I was thinking I should do a blog post on Ralph Waldo
Emerson since I studied his work so much as both an undergraduate and graduate
student in American literature, not to mention my affiliation with Unitarian
Universalism since 1979. “Self-Reliance”
seemed like the best known essay to take another look at. At the same time, Paul Ryan was being
nominated as Mitt Romney’s running mate and I was hearing a lot about Ayn Rand,
who I have never read. I started
wondering if there was any connection between Emerson and Rand besides being
known for promoting individualism. There
seems to be some discussion of whether Ayn Rand misrepresented Emerson in one
reference to him (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/emerson.html)
and others have compared the two (noting perhaps more differences than similarities).
Curious, I read an early example of Rand’s fiction, a
dystopian novella called Anthem,
which kind of reminded me of George Orwell’s 1984. Others have also compared
those two writers, again seeming to find more contrasts than similarities. Both Rand and Orwell are critiquing
totalitarianism, but Rand from a capitalist and Orwell from a democratic
socialist stance.
In Anthem, the
narrator, like all members of his collectivist society, refers to himself as
“We, “the first-person “I” having been expunged from the language. When, upon escaping from this society, the
narrator discovers manuscripts from an earlier age, he learns the word “I” and
promptly rejects the use of “We”: “I am done with the monster of ‘We,’ the word
of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood, and shame.” In the end, the narrator chooses “the word
that is to be my beacon and my banner…The sacred word: EGO.”
This radical individualism is strangely contradicted by the
narrator’s need for a lover and life partner, who is pregnant with his
child. One wonders if the word “we”
would apply to his family and what would happen to that unit if every member
truly placed “ego” ahead of family relationships. The narrator’s vision calls for him to invite
his “friends” to “follow” and join him in building a new future: “Here on this mountain, I and my sons and my
chosen friends shall build our new land and our fort.” Again, one wonders how one sustains
friendship if ego rules, and how successful this venture will be without some
degree of cooperation and communitarianism, not to mention governance.
Perhaps Rand’s answer would be that so long as
relationships, group affiliation, and communal “belonging” is chosen, then, of
course, ego naturally adjusts to that choice, but if it is enforced by
coercion, law, tradition, or obligation, then ego is bound to assert itself,
for true freedom means that “each man will be free to exist for his own sake.”
One passage in Anthem
particularly reminded me of “Self-Reliance.”
The fictional narrator states:
"I do not surrender my treasures,
nor do I share them. The fortune of my spirit is not to be blown into coins of
brass and flung to the winds as alms for the poor of the spirit. I guard my
treasures: my thought, my will, my freedom. And the greatest of these is
freedom."
In “Self-Reliance” Emerson similarly states:
"Then again, do not tell me as a
good man did to-day, of my obligation to put all poor men in good situations.
Are they my poor? I tell thee, thou
foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar, the dime, the cent I give to
such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong. …your miscellaneous
popular charities; the education at college of fools; the building of
meeting-houses to the vain end to which many now stand; alms to sots, and the
thousand-fold Relief Societies; though I confess with shame I sometimes succumb
and give the dollar, it is a wicked dollar, which by and by I shall have to
manhood to withhold."
Self-reliance did not prevent Emerson from suing his first
wife’s family for his inheritance and living with relatives after his resignation
from the ministry and a tour of Europe, though he did go on to make his own
living as a traveling lecturer and writer. Likewise, Ayn Rand, for all her
anti-government views, collected Social Security and applied for Medicare.
Perhaps a more thorough study of Rand’s works would reveal
more complexity, but Anthem offers a
caricature of the choice between individualism and communitarianism. The latter is reduced to complete tyranny of
society over the individual and the former is elevated to the absolute pursuit
of individual happiness, regardless of the expense to social cohesion and the
common good. One would think that a
devotee of “rational egoism” would have some appreciation for a moderate middle
ground, but, no, at least in Anthem,
it seems to be either-or.
By comparison, ‘Self-Reliance” is a study in intricacy and
nuance. For one thing, Emerson
distinguishes between the social self, formed by conformity to society and
consistency to the past self, and the “aboriginal Self,” which, unlike Rand’s materialistic
“Ego,” is part and parcel of the Universal Spirit or “Oversoul,” a concept the
atheistic Rand would not be able to countenance. Far from calling for the elevation of the
material Ego, Emerson calls for the liberation of that “aboriginal” spiritual
Self from the constraints of materialism and socialization. And it seems that when one is in touch with
that spiritual Self, one loses all individualism and participates in a shared
universal truth. Thus, whether you agree
with it or not, Emerson at least has a theory that would provide the basis for
communitarianism and social cohesion, a basis in human nature and shared understanding, not governmental power and social control.
In an Emersonian world, it seems, individuals would free themselves
from coercion, law, tradition, and obligation, not to mention their own false
selves, only to find common cause with each other in social relationships based
in authenticity, integrity, mutuality, and spiritual bonds.
Neither Rand nor Emerson show evidence of having any
understanding of systemic social injustices such as economic disparity,
inherited wealth or poverty, racism, sexism, ableism, or, perish the thought,
heterosexism. They seem to assume that
all individuals function on a level playing field with equal ability and
resources to assert their individuality.
No doubt the message of individual empowerment is important to the
economically disadvantaged and socially subordinated, but Rand fails to allow
for the role that material and social inequality play in individual opportunity
and achievement, and Emerson fails to recognize a relationship between material
well-being and spiritual power.
Though Emerson eschewed collective action, for fear it might
compromise his independence, he eventually became more active in the
abolitionist movement, suggesting perhaps that he did come to realize that (1)
the concept of self-reliance is pretty meaningless to a slave, and (2) in the
case of such material conditions as slavery, collective social action may be
necessary, not only to material but also to spiritual freedom.
Although Emerson used gendered language in describing
self-reliance as “manly,” he also supported the women’s rights movement,
describing it as “no whim, but an organic impulse…a right and proper
inquiry…honoring to the age.” One
wonders if Ayn Rand would acknowledge any debt to the collective women’s action
that earned her the right to speak in public, vote, and participate in the
political process, as she did when she worked on behalf of Wendell Wilkie’s
presidential campaign in 1940.
Where does this leave us?
It seems both Emerson and Rand’s lives and works are rife with
contradictions. Sometimes they seem to
be sounding a similar note, though overall their versions of individualism are
quite different, Rand openly espousing individual action based on “the virtue
of selfishness” and Emerson defining self-reliance as “self-trust,” more an
affirmation of self-esteem and self-worth than a rationale for the active
pursuit of self-interest without regard for the well-being of others.
Despite Emerson’s renunciation of the ministry, his
philosophy of individualism really has a religious and moral basis, whereas
Rand’s philosophy seems to be based on secular materialism and individual
self-interest.
Emerson seems to be asserting the value of one's individual self-interest as at least equal to that of others, whereas Rand seems to be asserting it as superior to that of others.
