Defense of Political Philosophy. Harper & Row, New York: pp. 1-16.
Steinberg, J. 1978. Locke, Rosseau, and the Idea of Consent: An Inquiry into the Liberal-Democratic Theory of Political Obligation. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
Locke, J. 2005. Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett, rev. ed. Mentor, New York: vol. 2, sec. 95, p. 374.
Taylor, R. 1973. Freedom, Anarchy, and the Law. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Moir, A. & Jessel, D. 1991, Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women, Mandarin, London.
In the “Resistance to civil government” essay, which was posthumously published as “Civil disobedience,” Thoreau explains the need to choose one’s moral sense over the conventional dictates of laws. He claims that the government’s power is based more on the influence that the majority possesses rather than on the desire to act legitimately and fairly, which makes it overall unreliable as a source of morality (Levine et al., 2017). He also claims that people’s main priority is to do what they consider justified and not blindly heed the law dictated from above. In other words, people should refuse to obey the law and create distance between themselves and the government if they see it being unjust. Despite the fact that an individual is not bound to commit his life to the world’s salvation from evils, he is nonetheless compelled not to partake in them.
I agree with Thoreau’s vision of justice, especially with the part concerning participation in injustice. The idea of making a personal decision to either oppose or not to participate is fundamental in this context. I believe it might be the perfect boundary for the level of interference people should make when they face it shorthand. With the consideration of taking the idea of disobedience to its maximum, an individual might soon find himself breaking the laws that might endanger other people’s well-being and invoke punishment, for example, incarceration. According to Thoreau, the ways of causing legal changes from inside the government, for example, voting or petitioning, are greatly unproductive (Levine et al., 2017). For me, this claim seems anarchistic and, to some extent, extremist; it serves as proof of the boundary effect of personal moral standards that every individual possesses. In this context, it becomes more significant to be aware of evil and contribute to the opposition in possible ways, avoiding overextension.
Reference
Levine, R. S., Elliott, M. A., Gustafson, S. M., Hungerford, A. & Loeffelholz, M. (2017). The Norton anthology of American literature. (9th ed.). W.W. Norton.
Letter From Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King and Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau were written in 1963 and 1849 accordingly. The premises of these writing are slightly different: King’s letter was an answer to his illegal imprisonment for conducting non-violent protest aimed at drawing public attention to the issue of racial segregation among Birmingham’s city officials while Thoreau’s essay was written as an opposition to slavery and the Mexican-American War. Despite this fact, both King and Thoreau had a common goal to expose the unjust laws that govern a society of civil resistance to unjust laws
It should be stressed that both King and Thoreau opposed the existing forms of governments, condemning the unjust, immoral laws that suppress people’s freedom, trying to implement their ideas in life through calling for civil resistance and non-violent means of struggle. United by the similar idea, both authors approached it differently resorting to various techniques while claiming civil resistance.
Both authors called for changes in the society that would foster justice and morality in it. However, Thoreau was intending to stand his point of view, to express his beliefs towards justice, while King provides a direct attack and severe opposition towards the clergymen structuring his letter so that refutes any their false statements, allegedly, based on moral and just laws. However, Thoreau states that only by civil disobedience and resistance, by overthrowing a government people could establish moral and ethical norms while King focuses on unjust actions of government and church towards black people persuasively explaining the fallacies of the existing system of laws. Moreover, Thoreau concentrates on actions that should be done to fight unjust laws, while King focuses on the underlying reasons that make a law immoral and unjust.
It should be pointed out that Thoreau’s and King’s views on citizens’ positions in the fight for justice are similar. Both authors emphasized the necessity of non-violent civil actions against unethical laws. Thoreau stated that it is people’s duty and obligation to claim for their rights and resist governmental inefficiency by acts of total civil disobedience. One of the ways, Thoreau offers is refusing to pay taxes to the government.
Similar to Thoreau, King is convinced that people should not resort to violent actions. But addressing clergymen, he stresses that suppressed Afro Americans would have no choice but to act violently against the injustice towards them. According to King, the only way to reduce the tensions between suppressed citizens and government is through non-violent protests and boycotts that would draw attention to a burning problem in society.
