Self-realization
Introduction
The idea of self-realization is highly controversial especially in an environment where external factors have a high potential of affecting one’s decision. Self-realization describes the aspect of accomplishment of the possibility of a person’s personality. This entails freeing self from social and institutional norms by assuming a liberal perspective that is informed by personal beliefs. Various scholars have critically evaluated the subject of self-realization by attempting to illustrate real life incidents that describe the practicability of this idea. However, these scholars have adopted diverse and contrasting perspectives while describing the concept. Some of the scholars who have raised strong arguments regarding the concept of self-realization include Melville Herman, Thoreau Henry and Updike John. Melville presented his arguments through his work Bartleby the Scrivener, Thoreau argued his views in the article Civil Disobedience, while Updike developed his position in his script the A & P. Melville’s work present an incident that highlights the challenges which characterizes the concept of self realization. In Melville’s view, economic factors define people’s chances of self-realization (Melville 32). In essence, Melville challenges Thoreau’s position that individuals have the potential pursing their dreams through self-realization by executing their beliefs and refusing to assume perspectives that contradict with their ideologies. The paper presents an argument that explores Melville’s views by relating them with the positions assumed by Thoreau and Updike with the intention of providing a clear overview of the concept of self-realization.
Thoreau tries to explain his understanding of society and the consequences of being isolated from it. The scholar believes on the possibility of the existence of freedom and self-definition. In essence, Thoreau campaigns for the pursuit of one’s dreams. He believes that a motivated person ought to realize his or her desires eventually, despite the challenges. Thoreau argument is strengthened by his ability of being aware and describing the challenges that people may face in the quest of pursing their dreams. Particularly, Thoreau’s work describes the significance of prioritizing one’s conscience over the formality of regulations. The scholar condemns the American social institutions and regulations, especially the Mexican-American war and slavery. Thoreau emphasizes the position that individuals have the capability of isolating themselves from unjust governments by failing to respect laws spelt by such authorities (Thoreau 1)
Thoreau introduces his argument by noting that government hardly justifies it significance. He observes that government mainly obtains its authority from the majority because they present the strongest group; however, this does not mean that the majority group has the most legitimate perspective. He argues that the people’s major obligation entails doing what they believe is appropriate but not observing laws that are spelt by the majority. In this respect, the scholar believes that people should refuse to honor the law and isolate themselves from government’s activities in a situation of an unjust government (Thoreau 1). The scholar promotes the perspective that a person in not entitled to commit his life in eradicating evils from the world, but he or she has a responsibility of not participating in such evils. This involves not being an affiliate of an unjust institution. Thoreau features his argument in the practical world by arguing that the United States qualifies his criteria of an unjust institution following its position towards slavery and it act of participating in aggressive war.
Thoreau lacks confidence on the idea of reform within the government, and he claims that voting and fighting for change has little success. In this context, Thoreau describes his own experiences as an effective strategy of relating with the unjust government. For example, the scholar is jailed for a night after failing to pay taxes while protesting against slavery. In essence, Thoreau ideologically isolated himself from the government and refused to participate in his institutions. The scholar believed that such protest was essential in advocating for changes from within the government. He claims that one can hardly notice the ills of a government if he or she continued working within it. Thoreau’s article explores various topics with the major one being people’s self-reliance. In this view, the solution to bad governance includes establishing a self-reliant society that emanates with individuals refusing to do what is wrong by distancing themselves from corrupt institutions (Thoreau 1).
However, Melville presents an incident that discredits the practicability of the Thoreau’s views. Bartleby’s predicament objects Thoreau’s argument because Bartleby can only fund himself by engaging in activities that that dehumanizes him. Bartleby identified the ills of the institution under which he is working (Melville 24). According to Thoreau’s advice, Bartleby is obliged to distance himself from such an institution. However, this is not viable since failing to follow the institution’s regulations meant serious detrimental consequences on Bartleby. Melville presents the implication of Thoreau’s perspective by developing the character Bartleby, who assumes Thoreau’s dimension. Thoreau’s views are questionable because Bartleby is eventually entangled in a regrettable situation in which he survives under the mercy of the same institution that he attempts to distance himself from.
In Melville’s article, the lawyer is astonished that Bartle has declined to examine the documents as per the state’s regulations. Bartleby failed to perform his duty without confronting the lawyer by simply stating that the he would “prefer not to.” Later, the firm receives another large document that Bartleby and his co-workers are supposed to inspect. However, when requested to conduct his duty, Bartley declines again. The lawyer pressures him with the intention of establishing the reason behind his habit, but he failed to answer him. He eventually decides to assume a simple self-approval by deciding to retain Bartleby on his staff just as a charity case. He retains Bartleby on mercy believing that he could hardly survive in any other organization with his habit. Consequently, Bartleby remains employed in chambers for some time while doing nothing (Melville 29). Bartleby’s fate is not desirable since he only survives under the mercy of the lawyer after falling to follow the laws of an unjust institution. In this context, Melville simply rejects the idea of existence of freedom and self-definition described by Thoreau.
Updike’s article describes the idea of self-reliance by explaining how economic factors dominate chances of its realization. The scholar explains the situation under which Sammy decides to quit his job because of his boss’s habit. Sammie encounters with the three girls who appeared in the store with the bathing suits. While enjoying the experience with the girls, Lengel appears where he ridicules the girls warning them that they were not in beach. The girls try to explain, but Lengel is not convinced as he asks Sammy to make the girls pay for their snacks. Sammy is annoyed by the action that he vows to quit his job; however, Lengel warns him such a move would entirely ruin his life. Eventually, Sammie quits his job, but thinks hard of the challenging life that awaits him after his action. The incident highlights acknowledge the position of the economic factors dominating chances of self-realization as stated by Melville. However, Updike introduces a new perspective towards the effect of these economic factors by indicating that individuals may often disregard aspects of economic factors while in pursuit of self -realization (Updike 1).
The lawyer in the Melville’s article highlights an example of a person who conforms easily out of fear. Melville indicates that the lawyer becomes confused concerning Bartleby’s habit that he is worried that he might be wrong. Although he is certain of formalities, he seeks opinions of other copyists on Bartleby’s habit. Surprisingly, the lawyer eventually concludes that a personal aspect in Bartleby prevented him from assuming his duty. The lawyer is forced to request other workers to examine the documents in the absence of Bartleby (Melville 37). He watches Bartleby closely and eventually pities him by concluding that his actions are involuntary. The lawyer understands what is right, but he conforms by embracing Bartleby’s habit out of fear. In this context, the lawyer loses himself by falling to stand and work hard to realize his position. The lawyer is afraid of assuming a wrong perspective. He embraces Bartleby because he is uncertain of the reasons prompting him into his habit. This means that the lawyer present low degrees of self-realization.
Conclusion
Following the presented situations, it is evident that self-realization is a contentious concept that need to be accessed with a broad mind. Individuals may have the freedom and ability of the self-definition described by Thoreau; however, the practicability of this perspective is questionable. From a critical point of view, Updike’s work presents views that bring Melville and Thoreau arguments into a consensus. Furthermore, economic factors dictate a person’s chances of self-realization, but this may not always be the case.
Works Cited
Melville, Herman. Bartleby the Scrivener, An Electronic Classics Series Publication, (2012). Print
Thoreau, Henry. “Civil Disobedience”. Web. 30 June 2013 http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/WALDEN/Essays/civil.html
Updike, John. A& P. Web. 30 June 2013 http://www.tiger-town.com/whatnot/updike/
