Henry David Thoreau and Marilynne Robinson could be
considered as “baffled humanists”, because both find themselves
in separated rooms—Thoreau in his hut next to Walden Pond in 1845,
Massachusetts and Robinson in her bed at home in 2011, maybe Idaho—to
think about humanity, society, and the sense of life. Considering
their dissimilar standpoints like century and time as well as place
and gender, they seem to ask the same questions: “What are we? Why
do we act as we do? And what has and will become of our society?”.
Thoreau takes the educational system under a closer
look and explains how students would achieve more education if less
money would be spent, for example for student housing. Further more
he claims if both sides—the students as well as the heads of
University—would organize themselves better, there would be a
greater achievement: an improvement of education and a reduction of
costs. In other words, following Thoreau's train of thought, if
students would shoulder more responsibility, they would value their
education more and would develop into better persons: “[...] they
should not play life, or study it merely, while the community
supports them at this expensive game, but earnestly live it from
beginning to end. How could youth better learn to live than by at
once trying the experiment of living?” (Thoreau 32).
Not how to become better persons, but how we can
live together in its best means, Marylinne Robinson introduces four
characteristics to achieve this state: “[...] [to] respect,
educate, inform and trust one another” (Robinson 5). However,
Robinson describes that society is in the process of “losing the
ethos that has sustained what is most to be valued” (Thoreau 5),
whereas Thoreau practically claims that society has already lost all
its ethics: “We now no longer camp as for a night, but have settled
down on earth and forgotten heaven. We have adopted Christianity
merely as an improved method of agriculture. We have built for this
world a family mansion, and for the next a family tomb” (Thoreau
24).
Nevertheless, there is another major difference in
the points of view of Robinson and Thoreau; Robinson seems to have
rather positive associations with her society and culture than
Thoreau. She describes that “Western society at its best expresses
the serene sort of courage that allows us to grant one another real
safety, real autonomy, the means to think and act as judgment and
conscience dictate” (Robinson 5). On the contrary, Thoreau as a
rather negative view on his society and criticizes various aspects,
for example his parents who cannot give him any valuable advice
(Thoreau 7), the worship for fashion (Thoreau 17), or the unnecessary
luxurious shelter we mean to have to build ourselves (Thoreau 22).
However much Robinson and Thoreau criticize society
generally and specifically, they are not willing to give up on it.
Both claim that if the people are only willing enough to care for one
another and live a self-conscious life humanity can achieve its best
characteristics. Thoreau says: “In short, I am convinced, both by
faith and experience, that to maintain one's self on this earth is
not a hardship but a pastime, if we will live simply and wisely
[...]” (Thoreau 44), where Robinson argues “[...] to let
ourselves be the reflective, productive creatures we are,
unconstrained and uncoerced. Eliminate the overwhelming cost of
phantom wars and fool's errands, and humankind might begin to balance
its books” (Robinson 11). Where Thoreau might be arguing on the
economic level, Robinson stays on the political level. However, both
deduce to concentrate more on ourselves to contribute to a better
civilization. Furthermore, it is interesting to realize that both
authors are actually talking about the same society.
1) Thoreau, Henry David. Walden.
USA: Reada.Classic, 2010. Print.
2) Robinson, Marilynne. “Night
Thoughts of a Baffled Humanist”. The Nation 8 Nov. 2011. Web. 21
Nov. 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment