Henry David Thoreau (On the Duty of Civil Disobedience) PDF

Preview

Summary

Henry David Thoreau- On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. American Literature I. UV...

Description

HENRY DAVID THOREAU (1817-1862) He was an American author, poet, philosopher, abolitionist, naturalist, tax resister, development critic, surveyor and historian. He was a leading transcendentalist best known for his essay “Resistance to Civil Government” (also known as “Civil Disobedience”), an argument for disobedience to an unjust state. In it, he argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. He was motivated by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican- American War (1846-1848). The two major issues being debated in the United States during Thoreau’s life were slavery and the Mexican-American War. Both issues play a prominent part in Thoreau’s essay. By the late 1840s, slavery had driven a wedge in American society, with a growing number of Northerners expressing anti-slavery sentiments. In the 1850s, the country became even more polarized, and the introduction of slavery-friendly laws such as the Fugitive Slave Law, prompted many abolitionists to protest the government’s actions via various forms of civil disobedience. (Slavery was only to come to an end a generation later when the abolitionist North would win the Civil War (1861-1865), Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation would free all slaves in Confederate territory; eventually, the 13th Amendment would ban slavery everywhere.) In addition to this domestic conflict, the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) proved a point of much contention: Precipitated by boundary disputes between the United States and Mexico, the war was ultimately fought in order to expand American territory—many Americans felt it was our “Manifest Destiny” to seize all the land we could--and as a result the United States gained much of the present American Southwest, including California, Nevada and Utah. Thoreau and other opponents of the war argued that the campaign constituted an unnecessary act of aggression and that it was pursued on the basis of arrogance rather than any philosophically justifiable reasons. PERIOD: Transcendental movement was the American version of Romanticism. Business and technology starting to overtake America (towards industrialism)

“On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” (1849) Thoreau's Civil Disobedience espouses the need to prioritize one's conscience over the dictates of laws. It criticizes American social institutions and policies, most prominently slavery and the Mexican-American War.

Thoreau begins his essay by arguing that government rarely proves itself useful and that it derives its power from the majority because they are the strongest group, not because they hold the most legitimate viewpoint. He contends that people's first obligation is to do what they believe is right and not to follow the law dictated by the majority. When a government is unjust, people should refuse to follow the law and distance themselves from the government in general. A person is not obligated to devote his life to eliminating evils from the world, but he is obligated not to participate in such evils. This includes not being a member of an unjust institution (like the government). Thoreau further argues that the United States fits his criteria for an unjust government, given its support of slavery and its practice of aggressive war.

Thoreau doubts the effectiveness of reform within the government, and he argues that voting and petitioning for change achieves little. He presents his own experiences as a model for how to relate to an unjust government: In protest of slavery, Thoreau refused to pay taxes and spent a night in jail. But, more generally, he ideologically dissociated himself from the government, "washing his hands" of it and refusing to participate in his institutions. According to Thoreau, this form of protest was preferable to advocating for reform from within government; he asserts that one cannot see government for what it is when one is working within it. Civil Disobedience covers several topics, and Thoreau intersperses poetry and social commentary throughout. For purposes of clarity and readability, the essay has been divided into three sections here, though Thoreau himself made no such divisions.

Thoreau believes that people should not participate in injustice but that they do not have to actively promote a more just world. What is the difference between these two concepts, and why does Thoreau make this moral distinction?

Thoreau sees a moral distinction between failing to prevent an injustice and actually causing an injustice. Consider an example. Thoreau argues that the United States' invasion of Mexico is immoral and that Americans who support the government with their person (as soldiers) or property (through taxes) are complicit in that injustice. He would further say that a person should go to jail rather than be responsible for that invasion. However, imagine a case in which another country was invading Mexico, but that by offering himself up as some sort of hostage and allowing himself to be imprisoned, he could stop that invasion. Thoreau would argue that while it would be perfectly moral to go to jail in this case, he would not be required to do so. As a human being, he may legitimately have other ends or goals that require him to be out of jail. It is not his job to promote the best world possible by any means necessary. All that can be asked of a person is that he not dirties his own hands with injustice. Once this requirement is fulfilled, each individual should decide for himself what to do with his life. This distinction is rooted in Thoreau's belief that individuals should look inward for how they should live their lives. A person's primary duty is to be true to him to act with integrity and to pursue personal moral goals. Is Thoreau's conception of civil disobedience compatible with democratic government? Civil disobedience is somewhat at odds with democratic government, but it can be argued that it is not fully incompatible with it. The tension with democracy is fairly obvious: democracy only works when a community is able to pass laws with the understanding that all will abide by what the majority desires. Thoreau completely rejects the idea that a person should ever compromise or tolerate a policy he or she did not want. While this is feasible in the case of a few individuals, if Thoreau's approach is generalized, then society would fall apart. However, there is still some sense in which civil disobedience is compatible with democracy. First, Thoreau is not advocating that people simply deny the existence of unjust laws. Thoreau says that protesters will likely have to pay for the consequences for their actions. This will force society to decide whether it is willing to have all of its just citizens in jail. And, if it is willing to allow this, then jail is the only place for good persons to be. Thoreau, then, does not recognize the moral authority of unjust laws (and he, therefore, encourages people to violate them), but he does accept their legal authority (and he, thus, accepts that he may be put in jail). Secondly, while Thoreau's principle is dangerous if universalized, it is much more benign if people are violating only unjust laws. For unjust laws are usually

themselves undemocratic. Unjust laws disenfranchise people or don't recognize due process or place unfair burdens on certain segments of the population. It is a paradox of democracy that democratic institutions can produce laws that violate democratic principles. It remains debatable whether this paradox undermines the democratic process as a whole. What is Thoreau's opinion on wealth and consumption? Why does he say that the rich are less likely to practice civil disobedience? Thoreau is highly critical of materialism and consumption. He argues that when people have a lot of wealth they begin to concentrate on how to spend their money, instead of on how they should live their lives. Secondly, rich people, because they have much more than most people, also have much more to lose by practicing civil disobedience. Furthermore, in order to be able to make money, a person must play along with the existing institutions. It is, therefore, much harder for the wealthy consumer to take a critical stance about the government. Thoreau's stern stance on wealth reflects some of his own values, most clearly seen in his exercise in "simple living" on Walden Pond. Thoreau was a supporter of a simple life lived close to nature and clearly thought that this lifestyle was most conducive to individualism and self-reliance. Thus, in his essay, Thoreau condemns a wealthy lifestyle because he believes it incompatible with civil disobedience but also because it goes against his own more general personal values. HENRY DAVID THOREAU VS. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN AND JAMES FENIMORE COOPER Thoreau’s autobiographical account and Franklin’s seem to defend opposite ideas. Opposed to the defence of hard work to increase your economic and material gains of the latter, Thoreau claimed that labouring man has no time to be anything but a machine. Concerning form, the former’s experimental and elaborated style clashed with the latter’s plain style. Together with Cooper, he defends a primitive and frontier life. Thoreau’s specific images and matter-of-fact voice and humour and sarcasm (i.e. impertinent) clearly contrast with Emerson’s abstracted images. Both showed no conventional religious faith....