In class today we talked for a while about how we perceived Thoreau, especially focusing in on him through the lens of his work "Resistance to Civil Government". One student in the class brought up the point that they felt as if Thoreau was somewhat whinny and complaining about his lot. However, it was countered by the class that perhaps what he saw could more accurately be understood as smugness. Despite his . I feel as though I should like Thoreau. He is traditionally understood as one of those . In his essay he doesn't wish to prescribe to anything that he didn't sign up for himself. I feel that we, as readers, should take this to heart when considering his status as an overall "good" progressive thinker. Simply because history, somewhat of an institution, believes and considers him so excellent doesn't mean that we should automatically believe that. Instead we should leave him open for criticism to prove that disobedience isn't just to government.
After some interior deliberation I finally settled on the fact that I have conflicting views of Thoreau, especially in regards to his essay. Impulsively I feel I should worship what he sets forth, mainly because that is what I've been taught. I really have a problem with other people bailing him out. If he had been somewhere where he wasn't somewhat of a local figure people wouldn't have bailed him out and then he REALLY could have felt sorry for all the other people outside the jail for longer than one night. To me, I just feel like he is coming from a place of privilege that others don't have. He didn't travel. He was somewhat of a local figure. What he reminds me of are the types of people who can get away with various things on the local level just because they are somewhat "local celebrities". This privilege doesn't come from his monetary status but it is fairly undeniable that he has more acknowledgment in various social circles that have power-- think of the Henry Louis Gates case. If a "normal" person had been stereotyped would it have been as big of a deal... no.
I guess I just feel what he sets forward he does with too much ease. I would have liked to see what he had to say had his skull been cracked by a bludgeon, bitten by police dogs, sprayed with hoses, tear gassed, etc. like other protesters. He makes some pretty bold statements for a guy who simply gets locked in a comfy jail for the night and let out in the morning.
I got in a discussion about the "West" with a friend the other day. At one point in our debate he said that one of the characteristics of the "West" is people giving other people the space to do more or less what they want-- a more liberal view of freedom. However, I countered that it also seems that in the "West" freedom and individualism are supported AS LONG AS you have the same ideals of individualism and freedom that other westerners have. I guess I feel that the same criticism applies to Thoreau. He seems to be saying "Be and individual... as long as you do it the way I do it." This conditional freedom and individualism really, for me, leave a bad mark on his philosophy and writings.
No comments:
Post a Comment