The Nature of Nature 2019

I have been openly critical of Henry David Thoreau in the past. I have called him self-centered, egotistical, and judgmental, and I stand by these statements. However, I will admit that there were two sentences in his essay, “Economy,” that absolutely floored me.
“The finest qualities of our nature, like the bloom on fruits, can be preserved only by the most delicate handling. Yet we do not treat ourselves nor one another this tenderly” (Thoreau 116).
This excerpt comes from a paragraph in which Thoreau discusses the tragedy of “the laboring man,” saying that “the laboring man has not leisure for a true integrity day by day; he cannot afford to sustain the manliest relations to men […] he has no time to be anything but a machine” (Thoreau 115).
In this paragraph, Thoreau concisely addresses what I consider to be the male side of the tragedy of western patriarchy. In the process of distributing power unfairly to men, the patriarchy not only forces women to become powerless, but also forces men to become their power; rather than complete human beings with sensitive, multifaceted emotional lives, men are molded into unidirectional forces, seeking power, status, and wealth above emotional fulfillment or self-realization. As Thoreau says, the patriarchal man “has no time to be anything but a machine.” In fact, while Thoreau’s statement about “the manliest relations to men” may seem patriarchal in today’s vocabulary, the relations that Thoreau is referring to are, in actuality, close, personal, emotionally fulfilling platonic relationships between men. The patriarchal man has no place in his life for such relationships; emotional closeness and openness between men risks much-feared accusations of weakness and homosexuality from their peers, often followed by rejection and ostracization.
In the last sentences of the paragraph, Thoreau delivers a crushing blow to the heartstrings. “The finest qualities of our nature, like the bloom on fruits, can be preserved only by the most delicate handling. Yet we do not treat ourselves nor one another this tenderly.” This is the true tragedy of the patriarchal man: the tenderness he deserves from others, he is refused, and his only remaining option is to deny himself tenderness as well, and to even deny that he desires tenderness in the first place.

I am not a fan of Thoreau.  That is no secret.  Prior to this class, I had not read any of his work and had no opinion on him whatsoever.  Now that I have had the chance to read some of his work, I find his writing to be self-contradictory, his tone to be condescending, and many of his points to conflict directly with my own beliefs.  That being said, I felt a greater challenge for me would be to find a passage that does not irk me.

This selection is from the first paragraph of “The Village.”

“As I walked in the woods to see the birds and squirrels, so I walked in the village to see the men and boys; instead of the wind among the pines I heard the carts rattle.  In one direction from my house there was a colony of muskrats in the river meadows; under the grove of elms and buttonwoods in the other horizon was a village of busy men, as curious to me as if they had been prairie dogs, each sitting at the mouth of its burrow, or running over to a neighbor’s to gossip.”

I found it particularly interesting because of the comparison between what he thinks of as nature and what he thinks of as society.  When I think of nature, I also think of the aspects of nature that can be found outside of nature.  There are sounds all around us that reflect nature, whether intentional or not.  Water runs from a sink.  Birds herald the rising sun.  Wind rustles the leaves, and it also rustles the flag atop a flagpole and makes the wind chimes sing.

 

One of the passages that I found fascinating in Walden is when Thoreau was discussing how he and his guests used the space around them to facilitate conversation.

“In my house, we were so near that we could not begin to hear,- we could not speak low enough to be heard; as when you throw two stones into calm water so near that they break each other’s undulations. If we are merely loquacious and loud talkers, then we can afford to stand very near together, cheek by jowl, and feel each other’s breath; but if we speak reservedly and thoughtfully, we want to be further apart, that all animal heat and moisture may have a chance to evaporate.” (pg 220) 

He kind of uses the idea of space that is opposite of how people would usually use it. He says that talking in low tones requires people to be further apart in order to give space for the idea and for all of the distractions to dissipate. However, louder and more vibrant conversations need to take place in a confined space. 

However, even though it is counter-intuitive, his reasoning sort of makes sense because sometimes when people are having a serious conversation, being in close proximity to people makes them feel pressured and more confined. Also, when people are really exuberant and happy, they sometimes like to be closer to people so they have energy to feed off of.

Thoreau, using the same technique that he does throughout the book, also frequently speaks of conversation as a physical, animated object which makes its own use of space that more interesting.

This guy really grinds my gears. I don’t know if it is how conceded he is, or if it is the fact that he is a decent writer at times in spite of his head being stuck firmly betwixt his own cheeks. The section that particularly yanks my chain comes from the beginning of Visitors.

“I think that I love society as much as the most, and am ready enough to fasten myself like a bloodsucker for the time to any full-blooded man that comes in my way. I am naturally no hermit, but might possibly sit out the sturdiest frequenter of the bar-room, if my business called me hither.”

On one hand I hate every second of this reading, not only for the hypocrisy that is present in this book about being isolated but on the other hand I extremely hate this passage because he knows how hypocritical it is of him to say this. And lastly I hate it because It is such a good image of what social situations frequently feel like to me.

