Chapter 5 Transcendentalism in Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”
5.1 Historical Background
5.3.3 Inner Divinity: Conscience and Higher Law
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Besides distinguishing between physical and metaphysical coin, Thoreau also differentiates between substantial and spiritual taxes. Regarding his disobedience to an unjust law, Thoreau says: “I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax”
(161). Although he refused to pay the poll tax in the material world, he paid a spiritual tax in the immaterial world. By refusing to pay the poll tax, he disobeyed the state and risked incarceration; however, Thoreau prioritized spiritual duty, considering the penalty of physical taxation lighter than spiritual taxation: “It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State, than it would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case” (160). The price of disobedience to a secular authority is substantial money and temporary loss of physical freedom, but the cost of violating Higher Law is the decay of Inner Divinity. By disobeying civil law and following Higher Law, Thoreau pays his spiritual tax.
5.3.3 Inner Divinity: Conscience and Higher Law
Inner Divinity is a belief that everyone can be saintly and even godlike because everyone contains an inherent sacredness. In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau employs various rationales and examples to emphasize conscience and Higher Law, showing his faith in Inner Divinity. Conscience is a moral expression of Inner Divinity that exemplifies godlike humanity, discloses individual moral duty, and establishes conscientious communities; without it, people suffer from wounded consciences.
Thoreau compares the behavior of soldiers, officials, and heroes to emphasize that worldly reputations are not necessarily commensurate with conscientious behavior, asserting that conscientious citizens should always prioritize their consciences. On the other hand, Higher Law is the spiritual manifestation of Inner Divinity, encompassing law, tribute, and taxation on the spiritual level. Overall, conscience and Higher Law constitute the fundamental content of Inner Divinity.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5.4 “War with the State: Anti-Authority in “Civil Disobedience”
In this section, I examine Thoreauvian civil disobedience via the third principle of Transcendentalism, Anti-Authority – a political belief that putative exterior authorities are not worthy of complete trust. I discuss the three authorities that Thoreau distrusts: 1) governments, 2) institutions and 3) the mainstream. Thoreau is suspicious of government for its mechanization, dim-wittedness, and violence. He is skeptical of political, religious, and legal institutions because of their
self-centeredness, coercive tendencies, and unjust practices. He mistrusts the mainstream, composed of elites and masses (the former represents the dominant intellectual, and the latter symbolizes bodily influences). Even though these authorities seem to exist naturally in society, Thoreau challenges their legitimacy, arguing that these spiritless, exterior, and mandatory authorities are inferior to the spiritual, interior, and voluntary inner powers inherent in every human mind.
5.4.1 “Resistance to Civil Government”: Anti-Government
“Civil Disobedience” (1866) was originally published in 1849 under the title
“Resistance to Civil Government” – a title that clearly expresses Thoreau’s
condemnation of governmental authority. Thoreau expresses three main reasons for distrusting the government. First, the government is mechanized and it produces unpredictable frictions. Second, the government is half-witted because it lacks productivity, wisdom, and tolerance. Finally, the government is violent, tending to confront people by force. These flaws transform Thoreau’s optimism regarding the government into pessimism, leading him to distrust governmental authority.
5.4.1.1 “Stop the Machine”: Mechanized Governments
Thoreau argues that the mechanized government has two major problems that make it an unqualified authority: it exists as a result of human selfishness and creates
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
unstable frictions. First, ordinary people and politicians exploit the government-machine because it lacks “the vitality and force of a single living man” (145) and is
“liable to be abused and perverted” (145). Ordinary people love to hear the din of
“some complicated machinery” (145) to convince themselves that the government is working for them; on the other hand, “unscrupulous m[e]n in power” (147) use the government as “their tool” (145) and a “wooden gun” (145) to achieve their goals.
Thus, instead of being based on conscience, the government is established to meet people’s selfish needs, and people manipulate it as a spiritless machine. In addition, the government-machine produce unpredictable frictions that have both positive and negative consequences. When the government works well, the friction it produces needs not be eradicated because “all machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil” (149). However, when it works poorly, the government becomes a more frightening oppressor. If that happens, Thoreau suggests, “let us not have such a machine any longer” (149) and “[l]et your life be a counter friction to stop the machine” (155). He argues that dysfunction in the government-machine should prompt conscientious citizens to stand up and make themselves sources of friction against it. In short, because of its origin (selfish needs) and effects (unstable frictions), Thoreau distrusts the mechanized government.
5.4.1.2 “The State Was Half-Witted”: Half-Witted Governments
Thoreau contends that the government is not only mechanized but also “half-witted” (161) – unproductive, dull, and intolerant. First, Thoreau believes that the government does nothing productive for the state or its people: “It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate” (146). Indeed, the government is so impotent that, Thoreau claims, people can live well without it. In addition, he contends that the government is dim-witted because it cannot distinguish
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
“its friends from its foes” (161). For example, it treats wicked individuals as models but regards heroes as enemies. Finally, the government lacks a spirit of tolerance, especially when it comes to social change or intellectual wisdom: “Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority?”
(154). The government is so narrow-minded that it can hardly accept any positive innovations. Failing to undertake productive work and lacking both wisdom and a liberal mentality, the half-witted government is a poor model of authority.
5.4.1.3 “Your Money or Your Life”: Violent Governments
Along with mechanization and unintelligence, Thoreau argues that the violent nature of government makes it unfit for authority. The government tends to deal with people either through the threat of force or by force. Armed with a military and police force, the government can violently implement its goals and remove any potential obstruction. In Thoreau’s opinion, when conflicts occur between the government and the people, the government tends to deal with the problem physically rather than philosophically:
“Thus, the State never intentionally confronts a man’s sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength” (161-62).
By resorting to violence via its agents, the government achieves its ends. Take taxation for instance; Thoreau encapsulates the power of the government over human freedom in two phrases: “Pay it, or be locked up in the jail” (160) and “Your money or your life” (162). As someone who refused to pay tax, Thoreau personally
experienced the political violence of incarceration. The government does not try to understand dissidents; it only seeks to eliminate them by force. Such intimidation and brutality makes a government more like a bully than a valid authority. With its
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
habitually violent tendencies, the government, in Thoreau’s mind, deserves little esteem and has no right to exercise power over individuals.
5.4.1.4 Thoreau’s Shifting Attitude toward Governments
Thoreau’s night in the jail transformed his attitude toward government from hopeful to disappointed. In the writing that precedes his incarceration, Thoreau expresses optimism regarding the possibility of improved government and indicates that he regards himself as a practical thinker, not an anarchist: “Unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government” (146). While acknowledging the imperfect nature of government, he still thinks it remediable and wants it to help people. After his night in jail,
however, pessimism replaces such optimism in his work; he realizes that governments that resort to violence can never improve. Frustrated, Thoreau reveals the degree of his discontentment: “I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion” (165-66).
Moving from initial optimism to pessimism and disenchantment, he no longer believes in nor acknowledges governmental authority.
5.4.2 “Standing So Completely within the Institution”: Anti-Institution According to the Oxford English Dictionary, an institution is “an organization founded for a religious, educational, professional, or social purpose” or “an
established law or practice” (OED). This definition is useful in investigating Thoreauvian anti-institutionalism. In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau expresses distrust for political, religious, and legal institutions, criticizing them, respectively, as self-centered, coercive, and unjust.
Thoreau specifically links political institutions to self-centeredness: “Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it” (168). Constrained by the political system, politicians do not
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
inspect things objectively or challenge institutions critically; nor do they recognize the possibilities that exist outside institutions. Each institution is supposed to help
improve society, but, as time goes on, people inside such institutions become satisfied with status quo and increasingly narrow-minded, acquiring only limited experience of the world, which, in turn, leads to a state of self-centeredness. Thoreau thus uses political institutions to exemplify the institutional flaw of self-centeredness and support his position that institutions are undeserving of authority.