Despite both Thoreau and King, call for non-violent actions, they express their viewpoints differently. King makes use of a persuasive, gentle tone concentrating on the non-violent solution of confrontation as opposed to Thoreau being aggressive and assertive in expressing his beliefs in rejection of unjust government. Another difference between these two writings is the authors’ views towards the position of group and individual within society. While Thoreau lays emphasis on the importance of the results of civil oppression for an individual, King views improvements in the law system that would be beneficial for a group rather than an individual.
The approach towards obeying the law is also different in the writings in question. While King accepts going to jail intending to draw a wide response in the society towards the injustice of government, Thoreau appeals to people to act and stand for their principles and rights without any procrastination.
All things considered, it should be stressed that both Thoreau and King were passionate advocates of justice and morality in society and though different in some points, they both made a great contribution to the improvement of society.
The play Antigone was written by Sophocles around 441 BC. It revolves around the life of Antigone; a girl determined to offer proper burial rites to her late brother contrary to the state rules. Based on the script, Oedipus, a former ruler of Thebes, has two sons, Polynices and Eteocles, and two daughters, Ismene and Antigone. Following his demise, his sons would succeed him and take turns to rule. However, once Eteocles steps into power, he declines to step down and instead exiles his older brother Polynices. This prompts Polynices to lead a foreign army against Eteocles, where the brothers kill each other, leaving the throne to Creon, who is next in line. Creon then commands that Eteocles be given an honorable burial while Polynices’ body is to be abandoned on the battlefield. Nevertheless, Antigone buries Polynices despite Creon’s orders, and the consequence of her actions is death. She later hangs herself, which also triggers the demise of her fiancée Haemon and his mother, Eurydice, who are Creon’s son and wife. Civil disobedience and pride are the prominent themes in Antigone.
The theme of civil disobedience is very dominant in Antigone. Creon’s order states that Polynices should not be mourned or buried because he forfeited the privileges to a proper burial when he killed Eteocles. Creon’s decree also outlines the repercussions for disobeying the law. In this case, anyone who buries Polynices would be executed. Antigone explains Creon’s command against burying Polynices to Ismene when she says, “Whoever disobeys in the least will die, his doom is sealed: stoning to death inside the city walls” (41-43). However, Antigone disagrees with the king’s decision and believes that Polynices being a Thebe’s citizen, still deserved a proper sendoff despite what he did. During this era, the Greek customs required a city to offer appropriate burial to its citizens. Despite Ismene’s pleas and warnings, Antigone buries Polynices with dry dust. She defies Creon’s commands and performs the burial rites in broad daylight, unafraid of being caught. Even upon her arrest and interrogation by both guards and Creon, she admits to her wrongdoing and does not regret her decision. Antigone says to Creon, “I did it. I don’t deny a thing” (492). This is despite being set to marry Creon’s son Haemon and becoming a queen in the future. Antigone understands the gravity of her deeds and is ready for the repercussions. Creon then instructs the guards to tie her to a tomb and abandon her to compel her to decide whether to die or live, but Antigone later commits suicide. The play effectively depicts the theme of civil disobedience through the personality of Antigone, who is willing to break the rules to satisfy her morals standards and conscience. She is well aware of the grave aftermath of her actions, but this does not deter her efforts. She also understands and is willing to take consequences for her actions.
The theme of pride is strongly portrayed through the different characters of Antigone. Both Polynices and Eteocles are too proud to give up their father’s throne. In this case, Eteocles would rather exile his brother than step down from the throne, while Polynices would rather fight against his brother to get to power. The brothers are too blinded by their pride and greed for power which lead to their demise. In addition, Antigone’s pride compels her to bury Polynices’ remains regardless of Creon’s laws. She says to Ismene, “I will bury him myself. And even if I die in the act, that death will be a glory” (85-86). Despite much pleading from Ismene to let Polynices’ body remain unburied according to Creon’s orders, she defies the decree and is later arrested, leading to her demise. This implies that if Antigone had respected the state laws like Ismene, she would not have died. The play also depicts Creon as too prideful, which later results in the death of his son and wife. For instance, he portrays Polynices as a villain and denies him a proper burial. Creon tells his citizens that his proclamation forbids the city from mourning Polynices or dignifying him with burial rites (227-228). He also enforces his laws on the citizens of Thebes with no regard if the rules are acceptable to the gods. Creon also mocks his son Haemon for disrespecting his power and argues with Tiresias, a seer, over Polynices’ burial and Antigone’s release. If Creon had practiced humility and allowed the burial of Polynices, the loss of his wife and son would have been prevented. Therefore, the author uses the characters of Polynices, Eteocles, Antigone, and Creon to demonstrate the theme of pride. The characters do not regard the perspectives of other people and are driven by their self-interests.
