Emerson and Thoreau on Higher Laws: Finding Freedom of the Soul Emily Sullivan University of Florida 18 Apr 2011
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Emerson and Thoreau on Higher Laws: Finding Freedom of the Soul Emily Sullivan University of Florida 18 Apr 2011 Sullivan 2 Emerson and Thoreau on Higher Laws: Finding Freedom of the Soul All our wisdom consists of servile prejudices; our customs consist in subjection, discomfort, constraint. Civil man is born, lives, and dies in slavery. At his birth the infant is bound up in swaddling clothes; at his death he is nailed down in his coffin. As long as he keeps a human form he is enchained by our institutions. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience Transcendentalists Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson opposed African American slavery; however their dissatisfaction was not limited to the context of an historical institution. As passionate abolitionists as they might have been, they perceived slavery as a larger and more abstract concept pertaining to individual souls of any social order. Their opposition to slavery stems forth from ideological influences, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who posited the importance of individual freedom. Although Rousseau wrote within the context of eighteenth-century France, his philosophies generated future thought of American revolutionaries, like Benjamin Franklin, whose concepts of selfhood informed the Transcendentalist thinkers. In evaluating Transcendentalist perspectives, it is important to explore the ideological foundations of their philosophies. Emerson and Thoreau endorse principles of morality predicated upon higher spiritual laws. They argue that in to experience personal liberty, we must align ourselves with moral truth whereby identifying truth allows us to identify the master within ourselves. Both Emerson and Thoreau advance that living by a higher moral truth has implications on our minds, on the way we give our time, and on the way we use our love. Sullivan 3 Land of the Free? America is emblematically referred to as the land of the free. In assuming that title, two dimensions must be explored: from what has America freed itself? And, what does this freedom entail? Thoreau deals with these questions in “Life Without Principle,” claiming that “even if we grant that the American has freed himself from a political tyrant, he is still the slave of an economical and moral tyrant. Now that the republic—the res-publica—has been settled, it is time to look after the res-privata—the private state,” (369). In order to properly frame our answers to the questions of freedom, we need to agree upon a perspective: freedom as a nation or freedom as an individual. There is a difference. America became a free, or sovereign, nation after winning independence from the British monarchy; however Thoreau argues that many people still live in restraint within themselves. Thoreau is more concerned with achieving freedom as an individual, asking, “What is it to be free from King George and continue the slaves of King Prejudice? What is it to be born free and not to live free? What is the value of any political freedom but as means to moral freedom? Is it a freedom to be slaves, or a freedom to be free, of which we boast?” (369). Thoreau differentiates between political freedom from a sovereign and moral freedom within the individual. Political freedom concerns the collective governmental influences, whereas moral freedom concerns the individual. Although political freedom may exist, prejudice, understood in this context as social judgments on character traits, creates a socially binding slavery of the individual. Thoreau advocates a deeper freedom beneath the layer of publically recognized political freedom to encompass individual freedom from social prejudice. A paradox exists where having status as a free citizen does not equate having freedom within the individual. Rousseau describes the archetype of the “civil man” as one whose Sullivan 4 allegiance is to the res-publica. Akin to Thoreau’s disdain for allegiance to “King Prejudice,” Rousseau describes societal bindings of “servile prejudices; [where] our customs consist in subjection, discomfort, constraint. Civil man is born, lives, and dies in slavery. At his birth the infant is bound up in swaddling clothes; at his death he is nailed down in his coffin. As long as he keeps a human form he is enchained by our institutions,” (Rousseau). The diction of “constraint,” “slavery,” “bound,” and “enchained” evoke images of the lifestyle of the African American slaves. Within the mid-nineteenth century when Thoreau and Emerson were writing, abolitionism emerged as a forerunning issue however Rousseau, as well as the Transcendentalists, extend these harsh images to color the reality of each citizen who knowingly and willfully submits to the institutions of civilization without transcending the human form. Civilization, as understood in the context of Transcendentalist thought, refers to a socially constructed body of people that align their values to a governmental sovereign