I was just reading through "Self-Reliance" for about the hundredth time and paused on this sequence:
It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.
If we can forgive the sexist language (I'm sure you noticed how Emerson associates brave nonconformity with masculinity and mindless conformity with femininity), perhaps we can take a minute to appreciate this three part statement. If nothing else it is a perfect lesson in how to use the semicolon, the most under appreciated of punctuation marks.
No, seriously, I like what he says here, because it puts into words something I've felt before. Living how the world expects you to live is relatively easy. If you know how to pick up basic social cues, it is easy enough act in ways that bring us into the protected fold of society. It is also easy, when isolated, to make thoughtful decisions about the kind of person you want to be. You can close your bedroom door and make your own personal mission statement and accompanying lists of values, virtues, and resolves (like Ben Franklin). But as soon as you take that list -- and those very individualistic notions -- out into the world, you start to feel the brute power of social expectation. Truly courageous people stand up to this tidal wave of expectation, dig their feet in mud, and insist upon their own visions of themselves. To use the language of the guy from this morning's assembly, courageous people are the ones who stand up. I'm not talking about rebellion per se, or even Rosa Parks type determination -- just the simple courage to be exactly the person you are or want to be. If you decide that most gossip is mean-spirited and hurtful, then have the courage to say something your catty friends -- or even walk away. Sometimes, in order to be true to yourself, you have to say things that create the kind of awkwardness in conversations that everyone seems to want to avoid at all costs. Later in the piece, Emerson suggests that we should speak our words as "hard as cannonballs," the exact opposite advice given to us by our good friend Ben Franklin. Cannonballs, of course, can sink ships, but in the end to have enough moral nerve to stand by an unpopular viewpoint can bring the kind of "perfect sweetness" that he mentions. Sweet!
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Cannonballs?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All-righty then! This is the frist time I have ever read anything by Emerson an i must say I really like his point of view and his ideas. This quote, as Mr. Harrington said, basically says that if you do what others do when you are around them and/or do whatever the heck you want when you aren't around them, then you live an easy life. These things are not difficult to do, and that's why you do them. He then says that 'great' men (or women) are the ones who break that mold and go by your own rules when people are watching you. What I believe he is saying, in layman's terms, is that if you have the 'chutzpah' to go out into the world and say and do what you want without thinking about or abiding by the 'norm', then you are a person to admire. The cannonball bit is also in conjunction to this. Emerson uses this analogy because, at the end of the day, it dosen't matter if you 'live by your own rules', if you don't have any kind of support to your ideas, no one is going to see you as anything more than a crazy person. It's the people who believe in what they are doing and do it 100% that give you cause to think, not the ones who are only in half-heartedly. So, to sum it all up, Emerson encourages people to think differently than the norm and to be loud and proud about it. =)
ReplyDeleteHi guys -- this is actually Ciaran's post not mine (she was having trouble posting it).
ReplyDeletemrh
"Evan, I agree with you about the 'chutzpah' and breaking the norm, but not with the cannonball idea. I think that if you live by your own rules completely, there is no way not to be frank with people. If you do not 'cannonball' your ideals, then you are not breaking the mold. By being gentle, you are trying to still conform with society and thus defeating the whole point. You can't go against the norm just a little. If you do, you have to go all the way; which Emerson, I believe, has accomplished. I also feel that Emerson's ideas are great and thought provoking, but somewhat unreasonable. What would happen if every high school student decided to go against the norm and not try to get into or go to college? If the college graduates decided to live in a forest rather than use their knowledge? If politicians just quit and left society without organization and rules? I think chaos would ensue. The great minds that Emerson pointed out, including John Locke, Martin Luther, and Benjamen Franklin, did go against thee norm and society but they also organized society with their own vision. Society works for a reason, organization is there for a reason. I'm not saying that people shouldn't not try to be themselves, but if everyone was Washington then there would be constant war and revolutions.
