[Marisa Ambalavanar]

It is interesting to hear some of Thoreau’s ideas reflected both positively and negatively from a woman’s perspective. It seems that Alcott is more critical of his ideas than she is agreeable towards them. Thoreau’s experiment is somewhat extreme, especially given the big push for progress in his day. However, he does maintain a sense of reason while going about his project and although he explores deeper than the average person would, he does not lose all sense of logic while doing so. Alcott depicts who have a somewhat similar lifestyle to that of Thoreau’s during his time at Walden Woods, but in a much more extreme and slightly ridiculous way. The lengths to which her characters seek the ideal of ‘simplicity’ is much further than what is reasonable. It seems that this is a critique on Thoreau’s ideas, which he shared with many transcendentalists. I’m not sure that it is possible to say that Alcott fully disagrees with the ideas of the movement, but it is apparent that she is not on board with following them to their fullest extent. That is to say that while she may see the value in simplicity, for example, she would pursue it with moderation and not at all costs. Alcott also places a value on formal education and thereby differs from Thoreau in this way as well. It is possible that as someone who had the opportunity and even expectation to attend formal schooling, Thoreau was able to critique it and posit that there is more that can be learned from nature than from textbooks. On the contrary, as women did not commonly receive an extensive formal education, Alcott is dissatisfied with the ‘natural’ education which women get while working in the home and sees it as inferior.

Stanton has a notable focus on gender equality in her writing. As a figurehead in the Women’s Rights Movement of her day, it makes sense that this would be an important topic to her. In Solitude of Self, Stanton does not disagree with Thoreau on the value of solitude, but she views it differently from the female perspective. Seeing as women are often expected to be in solitude of sorts in the home, Stanton does not necessarily seem stricken by the idea that solitude is something to be sought after and protected. Rather, she sees it from an almost opposite viewpoint. Solitude is valuable, but only when it can be willingly given up. Women were expected to keep to themselves often or to be at home doing the chores while men had the opportunity to participate in politics or have roles in their town governments, for example. Because of this, the men had more reason to seek out solitude as their daily role was filled with less of it naturally. On the contrary, women had to seek respite from their daily solitude and exercise their rights to social and political participation and freedom.

[Marisa Ambalavanar]

Thoreau makes the assertion that the pursuit of business may be at the loss of thoughtfulness of society as a whole. He places such a strong value on simplicity that he seems to disregard the benefits that non-simplicity can yield in certain situations. He does not spend much time addressing the idea of progress, for example, and seems to view anything that evolves into a less simplified state as frivolous or burdensome. For example, he talks about the post office and the fact that he is glad he lives far from it because it frees him of the obligations of social relationship duties. While this is true, he seems to overlook the joy and fulfillment that humans can obtain through these relationships and the necessity of social contact. In a sense, he is substituting the social contact of the outside world (albeit for a temporal amount of time) for the ‘social’ outlet of his writings and record keeping, which will presumably someday be read by someone else. In this way, he is not actually eliminating his social needs through simplicity, but rather replacing their means of fulfillment.

With regard to college, Thoreau does not ultimately regard formal education as very important. It seems that he would think that the time spent on receiving an education here would be a loss of an education gained from real-world observational experiences. He says “Will you be a reader, a student merely, or a seer?” I think that Thoreau would hold the viewpoint that four years spent observing the world from one’s own perspective would be a far better time investment than a four year degree. Moreover, his focus on simplicity is contradictory to the university system that we have, particularly in regards to the financial aspects of college as well as the ‘game’ that is the job market. Depending on your area of study, finding a job can be incredibly difficult. In fact, many people find jobs because of a happenstance situation in which they know someone who knows someone else who ultimately is able to help them find work. This means that, for some, finding a job is a matter of chance. Although effort is required, the amount of effort one puts into finding employment does not directly correlate to the employment he finds, in some cases. For Thoreau, it seems like this system would be too complicated. He believes that the best way to learn is by doing, which is a sentiment that I strongly agree with.  He also makes it a personal rule to avoid debt of any kind, even returning things he borrows in better condition than their owners left them. For this reason, I think that Thoreau would be very opposed on principal to the idea of students having to take out thousands of dollars of loans and spending a large amount of their adult lives repaying them.

I think that Thoreau does offer some good insights into the theory behind life and the idealism of simplicity and minimalism. I also believe that debt should be avoided whenever possible, which is a concept that he supports. However, I think that Thoreau overlooks the potential situations in which his ideal principles are not actually ideal. There are certain instances where society or life circumstances necessitate a lack of minimalism. For example, if everyone went to college based on what they could afford to pay out of pocket at the moment of their enrollment, the rich people would be going to the renown schools while the poorer people would either attend small community colleges or not get a college education at all. While perhaps this example relies on other presuppositions that Thoreau would disagree with inherently, the fact is that people do need to make money to survive and in order to do so, they can’t always rely on blue collar labor. This, in turn, necessitates the need for a college education in order to be accepted to skilled jobs, which sometimes necessitates the need for taking out loans which will later be repaid to finance this college education. Thoreau’s views are very idealistic and, I believe, valid in a theoretical arena, however one cannot always live in such a way due to matters of practicality.

[Author]

Posts