I am taking a political science class and we are studying Civil Disobedience by Thoreau. I find what he writes to be very true and I like the idea, but it seems that my teacher thinks it is wrong that a upper class white person came up with this idea. She slams him as being whiny and a hipocrate (sp?). She says that we should not consider Thoreau as the father of civil disobedience, but Ghandi. I find it hard to hear her say this, because he obviously comes up with this idea, and even if he never put it to use himself, that does not mean that him coming up with the idea is less valid than someone who appies it. What could i use to defend him. I realize he is a controversial person, so I put this in great debates, but am not sure where I should have really put this, so if you need to move it, feel free.
Ben
I’m not sure that Thoreau needs much defending from one teacher; Thoreau will still be around long after she’s gone. But I can understand your need to argue with her.
As I recall, Thoreau’s foray into civil disobedience was based on his refusal to pay a tax that went directly to support the Mexican-American War of 1848–which he considered an immoral war of conquest. In what way was this hypocritical?
Perhaps if you can give us more details of her argument–Why was he hypocritical?–we could sink our teeth into it more…
Well, he did spend that night in jail (before the anonymous lady–probably a relative–paid the poll tax, setting him free). He had, indeed, refused to pay the poll tax for a few years in protest of slavery and the War with Mexico. I suppose the fact that he allowed himself to be bailed out makes him a hypocrite to some people. However, Thoreau was not constitutionally prepared to be a firebrand or a revolutionary. He was a thinker and an essayist, and his night in jail satisfied him that he had made his point. It is possible to criticize him on this point without foolishly ignoring his actual thoughts on the subject which are profound and have motivated many people (at least in the second half of the 20th century).
Claiming people as the “father of” any idea or movement is always problematic, since each group and person builds, to some extent, on the efforts and thoughts of their predecessors.
One question to be answered would be: Did Gandhi know of Thoreau’s work, On Civil Disobedience? Or did Thoreau’s essay languish, generally ignored, until some time in the late 20th century. (I do not know the answer. If Gandhi read Thoreau, then Thoreau can at least be given credit as the god-father or grandfather of civil disobedience. I do know that he hung out with the likes of G.B. Shaw while in England, so an exposure to Thoreau is not out of the question.)
Satyagrahi, interesting username in light of the topic.
The reason she said he was a hypocrite was that he really didn’t follow through and get a movement going, thus he didn’t beleave what he himself wrote. Also she mentioned that he tried living off nature, and that he had to have someone help him out with building his house and farming techniques. (I just thought that the comment stooped to a new low for an arguement against someones writing). BTW, this teacher also doesn’t believe in reading Plato, Descartes, Machiavelli etc… so I don’t think that arguing my point will do much good, but its worth a try I guess.
Ben
Your teacher has expressed the old complaints against Thoreau that are generally lodged by those who have never studied him.
There is no question that he never set out to be a revolutionary and he did, indeed, receive “aid” in the form of food baskets from friends and family during his period at Walden Pond. However, his essays on self-reliance that emanated from Walden are accurate descriptions of most of his life during that period. Specifically, the Transcendental Movement proposed that humanity needed to change, but that the change needed to occur on the individual level. Accusing him of not following through by creating a movement when his basic thesis was aimed at the individual, not the group, indicates a pretty poor understanding of the man. (It is possible to view Thoreau as somewhat of a ne’er-do-well with nice ideas, but one should at least be cognizant of the wealth that is to be found in those ideas.) When he felt that he needed to exercise himself, he did–as shown by his activce involvement in the Underground Railway.
It sounds as though your teacher has been educated on the Cliffs Notes© version of literary history, so I would not worry too much about her opinion.
Remember that a lot of the educatonal process, at least where my experience has taken me, relies on you making your teacher look good, not in proving points. Prove your point, you stand a real chance of getting a not-so-good grade. You may find a teacher that is willing to have their preconceived notions challenged by a “mere” student, but I’m guessing, not. Swallow your pride, concede that your teacher is right, get a decent grade out of the class, and move on. Like t&d said, Thoreau will more than outlive your teacher. Take a lesson from Thoreau himself: Choose your battles wisely. Don’t rail against something insignificant you probably can’t change, instead save your energy for more worthwhile pursuits.
b.
Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience is revolutionary from an intellectual history standpoint in American thought, but it’s not really what anyone thinks of as far as really inventing Civil Disobedience in the sense of Ghandi (though I think Ghandi was himself influenced by the writing of Thereau, don’t forget that!).
The event of the taxes is way overblown by Thoreau (which is characteristic of most of his claims, though that shouldn’t overshadow their power), and the delightful tale about him and Emerson (“what are you doing in there Henry?” “Well, what are YOU doing out THERE?”) has no basis in fact (Emerson disapproved of his action, and wouldn’t come to see him).
It is not as politically inspiring as Ghandi is simply be cause it DOESN’T have much to do with actually changing anything other than yourself. It is merely the idea that one should not participate in something one disagrees with. It isn’t about about combatting the evil: it’s just a means of keeping oneself morally pristine so you can go about your way unpreturbed. It is, as has been said, about yourself as an individual.
