First, carefully read my expectations and criteria for blogging.
Then, 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 before class on Tuesday, April 7th.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his essay “Self-Reliance,” emphasizes the value of non-conformity, writing “Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist… Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” This emphasis on individualism goes along with the idea of transcendentalism and Emerson obviously supports this idea, judging from the title of his essay. But, on the other hand, one of the costs of such an emphasis on individualism is that one isolates themselves from other people, but in Emerson’s mind this is not a bad thing. I agree with him when he writes that he supports full self-expression because “we but half express ourselves,” although individuals need to be aware of the reactions of others around them. I also found it interesting when he notes the value of defying societal traditions and expectations. Hester Prynne defies societal expectations by forming a distinct identity for herself although she lives in solitude. This demonstrates that Nathaniel Hawthorne (who spent time at Brook Farm), like Emerson valued individualism and recognized how seclusion could benefit some people. This is interesting because that does not seem to be an accepted viewpoint in today’s world. (Does anyone have any ideas on that?) Overall, Emerson presents intriguing ideas about individualism and “self-reliance” in his bold essay.
ReplyDeleteAlessandra
I think his main emphasis is on the moral side of individualism (which may often apply to other manifestations). And here I find the only point of potential conflict in paragraph 4, where he states that “the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what it is against it.” I trust that Emerson’s constitution was fair and just, but if this principle were to be applied to a society-wide scale, there might be many people whose “constitutions” permitted them to do dangerous things. The rest of his assertions are pretty brilliant. In response to the first post, I agree that today’s society puts a taboo on solitary reflection. It is undeniably important to spend time alone to understand oneself, but it is unhealthy to refuse to participate in human society. In fact, it is the moment when solitary morality meets society that makes individualism worth it. The author strikes this chord when he states “the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.”
ReplyDeleteSeveral points struck me as I read the previous posts.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Alessandra's post:
I find your connection between Hester Prynne and Emerson's essay to be of the same I made when reading "Self-Reliance". A quote of Emerson's, "What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think," reminded me of Pearl's constant urging for Arthur Dimmesdale to come clean about his secret. Of course, there are Responding to your question about how seclusion is viewed in today's society -- I think society tends to look down upon it because our culture revolves around communication. Texting, Facebook, e-mail, and phone calls are a vital part of life (at least in mine) in today's world. What other elements of our society shape this dislike of solitude?
In response to "Sleepless in Seattle" (nice nickname, by the way):
The line you quote from paragraph 4 also caught my attention. I agree with you, that if taken in an extremely lax manner, the concept of personal “constitutions” could potentially result in negative outcomes for others. However, I believe Emerson is merely making the point that one should not stifle their spirit to satisfy the will of others.
Aly B.
I just realized my sentence broke off in the first paragraph -- I meant to say, "Of course, there are other characters this quote fits as well." Sorry for any confusion.
ReplyDeleteAly
Emerson clearly believes that one should not have to conform to society. He states that when one enters society they are sacrificing their own “divine” ideas and are embarrassed to express their own thoughts. He believes that citizens should not be concerned with what society thinks, but what one alone must do, “what I do is all that concerns me, not what the people think.” However, while it is good to maintain one’s own beliefs it is important to hear alternate views and to discuss. As Sleepless in Seattle stated, there is a time for solitary thought, and a time for human interaction. Emerson also touches upon self-acceptance “ accept the place the divine providence has found for you’re the society of your contemporaries.” One does not need to be like anyone else in society and neither did Hester. Hester was an outcast who realized once she entered her solitude that perhaps society’s morals were wrong. Those “voices that we hear in solitude” that “grow faint and inaudible as we enter into the world” appear to have reentered Hester’s mind.
ReplyDeleteElisabeth
I actually disagree with the claim that our society places a taboo on individualism. American culture is known for its independently-oriented society, where there is often a lack of community. While discussing individualism versus collectivism in my psychology class, we heard reports of people from all over the world who came to America for the first time and felt isolated and lonely. In other cultures, it is not uncommon for friends to spontaneously stop by to chat, to bring by some dinner, or to share responsibilities within the community. Perhaps the clearest evidence that America is a strongly individualist society is the fact that most Americans identify as “friendly” or “funny,” rather than other cultures where most people identify as a “daughter,” or “a friend.” Although Americans value independence, rather that interdependence, the American individualist lifestyle is not exactly the individualism which Emerson writes about. Americans place too great an emphasis on personal accomplishment and self-sufficiency, whereas Emerson values introspection and self-actualization.
