Self-reliance is an essay written by Ralph Waldo Emerson in 1841. It considers themes of self-reliance, individualism, transcendentalism, critique of societal norms, rejection of external authority and tradition, non-conformity, criticism of materialism, intellectual growth, and intuitive knowledge. Ralph Waldo Emerson lived in an era when America was starting to assert its cultural independence from European influence and was one of the first philosophers of the ‘American’ perspective. He was a transcendentalist and had defined transcendentalism as idealism, the opposite of the rationality that characterized materialism. It was a belief in the will and desire of the individual.
Self Reliance | Summary & Analysis
Emerson starts the text with a short excerpt from a poem that highlights man’s significance in his being who commands everything as he wishes to and is in control of all that is around him instead of being controlled by those things. He defines the ability to speak one’s soul unfettered as a true genius. He exhorts everyone to trust themselves, every being was created by divine power, that nature resides within themselves and whatever they say should be their own words, not an imitation of anyone else. He argues that when people read the works of great men like Plato and Milton, they find their own abandoned thoughts, ones that they didn’t dare to say out loud.
He wants each person to return to the non-conformity of their childhood. Youth is reckless and often speaks without thinking of the consequences which leads them to give an honest, independent verdict. With advancing age, however, humans are tied down by the weight of their words and actions and their repercussions. This is what Emerson calls conformity, the cumbering of self with what society thinks, behaving according to what others think is appropriate. He hopes that man could return to the neutrality of youth. However, society, as he describes it, is a joint stock company, where each one surrenders their individuality for the betterment of the collective. He argues that societal consciousness develops as a jail, which limits the thoughts and merits of the individual. He goes on as far as to argue that even if one considers their own or someone else’s instincts to be devilish instead of divine, they still must follow it.
Emerson goes on to write about how men should not do anything just for the appearance of it. Charities and good work done only to show off do not make one virtuous. One’s life should be lived for oneself and not as a spectacle for others. Under every great work done for the show, the man himself gets lost. Goodness must be done for oneself, and every action taken for one’s integrity. One should learn ‘spontaneity’ which arises from intuition, the relationship between the soul and the divine spirit. Instead of following others, we should be firm in our genuine actions, even if it is scorned at present. It will be honored in the future, and the greatness will live on.
According to Emerson the first obstacle to individuality is adherence to dead forces. He is critical of people who believe in or live their life on the basis of norms of ‘communities of opinion’, where individuals adopt predefined mannerisms and appearances to accept and live by a certain idea of truth. He adds that non-adherence to such norms may lead to some resistance and ill-treatment, yet argues that such behaviors change like the wind and are inconsequential. In addition to societal norms, false inconsistency poses another barrier which may not be visible in the present, all inconsistencies will align. themselves into a greater meaning.
Emerson’s principal argument in the first section of the essay is a rallying cry for individualism. He argues that history can often be broken down to the biography of a few such persons who chose to speak their true thoughts believing them to be good and right. However, this also means that every man has the capability of doing the same and creating a newer design that posterity may follow. To people, older designs and grand structures like a tower or palace might have a forbidding air but it has to be remembered that it is our perception of the world that matters more and nothing will be overwhelming anymore.
Emerson is also critical of kings and interloping messiahs, who obstruct a direct relationship with God or nature. He also chastises men who instead of speaking their own minds choose to repeat the thoughts of others before them. He defines one’s intuition as divine wisdom and inquiry as the ‘essence of genius’. To him, the Supreme Being speaks to each individual fully and equally, and it must be followed so. He comments that man has become timid, and that instead of trying to learn from one’s past, they should look to nature- the leaf bud, the rose, the root, that stands upright and complete in the present. Strong souls must not pay heed to the ‘phraseology’ of the past and its geniuses. He calls the knowledge of the past a conspirator against the genius of the present. He highlights the fact that since God speaks to everyone freely and directly, if one follows their intuition, they are bound to follow what is good and true. He adds that power is the measure of right, and since no one has greater power over man than himself, man has the highest role in the construction of truth and goodness.