As for his time at Walden, it wasn’t hermetic solitude, no. He lived right off the main road to Boston, entertained guests, and his family visited him constantly, at least every weekend. Its best to think of the solitude was not that he was totally alone, but rather as an attitude he himself was undertaking mentally during his time there.
Thoreau was a troubled man who was so devastated by the death of his brother (who he always considered more successful and loved) that he developed psychomatic symptoms of the disease that killed him. He lived almost all of his life outside Walden with his mother, and faced deep and crippling insecurities all his life. But these facts shouldn’t detract from his work: they might even enhance it in the full view. His troubles made him what he was, gave him the uneasy attitude that he needed to develop some very perceptive ideas about the nature of relating to oneself as an individual. And he came out of this with a powerful and influential work that is more important than whether it was really a very litterally accurate account.
Henry Thoreau was not a social reformer and in fact was part of the establishment.
While arguments can be made for or against Thoreau’s contributions to reform (several good ones were lost in the board crash), being a part of the establishment does not preclude one from being a social reformer.
Philip Van Doren Stern, in an introduction to “Civil Disobediance”, wrote:
Whether Thoreau had help building his cabin (he did, and wrote about it), whether he had visitors (he did, and wrote about it), and whether he went into town often (he did, and wrote about it) might have been important issues if Thoreau’s aim was to write a book on home economics or domestic construction. Or if Thoreau’s stay by the pond were some kind of reality show stunt.
But that’s not the point of Walden. All of his detailed explanations of how he lived simply in the woods for two years are only a preface for a higher purpose — to answer the objections of those so immersed in modern life (circa 1850s) they could not find time for contemplation of the more fundamental and eternal.
For a deeper understanding of Thoreau’s intent, read the book The Magic Circle of Walden by Charles R. Anderson
I am truly stunned and actually quite angry that there are evidently teachers like this out there. I had chalked up most talk of this kind to exagerations by my fellow conservatives on the topic of liberal educators. Apparently my optimism was unfounded.
Thoreau was a MAJOR influence on Gandhi and his movement in India, while I won’t say that it wouldn’t have happened without Thoreau I will say it probably wouldn’t have quite looked the same either. Unbelievable… doesn’t believe in reading Plato… mindboggling.
renigademaster, I remember reading that Gandhi was definitely influenced by Thoreau on civil disobedience, searched the web, but didn’t find much evidence. I sent this thread to Arun Gandhi (grandson of Mohandas), whom I’d met during his time at the University of Mississippi. He was kind enough to send this thoughtful reply, which clarifies the issue:
“Gandhi writes that he first came in touch with Thoreau’s book on civil
disobedience a few years after he started civil disobedience in South
Africa. He was very happy to know that an eminent philosopher like Thoreau
in a way endorsed what Gandhi was already doing. Gandhi felt vindicated.
He studied Thoreau more and then came across Tolstoy and his writings. But
after some years of experience in the field of nonviolence Gandhi realized
that “Civil Disobedience” was the wrong term because there was nothing
“disobedient” about seeking justice. So, he switched to calling his
movement passive resistance, borrowing the term from Tolstoy. Then he
realized there is much more to nonviolence and even passive resistance was
wrong because on cannot be “passive” in seeking justice. Nonviolence as he
conceived it was very active. So, he called his movement “satyagraha” the
Pursuit of Truth because that is what life is about. We must constantly
search for Truth if we wish to live a humane and civilized life.
Therefore, he came to the conclusion that nonviolence cannot be just a
strategy to be used when convenient. It must became a part of us, part of
our thinking, our attitude and our behavior. Over the years we humans have
built a culture of violence around us. This is apparent in the way we
respond to conflict and crisis. We are quick to resort to violence thinking
that violence is our nature. But violence is a learned behavior. We need
military academies and martial arts institutes to teach us how to fight. We
have not learned how to deal with our anger positively so we abuse our anger
and become violent – physically or verbally. Gandhi felt that it is within
our means to change this culture of violence to a culture of nonviolence if
we are committed to change – which is a part of life’s pursuit of Truth.”
Arun Gandhi
Founder Director
M.K.Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence
I would think this answer would be of interest to your teacher, and comes from an authority.
Many thanks to Arun Gandhi for a quick, illuminating reply. He continues to do his grandfather’s good work in Memphis, TN.
Curiosity compels me to ask: what are her reasons for not reading Plato and Machiavelli? I don’t care if they were both arrogant elitists who used kittens as soccer balls in their spare time, their importance in political theory can’t be denied. Does she refuse to recognize the importance of MLK, Jr., due to his marital infidelities, or of Bismark for his anti-Semitism?
(I think most of us had these professors in college incidentally; even if I agreed with their views, it used to turn me scarlet having to listen to them using their classroom as their own private Rosie O’Donnell show.)