ReplyDeleteKatia
Source Citation: (sorry!)
ReplyDeleteMyers, David G.. Psychology. 8. New York: Worth Publishers, 2004.
Katia
The ideas in the posts above are all very well reasoned and I myself posed similar thoughts while reading Emerson’s “Self-Reliance.”
ReplyDeleteIn response to Aly B.’s question, along with the emphasis that is placed on communication, I also believe that society is designed in a way in which a person’s success relies on their involvement with others. In other words, people are viewed as successful mainly when others view them to be that way. This public image of acceptance in society can often be driven by the human nature of competition amongst people. Society has become accustom to a constant battle between people to gain positive recognition. By people secluding themselves from this competition, society has a tendency to dislike these people and accuse them of being unmotivated or unsuccessful. However, I agree with Emerson when he classifies these people who live in solitude of simply being “misunderstood.” Emerson notes some of the world’s most influential men such as Socrates, Galileo, and Luther, to demonstrate that though these men lived in solitude, they possessed “pure and wise spirits.” It is true when he states, “To be great is to be misunderstood.”
I like how Emerson begins this essay by describing a person’s need to work for their own goals and to their greatest potential while not being concerned of others. This in fact introduces the idea of individualism. However, Emerson then continues on to state that “These voices are the voices which we hear in solitude, but they grow faint and inaudible as we enter into the world.” Do you agree with this claim that our “voices” of individualism disappear as we are placed in a large society? If so, why do you feel that we so easily conform when left alone?
Kristina
To answer Kirstina's question, I personally feel quite uncomfortable when alone for long periods of time. Perhaps someone's individuality can be expressed by being a part of a society, if that is "his plot of ground which is given him to till." Emerson states "What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think." What if what concerns you is what the people think, and the good opinion of your community? I don't believe this is illogical, because I think our community speaks the world one lives in into being -- perhaps even more so than one's own writing -- and this is how the people in one's community will know them. It's possible that someone exists in which conforming to society and giving others what they want is the most successful way of expressing their individuality.
ReplyDelete-Drew
P.S. Has anyone read Paulo Coelho's novel "The Alchemist"? There are a number of parallels between the novel and the Emerson essay that would be interesting to discus if anyone happens to have read it.
The discussion over whether society is for the individual or not is interesting and I believe that often being an individual against others is looked down upon. To have one's own beliefs or ideals is often admired but only if those beliefs can somehow fit in to what society deems correct. So in some way I guess I agree with Sleepless in Seattle and Katia because there are many aspects of that idea.
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to touch on what Kristina said. I was going to use that quote as well, the one that spoke about voices that become inaudible when they enter the world because I think that is often true. It is easier to fit in then to stand out in a crowd and because of that ideas are often put off to save one's image. To go along with that I liked the quote that said, "It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinions; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude." This is what most people strive for I believe, to find a balance between what they think and what society tells them to think. When one can find there voice is when they achieve a great level of success which is important in everyone's life.
Rose
I found Emerson's writing to be very powerful and evocative. I found myself agreeing with him completely in some respects, and in others simply despising him! I was quite thrown off when Emerson spoke about giving to others and charity, and stated that he refused to give to anyone who was different from him. Is this not the cardinal flaw of man? We hate those who are different from us, and therefore pretend they do not exist. This is no strength; rather, it is a weakness. Emerson displays an almost appalling degree of narcissism. He must think himself godlike, that he can state with full confidence that "virtues are penances" and that he "cannot consent to pay for a privilege where I have intrinsic right."
ReplyDeleteWhile individuality is extremely important, just the existence of society commands us to conform to some extent. As humans, we innately need friendship and love, and in order to find companions in the world, it is necessary for us to compromise our ideas.
I disagree with Emerson about his concept of listening to other's opinions. Emerson believes that anyone who agrees with a group of people about one subject or another has sacrificed their own beliefs. However, part of our creation of our beliefs and opinions is listening to the beliefs of others! Our environments shape who we are. Without any exposure to other people, we would be empty, vacant. In order to have any opinion at all, we need to be aware that some people agree and some disagree with it.
