Thoreau:

According to Henry Golemba, Thoreau disavows all native religion, values, and native heritage. Perhaps Thoreau relies on a higher authority. What might this authority be? As Carl Bode explains in his introduction to the Penguin Portable Thoreau, Transcendentalism declared a “high, unselfish standard of personal conduct” and a “belief in the supremacy of sprit over matter” (16). In class we discussed whether Thoreau is loyal to an idea of American individualism that might be conceived of as a “native” American trait – and by native here, I mean simply born of/on the land of the nation as opposed to aboriginal (not to say, obviously, that one cannot be both). So, referring to Golemba’s comment, does he disavow this “native” trait? Or some other “native” trait or belief system? Or does he reinforce or reinvent it? Or – to forecast an idea that we will consider below – is Thoreau inconsistent on this matter?

Following an idea of Golemba’s, how does Thoreau reinvent himself as an orphan? How is this perhaps an existential disaster?

“Resistance to Civil Government” was written after his stay in jail. He wants to sharpen American society, like an axe. What, exactly, about America and Americans does he want to “sharpen”?

Think about Thoreau as a Democratic aristocrat – he implies that any man can do what he did. He does impose “types” on everyone he comes into contact with? And, remember what we discussed in class – do you think that anyone can do what Thoreau did? Is his philosophy accessible to all Americans or, rather, the enactment of this philosophy?

A good article on Thoreau’s “Resistance to Civil Government” is Shawn St. Jean’s article “Thoreau’s Radical Consistency,” printed in the August 1998 issue of The Massachusetts Review. There are numerous helpful articles in addition to St. Jean’s (and I list a few below), however, I have drawn many of the following ideas from St. Jean’s essay.

Thoreau has been criticized by some for his inconsistency (as Jacques Barzun has claimed) and by others for his “remarkable” consistency, “however ideosyncratic” (Leonard N. Neufeldt).

According to Walter Harding, Thoreau’s essays reflect a “progression of increased resistance to the State as an institution” (qtd. in St. Jean, as with above). Discuss the shift – or whether you think there is one – from passive to violent resistance. As St. Jean asks, is this a progression or a regression? To answer the question of Thoreau’s inconsistency or consistency, St. Jean writes: "Therefore, modifying Harding’s concept, I propose that a moral coherence, if not a rhetorical consistency, emerges in Thoreau’s social thought and that this coherence is best demonstrated by his attitude toward violence throughout his canon of political writings."

Does “Resistance to Civil Government” endorse violent resistance? Where does the text provide support for such resistance, if it does?

The following passage of Thoreau’s, which St. Jean cites, seems to endorse passive resistance first but leaves open the possibility for violence: "If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible.... When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man’s real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now" (76-7).

St. Jean reminds us that to Thoreau, the “shedding of blood” also refers to the denial of ones conscience. For the Transcendentalists, “conscience and moral law were more real, certainly more binding and of more consequence, than human law” (St. Jean 3).

Comment on Thoreau’s implication of the North in the practice of slavery.

Consider Thoreau’s description of his experience in prison. Was his experience in prison restrictive physically, emotionally, or neither?

Thoreau writes, “Thus the State never intentionally confronts a man’s sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses” (847). What does sense have to do with nature? Refer to the quote at the top from Carl Bode regarding Transcendentalism and the “supremacy of spirit over matter.” Recall our class discussion regarding the distinction between sense and senses – sense refers to this idea of spirit. Senses, Thoreau implies, are baser, bodily. Thus, Thoreau elevates the spiritual, as it were, over the bodily. Think about this.

Finally, a word on Transcendental communities, which Richard referred to in class. Some have called Walden a Transcendental community of one, which it was. There were other experiments in collective Transcendental utopianism, such as Brook Farm, most famously, which operated in the early- to mid-1840s. Check out the Virginia Commonwealth University website on Brook Farm if you are interested:

http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/ideas/brhistory.html

Here are the names of a few more articles on “Resistance to Civil Government”:

Kritzberg, Barry. “Thoreau, Slavery, and the Resistance to Civil Government.” Massachusetts Review: A Quarterly of Literature, the Arts and Public Affairs 30, no. 4 (1989 Winter): p. 535-565.

Carton, Evan. “The Price of Priviledge: Civil Disobedience at 150.” American Scholar 67, no. 4 (1998 Autumn): p. 105-12