Of the three essays, I found “Self Reliance” to be simultaneously the most compelling and the one I found myself disagreeing with regularly. I admire his philosophy of independence and our need as individuals to break free from the past and our routine in order to achieve progress. However, I found myself frustrated with two of Emerson’s main points.
The first, which has been mentioned in other blog posts, is his stance on philanthropy. I recognize that political thought at the time is not what it is today, but his disregard for individuals who are struggling financially was obnoxiously blatant and ignorant. Specifically his question of “Are they my poor?” made me question his ability to have basic empathy for those in a different and less fortunate situation (239). Especially as he is someone who has been through the misfortune of losing his wife at a young age and then subsequently was able to quit his job and follow his passion because of the money he was left. I would expect that these two experiences would cause him to realize that other individuals may be going through difficult times and that having money makes your life significantly easier (and that not having money is not a moral fault).
The second issue I found within “Self Reliance” was his stance that consistency is an enemy to self reliance. I understand where he’s coming from, but I think he is incorrect that consistency is the issue. In my mind, consistency is often the basis for progress; our consistency in completing assignments and devoting time to study is what allows us to excel as students; athletes’ consistency in the gym is what allows them to improve upon their performance; spending time and effort on friends and family is what allows up to maintain deep and meaningful relationships. None of these things could be accomplished if we didn’t have consistency, and, I would argue, if we didn’t focus on and learn from our past mistakes (ex. if you do poorly on an exam, you can learn from that and change your study strategy for next time). Emerson argues that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” and that “with consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do” (241). While I understand his point that we can get stuck in the past and in our routine, resulting in us relying too heavily on others and our own consistency instead of investing in ourselves and progress, I still think having some consistency in your life is actually necessary for you to be able to progress in whatever your chief endeavor is. In this sense, I think he got too caught up in the extreme of denouncing consistency in favor of self reliance, when I think for the optimal effect the two must actually co-exist in order for true progress to be made.
You bring up key examples in your stance on Emerson’s view on consistency, and they made me think about how Emerson’s absoluteness often results in omitting details or contradictions. In my notes, I marked down the absoluteness of “This conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars” (240). Many of Emerson’s points take on an extreme, which I believe reflects how books of faith put forward a strong sense of absoluteness in the divine (the idea that their word goes). In this way, I think Emerson is trying to establish his authority (to his audience/in culture, possibly) through his sermon-like tone which is developed by his unwavering and bold stances. However, back to your post, there are some flaws in his reasoning and inconsistencies that break the strength in his compelling and confident writing and lead to a more critical review of his arguments.
I really like your point, Katherine–that Emerson creates a voice of authority by making extreme or absolute pronouncements, as though he has access to absolute truth. And these lead, as Sophia notes, to some rather strange claims. On consistency, note that he does say that a wise mind, pursuing truth, may make zigs and zags that look chaotic, but in the long run take a straight path, like a sailboat (242).