Likewise, Thoreau distrusts religious institutions as authorities and links them to coercion. Before refusing the poll tax, Thoreau also refused to pay a tax to the church in his local parish. Even though he never attended its services, the local church insisted that he pay. He rejected this, claiming: “I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society which I have not joined” (160).
Unwilling to take part in an institution he did not join, Thoreau criticizes the coercive practices of religious organizations, decrying their tendency to disrespectfully compel participation. Focusing on religious institutions, Thoreau highlights the flaw of coercion to support his argument against the legitimacy of institutional authority.
Finally, Thoreau also distrusts legal institutions as authorities and links them to injustice. He asserts that laws are not, by default, righteous:
“It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.
Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice” (147).
He highlights the law that allows slavery as an example, pointing out that following such an immoral law makes people complicit in injustice. Thus, Thoreau contends that institutions that appear public-spirited may undermine the public good, and that, given their propensity for producing injustice, legal institutions are not ideal authorities.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5.4.3 “Mercy of Chance”: Anti-Mainstream
In addition to distrusting governments and institutions, Thoreau expresses a dubious regard for mainstream authorities. I categorize mainstream authorities into two specific groups: 1) the elites who have the intellectual advantage and 2) the masses who have the popular advantage. Both groups believe that they represent the true mainstream.
5.4.3.1 “The Few Are Not Wiser Than the Many”: Anti-Elites
Thoreau distrusts the elites as the intellectually dominant authority. The elites tend to regard themselves as leading figures and qualified authorities in public affairs due to their educational, social, or political advantages. Thoreau provides an example of an 1848 Baltimore meeting, an event held for the selection of a presidential
candidate. The conference participants consisted of elite editors and politicians;
Thoreau expresses doubt regarding their capabilities, claiming that the attendees were no more competent than any other individual:
“What is it to any independent, intelligent, and respectable man what decision they may come to, shall we not have the advantage of his wisdom and honesty, nevertheless?” (152).
In terms of ability, integrity, and representativeness, Thoreau views the attendees as neither intrinsically superior nor inferior; the only difference is that they have the political networks and opportunities that others lack. External factors rather than internal factors determine who qualifies as elite. However, the elites tend to pride themselves on their wisdom while viewing those of lower stations as ignorant.
Thoreau challenges them, warning against their sophomoric mentality: “the few are not materially wiser or better than the many” (150). The elites are better positioned to determine opinion and the content of the intellectual mainstream and therefore tend to
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
brag about their influence; nonetheless, they are not necessarily abler, more
representative, or possessed of greater integrity than anyone else. For Thoreau, blind belief in the intellectual mainstream created by elite authorities represents a
significant hazard, and he remains suspicious of prevailing intellectual powers.
5.4.3.2 “Little Virtue in the Action of Masses of Men”: Anti-Masses
If the elites derive their authority from intellectual strengths, the authority of the masses stems from their physical or popular force. Thoreau distrusts the authority of the masses because its domination results from numerical advantage. In his writing, Thoreau uses the terms mass, multitude, and majority interchangeably. The masses dominate not because they are right or fair, but because they are “physically the strongest” (146). The most obvious example is the voting system, an apparently ideal fruit of democracy. Popular voting remains incapable of reflecting righteousness: “All voting is a sort of gaming, like chequers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong” (151). Based on the simple notion of majority rule, voting expediently decides public affairs, and its procedures become less about morality than about competition regarding which side has the greater number of supporters. In addition, no one knows the outcome before the result; voting is unpredictable, making itself a dubious means of decision-making. Thoreau asserts:
“Wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is little virtue in the action of masses of men” (151).
In other words, a person with an independent spirit would not passively count on the multitude and yield his rights to an unpredictable system. Possessing physical strength and louder voices, the masses do not necessarily act morally or in the interest of justice, which makes them a deficient authority.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5.4.4 Anti-Authority: Governments, Institutions, and the Mainstream