 

Damn you Thoreau

“As I drew a still fresher soil about the rows with my hoe, I disturbed the ashes of unchronicled nations who in primeval years lived under these heavens, and their small implements of war and hunting were brought to the light of this modern day. They lay mingled with other natural stones, some of which bore the marks of having been burned by Indian fires, some by sun, and also bits of pottery and glass brought hither by the recent cultivators of the soil” (Thoreau page #222).

I found that this quote resonated with me more than I would like to admit. I find it interesting that Thoreau would not only find some sort of reference to the Native Americans but to then describe the remaining artifacts that they left behind. This gives me reason to believe that this passage has more to do about time than it does about the Native Americans. This passage melancholically describes the rise and fall of civilizations and that people may be killed or displaced but their works will remain on Earth. The Earth spectates the changing boundaries of nations and peoples but even if entire civilizations are burnt to the ground, their evidence lays true to the remnants that toil the soil. Even the wording of the broken remains leave the reader with some sort of sorrow for the lost debris like, “mingled” and “ashes”. Certainly, this gives the reader a reason to believe that this is not an observation of random items but a statement on the human’s insignificant time on Earth and its consequences.

“I had gone down to the woods for other purposes. But, wherever a man goes, men will pursue and paw him with their dirty institutions, and, if they can, constrain him to belong to their desperate odd-fellow society” (244).

This quote, following Thoreau’s arrest for not paying taxes, is telling of his perspective on human society. Though Thoreau is not opposed to having some visitors at his cottage, even if he would prefer to be alone most of the time, he does not wish to be a formal part of society. Instead, it seems he would rather interact with people and avoid the constrains of society, living on his own and not contributing to a state whose morals he disagrees with. That the state will not allow him to live alone on his own terms gives him great contempt for this entity that seems opposed to him. I wonder if Thoreau’s perspective is that other men should do the same and avoid paying taxes and participating in society. If all people were to do this, then the state would not be able to exist. Is this what Thoreau wants? Or does he consider himself an exception to societies rules due to the way he lives?

In economy, there is a section that sticks out to me. After detailing the money he spent on materials to build his temporary house on Walden, he has a strange aside. Thoreau writes: “I intend to build me a house which will surpass any on the main street in Concord in grandeur and luxury, as soon as it pleases me as much and will cost me no more than my present one” (149). It is not intrinsically problematic, though it exists in sharp contrast to the minimalism that  Thoreau promotes up until this point. The same, it is interesting that he is so invested in one-upping his fellow man.

To add insult to injury, Thoreau on that same page provides reasoning for his boast: “If I seem to boast more than in becoming, my excuse is that I brag for humanity rather than for myself…” (149). Throughout class, I and my fellow classmates have expressed issue we have with Thoreau’s often arrogant tone. It is comforting that he is self aware enough to address this but I do not think that his reasoning is is sufficient. I don’t see how Thoreau’s boast about his wealth and carpentry skills does not somehow include all of humanity–just him.

“Ancient poetry and mythology suggest, at least, that husbandry was once a sacred art, but it is pursued by irreverent haste and heedlessness by us, our object being to have large farms and large crops merely.”

In this passage, Thoreau states that the human desire for more has basically ruined the sacred art of husbandry (farming). This passage irritates me because Thoreau himself had a bean-field whose rows added together was seven miles long, as stated at the beginning of the chapter called “The Bean field”. Personally, this passage reminds me of the most famous parent saying ever, “do as I say, not as I do”. Thoreau states that we shouldn’t have these big crop fields, even though he has one.

“When I think of acquiring for myself one of our luxurious dwellings, I am deterred, for, so to speak, the country is not yet adapted to humanculture, and we are still forced to cut our spiritualbread far thinner than our forefathers did their wheaten. Not that all architectural ornament is to be neglected even in the rudest periods; but let our houses first be lined with beauty, where they come in contact with our lives, like the tenement of the shellfish, and not overlaid with it…[describes natural materials]…With a little more wit we might use these materials so as to become richer than the richest now are, and make our civilization a blessing. The civilized man is a more experienced and wiser savage. But to make haste to my own experiment.” 142

This passage peaked my interest and also caused slight frustration the first time I read it. It is a snippet from Economy, nearing the end of Thoreau’s discussion of western style houses/shelters. In this section, he argues against the building style of his neighbors saying that it is too ornamental and that the expenses associated with the style are too great. As an alternative, he turns to the buildings of Native American peoples (he is very general about who he is addressing) and seems to praise them for their use of natural building materials and the structure’s functionality. This distinction he makes between the two styles makes it clear that he values frugality, functionality, and authenticity when it comes to architecture (or really anything).

The way that he talks about this subject also highlights his positionality as a white, male, middle class, American. Throughout the discussion he refers a lot to ideas of progress, especially where it concerns notions of modernity, as though some people have “progressed” and others have stayed stagnant. He of course praises this more “simple life” (actually just romanticizing and generalizing a whole diverse and dynamic ethnic group and their culture) and then to make matters more complicated, he states, “the civilized man is a more experienced and wiser savage.” Hence he seems be trying to understand and appreciate a culture that is not his own, but is unable to fully comprehend his own ethnocentrism and the impact it has on this analysis. In total, this whole section says a lot about the times that he was living in, his worldviews, the values that he upheld in his life, and his ideals for a better society.