[Harris Schwab]

In paragraph one of “Visitors” Thoreau writes, “I THINK that I love society as much as most, and am ready enough to fasten myself like a bloodsucker for the time to any full-blooded man that comes in my way. I am naturally no hermit, but might possibly sit out the sturdiest frequenter of the bar-room, if my business called me thither.” Sounds like the opposite of misanthropy, but is obviously biased as it is coming from Thoreau himself.

[Harris Schwab]

In paragraph one of “Reading” Thoreau made a revision from version A to the other versions, changing the word “reflection” to “deliberation.” This seems to be a reference to his “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately.” However, to me this revision seems to give support to Schulz’ claim; Thoreau sounds like he is saying his pursuit of deliberation is what all men should do- that it is the only true way to live. This distances himself from others as he seems to place himself above the rest of society- quite misanthropic.

[Harris Schwab]

Schulz’s three most damning claims about Thoreau are that he was hypocritical, juvenile, and a misanthrope. This first claim of hypocrisy is perhaps the main argument of Schulz’s article, and comes in two general parts. First, she asserts that Thoreau misrepresented his time at Walden; that he declared, portrayed, and preached a life of isolation (even subtitling “Walden” as “Life in the Woods”), but in reality his stay was hardly one of solitude. He frequented Concord multiple times a week, and Walden itself was even a somewhat well attended common area. Schulz states this as evidence that Thoreau did not practice the isolation he preached, and therefore he was hypocritical. “In reality, Walden Pond in 1845 was scarcely more off the grid, relative to contemporaneous society, than Prospect Park is today. The commuter train to Boston ran along its southwest side; in summer the place swarmed with picnickers and swimmers, while in winter it was frequented by ice cutters and skaters. Thoreau could stroll from his cabin to his family home, in Concord, in twenty minutes, about as long as it takes to walk the fifteen blocks from Carnegie Hall to Grand Central Terminal. He made that walk several times a week” (Schulz). The other part of his hypocrisy are the numerous blatant contradictions in his writing. He writes praise for some feature of life, then condemns that very feature later on. “Thoreau denigrates labor, praises leisure, and claims that he can earn his living for the month in a matter of days, only to turn around and write that ‘from exertion come wisdom and purity; from sloth ignorance and sensuality'” (Schulz).

Schulz’s next claim that Thoreau is juvenile is the boldest and hardest to defend. She insists that “Walden” has received recognition because it appeals to angsty teenagers who wish to run away from home. ““Walden” is also fundamentally adolescent in tone: Thoreau shares the conviction, far more developmentally appropriate and forgivable in teens, that everyone else’s certainties are wrong while one’s own are unassailable” (Schulz). Not only does Schulz think Thoreau’s writing is childish, she believes his political philosophies are adolescent as well; that isolation from government is a young thought and a mature philosophy would be one that combines the individual and government (society). “Teen-agers, too, strain and squirm against any checks on their liberty. But the mature position, and the one at the heart of the American democracy, seeks a balance between the individual and the society” (Schulz).

Schulz’s third damning claim is that Thoreau is a misanthrope. This stems partially from Thoreau’s undoubtable arrogance- simply believing he is more capable than others, “’Sometimes, when I compare myself with other men,’ he wrote in “Walden,” ‘it seems as if I were more favored by the gods than they, beyond any deserts that I am conscious of; as if I had a warrant and surety at their hands which my fellows have not, and were especially guided and guarded’” (Schulz). She also portrays him as a cynic, thinking any human interaction is potentially corrupting of his moral purity. Schulz writes, “No feature of the natural landscape is more humble than a pond, but, on the evidence of Thoreau, the quality is not contagious. He despised his admirers, toward whom, Emerson wrote, he ‘was never affectionate, but superior, didactic,—scorning their petty ways.’ He disdained his ostensible friends, once responding to a social invitation with the words “<em data-reactid=”204”>such are my engagements to myself, that I dare not promise” (Schulz). Thoreau not only placed himself above others, but above his hometown, “And he looked down on his entire town. ‘What does our Concord culture amount to?’ he asked in “Walden.” ‘Our reading, our conversation and thinking, are all on a very low level, worthy only of pygmies and manikins'” (Schulz). Akin to this proposed general hatred of society is Thoreau’s lack of generosity. His squeamishness towards others carried over to the needy, “I require of a visitor that he be not actually starving, though he may have the very best appetite in the world, however he got it. Objects of charity are not guests” (Schulz).

