Analytic Essay
GOVT 080
Professor Bennett/Federico Perico
Madison Duval
21 November 2018
Prompt Two- Emerson, Thoreau and Locke
Transcendentalism, born in the early part of the 19th century, was a shift in social and philosophical thought that led many to consider the implications of societal structures on individuality and self-sufficiency (Emerson 471). By challenging the established cultural and social systems of the age, notable Transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau questioned whether it was possible to preserve individuality and self-determination and simultaneously surrender personal property and rights to the governance of an elected body. This attempted reconciliation of self-autonomy and government was also a prevalent theme in the works of philosophers such as John Locke, who discusses the “state of nature” and its interaction with governmental structures (Locke 269). Although Emerson, Thoreau, and Locke discuss many of the same questions and topics, Emerson and Thoreau innovate on the political theory of Locke by extending it to fit the contemporary conception of human individuality that was characteristic of the Transcendentalist movement.
First, in order to accurately understand the relationship between Transcendentalist thought and earlier philosophers, it is important to establish the arguments put forth by John Locke. In one of his most important works, “Two Treatises of Government,” John Locke dissects the existing relationship between individuality, property, and government, and discusses his thoughts on what that relationship should look like. These two treatises are each very notable. In the first treatise, Locke critiques the divine right of kings, while in the second treatise he thoroughly outlines the purpose of government and, more specifically, how it exists to protect property that men are unable to protect in the state of nature. John Locke’s main purpose in publishing these treatises was to suggest a new arrangement of government that would supersede existing monarchical systems (Locke 350). These radical claims and suggestions established a basis for many future political movements and documents. Specifically, Locke’s treatises laid the foundation for the works of Emerson and Thoreau.
In his Transcendentalist view of society and government, Ralph Waldo Emerson utilizes many ideas and questions that are also seen in Locke’s “Two Treatises.” For example, both Emerson and Locke extensively discuss the importance of self-preservation within society. John Locke regards the doctrine of self-preservation as highly important; in “Two Treatises of Government,” he claims that every man on Earth “is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his Station willfully; so by the like reason when his own Preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of Mankind” (Locke 271). Thus, not only does Locke set forth the preservation of self, he also establishes the idea that men should actively preserve all of mankind by not jeopardizing the “life, the liberty, health, limb or goods of another” (Locke 271). This duty, Locke says, is a facet of the Law of Nature, which compels men to act according to reason in the community of nature. As previously stated, Ralph Waldo Emerson clearly draws from Locke’s discussion of self-preservation in “Self-Reliance.” In his essay, Emerson compels his readers to rely on themselves instead of following societal structures; he writes that it is of utmost importance for men to differentiate between their true, innermost feelings and those which are imposed by society. Emerson also argues against fearing contradiction, as he claims that this practice in society distracts from the duty of self-preservation. He states that “the other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loth to disappoint them” (Emerson 472-473). To Emerson, this preoccupation with the fear of being misunderstood by others is a detriment to the self and to the mind, as well as to identity and manhood. By realizing this truth, he claims that men can truly preserve themselves. He compels his readers to “Speak what [they] think now in hard words and tomorrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing [they] said to-day” (Emerson 473). This conviction and Emerson’s overarching emphasis on self-preservation reflect a larger purpose of regarding humans as images of God and encouraging them to act accordingly by preserving their individualities. Overall, Emerson’s discussion of individual self-preservation clearly reflects the intentions of Locke in his discussion of the same topic, and also serves the purpose of the Transcendentalist ideology as a whole.
However, although Emerson draws from Locke’s discussion of self-preservation in society, their emphases diverge slightly. Locke accentuates both the self-preservation of the individual and that of mankind while Emerson focuses more on the conservation of the individual sense of self. Emerson’s argument can be seen as an innovation on the ideas of Locke that was made to fit the ideals of the Transcendentalist movement. The movement, and Emerson specifically, sought to stress self-sufficiency in the context of a society that encouraged conformity. Thus, Emerson adduces points from Locke’s rhetoric regarding individual self-preservation, but differs from Locke by disregarding the preservation of all of mankind by man. Again, this diversion aligns perfectly with the overall goal of Transcendentalism; since Emerson’s purpose in “Self-Reliance” was to promote both individualism and self-reliance, it would not serve his purpose to discuss self-preservation in the context of the community.