In conclusion, civil disobedience and pride are major themes in Antigone. Sophocles presents the theme of civil disobedience through the personality of Antigone, who defies the king’s command to give her brother a good sendoff. Antigone’s personality represents the determination of people driven by morality rather than the rule of law. Regarding the theme of pride, the author depicts the negative outcomes associated with too much pride and emphasizes the need to be humble. Generally, Antigone may be a tragic story, but it provides many insights to its audience.
Work Cited
Sophocles. “Antigone.” The Three Theban Plays: Antigone; Oedipus the King; Oedipus at Colonus. London: Penguin Classics, 1984, pp. 1-52.
Individualism is a moral, social and political view that stresses self-reliance and independence and promotes the furtherance of one’s goals and desires. It also goes against some of society and the state’s outlook and is opposed to statism and collectivism which is that of conforming to the community and national goals.
To that effect, it also opposes tradition and religion or any kind of moral standard that is coming from the external environment that limits and restricts an individual’s freedom of choice (Individualism). This paper looks at Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience from an individualist viewpoint and sees the extent to which he adapts this in this work as related with other pieces of works also taking the same stance.
This is a relevant topic because Thoreau was such a complex writer whose works gave us a better understanding of the nuances of his character. Here was a man who thought deeply about a lot of things and related everyday life to the furtherance of truth and justice. Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience lets each individual speak as to “what kind of government would command his respect and that will be one step toward obtaining it.” Thoreau has the notion that the government values men not as creative individuals but as objects of their whims and caprices. Thoreau “believed that man should go one step further by voicing openly his disdain for injustice and intolerance.” (L’Herrou, Paul 1998).
In fact, Thoreau went a step ahead by not only expounding on the political issues and relating them to the issues of his time. He declares unabashedly, “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 we should be men first, and subjects afterward.” Here he is bordering on developing a respect for the right of individuals rather than that of law, arguing that it is people’s obligation to do what is right.
Thoreau begins this early on in Civil Disobedience as he agrees with the motto, “That government is best which governs least.” One surmises then that the government and all its powers are often abused and no longer represent the will of the people. (Sparknotes). Thoreau believes that changes come from the character of the people and this is where his ideas point to the individualist perspective – the looking at oneself – the working on the self so that changes will naturally flow out to one’s environment.
Henry David Thoreau wrote “Civil Disobedience” to justify the actions he took against the government that spent him in jail and the moral reasoning behind his logic. “The more money, the less virtue.”(Thoreau, David Henry) For Thoreau, breaking unjust laws and being independent are precedents in transforming America into a better place. Thoreau’s call for change is by spreading his ideas and influencing others to refuse to surrender to the consciousness of the majority and the state and instead, break the unjust laws that the majority supports.
The important thing is to act independently: “What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think… the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.” Here Emerson contrasts the individual to society—”the crowd.” Thoreau fought for the rights of the individual and his right to be heard.
He ends “civil disobedience” by saying. “There will never be a 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” (Thoreau, Henry David, Walden, and Other Writings. “Civil Disobedience,” Bantam: New York, 1984. P. 104). Indeed, while Emerson urged Americans to be unfettered by traditions, “to have an original relationship to the universe”, Henry David Thoreau went a step further in his advocacy of the individual conscience. He thus began the modern tradition of civil disobedience.