In regards to The Scarlet Letter, I must say that I disagree with Alessandra and Elisabeth. I think that Hester is not the sort of individualist that Emerson describes in his writing. While she defies the community she lives in, she does not disagree with its members on all accounts. She knows that she has committed a sin, and does not deny that her punishment is deserved. Hester also cares for others, a sign that she does not live her life solely for the purpose of satisfying her personal needs. Hester clearly has an allegiance to her daughter, Pearl, and to Mr. Dimmesdale. She is not simply living for herself. Indeed, Hawthorne himself states this on page 113 when he says,
"It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of of society. The thought suffices them, without investing itself in the flesh and blood of action. So it seemed to be with Hester."
In response to the debate on whether there is a taboo placed on individualism, I believe there are two aspects. In many advertisements and in an ideal world, being an individual is a virtue, rather than is being a conformist, which Emerson refers to near the end of the third paragraph. Like Katia stated, American culture is one that prizes individuality and diversity.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in response to Kristina's question, individualism is actually suppressed in our society. Peer pressure, mainstream media, and majority rulings all impose an expected uniformity that can cause us to be “ashamed of that divine idea which each of us represents”. To forsake the popular opinion would be risking social acceptance.
Also, to answer Drew’s question, Emerson calls society a “conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.” If one is concerned with the views of others, then he has given up “the liberty and culture” for the benefit “of each shareholder”, other members of society. However, I do not agree that this is as negative as Emerson portrays it to be. I also believe that can be an aspect of one’s individual identity. Emerson believes that to assert individuality is to go against society, which according to him has made every effort to silence such intents.
Sara A.
I think that Katia makes a really strong point about the lack of community in American culture. To reference food production, if you consider the construct of the nation’s industrial food market the detachedness is grossly evident. This distance—both geographical and personal—ties into, for example, the purely profit-minded fast-food chain corporate head. There is so much emphasis in society on personal advancement that people lose all sense of community. The corporate head of McDonald’s doesn’t see the direct effects his business or simply doesn’t care about nation’s struggles with obesity, diabetes, etc. I’m not contending the importance of individualism, but our society stresses it to the point that we lose our grasp on the fact that other people (if nothing else is of significance), who matter, live on this planet.
ReplyDeleteBut also as Katia was saying, Emerson places importance on maintaining one’s character and personal integrity while Americans focus too greatly on pursing their individual interests. Hawthorne seems to share this sentiment with Emerson as he communicates through Hester, but the reader can also find evidence of Hawthorne’s disapproval of Puritan society. Emerson articulates this well, “[s]ociety everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members (paragraph 3).” The Puritans are so focused on ridding themselves of all impurities that will mar their chances for redemption that they forget what compassion is and treat Hester as worthless.
-Amanda C
Amanda C. makes a good point, but I think it is unfair to compare the entire population of America to a few Mickey D’s executives. Clearly, the corporate head of McDonald’s is money-driven, but keep in mind that McDonald’s does charitable work as well…irrelevant point?
ReplyDeleteI actually think that America strikes a nice balance between individuality and community, especially compared to other countries. Because America is such a religiously and ethnically diverse nation, people lead culturally distinct lives. In countries like Japan and Denmark, on the other hand, people and ideas are more homogeneous.
At the same time, community is crucial in the U.S. According to the concept of homophily, which is basically the scientific way of saying, “Birds of a feather flock together,” people tend to associate with similar people. Anyone who has visited South Boston or the South knows this. Do you think the innate human desire to be with similar people works against diversity and individuality?
To touch upon Emerson’s insightful “Self-Reliance,” one quote shocked me: “my friend suggested,--‘But these impulses [of individualism] may be from below, not from above.’ I replied, ‘They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil’s child, I will live then from the Devil.” I completely disagree with Emerson and agree with WonderWoman: one should not disagree solely to be different. It is often necessary and flexible to agree. There is a huge difference between being an individual and being the Devil’s advocate.
Alie G Indahouse
Over the summer I heard a professor from UNH speak, and he talked about a culture of Native Americans in the South West. His conclusion from studying them was that as time has passed, people have generally become less happy, and that this unhappiness is due to the fact that we have no time for self reflection. With new technology, we are constantly being bombarded with information, which never allows us any time for our own thoughts. I think the issue is not only that individual reflection is taboo, but also that there is no time for individual reflection. Perhaps if we were ever away from the information we are being bombarded with, we would be able to develop our ideas, and our society would not be such a conformist one. Since people’s minds are inundated with what society expects them to believe twenty four hours a day, there is little time to develop one’s own ideas.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alie about the McDonald’s debate. I think that although the corporate heads of McDonald’s care only about money, this does not say anything about the population as a whole. I also think that fast food restaurants have something positive to say about American society in the way they attempt to market. For example, KFC’s commercial currently consists of a friendly cook who talks about the healthy ways in which their food is made. This demonstrates that American consumers are drifting towards wanting a more homey atmosphere and more healthy food.