A small side not- I think it is kind of hypocritical for Emerson to degrade people who quote the Bible and live in the past so do not make their own path. The entire time he is talking about how people should not do that, he uses examples like Shakespeare and Washington to prove his point about individuality. But is he not looking to past to define his own actions? Also, if all people follow his rules of self reliance and non conformity to become great, good, and virtuous, will all people once again be conformed and will all people be great? If there were a hundred, or even ten, Washingtons, would we remember them at all? If everyone was great, would anybody be great at all? Just a thought..."
I agree with Emerson in that, the "Great man" is the one who does not conform to social standards. i agree with him because, in history, it has always been the people who have done the unexpected that have changed the world. Most people are content simply living by what is understood to be normal, that is why when someone comes along and challenges that idea and succeed. The idea of normal changes and people simply begin to follow the new idea of normal. I agree with Ciaran in that if everyone were to begin to challenge what is normal, chaos would ensue. But i don't believe that would happen because like Emerson says, only people with great courage can do what they want to do instead of simply conforming to society. And that is what, not only keeps us safe from chaos, but allows courageous people to establish new ideas and set new standards for what is normal.
ReplyDeleteI guess I agree with the above posts in their most basic sense, but I think everyone is being a little too black and white about the whole thing. Not conforming to social standards does not at all mean that you must revolt against society, quit your job, or not apply to college. Emerson is merely using people who have done such large-scale things as examples. His message is simply that each and every person should live by their own values and beliefs as opposed to societies'. If you find gossip unsavory, speak out against it; if you think your friend is bullying someone, stop them; all of these are examples of living by your own values, and notice not one of them involved a revolt. It is for this same reason that I don't find Emerson hypocritical. He is not "looking to past to define his own actions," as Ciaran put it, but rather giving the common person an example of what he means. When someone bases their life on the teachings of the bible, they are following the beliefs of a book written centuries before their time. Emerson is not telling himself or others to live by George Washington's beliefs, but rather to live in the style of George Washington, relying on one's own beliefs. There is mighty large difference there, a difference I feel is being overlooked in the above responses. All of that being said however, I think everyone more or less understood Emerson's main points. Personally, I agree with Emerson, it's easy to say that you live by your values, or even to actually do it when by yourself, but to stick to your own beliefs when society wants you to conform to theirs is perhaps the highest form of bravery. Oh, one more thing, as I just Evan's bit about the cannonball. Correct me if I am mistaken Evan, but it seems as if you are saying that Emerson means us all to not curtail our words and opinions, but rather to forcefully (in the figurative sense) put them out their for others to see and hear, in the spirit of the cannonball. I only say this because it seems that Evan and Ciaran are agreeing with each other, even though they might not know it. Both are saying that you can't be quiet and passive when going against the norm, you must be loud and aggressive, again, in the spirit of the cannonball. My sole intention of this last bit was to clear up th language a little bit, because it seemed that "What we have here, is a failure to communicate."
ReplyDeleteWhen Emerson said,"good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this." I think it is the same case for the word normal. Normal is just a definition that can change to this or that, based on the person, times or place. People take different words, like normal and concoct our own meanings for them.
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with Hank, there are very few people that have the courage that is needed to be the "great man". What really is normal? We have each concocted our own individual definitions of the word normal. We all, as a whole, judge the normality of others thoughts and actions. Sometimes without really even realizing it. We, are not quite sure what the "norm" really is, ourselves. But because of the worry of not being normal, we become jailed by self-conciousness, as Emerson put it.(in more fanciful words) Wanting to be normal and not "different" can keep a person in prison for life. Preventing people from becoming the "great man" and branching away from the "norm" and consciousness like Martin Luther and other known leaders did.
I agree with Emerson when he says that a great man can be himself/herself amongst others. Although it is probably good for us to conform to some ideas. I think Madison's idea on normality is very interesting. Two people can have completely different views on what normal really is. What Emerson is saying is that it is not good for someone to act like somebody else in order to be normal. Instead people should be normal by acting like themselves!