The case of Gandhi comes to mind. He was most understood by the higher officials of his land, yet he was great in his people’s minds and hearts. That is what constitutes a true leader. Leaders can motivate, inspire, be led, and lead while making the environment safe from risks and mistakes. Leaders also demonstrate the ability to lead by example, ethically, morally, and purposefully. Leaders regularly communicate the vision and empower the culture within the organization.
They continue to build trust and lead the challenges of a constantly changing workplace and society. And most of the time, great leaders are indeed misunderstood. Leaders understand that it is necessary to incorporate balance not only in the lives of others but their own as well. This encourages leaders to think about life and work differently.
For some, the individualist viewpoint is most apparent. For example, the issues of forming one’s own opinions in light of the social events came into existence as he encouraged people to stand up for their principles and what they believe to be true.
Another writer, Emerson, exhibited these viewpoint pens, “Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist… It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own, but the great man (or woman) is one who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.” (L’Herrou, Paul 1998). The same kind of individualist viewpoint came in “Self-Reliance,” Emerson writes, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines…
Speak what you think now in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradicts everything you said today… The voyage of the best ship is a zigzag line of a hundred tacks. (Those were the days of sailing ships.) See the line from a sufficient distance, and it straightens itself to the average tendency. Your genuine action will explain itself and will explain your other genuine actions. Your conformity explains nothing.” (L’Herrou, Paul 1998). Emerson does not advocate complacency and passivity here. The consistency can even be a disadvantage according to him, issues which Thoreau shares with him in his work.
In recent years, many analysts, inspired by post-structuralism and postmodern arguments and insights, have begun to argue that individualism itself is a construction, that, indeed, the human self is in many ways nothing more than a fiction, and that it is above all what might be called the Renaissance representations of the self as an individual, expressive subject that requires explanation. (The Discovery of the Individual)
Some scholars have offered tormenting insights into the play of social forces and ideological currents on Renaissance texts and Renaissance selves. While others have argued that the accounts of these scholars are paradoxically and profoundly historical. Further, it was argued that the analytical strategies tend to view the formation of the Renaissance self from within a synchronic framework, one frozen in time, with little sense of the operation of more slowly developing historical –or diachronic– forces on the process of what has come to be called “Renaissance self-fashioning.” On the other hand, their analyses also tend to be based on a totalizing view of politics and power in the Renaissance world –a view that leaves little room for oppositional or dissenting voices. (The Discovery of the Individual)
Accordingly, some scholars try to correct such a notion by offering an alternative approach to a salient aspect of the history of the formation of Renaissance selves. In particular, it is suggested to examine the effort on both theoretical and practical levels during the Renaissance period to redefine certain moral categories relating to sincerity and prudence and the relation of these redefinitions to the formation of an increased sense of subjectivity and individualism in the Renaissance. (The Discovery of the Individual)
The study self in the seventeenth-century England cautioned that ‘individualism is a multidimensional phenomenon, an amalgam of practices and values with no discernible center. A variety of forces –social, economic, political, intellectual– contributed to its making, each one of which was paramount at some time or another, either separately or jointly with others. Thus a single account of individualism cannot possibly represent its development, its contours, and its functions. Nonetheless, the evidence gathered does suggest a shift in moral vocabulary played a significant role in the construction of new notions of individualism in the Renaissance world. (The Discovery of the Individual)
Oversimplified as it is, it is nevertheless true to the idea that Renaissance Humanists placed immense emphasis upon the dignity of man and upon the prolonged possibilities of human life in this world. For the most part, it regarded human beings as social creatures who could create meaningful lives only in association with other social beings. (General Characteristics of the Renaissance)
In the Renaissance, the main cultural values were usually associated with active involvement in public life, in moral, political, and military action, and in service to the state. Some of the most important Humanists, like Erasmus, were Churchmen. Also, individual achievement, breadth of knowledge, and personal aspiration (as personified by Doctor Faustus) were valued. The concept of the “Renaissance Man” refers to an individual who, in addition to participating actively in the affairs of public life, possesses knowledge of and skill in many subject areas. Such figures included Leonardo Da Vinci and John Milton, as well as Francis Bacon, who had declared, “I have taken all knowledge to be my province.” (General Characteristics of the Renaissance)
Two of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s most famous sayings are “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” and “to be great is to be misunderstood”. The ideas about the individual expressed in the statement “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” In this saying from Self-Reliance Emerson posits that one has to live in the present and not always look at the past.
