[Julia McGaugh]

In paragraph 13 of the chapter titled “Conclusion” in Walden, Thoreau takes a stab at the controversial subject of poverty and relative quality of life. He argues that it is the poor, unbothered by the meaningless distractions of wealth, who live the highest quality lives. It is they who appreciate nature most truly and know their own souls most intimately.

I am struggling with this passage. On one hand, Thoreau has a point. As a popular quotation iterates, “some of the best things in life are free”, and some of the most beautiful moments are those observed by people who slow down and are humble enough to realize them. Furthermore, he lived very simply for two years, and therefore can personally vouch for the fact that a life with few possessions is indeed a meaningful one.

Yet, on the other hand, Thoreau himself was privileged. He was an educated, white male who had the opportunity to take a step back from his career for two years to live in the woods. Part of me tries to defend him; he was writing and experimenting, and his time in the woods was probably, to some extent, a career choice. But who, other than those with the economic means, could take on such an experiment? He lived simply, like many did involuntarily, and after two years, he left the simplicity behind and returned to village life. Few people who lived as simply as Thoreau had the choice, after two years, to give it up and go back to living more comfortably. That privileged stance makes this entire paragraph less sincere to me.

[Julia McGaugh]

Schulz claims that Thoreau contradicts himself in his standards of living. He indeed does contradict himself regarding his opinions on music (more generally, music as an indulgence). In paragraph 58 of his essay Walking, Thoreau suggests that music is wild, reminding him of the beasts of the forest, and therefore good. Yet in paragraph 8 of the chapter “Higher Laws” in Walden, he argues that music stoops as low as coffee and tea in satisfying the base desires of humans. He goes so far as to say that music is partially to blame for the fall of ancient empires, and will topple empires in the future. What happened to his appreciation for the wild and free melody? Schulz might have been correct about his mercurial moral standards.

 

[Julia McGaugh]

Schulz’s three most damning criticisms of Thoreau are that he is exceptionally selfish, deliberately dishonest, and inconsistent to a fault.

<span style=”font-weight: 400;”>Schulz portrays Thoreau as an intensely self-involved yet otherwise indifferent man. She claims that he regarded himself as a prophet of sorts, wholly dutiful to finding truth and without responsibility to humanity. True, he is said to have felt “more blessed” than other men, but Schulz is unforgiving in her characterization of him as careless and nearly abrasive in regards to the less-fortunate (starting with his apathetic response to the shipwreck and following through to his blame-the-victim mentality while romanticizing poverty). Her last paragraph reads “He turned his back on us”, which is almost the opposite of the activist that Purdy and Walls describe. Purdy provides a description of Thoreau which he explicitly compares to “our best self”; he uses the descriptions “pro-­environmental, antiracist, anti-imperialist, feminist, reformist, spiritual but not religious” (but the words “narcissistic” and “self-obsessed” that Walls uses do not appear). Walls too asserts this more favorable view of Thoreau, arguing that his goal was to “wake people up” to what was happening in the world – the good and the bad. He strove to “act collectively”and seek morality in all his actions, a fact which flies in the face of Schulz’s harsh analysis.</span>

<span style=”font-weight: 400;”>Schulz also claims that Thoreau is dishonest and almost manipulative, exemplified in the portrayal of his retreat to Walden. Although it is true that Walden was situated only a short distance from Concord, Schulz presents this miscommunication as intentionally misleading rather than the omission of a trivial detail. (Personally, I haven’t studied much Thoreau and would have to read the texts in question to come to my own conclusion). She questions the truths he has concluded by invalidating the facts that they are based on and arguing that his retreat could not have been the retreat it is written to be if he had returned to Concord often for food and fellowship. However, Walls offers that perhaps the fact that his time at Walden was not a strict isolation adds to the experience; the railroad was just nearby, forcing Thoreau to acknowledge the presses of technology, people were nearby to remind him of his humanity and the inevitability of company, and yet he still had time for solitary, natural reflection. That is, his situation might have facilitated greater revelation because of its realism (rather than inhibiting truth-seeking because it was a bit too convenient). Furthermore, Schulz plays the privilege card, suggesting that his time in the woods was only an option because of his family’s wealth and status. Walls counters by saying that Thoreau worked for the family and Walden was almost a last resort after his other career endeavors had failed. Again, I think the hostility of Schulz’s portrait make it quite incredible.  </span>

<span style=”font-weight: 400;”>Schulz asserts that Thoreau is inconsistent to a fault. He is even inconsistent regarding when to be consistent.  She states, “To reject all certainties but one’s own is the behavior of a zealot; to issue contradictory decrees based on private whim is that of a despot.” She thinks him foolish in his contradictory behavioral advising and consistent moral standards. Walls, on the other hand, seems to believe that this moral fortitude was a strength, and although it translated into different actions given different situations, that it led him to strive for equality and justice. Again, it doesn’t seem that this unreliable member of society is the same person described by Walls as a “moral seeker”.</span>

<span style=”font-weight: 400;”>(In a way, Schulz is in fact inconsistent in her argument when claiming that statements of his such as “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation” are inaccurate because of his lack of human interaction, while also arguing that he is a liar because of the reality of his routine visits home. She insults his solitude, then also ridicules him for interacting with humans. Pick one!)</span>

Throughout her piece, I find Schulz to be all too punitive in her criticism of Thoreau. I sympathize more with Thoreau and agree more with Walls and Purdy because they recognize the flaws of his character but value his insights nonetheless. No person is perfect, and the fact that Thoreau was imperfect in ways that she dislikes is not reason to discredit his work and legacy.

As for studying his work together, we should recognize instances of selfishness but be forgiving. Too often we judge other people too harshly, blaming them for their misgivings and failing to acknowledge their superior qualities. We should remember that although Thoreau might be selfish, so are we, and each instance of self is not representative of his person as a whole. If the selfishness is pervasive, however, we might have to reconsider that evaluation. <span style=”font-weight: 400;”>We should also be on the lookout for intentionality in the exclusion of certain details in Thoreau’s narrative, in order to decide if was trying to deceive his audience. We should try to affirm or disprove the fact that Thoreau was deliberately dishonest in his portrayal of Walden as a remote dwelling in order to present himself too ideally, for one (maybe he considered including that particular point less important than writing about all the plants he saw). This is only one example of many ways he might have been dishonest, so we should just be on the look out for instances of deceit. </span>In order to determine whether he is excessively fickle in action and principle, we should note his decision-making processes and motivations, and whether he uses reason and conscience or submits to whims as is suggested by Schulz. In all aspects, we should be more concerned with the first hand account that Thoreau himself provides, rather than the judgments made by others after the fact.

[Author]

Posts