In response to Emerson’s article, I was very interested when he stated, “What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think. This rule, equally arduous in actual and intellectual life, may serve for the whole distinction between greatness and meanness.” I was interested by the concept that his definition of being an individual is difficult to accomplish. I agree with this idea. I think that our society makes it very difficult to be an individual in our society. He goes on to say, “It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion.” I think generally people tend to choose the easier path, and that is why they conform.
To backtrack a few posts, I agree completely that American society balances individually and community. I think it is an amazingly insightful point (Katia) that American society is mostly independent as opposed to interdependent. Judging from my own experiences, I know this to be true because whenever I'm in Boston, I can spend the whole day without making eye contact with anyone, regardless of how hard I try. However, another way to say American individualist society is a group of ridiculously stubborn people. America is still a community of extremely stubborn people.
ReplyDeleteHuman beings by nature are generally very social creatures. The taboo mentioned in the earliest posts is not when one is an individual in society, but when one abstains from interpersonal relationships altogether.
Emerson is saying that periodic living like the latter is important in the quest for self exploration, but he is not recommending life to be lived completely in that way. Take the life of Henry David Thoreau: he lived by himself on Walden Pond and discovered gobs about himself, but after a year or so, he decided to move back to town and rejoin the rest of the world.
Nick
I agree with Sara A.'s point about how there are two aspects to the question of whether individualism is taboo in society. I believe that America as a whole embraces individuality and puts out a pro-individualist message to other countries. However, I think that when you get down to the root of many communities, often times people would rather conform. This is the easiest way of existing in society. I think people take comfort in being part of a large group. This plays into the fear of not being accepted or of seeming different from others. However, often times when people embrace their own individuality and ignore the societal norms that are expected of them, they are embraced by society.
ReplyDeleteTalia
Sorry, I got cut off...
ReplyDeleteI feel like people often admire those who are able to live according to their own beliefs and opinions. Maybe they do not possess the same courage and thus, admire the fact that these individualists are able to ignore the "world's opinion."
Talia
I am going to have to disagree, in the most respectful manner, with the claim that America has found an appropriate balance between society and individualism. Although we students, each of us scholars in our own right, are able to obtain the kind of self-reliance of which Emerson speaks, do not forget that as residents of Arlington, Massachusetts we are privileged to learn and grow in an environment that remains open-minded and encourages individual thought. Unfortunately, not every community in America is so. I would argue still that Arlington has yet to find the perfect balance. Considering the overwhelming liberal sentiment that thrives in Arlington, I think it is fair to say that many people are plagued by the phenomenon known as “blind liberalism.” Conversely, I sense that much of the conservative sentiment in Arlington in not generated from the minds of a group of individual, but taken from a society elsewhere. I guess this is true for liberalism as well. I general, I do think that the American population fails to question the societal norms, which, as a result, control much of one’s existence in America. The only times that I have truly been able to completely escape societal influence are the times I have spent backpacking in the woods, where one needs to be physically and mentally self-reliant in order to survive.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I would definitely have to agree with the points made by Emerson in this piece. For me, the being an individual and self-reliant is incredibly empowering and gratifying. My strongest relationships with friends and family are a product of this individualism Emerson describes. My most genuine friendships are strong because as individuals, my friends and I are able to forge ideas and beliefs that are strikingly similar.
- Steamboat Willy
I partially agree with Steamboat Willy, the balance between Individual and Society is balanced in some places. But you have to question yourself and realize that unless the ideas you are formulating are completely original, then you are merely following the ideas of another. This isn't necessarily a negative thing, but to be truthful to yourself you must acknowledge this fact. We are all a product of our environment, and the strong sense of individualism coursing through the veins of this AP class can be drawn from the environment we all grew up in.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there can be too much, just enough or too little emphasis individualism. This isn't Goldilocks and the Three Bears, our porridge can be eaten at any temperature. Individualism cannot be defined as an amount. It is more like a trait or aspect, the lack of individualism would create a 1984-esque society whereas total individualism is anarchy. As we have described before, a good balance between totalitarian and anarchy somehow produces democracy much like the US today swings from conservatism to liberalism producing the moderation we feel is key.
The Little Bear aka Matt