LITR 4232: American Renaissance
University of Houston-Clear Lake
Student Presentation, spring 2001

Reader: Will Frith

Discussion notes: Kelly Figueroa

Thursday, 22 February

Henry David Thoreau and Dialectic Thinking

            The emphasis of my presentation on Thoreau’s Resistance to Civil Government was on the dialecticism of his method. His ideas, though not entirely original, were perhaps some of the most innovative in the "American" genre.

            Upon first reading, it may seem that Thoreau is arguing a Socialist platform. I gave a comparison to the Greek philosophers, namely to the Socratics. Socrates himself seemed to have lived the sort of life for which Thoreau calls in this piece. Socrates had no possessions, nor did he desire them. He also stayed away from the concerns of the State in which he lived. Aristotle argued for a state in which wealth was distributed evenly and the State consisted of the "common people." He takes an almost Marxist approach in some places, and in others, the opposite. On page 2093, at the bottom of the second paragraph, he gives a description of a government that modern Republicans would love to see, one with a lassiez faire take on economy. There are also traces of Dickens in Thoreau’s proposition, particularly in his jailing narrative.

            One should be warned that this piece may easily be manipulated, like so many other great works, to fit around a particular idea. A member of the youth counter-culture movement, namely the punk movement of the 1980’s, would take a piece of this, like page 2093’s third line; "government is best which governs not at all." There is also a part, on page 2098 towards the bottom, "…then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine." There are traces of the 1960’s counter-culture movement, particularly on page 2094 towards the end of the first paragraph, that are very anti-war.

            There were also places in which Thoreau encourages individualism. This can be interpreted through the Romantic elements and values he places on nature. Those who read his work Walden could see his hinting at the "I" in nature. His ideals seem like a very natural, even primitive side to civilization. He is even here concerned with the degradation of the natural environment, an idea that wouldn’t see a popular concern until the 20^th century. He also hits on the "I" in civilization. His "near- theme" of an alienated consciousness is a necessity in Romantic thinking. This allows Thoreau to romanticize the individual and his plight.

            Although he pleas for an individualist man, he urges them to unify for the greater good of society. This seemingly paradoxical way of thinking is quite an easy balance to achieve in his mind.

            There are definite moments of dialectic argument, which help to solidify the point. Page 2104, bottom paragraph shows the process. Thoreau asks himself here if he should just accept things the way that they are and live life as such, only to turn back and reassure himself. There are other examples of this method (page 2102, first full paragraph) throughout the work. He leaves with suggestions for government, society, and aspiring individualists at the close of his essay.

            I ended my presentation by putting forth the question of if Thoreau would argue still today. My answer was, of course, of course! On a comic note, I made a reference to his thoughts on voting, page 2096, last paragraph. "All voting is a sort of gaming, like chequers…with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting usually accompanies it…" He goes on to say that voting is pretty useless, considering that the characters of the voters are not taken into consideration, that if the popular selection is not "right" then voting has accomplished an evil.

            Lacy was the first to respond, asking if Thoreau was presenting both sides or leaning toward one. My answer was that he definitely took one side, using the other side as its own reason for not being the correct one. Lacy then commented on the interpretation and manipulation of texts for one’s own purposes.

            Lynn commented on the animal imagery Thoreau uses in comparing the government to beasts that bully its constituents around.

            Crystal interjected with the fact that there were persons, like Thoreau and many others, that refuse to pay taxes but want to use public roads, etc. My response was that Thoreau would pay a road tax, or any other tax, had he approved of its use, and the fact that there is always a middle ground approach to anything.

            Pam gave the final comment, plugging a book called Voluntary Simplicity, comparing Thoreau’s experience and thoughts to this work.