Subject:
|
Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:07:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
282 times
|
| |
|
|
Hey guys,
I'm enclosing something I wrote for my English class, just a little food for
thought. It was to be based on a play, "The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail",
which I actually really liked (which, unfortunately, is a rarity for class
reading material). I chose what I found to be the hardest opinion to
actually *defend*, although it is the one most of us live by. This is
Emerson's part - he does not live his own ideals of civil disobedience, but
rather prefers to remain in his comfortable world of "warm toast and tea and
soft-boiled egg.... on a tray to bed each morning" (76). In the play he is
depicted as a bright man, but somewhat of a hypocrite. I did my best to show
otherwise. So, LMKWYT, or spark a discussion, by all means.
-Shiri
-----
Emerson’s View: Do What You Can Within Society’s Bounds
When a person believes a law is unjust, what should he or she do? Break
the law? Henry David Thoreau said that this person should, but his mentor,
Ralph Waldo Emerson, disagreed. In _The_Night_Thoreau_Spent_in_Jail_,
Thoreau refused to pay a tax in wartime, since he morally opposed the war,
and was consequently sent to jail. Emerson argued with Thoreau and tried to
convince him that acting lawfully, albeit persistently and patiently, is
better than breaking any law, unjust as it is. Thoreau was not convinced,
but I was.
I agree with Emerson, who believed that in order to make a change, one
must “work within the framework of our laws” (78). A person can make a
change without breaking a law, but by trying to change that law, and
changing public opinion about it. In Emerson’s eyes, the latter method is
much better; if everyone who felt a law was unjust would break it, our
society would fall apart. Breaking the law did not further Henry’s cause,
nor did it convince anyone else of its truthfulness. Emerson supported his
argument by telling Henry that if everyone acted like him, “a hermit
[sitting] off at a distance and [proclaiming] exactly how things should be”
(78), there would be no one left to take care of common necessities, such as
schooling children or putting out fires. Emerson felt that a reformer needed
to try to convince the majority, not go against it, in order to maintain
social order.
In the end of the play, Henry heard Congressman Abraham Lincoln speak.
Although Henry and Lincoln had similar ideas – opposing slavery and the
Mexican War – Lincoln’s methods were similar to Emerson’s. Lincoln cast his
influence in the existing political system, and later, as president,
succeeded to abolish slavery. He knew that breaking the law would not
further abolition, nor would it convince people of his righteousness or the
law’s unjust actions. Lincoln slowly gained power, and was patient with
reform. Working with the system instead of against it, he achieved more than
Thoreau, sitting in jail, could.
Another leader making a change within the system was Yitzhak Rabin.
Rabin, who fought in the Israeli War of Independence, later became Chief of
Staff of the IDF – Israel Defense Forces. He led the country to several
victories, both as a military and a political leader. But in the early
1990s, he changed course, and ran for Prime Minister with peace as his
party’s platform. Between 1992 and 1995, he signed peace treaties with the
PLO and Jordan. Rabin stated that he fought as long as there was no chance
for peace. His leadership was more influential than that of pacifists who
refused to serve in the army; their voices were rarely heard in public, and
the effect their actions had was minor. Rabin, on the other hand, worked
persistently within the existing system, and eventually made a change.
To Thoreau’s defense it may be said that when an unjust law is passed in
a dictatorial method, it may be appropriate to retaliate by refusing to
comply with the law. The Mexican War that Thoreau opposed in
_The_Night_Thoreau_Spent_in_Jail_ was one such action, and some might argue
that Thoreau was right in his actions. However, I believe that in most cases
Emerson’s doctrine is the best method. Acting repeatedly, persistently,
speaking out for a cause, and convincing people of its justice – all within
the boundaries of the law – are most often more persuasive and successful.
Just as Rome was not built in a day, a single act of civil disobedience will
rarely bring about major change.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
36 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
