LITR 4232:
American Renaissance
Student Presentation Summary
Thursday, 20 February: Henry
David Thoreau, 1669-1686 (introduction + "Resistance to Civil
Government")
Reader: Kristine Vermillion
Discussion Notes: Sandra Burkhalter
In my discussion we will focus on:
Objective One: To
use critical techniques of "close reading" and "New
Historicism" as ways of studying classic, popular, an representative
literature and cultural history of the "American
Renaissance" (the generation before the Civil War).
I have chosen this angle on Thoreau's "Resistance to
Civil Government" because it is rich in the elements prescribed in
objective three. This work is definitely both representative and
classical literature and is full of cultural history of our American nation. I
am most interested in using the critical technique of "New
Historicism" to evaluate this particular work.
For this "New Historicism" approach, I am referencing the internet-resource on the subject that we were given in class that listed four premises for this critical approach, but I am only going to have us look at three of the premises for time’s sake. For each premise I will offer an example from the text in order to evaluate it from this angle.
(http://www.sou.edu/English/Hedges/Sodashop/RCenter/Theory/Explaind/nhistexp.htm)
Premise 1:
Images and narratives do important cultural work. They
function as a kind of workshop (or playroom) where cultural problems, hopes, and
obsessions are addressed or avoided.
Text 1:
Page 1675 (starting in the middle of the last big paragraph)
"There are thousands who are in opinion
opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to
them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down
with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do
nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to the question of
free-trade, and quietly read the prices-current along with the latest advices
from Mexico, after dinner, and, it may be, fall asleep over them both. What is
the price-current of an honest man and patriot to-day?
They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do
nothing in earnest and with effect."
Question
1: Do you think
that the strong presence of history diminishes the literary significance of
Thoreau’s work?
Response to Question 1:
Deterrean Gamble opened the discussion by pointing out the importance of
historical context. For example, in order to understand the references to
Washington and Franklin, one has to be aware of their place in history.
Deterrean also drew attention to the fact that the term “price current” adds
a literary touch to the historical content. Robert Andresakis asked for
clarification on Kristine Vermillion’s comments concerning apathy. Kristine
explained that she was referring to the apathetic feelings of Americans toward
the issues that Thoreau raises in the text. Dr. White expanded upon this point
by showing how Thoreau’s work is located in the past, but the literary
qualities make it timeless. Kristine developed this observation into the
question, “If you locate this text in history and lock it into a strict
historical context, does the text matter anymore?” Laurie Eckhart suggested
that the text is a timeless classic able to enhance current issues that parallel
the issues of Thoreau’s day. Claire Garza acknowledged, “It spoke to me last
night.” Robert concurred by showing how apathetic feelings apply to today’s
issues. For example, during the 1960’s there was a strong and vocal opposition
to the Vietnam Conflict, but today very few people have an opinion about this
controversial event. Furthermore, when emotional feelings are considered, the
protests staged against the possible invasion of Iraq cannot compare to the
protests of the 1960’s. Dawn Dobson expanded upon this idea by explaining how
Thoreau beautifully blends generalization and concrete examples enabling the
reader to apply the text to any time period. Dr. White proposed the possibility
of Iraqi people in the future looking back upon such literature in light of a
possible invasion, just as we are examining it in the light of historical facts
such as the war with Mexico. Everyone conceded that Thoreau never satisfactorily
answered the question of apathy, but he did make all of us think about the
concept.
Premise 2: New Historicists argue that the best framework for interpreting literature is to place it in its historical context: what contemporaneous issues, anxieties, and struggles does the work of literature reflect, refract, or try to work through?
Text 2: Page 1673-74 (starting in middle of last full paragraph on the page)
"But a government in which the majority rule in all
cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there
not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong,
but conscience? -- Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree,
resign his conscience to the legislature? Why has every man a conscience then?
I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.
It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for
the right… A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is,
that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates,
powder-monkeys and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the
wars, against their wills, aye, against their common sense and consciences ….