Walls disagrees with Schulz’s claim that Thoreau is hypocritical. She states Thoreau knew all along his isolation was a facade; that his movement towards solitude wasn’t to turn his back on society, but rather to observe it. “The first step is to ditch the notion that Walden was an escape from civilization to some pure, wild nature with a capital ‘N’ by some lonely- and possibly not okay- white guy who nailed up a ‘keep out’ sign. One visit to Concord with one good look around should dispel this notion forever… as he tells us he often walked into town where he helped his family with chores and joined them for Sunday dinners. That his house was a philosopher’s cracker barrel back porch, plus an educational field station for the local kids, and an occasional rest stop for fugitive slaves. That he went there to think, and to write, and did both… and what’s more, before he published anything he shared it with his Concord neighbors first. All of these facts are just dismissed as one big betrayal of his solitary authenticity… Friends, if loving nature means hating humanity, we are all in trouble” (Walls). Walls believes, and says Thoreau himself stated, that Walden was not solely a retreat from society, but a way to observe both the natural and human world.

Purdy (using Walls’ book as support) challenges the assertion that Thoreau was a misanthrope. He uses Thoreau’s sharp opposition to slavery and feminist beliefs to support the counter to Schulz’s claim- that Thoreau, even though he did value independence, knew he held a civic duty to help those who were oppressed. “[Walls’] Thoreau was an abolitionist who brought Frederick Douglass to speak at the Concord Lyceum—a kind of community university—and participated in the Underground Railroad, to the point of risking charges of treason by helping enslaved people flee to Canada. While living at Walden, Thoreau hosted the annual festival of the Concord Female Anti-­Slavery Society.” While Purdy does not agree entirely with this Thoreau proposed by Walls, he seems to lean more towards this character than that of Schulz. For Purdy, the fact that Thoreau was so devoted to antiracism is evidence enough against his misanthropy.

Neither Walls nor Purdy directly challenge Schulz’s claim that Thoreau is juvenile (I’m pretty sure, though I won’t watch Walls’ entire speech again to double check). But, Walls’ (and Purdy’s, to an extent, shown in his using Walls’ book as support) admiration and devotion to Thoreau by nature contest Schulz’s claim. The mere existence of a Thoreau Society (filled with adults) and countless biographies of Thoreau (written by adults) downplay the claim that Thoreau’s only appeal is to adolescents. It also rejects the notion that Thoreau’s ideologies are juvenile. It seems difficult to believe that Thoreau’s popularity would have this magnitude of longevity, that there would be a Society dedicated to him, or that we would take a college course on him if his ideas and philosophies were childish. One quote from Walls (herself quoting Hawthorne) captures this idea well, “Nathaniel Hawthorne said ‘He was ever fixed on some chip, some stone, some common plant as if it were the clue and index to some mystery, and when he lifted his eyes there would be a kind of perplexity, a dissatisfied, wild look in them; as if of his speculation he found no end” (Walls). Does this sound like the behaviors or thoughts of an adolescent? Or does it sound like an educated, complex individual? To me it certainly seems more like the latter.

Through reading Thoreau’s writings together, it should be relatively simple to evaluate each of these claims ourselves. For the claim about his hypocrisy, we must pay close attention to what Thoreau himself says about his reasons for going to Walden; to see if he actually professed complete isolation, or more-so thought of Walden as a place for observation- a natural laboratory of sorts. Also, outright contradictions should be taken into account. Reading Thoreau’s writings ourselves will in itself evaluate the claim that he is juvenile. We will see first hand his philosophies and the tone in which he writes, and can then conclude about the level of sophistication of his ideas. There aren’t necessarily specific things to look out for for this, just the overall tone and ideas. Lastly, reading his writings will help us determine if he was a misanthrope. We should look closely for his descriptions of specific people, as well as his thoughts on society as a whole. From these observations, we can deduce if we think Thoreau was, in fact, a misanthrope.

[Author]

Posts