In effect, he is saying that when there is a regularity to things, then that is the work of little creativity. As in almost all of his work, he promotes individual experience over the knowledge gained from books: “To believe that what is true in your private heart is true for all men—that is genius.” The person who scorns personal intuition and, instead, chooses to rely on others’ opinions lacks the creative power necessary for robust, bold individualism. (Cliffnotes). What he is also saying is that there must be a little inconsistency, and in this context, a little departure from the usual way one does things. It is creativity that he wants to be accomplished.
Thoreau’s individualism emerges as he invites us to be creative individuals and fulfill the mission we are destined to do such as contributing our own share of talents and creativity to the world. Different kinds of leadership are required at different times, but at all times it is a combination of character and competence that is needed. This integrated blend of character and competence is often evident by its absence more than its presence. It is rare, and like most rare things, it is extremely valuable. The leader who exercises power will work from the inside out, starting with himself.
The importance of literature in our lives is impossible to exaggerate, partly because it represents the accumulated knowledge of the best minds of mankind through the whole course of human history, partly because it is the manifestation of knowledge every individual is able to obtain, to master and to apply further in his or her life. One can say that the literary heritage of the humanity is the potential limit of knowledge one can generate at a definite moment without creating something of his or her own and without enriching it. Knowledge is the most precious treasure in a human life, which more than that gives wisdom and guidelines for future improvement and initiates contribution to the overall wisdom of eternity. This is what every individual who has doubts or considerations on the issue of whether he or she should read or not and what reading may give to a person.
It is clear that reading should not be conducted in an unorganized way – this activity may only pollute the human mind and give no structured knowledge to the reader, which is likely to eliminate the motivation and generate disappointment in reading in general. It is desirable that every person should identify for him- or herself what areas are interesting for them and focus their attention on these particular materials.
But still, there is always such a notion as general knowledge – the materials that give the enrichment to the human soul, that contribute to his understanding of society, the surrounding world, spirituality, morale and empowerment. These materials may be met in the whole scope of literature produced within dozens of centuries unexpectedly and open up the boundless horizon of activities, discoveries and inferences the reader may have not even supposed to reach. In order to choose the right path of cognition in the literary sphere it is always desirable to choose certain patterns, some authorities on whose opinion the individual may rely in the choice of literature.
Identifying these authorities is purely individual, as every person will have a subjective opinion on this issue. Some people turn to parents, others to friends, tutors or mass media idols. However, one should not forget about such an option as turning to literary giants who themselves achieved a tremendous success in the literary sphere and share their experience on where they took the source of their inspiration and wisdom, on who they relied and what they learned from the experience of the past.
The works to be discussed in the present paper are the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson “The American Scholar”, Henry David Thoreau “Walden and Civil Disobedience” and Frederick Douglass “Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass: an American slave”. These authors have made an enormous contribution to the development of American literature on the whole, being at the same time the propagators of purity of literature free from politicizing or any other impact of tendencies, people and events that do not have any connection with the greatness of the human mind’s expression. What is more particular about these books is that the authors include their guidance of reading, their recommendations on what works a reader should pay attention to in order to make another step forward in his or her moral, spiritual and intellectual development. They justify their opinion with the inferences they personally made from these authors’ books in their time to emphasize the importance of thematic reading, thus giving guidance for those who are lost in the enormous flow of unsorted literature and cannot find their way of mastering knowledge. They also include their personal importance they assign to these books, making the major emphasis on personal experience, thus becoming entitled to give advice on the point. So, the major sense of the present work is to find out why reading is so important, what these authors advice their readers to read and why the mentioned authors consider this literature important not only in their lives but for the whole humanity.