Now, what are they? Men at all?
or small moveable forts and magazines, at the service of some
unscrupulous man in power? … The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men
mainly, but as machines, with their bodies."
Question 2: Even if we grant the historical background of slavery and war, and even if that knowledge deepens the understanding, how much is Thoreau’s “literary styling” inhabited by its historical context? How does it “transcend” its historical context?
Response to
Question 2
To open the discussion for this question, Kristine admitted that during her
first reading of the text she was caught up in the historical context and did
not notice the literary techniques used by Thoreau. Deterrean suggested that the
basis for American history in literature is found in the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution. However, these documents would not
have a significant impact on the reader or history without their literary and
poetical content which gives the reader a visual sense of the political issues
while, simultaneously, allowing the reader to transcend facts and figures.
Laurie extended this point by explaining that Thoreau also turned concrete ideas
into abstract feelings allowing the reader to emotionally transcend this text.
Kristine illustrated how the text has even more depth when other historical
events are considered such as the Trail of Tears.
Dawn speculated on Thoreau’s ideas concerning the conscience of each man.
She believes, in reality, not all people are governed by goodness; therefore,
Thoreau’s argument contains a subjective flaw. Deterrean finished the
discussion by examining the tension between individual issues and the demands of
the government concluding, “this is the struggle of [Thoreau’s] essay.”
Premise 3:
New Historicists also tend to stress that authors and poets are not
secular saints–that even though they may be more circumspect about their
societies than the average citizen, they nonetheless participate in it.
Consequently, New Historicist critics often point out places in artists' work
where their attitudes do not anticipate our own, or may even be distasteful to
us.
Question 3: Do any of you find something in this work particularly distasteful? What is your response to Thoreau's work?
Response to
Question 3
Kristine encouraged a response to the last question by asking if we
“wholeheartedly” agree with Thoreau. Corrie Lawrence pointed out the
incongruity of two passages. The first is a romantic discussion of the
“perfect state” envisioned by Thoreau, while the second is an honest look at
the realities of human nature. Corrie believes that Thoreau is exhorting men to
reach for a higher plane even though most will never go beyond the status quo.
Corrie maintains that this ideal is good but it is not plausible.
Deterrean criticized Thoreau’s idea of completely withdrawing from society.
For example, not paying taxes and denying personal responsibility. Deterrean
agrees that people must be true to themselves; nevertheless, they cannot ignore
their higher responsibility to neighbor and country. Robert succinctly added,
“[Thoreau’s] argument is self-serving.” Jennifer Davis called Thoreau
hypocritical because he criticizes the government but benefits from governmental
programs. She went on to say that if everyone tried to “buck the system [then]
total chaos would ensue.”
Dawn focused on Thoreau’s tendency to call himself a naturalist. She spoke
of his retreat in Walden Pond, yet Thoreau often had visitors. Jennifer
strengthened the argument by explaining that the cabin was not the most rustic
of places. It was also pointed out that although Thoreau was willing to go to
jail, he did not complain when someone paid his taxes for him. The ladies
concurred that Thoreau was not practicing what he was preaching.
Finally, Kristine expounded upon her own feelings of frustration. She
believes that Thoreau’s focus on the issue of slavery was too confining and he
should have addressed other pertinent issues. Robert concluded the discussion by
suggesting that Thoreau does not believe in the idea of a necessary evil.
Thoreau promotes the idea that there is only good and evil with no gradations in
between and society must eliminate the evil. Everyone agreed that this is not a
realistic view of life.
Text 3: Page 1675 (end of first paragraph) – A statement that … bothered me.
"But he
that would save his life, in such a case as this, shall lose it. This people
must cease to hold slaves, and to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their
existence as a people."
In 2001 Will Frith talked about the "dialectic"
nature of Thoreau's work. He postulated that this makes his work one that is
easily manipulated. This could be
noted by some as an undesirable/distasteful characteristic of "Resistance
to Civil Government."
Question
3: Do
any of you find something in this work particularly distasteful?
What is your response to Thoreau's work?