[Jessica Palmeri]

A misanthrope is someone who dislikes humankind and aims to leave society and institutions behind. In paragraph 3 of “Conclusion”, Thoreau states that “It is not for a man to put himself in such an attitude to society, but to maintain himself in whatever attitude he find himself through obedience to the laws of his being, which will never be one of opposition to a just government, if he should chance to meet with such.” Thoreau in this passage doesn’t seem to be advocating for a dismissal of society or local government. He seems to be suggesting that it is crucial for the society which you wish to be a part of to mirror  your own laws of being and personal values. This interpretation is different from despising other human beings and running off into the woods to escape them.

[Jessica Palmeri]

“Our village life would stagnate if it were not for the unexplored forests and meadows which surround it.” Thoreau’s use of the word our when discussing village life seems to lay in contrast to Schulz’s claim that Thoreau is a misanthrope.  Thoreau seems to place himself into village life/Concord society, rather than distancing himself through the usage of “our”.

[Jessica Palmeri]

“I aspire to be acquainted with wiser men than this our Concord soil has produced.” This quote seems to support Schulz’s claim that Thoreau is trying to distance himself from society, at least Concord society in this example.

[Jessica Palmeri]

In “Pond Scum”, Kathryn Schulz claims that Thoreau is purposely trying to deceive us about his time spent at Walden. She claims that Thoreau preaches about a life in the woods that he himself never lived. She brings up the fact that Thoreau often went into Concord frequently to get supplies as well as visit family members. This quote  seems to negate that idea as Thoreau fully addresses the fact that he is not living a life completely isolated from society. Thoreau does not claim to be living an isolated life, solely surrounded by nature. He describes his time spent in nature as a world in which he would make “occasional and transient forays only.”

[Jessica Palmeri]

 

In “Pond Scum”, Schulz makes several damning claims about Thoreau and the basis for his views on what truly constitutes ‘living’. While there are many claims that Schulz uses to degrade our view of Thoreau, at the heart of her argument lies three main claims. According to Schulz, Thoreau voices a rejection of society itself, largely based on his perception of moral superiority, his antipathy towards the lives of his fellow human beings, and his experience at Walden Pond that Schulz characterizes as being completely disingenuous in nature. Schulz’s main argument against Thoreau is that his vision as to what constitutes ‘living’ is based on false premises and the man’s own personal complexes.

 

First, Schulz characterizes Thoreau as a narcissistic and self-absorbed individual, only capable of seeing his own principles as virtuous and worth consideration.  Schulz states that Thoreau was not like this simply because he was a transcendentalist. Thoreau cared more about his own revelations than those of the people around him. Emerson in regard to Thoreau claimed, “Not a particle of respect had he to the opinions of any man or body of men.” Schulz further states that Thoreau saw himself as a sort of prophet.  Thoreau’s supposed god complex led him to become adamant that he needed “nothing beyond himself to understand and thrive in the world.”  According to Schulz, this complex helped play a part in the development of Thoreau’s ideologies, as his beliefs in his own superiority led him to desire an escape from others, people he often disagreed with and condemned for their “petty ways.” Purdy and Walls respond to these claims but generally without countering the characterization of Thoreau as a narcissist. Rather they address the ways in which he was active socially and the idea that Thoreau cared about improving the lives of others (something Schulz disagrees with and uses against Thoreau).

 

Second, Schulz’s Thoreau is characterized as being largely indifferent and callous to the suffering of others. Schulz starts out her article by describing the cold way in which Thoreau reacted to the loss of human life at the scene of a ship wreck, sympathizing more with the wind and the waves than with the individuals who lost their lives. She goes on to produce quotes in which Thoreau blames the impoverished for the lives that they are living and in which he even romanticizes the very notion of poverty. Schulz’s Thoreau is almost comically unconnected to the lives of the people around him. He sees the suffering of others and is unable to understand that the circumstances surrounding every individual’s life vary greatly. Schulz claims that Thoreau’s misunderstanding of the lives of his fellow human beings led him to develop a vision of ‘life’ that is not an option for most people. Schulz attacks Thoreau on this notion stating that “what worked for a well-off Harvard-educated man without dependents or obligations might not make an ideal universal code.” Purdy and Walls both respond to Schulz’s claims by first pointing out the ways in which Thoreau was actively involved in working to improve the lives of others. He was an abolitionist, actively involved in the underground railroad, developed friendships with numerous Native Americans, and sympathized with the laborers building the railroad alongside Walden Pond. From these interactions, it seems as though Thoreau was not solely interested in his own well-being. Regarding Thoreau’s privilege, Walls states that Thoreau was aware of what privilege he did have.  When delivering a defense of John Brown in Boston he stated, “The reason why Frederick Douglass is not here, is the reason why I am.”

 

Finally, Schulz claims that Thoreau came up with his social and political views based on an experience at Walden Pond that was disingenuous in nature. According to Schulz, “Walden” is written in such a way that is meant to be read as “a voluntary exile from society, an extended confrontation with wilderness and solitude.” In reality, Walden pond is hardly off the grid, about a 20-minute walk away from his family home. Additionally, Thoreau’s family members made frequent visits to his cabin ,and Thoreau went into town often. According to Schulz, Thoreau falsifies his situation by describing it as being as much like “Asia or Africa as New England.” Schulz claims that Thoreau made a case against community through an experience in which he was still actively a part of it. Schulz states that “Thoreau contends that he went to Walden to construct a life on the basis of ethical and existential first principles, and that what he achieved as a result was simple and worth emulating.” Yet, he never actually lived the life that he is prescribing others to follow. Walls responds to Schulz’s claims by stating that the proximity to society was not necessarily a bad thing. Thoreau would have been able to “study the landscape and wild things, study his townsmen from a middle distance, and, through it all, study himself.”

 

In terms of understanding Thoreau and evaluating these claims ourselves, I think it is necessary to come into all the texts that we read in class with an open but critical mind. I have not yet read enough Thoreau to know where I am going to stand in regard to the highly polarized spectrum of views surrounding this writer. Schulz and Purdy/ Walls remain on very different ends of the spectrum. I think it will be important to think about whether or not Thoreau’s experience at Walden constitutes an experience in which it is appropriate to make the sort of claims about life that he is making. I think value judgements on the validity of individuals is also deeply personal and connected to our own moral and life considerations. I think it’s important to develop our own personal interpretations as to what we take from the readings, and work to be understanding with others whose interpretations may differ from our own. A robust and open dialogue about our opinions is key.

[Author]

Posts