rather than to individual moral guidance. The term ‘society’ within this context refers to a similar social construction where social expectations and norms mandate thought and choices. Thoreau and Emerson identify various binding traps wrought throughout the infrastructure of society, and constructively, they also provide various means to transcend these personal constraints to freedom. They have settled upon the definition of a free man as a man first, and a countryman second. The Higher Code of Morality The free man advocated by the Transcendentalists differs from the anarchist. Like the civil man he follows a set of laws; however these laws are not dependent on one form of government, but rather something more encompassing. “Spiritual Laws” as referred to by Emerson, “Higher Laws” as advanced by Thoreau, these laws are not mutually exclusive from manmade laws. Sullivan 5 They may even coincide depending on the issue, but they are available to all humanity, unconstrained by a nation, a religion, or an institution. Leigh Kathryn Jenco advances that “A major tenet of the higher law philosophy is that nature refines man's understanding by revealing specific moral truths, and disciplines his reason by revealing the holistic correspondence between thought and things” (358-359). The correspondence between thought and things requires an understanding of the self, and of where the self fits into the holistic scope of humanity. Emerson argues that “it is only the finite that has wrought and suffered; the infinite lies stretched in smiling repose,” (“Spiritual Laws” 78). The finite and ephemeral institutions of this world show the wear of civilization, and that is why Emerson draws his strength from the infinite, the spiritual source that continues to remain constant. Benjamin Franklin endorsed views of selfhood and moral living before the Transcendentalist movement, and his writings inform later thought by Emerson and Thoreau. In his essay, “The Ephemera,” he describes the futility in fueling transitory establishments and collecting temporary wealth. While his narrator strolls through a garden, he overhears the conversation of a few tiny bugs on a leaf, called the Ephemera. The creatures, which only live for the duration of eighteen hours, speak about their frustrations as one exclaims, “What now avails all my toil and labor in amassing honey-dew on this leaf, which I cannot live to enjoy! What the political struggles I have been engaged in for the good of my compatriot inhabitants of this bush, or my philosophical studies for the benefit of our race in general! for in politics what can laws do without morals?” (Franklin). The Ephemeron has collected a sizeable amount of honey-dew, or collateral, however his wealth does not gain him satisfaction. The narrator observes that “the brevity of life should teach insects and men alike that happiness is to be found only in virtue, the only pledge of happy immortality,” (Aldridge 389). Rather than deriving happiness from his wealth, the insect evaluates the virtuous aspects of his life. He considers his actions, not what he has, but what he has done. First, he has Sullivan 6 pursued a career in politics and he has used his platform for the “good” of his “compatriot inhabitants.” He has also studied in order to use his knowledge “for the benefit of our race” in an act of service. Finally, he argues that in order to maintain an effective political system, laws must coexist with morality in a supportive relationship. Although the Ephemera’s role in society as a political servant may align with the actions of the “civil man” denounced by Rousseau, the overlaying message of the Ephemeron’s soliloquy advances that resources like government and education must be buttressed with morality for virtuous implications beyond the scope of a transient lifespan. But what is morality? Thoreau says that “our whole life is startlingly moral. There is never an instant’s truce between virtue and vice,” (Emerson, “Higher Laws” 172). Thoreau’s relational diction identifies his definition of morality. Virtue and vice are binary oppositions, they cannot coexist together in “an instant’s truce.” The word “truce” can refer to a respite from a painful state of tension; it derives from the Old English trēowth, meaning fidelity (Merriam- Webster Online Dictionary). “Truce” shares the same Old English root as “truth,” which has interesting implications when we consider that by living in truth, we are living in fidelity, living in loyal relationship (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). The loyal relationship cannot exist in the tension between virtue and vice—serving two masters would be disloyal. Instead, Thoreau argues that our whole lives are defined in relationships and if we choose to live virtuously, or to live morally, we choose fidelity. Whereas anarchy can be “defined as a system in which participants can seize and defend resources without regulation from above,” living under a Higher Law establishing moral accountability through relationship would contrast a system based on anarchy (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).