Frederick Douglass
Starting the present analysis from the book of Frederick Douglass “Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass: an American slave”, it is first of all necessary to say a few words about the book itself and its significance in the whole course of American literature. Frederick Douglass was a foreground representative of the Abolitionist party, being used for a more picturesque representation of the Abolitionist needs and agenda, being more able to convince the public in the necessity of Abolition of slavery. He spoke in an expressive way and managed to produce the necessary effect on the public. However, he was considered unable to write in a correct literary language – as an African American person he faced this discrimination even after being freed from slavery. Thus, the narrative was a powerful act of resistance to the prejudice of the hypocritical American society who wanted to free their slaves but were still unwilling to give them the whole set of freedoms, including the freedom of expression.
The main focus in this book relevant for the present discussion should be made on chapters 6 and 7 where the author describes the way he was taught to read and what impact in his life this fact produced. Before being able to read, the author did not feel the power reading had and did not know the possible impact it could make on his life. However, after hearing what his master said about reading, Douglass gradually came to understanding the fact that reading would matter much to him. The words of Mr.Auld pertaining to the fact that his wife started to teach a slave reading, bear a highly symbolic sense even for the contemporary generation of people making the first steps on the way of their intellectual evolution and stresses the power reading may give to a thinking human being:
“Now,” said he, “if you teach that nigger (speaking of myself) how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy” (Douglass, 2008, p. 33).
By this passage the author clearly shows, though on a practical example, the symbolism of an uneducated person being a slave. As soon as the person knows how to read, he will ever be contented with the level of his intellectual development and will strive for more. As it happened in case with Frederick Douglass, as one will see further, reading changed his life and made him aspire for things unbelievable and unconceivable for a slave.
In further passages the author passionately describes the tiniest opportunity he used to obtain a smallest part of knowledge, how he fed poor little boys in the streets to ask them to teach him some more reading, and how irrepressibly he strove towards self-improvement. And indeed, at that moment of time he became obsessed by the idea of his being a slave for his whole life, which disturbed him and caused strong inner irritation and discontent. His masters turned out to be right when saying that a thinking, reading slave would never be able to be a good slave who was capable of only fulfilling the established tasks.
At that moment the author came across the book of Sheridan “The Columbian Orator” that produced a powerful effect on his life, perception and future. The main fragments that impressed the author were the talk between the master and the slave who managed to prove to the former that slavery was an evil, justifying the reasons for three escapes of his, and the speech devoted to the role of church in the justification of slavery. This was a turning point in the life of Douglass – then he told the reader about the power of reading he felt and the importance of the book he first read. The impression was mostly built on the fact that the slave, the hero of the book, managed to win his freedom by appealing to the common reason of his master and managed to achieve the truth. For Douglass reading also became his pursuit of truth – he hoped that with the help of reading every person would search for his or her own truth and would choose the book that would have major influence on their life. As it follows in the narrative, reading that book about unrestrained freedom and power of wisdom that may defeat any unfairness the author began his fight for freedom and finally achieved what he so passionately desired. This is why reading is so important for Frederick Douglass and this is why he mentions the book that had such decisive importance in his life.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
The address of Ralph Waldo Emerson made in 1837 titled “The American Scholar” pertains to the same topic – the author investigates the reasons for people to read, the knowledge they should look for in the books and how they should choose their books. This address is especially important in the context of the present discussion because of its main emphasis on reading and literature on the whole in the intellectual development of an individual and the society in general. The author states that scientists are people who have nothing but the treasure of their knowledge; this is why the contenders who want to achieve success in the scientific area have to accumulate their experience, wisdom and knowledge from different sources. The author himself indicates the following sources: nature, the experience of the past, and action.
When speaking about the experience of the past, Emerson diminishes the role of Cicero, Locke and Bacon stating that their ideas are not mature enough to be taken as an obligatory source of wisdom or knowledge. He states the main reason for these authors’ being so popular is the bureaucracy of the high education system that is slow to evolve and keep up to date with the newest literary tendencies. At the same time the author distinguishes some “best books” that “impress us with the conviction, that one nature wrote and the same reads” including the works of Chaucer, Marvell and Dryden in the list (Emerson, 1837).
