The transcendentalists (Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman) have had a major influence over me ever since I discovered them in American Studies in 11th grade. I will always remember feeling as though my soul had changed when I first read Emerson's Nature.
And for a long time, I sympathized with Emerson over Thoreau, even though, as my friends and teachers pointed out, Thoreau was the one who lived the transcendental creed, while Emerson's life was more traditional. I think one of the reasons I preferred Emerson was that I felt kin to him - we both dreamed of a different world but were too wrapped up in our books and papers to make change. There is a part in my favorite biography of Emerson by Phillips Russel where he talks of Emerson becoming sick due to "undigested books," something which has happened to me before. The ineffectual yet inspirational genius of Emerson is what drew me to him, even as I admired Thoreau's willingness to live out his principles.
As I have gotten more interested in politics and social movements, I have tended thus far to emulate Emerson - reading, writing, perhaps attending forums and speaking, but never leaving my comfort zone. The fact that I am now planning on attending and participating in a protest and a march tomorrow in Winston-Salem, NC still stuns and shocks me. I've gotten off work, RSVP-ed, and told people that I'm going - and yet part of me has little faith in myself. My whole life I've assumed that I'm only effectual, only "good for anything" in the classroom or in the library. I've never wanted to leave academia in any sort of way. But as I've read more about public intellectuals and as my feeling has grown stronger that academics, like all citizens in a democracy, have a responsibility to be a watchdog over their government and to strive to make the world a better place, I feel that I ought to venture out of my comfort zone and at least try to make a difference in a way that requires something out of me.
I'm writing this not to be self-congratulatory - I realize that I'm not doing that much. I didn't help plan the event, and I'm certainly no Rosa Parks or Bree Newsome. As an academic, I try to understand why some people are willing to step out of the comfort zones and protest and protest until change is made. Sometimes it's out of desperation; other times an extraordinary faith supports them. But I suspect that the bulk of people in social movements - those who sign up for emails, retweet religiously, and occasionally show up for large protests/marches - bear a psychological resemblance to me. They know change needs to be made and that these protests will likely be a catalyst for that change. They feel a moral obligation to help, but they really don't know what to do or how to get involved without making sacrifices. So they tag along when it's convenient.
Perhaps I'm being overly self-critical and extending that criticism to others. But as I reread Civil Disobedience for the hundredth or thousandth time, I can't help wondering if I can ever be like Thoreau.
And for a long time, I sympathized with Emerson over Thoreau, even though, as my friends and teachers pointed out, Thoreau was the one who lived the transcendental creed, while Emerson's life was more traditional. I think one of the reasons I preferred Emerson was that I felt kin to him - we both dreamed of a different world but were too wrapped up in our books and papers to make change. There is a part in my favorite biography of Emerson by Phillips Russel where he talks of Emerson becoming sick due to "undigested books," something which has happened to me before. The ineffectual yet inspirational genius of Emerson is what drew me to him, even as I admired Thoreau's willingness to live out his principles.
As I have gotten more interested in politics and social movements, I have tended thus far to emulate Emerson - reading, writing, perhaps attending forums and speaking, but never leaving my comfort zone. The fact that I am now planning on attending and participating in a protest and a march tomorrow in Winston-Salem, NC still stuns and shocks me. I've gotten off work, RSVP-ed, and told people that I'm going - and yet part of me has little faith in myself. My whole life I've assumed that I'm only effectual, only "good for anything" in the classroom or in the library. I've never wanted to leave academia in any sort of way. But as I've read more about public intellectuals and as my feeling has grown stronger that academics, like all citizens in a democracy, have a responsibility to be a watchdog over their government and to strive to make the world a better place, I feel that I ought to venture out of my comfort zone and at least try to make a difference in a way that requires something out of me.
I'm writing this not to be self-congratulatory - I realize that I'm not doing that much. I didn't help plan the event, and I'm certainly no Rosa Parks or Bree Newsome. As an academic, I try to understand why some people are willing to step out of the comfort zones and protest and protest until change is made. Sometimes it's out of desperation; other times an extraordinary faith supports them. But I suspect that the bulk of people in social movements - those who sign up for emails, retweet religiously, and occasionally show up for large protests/marches - bear a psychological resemblance to me. They know change needs to be made and that these protests will likely be a catalyst for that change. They feel a moral obligation to help, but they really don't know what to do or how to get involved without making sacrifices. So they tag along when it's convenient.
Perhaps I'm being overly self-critical and extending that criticism to others. But as I reread Civil Disobedience for the hundredth or thousandth time, I can't help wondering if I can ever be like Thoreau.