is Preferable to Henry David Thoreau’s essay
"Resistance to Civil Government”
“The American Scholar,” and "Resistance to Civil Government,” are the writings of two great writers, who have made profound arguments in defense of their cause. Trying to choose one writer over the other is a daunting task; nonetheless, I must. Waldo’s writing is more developed and flows more smoothly than Thoreau’s; therefore, at this junction Emerson’s speech surpasses Thoreau’s essay, in plot structure, and supporting arguments; and this is the case I will argue.
Despite the fact that Thoreau’s reputation as one of American’s favorite writer, his essay contains several contradictions; and the essay lacks structure. In the very beginning, he agrees that the government that rules less is the best government; and in the same breath he says the government is best that governs not all. As the reader begins to agree with Thoreau’s defense of a government for the people and by the people, not a dictatorship; he switches from government to the citizens, “But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government” (Thoreau 1849). Although Thoreau expresses some valid points, he needs to stop jumping over his page. He needs to state his position, support it, and move efficiently from one idea to the next; not swinging back and forth like a pendulum.
“How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also” (Thoreau 1849). Thoreau is a maverick who would be against any government except his own. He truly wants his readers to disobey the law to get the government’s attention. He gives no thought to the repercussions. What will be government if it is not a “political organization?” A nation without government is worse than a nation with a dictatorship government. Rather than building up his plot from his theme, his plot seems to expand his theme; there is a constant interchange between his plot and his theme.
Emerson obviously thinks that the Harvard stage is a most fitting setting to deliver his speech; a place that is noted for excellence in higher learning. The time was right for the delivery of this speech; and his audience was an intellectual group. Clearly he expected to stimulate this crowd’s imagination. He begins his speech listing changes that are needed and relevant to the American scholar. As the speech develops, he gives instructions how to implement these changes. He hopes his audience will realize and agree with him that American has come of age and the ideal scholar needs to use her empirical knowledge to make new discoveries. Emerson hopes his speech would duly impress this group of intellectuals.
Emerson stays with his theme. To emphasize his belief, he uses an allegory. It is an ancient fable that tells the story of one man who was divided into several different men; each doing his part to create a better functioning society. However, as time goes on the subdivision of these men rendered a society that no longer concerns itself with the good of its citizen. The scholar just like the citizens has changed and become a “mere thinker” rather than a “Man Thinking.” Emerson rejects this type of scholar; the division should profit society as a whole. Emerson’s use of the allegory as an analogy to expound his theme was a brilliant decision.
Emerson knows that order is the utmost requirement for success. He compares the American scholar with nature. At first it seems that nature is wild and unpredictable; however, as maturity sets in, it begins to follow a direct path that produces mass reproduction and become the nucleus of the population. Using nature as a symbol demonstrates how the scholar if she applies herself and utilizes her brains, can blaze her own trail. Emerson displays appreciation for success of other great scholars nonetheless; he is convinced that the American scholar should not blight herself by staying in the shadows or walking in the foot-prints of other scholars who have gone on before her. In due time, Emerson wants the American scholar’s name in bright light; and be the one who other scholars will yearn to follow. Emerson wants change on the wings of scholarly enterprise; he is certain that the American scholar has the ability to become a great thinker and “one day be the pole- star for a thousand years.” Emerson’s juxtaposition of man and nature is to give credence to his belief that the mind is infinite; and its possibilities are endless. He leaves no doubt in the minds of his audience that the scholar can only succeed when she succumbs to order. And the American scholar will do well if she directs her life in the fashion of nature.
Emersion divides his speech into three segments; the scholar becoming autonomous; the scholar as a symbol of nature; and the scholar in action. He ays without action the scholar accomplishes nothing. Therefore, a head full of thoughts is useless; his ideas will never ripen into truth. Action in Emerson’s speech should be used to benefit the whole; as he states earlier in his allegory. Emerson does not promote selfish action; the action of the American scholar should be democratic. He ends his speech saying; “ The dread of man and the love of man shall be a wall of defence [sic] and a wreath of joy around all. A nation of men will for the first time exist [sic], because each believes himself inspired by the Divine Soul which also inspires all men” (Emerson 1937). And Thoreau ends his essay the way he began—bashing the government..
Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to
amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them
at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to
wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them” (Thoreau 1849).
Emerson and Thoreau, two of America’s most read literates, are intense in their writings. Their writings are the expression of their convictions and whether others agree with them, they have spoken. Whereas more people may have read and enjoy Thoreau’s essay, looking at Emerson’s speech through the eye of syntax, Emerson’s speech flows better and his transition from one idea to the next is effortless. Sometimes it seems as if Thoreau just writes what comes to mind without processing his thought.
Work Cited
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “The American Scholar.” (1837). web. 8 July 2012
Thoreau, Henry David. “Resistance to Civil Government. “ (1849) web. 8 July 2012