In his considerations Emerson also goes beyond the scope of classic knowledge given by literary works; he includes the striving to resemble the forefathers of literature, the compliance with their great and thoughtful traditions, and the discontent with the present state of literature and social life that makes a certain impact on the manner and strength of expression. He admires such authors as Goldsmith, Cowper, Goethe, Wordsworth, Carlyle and others, assessing their works in a critical way and admitting that the style of writing they have is completely different; however, he cannot help stating that all of them gave inspiration to forthcoming generations of creators, thus accepting their unique role in the contemporary literary process.
“The drop is a small ocean. A man is related to all nature. This perception of the worth of the vulgar is fruitful in discoveries. Goethe, in this very thing the most modern of the moderns, has shown us, as none ever did, the genius of the ancients” (Emerson, 1837).
Emerson’s way of appreciation of one author is particularly impressive – the author appraises the activity and the literary heritage of Emanuel Swedenborg, paying tribute to the power of his expression, the wisdom of his thought and the agility of his beliefs and character. The appreciation of Emerson goes beyond all measures; however, Emerson clearly explains why he would put this author on the highest place and why knowing him should be a must for every intellectually developed or developing personality.
“The most imaginative of men, yet writing with the precision of a mathematician, he endeavored to engraft a purely philosophical Ethics on the popular Christianity of his time. Such an attempt, of course, must have difficulty, which no genius could surmount. But he saw and showed the connection between nature and the affections of the soul” (Emerson, 1837).
Emerson is highly concentrated on inspiration, thus being more similar in his views to the way Douglass treats literature – as a source of inspiration. However, their difference o perception of reading lies within the scope of influence it had on their life. It goes without saying that Douglass perceives one book, “The Columbian Orator”, as a guideline in his lie and freedom, while Emerson appreciates pure inspiration and focuses on a larger set of writers.
Henry David Thoreau
Proceeding to the analysis of Henry David Thoreau, his “Reading” chapter, it is clear that Thoreau is of a bit other opinion about the purpose of reading. This famous representative of Transcendentalism sees the initial aim of reading in being kept up-to-date about the destiny of his country and fellowmen, in appreciating people who whose genius is not recognized in the time when they write, with a vague perspective of being recognized after death. Thoreau speaks about reading as dealing with truth and the way to acquire immortality, as compared to other mortal activities. He himself states that the environment he has chosen, living in the wilderness, is highly positive and favorable for reading, which suits him much. Thoreau is very critical towards reading and thinks that some books are useless, compared to other writings that enrich our soul and mind – comparing the book by Homer he could not get to because of being busy with building the house, he tells about two plain books he read and says that he himself was ashamed of doing that. This fact indicates his being very picky and selective about reading, which he advises to other people as well. The writer sees the problem of contemporary people in following blindly the choice of literature offered by so-called specialists, while in reality this choice remains highly doubtable.
“If we will read newspapers, why not skip the gossip of Boston and take the best newspaper in the world at once? – not be sucking the pap of “neutral family” papers, or browsing “Olive-Branches” here in New England. Let the reports of all the learned societies come to us, and we will see if they know any thing. Why should we leave it to Harper & Brothers and Redding & Co, to select our reading?” (Thoreau, 2005, p. 89).
Thus, drawing a conclusion from the works being considered in the present research, it is necessary to emphasize the role they attribute to reading as the main source of creativity, agility of thought and mind, the incentive to progress and innovation as well as the main source of wisdom, development and improvement. Every individual should be actively engaged in reading; however, it is important to be able to independently sort out the necessary set of literature to be studied – this is the main precondition of intellectual development and enhancement.
Conclusion
All three writers have a very specific attitude to reading as it had a great influence on their life and made them what they have eventually become. They pay tribute to selected authors and recommend them with a fair justification of their choice; however, they do not diminish the importance of reading on the whole, only calling people not to follow others’ preferences and to make their independent choice for themselves. Douglass cherishes reading as a decisive point in his life and names one book that played the major role in his life. This point is supported by Emerson as well – but Emerson judges more widely about a respectable literary choice and attributes the main function of inspiration to literature; Thoreau speculates on the essence of reading on the whole and worships books as a storage of wisdom, immortality and truth.
Bibliography
Douglass, F. (2008). Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. READ BOOKS, 144 pp.