In addition to his discussion of self-preservation, Emerson expands on Locke’s ideas to promote a limited scope of government. In “Two Treatises of Government,” Locke argues that while a governing body must be present to ensure the protection of natural, unalienable rights, he posits that there must exist some constitutional restrictions in order to prevent encroachment on these rights by the sovereign government (Locke). Emerson draws from Locke’s rhetoric and argues for similar limits on the power of government. In “Politics,” he writes, “Hence the less government we have the better,” and outlines his distrust of a large federal government (Emerson 482). Emerson’s opposition to a strong federal government is founded on the same principles as Locke’s; he believes that a large government lends itself to leaders with poor moral character, and thus the natural rights of the individuals might be compromised. In accordance with his Transcendentalist identity, Emerson opposes strong government in favor of the individual. He states that “the antidote to this abuse of formal government is the influence of private character,” and “the growth of the individual” (Emerson 482).
Henry David Thoreau also presented transcendentalist arguments that can be connected to the rhetoric of John Locke. For example, both men extensively discussed the idea of inheritance and its repercussions in society. In John Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government,” he outlines the important role of property in society. He specifically discusses what actions must be taken by men to acquire property. Locke claims that one such action is labor, which is intrinsically necessary to appropriate items as one’s own. He writes that “it is by the labor that removes it out of that common state Nature left it in, made his Property who takes that pains about it” (Locke 289-290).
Thoreau takes the next logical step with Locke’s argument and claims that because of the fact that property necessitates labor, it is unjust to live off of property or money that was not earned through hard work. For instance, in “Life Without Principle,” he writes “That so many are ready to live by luck, and so get the means of commanding the labor of others less lucky, without contributing any value to society!” (Thoreau 494). He furthers this notion by exclaiming that he knows of nothing more startling than the conception of trade and “all the common modes of getting a living” as immoral. Thoreau even goes so far as to say that living off of “luck” instead of labor should be frowned upon; he writes that “the hog that gets his living by rooting, stirring up the soil so, would be ashamed of such company” (Thoreau 494). Thoreau clearly draws from Locke’s original argument regarding the labor that is necessary for property, but he also extends and extrapolates on Locke’s ideas by establishing that, consequentially, inherited property or property acquired by luck is unjust and shameful. This extrapolation reflects Thoreau’s greater purpose, which was to advocate against the mindless pursuit of money. As expressed in “Life Without Principle”, Thoreau held that the means of making a living are just as important as the ends, and thus, in the pursuit of money, diligent labor is to be commended and acquisition by inheritance is to be admonished.
In addition, both Thoreau and Locke address the problem of majority rule within society. In “Two Treatises of Government,” Locke establishes that when “any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community,” they have done so through the agreement of a majority. According to Locke, this process of majority rule is vital to any government; he states that “it is necessary the Body should move that way whither the greater force carries it” or else it is impossible for such Body to have the consent of every individual (Locke 331). However, Thoreau deviates from Locke on this point; in “Resistance to Civil Government,” he posits that majority rule does not necessarily guarantee a just government (Thoreau 485). In this system, he argues, the minority’s rights and opinions are not accounted for. Rather, the majority are permitted to rule “not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest” (Thoreau 485). For this reason, Thoreau declares the system of majority rule unjust. With this argument, he attempts to justify and explain his “conscientious objection” to laws and governmental practices that he deemed unjust. In keeping with Thoreau’s association with Transcendentalism, this dissension with Locke’s ideas makes sense; as an individualist, he was concerned with the representation of individual rights, and thus opposed the encroachment upon these rights that majority rule could possibly allow.
In conclusion, while the specific topics addressed by Emerson, Thoreau, and Locke often overlap, Emerson and Thoreau often extend and innovate on Locke’s political theory in accordance with the Transcendentalist emphasis on individualism, self-reliance, and self-determination. In some cases, such as Emerson’s discussion of limited government and Thoreau’s discussions of inherited property and majority rule, these ideas can be viewed as extensions of Locke’s arguments, whereas others, such as Emerson’s statements on self-preservation, can be viewed as radical innovations of Locke’s basic ideas. In both cases, the arguments of Emerson and Thoreau were formulated in reaction to the contemporary societal and governmental structures, which they believed encouraged conformity. This attempt to focus on individuality is notable in its reflection of the Transcendentalist movement and its relation to the question of why government exists.