The Abolition of Emerson: the Secularization of America’S Poet-Priest and the New Social Tyranny It Signals
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE ABOLITION OF EMERSON: THE SECULARIZATION OF AMERICA’S POET-PRIEST AND THE NEW SOCIAL TYRANNY IT SIGNALS A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Government By Justin James Pinkerman, M.A. Washington, DC February 1, 2019 Copyright 2019 by Justin James Pinkerman All Rights Reserved ii THE ABOLITION OF EMERSON: THE SECULARIZATION OF AMERICA’S POET-PRIEST AND THE NEW SOCIAL TYRANNY IT SIGNALS Justin James Pinkerman, M.A. Thesis Advisor: Dr. Richard Boyd, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Motivated by the present climate of polarization in US public life, this project examines factional discord as a threat to the health of a democratic-republic. Specifically, it addresses the problem of social tyranny, whereby prevailing cultural-political groups seek to establish their opinions/sentiments as sacrosanct and to immunize them from criticism by inflicting non-legal penalties on dissenters. Having theorized the complexion of factionalism in American democracy, I then recommend the political thought of Ralph Waldo Emerson as containing intellectual and moral insights beneficial to the counteraction of social tyranny. In doing so, I directly challenge two leading interpretations of Emerson, by Richard Rorty and George Kateb, both of which filter his thought through Friedrich Nietzsche and Walt Whitman and assimilate him to a secular-progressive outlook. I argue that Rorty and Kateb’s political theories undercut Emerson’s theory of self-reliance by rejecting his ethic of humility and betraying his classically liberal disposition, thereby squandering a valuable resource to equip individuals both to refrain from and resist social tyranny. Indeed, the democratic cultures Rorty and Kateb envision foster a socially tyrannical disposition, giving rise to an inhospitable atmosphere in which someone espousing Emerson’s religious sensibility and transcendental moral realism would be persona non grata. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to Dr. Richard Boyd, Dr. Bruce Douglass, and Dr. Joshua Cherniss for their service on my doctoral committee. Their feedback, guidance, and support have aided this project immeasurably. I wish to thank Dr. O. Bradley Bassler whose timely advice and encouragement nourished the incipient ideas from which this dissertation eventually emerged. Dr. Joshua Mitchell’s insights have spurred my thought and benefited my research. Dr. Marc Howard’s excellent teaching was a boon in the formative stages of this project. I am thankful to the Department of Government at Georgetown University for providing the resources enabling me to conduct this research. My wife, Rosie, has been wonderfully supportive throughout my graduate work. I am blessed to have her in my life. Also, I could never have carried this project to completion without the love, generosity, and steadfast encouragement of my parents, brother, sister, and in-laws. Lastly, I dedicate this dissertation to Olivia and Torrance, in the earnest hope that they will live as free persons in service of God. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: Informal Authority in a Democratic Regime and Social Tyranny as Informal Authoritarianism ............................................................................................................................22 Chapter 2: Legitimating Informal Authority in a Democratic Regime ..........................................61 Chapter 3: Richard Rorty and the Tyranny of Sentimental Authorities ........................................99 Chapter 4: An Emersonian Critique of Rorty’s Strong Poet ........................................................125 Chapter 5: An Emersonian Critique of Kateb’s Clear-Eyed, Sympathetically Receptive Poet ...153 Chapter 6: George Kateb and the Cultural Authoritarianism of Constitutional Democracy .......190 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................238 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................272 v Introduction I have the same objection to dogmatism in Reform as to dogmatism in Conservatism. —Ralph Waldo Emerson One of the earliest efforts to pressure Ralph Waldo Emerson into joining a movement for social reform was initiated by his brilliant, eccentric, and ardent aunt—Mary Moody Emerson. Displaying the evangelizing zeal of a recent convert to Garrisonian abolitionism, Aunt Mary took it upon herself to invite abolitionists George Thompson and Samuel J. May to dine at her nephew’s house for breakfast. Though irritated at Aunt Mary’s presumption, Emerson