Emerson emphasizes that each person has to discover their own morality, one of transcendence. According to Emerson, society hates that moment of transcendence as the highest form of self-reliance, one which can only be gained through intuitive knowledge in opposition to tuition, that is, knowledge acquired through other sources (such as a teacher). He also highlights that an individual who seeks and evolves his intuitive knowledge grows in virtue and gains the power to permeate his influence to all animate and inanimate objects. Others who choose to not adhere to their true selves behave like a mob and are motivated by irrelevant problems like feelings of responsibility and other’s demands. Emerson asks individuals to prioritize truth and integrity over familial or societal responsibilities and demands. If the individual is unable to achieve self-reliance in a heavily conformist society, they are at least expected to call falsehood out, be it a family member or friend or relation of any kind. Ignoring conventional moral duties might lead to them being shunned by society. Thus, the process would not be easy. The achievement of self-reliance, the kind which Emerson describes, seems like a lofty ideal to be gained by a select few but tried by many.
In the last part of his essay, Emerson talks about America and its people. To him, the urban youth of America were lacking courage and backbone, to the point that a little setback in their lives caused them great disappointment as opposed to the country boy who tries out everything. The comparison between the city youths and the country fellow is to be expected given the quality of life Emerson traditionally assigns to each environment. Of no surprise is his favoring the bucolic life. He admires people like those who realize that it is in their hands to build the nation, not with conventional authority. The moment he tosses those customs out, he makes history and is revered.
He locates four primary problems in that day and age – praying for meaningless goals, unnecessary traveling, thoughtless imitation and a convoluted notion of improvement or growth. According to Emerson, praying for personal benefits is meaningless. Self-reliance means attaining oneness with God and then man would not have to beg for anything. Praying as a form of confessing regrets is also decried by him; faith in the individual self will surpass all the boundaries created by religions and philosophies. He also despises traveling because in his opinion, instead of looking outwards, to other cultures, America should look towards itself to rediscover its roots. Worse than traveling to him is imitation, which he calls traveling of the mind. He finds imitation pointless, since all great men according to him had no predecessors or teachers they learned or copied from. They simply followed their own whims and he exhorts others to do the same. He reinforces the idea that if one follows their heart, they will find and build greatness.
Lastly, Emerson offers a critique of the idea of progress. According to him, changes are continual and contradictory; even if newer developments are made, some older knowledge is lost. Society is in a constant state of growth and loss and he cites several examples to elaborate on the same, for instance, man may have built a coach to travel, but he has lost the aboriginal strength of his feet. His main argument is the point that everyone at all times exists in a state of equality, and no notion of inferiority that discourages people from growing and experimenting should exist.
Towards the end, Emerson also presents a brief critique of property and materialism. He considers reliance on material means such as property the same as one’s reliance on another’s intellect. According to him, men of knowledge should not take pride in property, especially that which is acquired by unfair means. He also presents a subtle critique of governance. He argues that institutions protecting private property, primarily governments, should also be done away with. In other words, he wants governing bodies and political parties to be done away with and individuals to rely on their own decisions. In a world with a multitude of people who are all different in their own way, there is every reason for an organized institution that collects the people’s voices and works to fulfill their needs, however imperfect it may be. In the essay’s conclusion, he asks men to prioritize their principles, that is, self-reliance and take risks to evolve his self, which will bring peace.
Self-Reliance | Socio-Historical Context
Emerson’s intense support for individualism may be located in several intellectual trends of the time he was writing in. Most importantly, Emerson was a pioneering transcendentalist. It was a movement that originated in the early decades of the 19th century in New England It first originated among liberal Congregationalists in New England, known as unitarians, who were critical of Calvinist and Puritan trends Later, however, due to increasing skepticism towards religions there was a critique of Biblical beliefs and notions of creation. Henceforth, the individual’s “revelation”—or “intuition,” as Emerson was later to speak of it—was to be the counter both to Unitarian philosophy. A crucial point was Emerson’s speech at Harvard Divinity School where he put forward the idea that while Jesus was a true prophet, he stood for the greatness of man and not his own greatness. While primarily a religious movement that was further developed and contributed to by other scholars, it was an important juncture in highlighting the individuality and significance of man.
Besides this defining intellectual current, the other important point of context is the developments in America at that time. Emerson’s ideas on self-reliance were influenced by the ideals of individualism and democracy that were central to American society. As the United States was evolving as a democratic nation, there was a growing emphasis on individual freedom, self-determination, and the pursuit of happiness. Emerson highlights the importance of continuous personal growth and self-improvement. He suggests that individuals should strive to expand their understanding of themselves and the world around them and to constantly refine their beliefs and values. He suggests that personal growth and progress often come from questioning and challenging established notions.
These ideals besides their intellectual value must be understood in the politics of the time, where there was an additional bent against European influence, from which official freedom had only been secured recently and the insistence on establishing a unique American identity. Emerson’s essay resonated with the American spirit of individualism and the desire for personal autonomy in thought and actions. This context becomes obvious upon reading the second half of the essay where Emerson seems to be focusing exclusively on America
Additionally, the United States underwent enormous social and political reforms towards the middle of the 19th century. Women’s rights, abolitionism, and school reform were all growing in popularity. In a similar framework, Emerson’s article can be seen as a call for people to stand up for their principles and convictions in defiance of conventional standards, promoting individual independence and autonomy. It also appears that throughout the essay, Emerson wants to convince himself as much as his readers, through constant repetition, of his concept of individualism. Perhaps, living in 1838 America, he was not quite sure of himself either. His speech about religion at the Harvard Divinity School had gotten negative attention and this essay was an exhortation to himself as well.
Through the last section of the text, Emerson constantly reiterates the idea that since knowledge is intuitive, it can be found within (herein he characterizes the within as the country of America and not the individual self), and does not need external help or influence. He extends his analysis of one’s self-dependence to a country’s independence and sufficiency. As mentioned earlier, this was the time when America was developing a unique and distinct cultural and political identity for itself, and Emerson as one of its earliest proponents pushed for an inward-looking approach to growth and development.
Self Reliance | Rhetorical Devices
Emerson’s text is laid with multiple rhetorical devices. He frequently uses allusions, to refer to past or distant events and personalities to exemplify his point. Usually, he’s referring to examples of great men who achieved great success simply by following their minds and not conforming to society. In the beginning, he refers to the likes of Plato, Milton and Moses who didn’t speak about traditions or books but rather about their own thoughts and perceptions. While making a point about how great minds are often misunderstood, even persecuted, but that isn’t reason enough to not pursue one’s intuition, he refers to Socrates, Jesus, Luther, Copernicus, Galileo and Newton among others. Referring to the possibilities of growth if individuals prioritize their intuition he quotes,
‘A man Caesar is born, and for ages after we have a Roman Empire. Christ is born, and millions of minds so grow and cleave to his genius, that he is confounded with virtue and the possible of man. An institution is the lengthened shadow of one man; as, Monachism, of the Hermit Antony: the Reformation, of Luther; Quakerism, of Fox: Methodism of Wesley; Abolition, of Clarkson. Scipio, Milton called “the height of Rome”; and all history resolves itself very easily into the biography of a few stout and earnest persons‘.
He also refers to kings who haven’t performed any acts deserving of their titular greatness and also of David, Jeremiah and Paul while reestablishing his point about how no matter the greatness of others one must follow their own path as the preceding greats did.
Emerson also regularly employs metaphors. He compares one’s character to an acrostic stanza, the difference between voluntary and involuntary acts to day and night (both are undisputed facts), the mindless following of norms to the role learning practised by children and a village boy who experiments with life to a cat who always stands on its feet among others. In his critique of thoughtless travelers, he adds that great minds ‘visits cities and men like a sovereign, and not like an interloper or a valet‘, in order to point out the fact one must consider themselves and their personal thoughts to be superior to outside influences or developments.
Another important literary device is personification. For example, at one point he personifies the eye as an entity which can see and make judgments accordingly.
‘The eye was placed where one ray should fall, that it might testify of that particular ray.’
An important element in the essay is his critique of society; he claims that society is always pressuring individuals to give up their originality (or ‘manhood’) and conform to norms, especially through judgements and ostracization. He gives society a human trait of intellectual activity wherein it plans and implements means to force individuals to confirm.
For instance, ‘Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members’ and ‘’It (society) loves not realities and creators, but names and customs’.
Seeking to drive his point quite forcefully, he also employs hyperbole. Extremely critical of imitation, he calls it ‘suicide’. He also describes the judgment meted out by society against non-conforming individuals as the work of a ‘thousand-eyed present’.
He also uses imagery, most importantly related to nature. He frequently conflates the ideas and thoughts of the self with the intuitive knowledge of nature. He also asks individuals to look at nature and understand individuality and confidence.
‘These roses under my window make no reference to former roses or to better ones; they are for what they are; they exist with God today. There is no time for them. There is simply the rose; it is perfect in every moment of its existence. Before a leaf-bud has burst, its whole life acts; in the full-blown flower there is no more; in the leafless root there is no less.’