and his wife nonetheless accommodated the guests.1 To his aunt’s dismay, however, Emerson not only resisted their urgings to play a more active role in abolitionism, he positively disdained the inflexible manner in which Thompson discussed slavery. Or rather, Emerson was vexed that he could not properly discuss the topic, could not really be said to converse, with someone so single-minded in purpose and so tightly tethered to his opinion. Reflecting on the breakfast meeting, Emerson recorded an unflattering assessment of Thompson in his journal: [He] is inconvertible: what you say, or what might be said, would make no impress on him. He belongs, I fear, to that great class of the Vanity-stricken. An inordinate thirst for notice cannot be gratified until it has found in its gropings what is called a cause that men will bow to; tying himself fast to that, the small man is then at liberty to consider all objections made to him as proofs of folly and the devil in the objector….2 Though Emerson agreed with Thompson on the evils of slavery, he warily withstood enlistment into a movement that he felt both simplistically construed the issue and refused to tolerate difference of opinion as to the best means to end slavery. To be sure, Emerson respected radical abolitionists like Thompson, William Lloyd Garrison, and Wendell Phillips for their unswerving commitment to moral principle and for the 1 On the arrangement of Emerson’s meeting with Thompson and May, see Sandra Harbert Petrulionis, To Set This World Right: The Antislavery Movement in Thoreau’s Concord, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006), 15. 2 Ralph Waldo Emerson, Journals of Ralph Waldo Emerson: 1820-1872, vol. 3, eds. Edward Waldo Emerson and Waldo Emerson Forbes (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1910), 548. 1 eloquent arguments they advanced against slavery, even when threatened by mob violence. However, he strenuously opposed their reliance on direct, collective action along with their harsh, wrathful tone. Eighteen years after first meeting George Thompson, Emerson recorded thoughts on abolitionists of a similar ilk. Of Phillips, Garrison, and others I have always the feeling that they may wake up some morning and find that they have made a capital mistake, and are not the persons they took themselves for. Very dangerous is this thoroughly social and related life, whether antagonistic or cooperative. In a lonely world, or a world with half a dozen inhabitants, these would find nothing to do. The first discovery I made of Phillips was, that while I admired his eloquence, I had not the faintest wish to meet the man. He had only a platform-existence, and no personality. Mere mouthpieces of a party; take away the party and they shrivel and vanish. They are inestimable for workers on audiences; but for a private conversation, one to one, I much prefer to take my chance with that boy in the corner. “The Liberator” [Garrison’s abolitionist periodical] is a scold. A sibyl is quite another thing.3 Assessing the radical abolitionists, then, he acknowledges the rightness of their overriding moral principles and concedes their success in gaining adherents to the antislavery cause. Still, he neither fully adopts their perspective, which he deems prepossessed by one truth—the evil of slavery—to the exclusion of a host of others, nor their measures, which he thinks harsh and preclusive of both conversation and individuality.4 Emerson first spoke out against slavery publicly in November of 1837. His family and many members of his immediate social circle held abolitionist sentiments. In Massachusetts, however, a substantial portion of the population was averse to “agitation” of the slave question. Above all, many New Englanders wished to avoid provoking political conflict with the South 3 Ralph Waldo Emerson, Journals of Ralph Waldo Emerson: 1820-1872, vol. 8, eds. Edward Waldo Emerson and Waldo Emerson Forbes (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1912), 433-434. 4 In 1840, William Ellery Channing authored a tract, “Emancipation,” from which Emerson drew inspiration for an 1844 address on slavery. In the tract, Channing celebrates emancipation in the West Indies and sharply criticizes slavery. However, he refrains from villainizing Southerners in general, and he warns against forsaking truth for the sake of furthering a moral cause. “I know that there are those who consider all acknowledgment of the virtues of slave-holders, as treachery to the cause of freedom. But truth is truth and must always be spoken and trusted. To be just is a greater work than to free slaves, or propagate religion, or save souls. I have faith in no policy but that of simplicity