ReplyDeleteThere have been many great men in history that we can look back upon and wonder "how did they do it?" George Washington had all the odds against him, yet he rose as a military leader and eventually lead the colonists to freedom from England. If men like him hadn't existed back then, we would not be who we are now. George Washington was a rarity though, a person whose courage outweighs anything else, and in his case, he was the only person who could get the job done. Unlike Ciaran, I don't believe that we ever have to worry about large sums of people wanting to be overly different than everyone else. But, what we can expect is people wanting to make small differences to stand up for what they believe in. Like Matt, I believe that people don't necessarily have to be overly different to stand up for what they believe in. Sure, one might not get global attention for small-scale actions, but overall a person can get personal satisfaction. There are opportunities everywhere to stand up for what you believe in, but it takes a great person to take those opportunities.
ReplyDeleteEmerson's beliefs and ideas are very thoughtful and I believe a lot of people can agree on them. The main point of the quote is stating that if you only act like yourself when you alone and completely change your ways to do what everyone else is doing when you are with them, then you are not considered a "great man." By breaking the ice and showing the world, you are who you are and do what you do and don't care who's watching then you are the true definition of a "great man." Of course, doing this is not easy but if you are able to it gives you the feeling of strong and confident and living your life would be so much. By doing this task, people look up to you and admire you tremendously. No one follows someone who follows. Breaking the shell and becoming a leader is something I believe everyone should take part in because truly who has fun doing something everyone else does? Being normal is okay but being outgoing and doing what you like to do and showing the world is something to admire because it gives you the title of being free-spirited. In conclusion, Emerson is telling people to think outside the box and really show your personality and just be yourself, because thats what people remember. Doing the ordinary is never something exciting to talk about. Don't show them normal, show them different.
ReplyDeleteRalph Waldo Emerson raises many provocative ideas in his text "Self Reliance". The quote selected by Mr. Harrington focuses on an individual's ability to maintain their identity and personality outside of their comfort zone. Emerson proclaims a "great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude". However, I do not agree with this idea. Although I belive that individuality is a beneficial characteristic necessary for world development. I believe that a person should acknowledge when he or she is in public and adjust themselves to the occasion. For example, in a instance where the public has dramatically different ideas then you, some "Benfranlinesque" techniques to tone down your views would undoubtedly save you from a heated argument. Although I agree with a portion of Natalie's and Emerson's, I feel that a level of personal restraint is helpful in any instance and that it is possible to be a great man and share the worlds opinion.
ReplyDeleteFirstly I want to say that Nils is pure cabbage.
ReplyDeleteBut in terms of Emerson's beliefs, I am in moderate agreement with Kevin. Moderation is always a great way to be a more amiable and less confrontational person. One should only conform to a point though. There is a line that can be easily crossed when it comes to slightly altering your beliefs in order to preserve a friendship or avoid an argument, and changing your ideas completely in order to conform. You need to preserve a sense of individuality in these stressful situations and not break under peer pressure or so-called "mob mentality."
On a different note, I interpret Emerson's quote a bit differently. On a smaller scale it is necessary to believe in what you believe no matter what, but on a larger scale, say combating popular opinion, it seems nearly impossible to be truly unaffected by any outside influences. the people that we see in history that have done this are few and far between. Emerson's view is witty and worth significant thought, but the popular opinion carries much more power than people care to address.
I agree with Emerson in the belief that it takes a great person to stick to what he or she believes in the face of adversity or scrutiny. Anyone can just nod their head and mindlessly agree with someone else in order to avoid conflict or in order to avoid being judged by others because of your own "odd" opinion. While I am not encouraging people to start arguments for the sake of being different from the norm (though if you feel like you must though, then ofcourse then by all means do it) don't say you agree with something or someone unless you genuinely agree with it/them. In conjunction with what Madison said earlier, I believe that the societal norm is constantly changing, and what is odd or different from that norm today might become the norm of tomorrow. It takes courage for people to say what they really want to, without filtering themselves, so that their words will be better received by their audience.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that Emerson meant for people to be unaffected by outside influences. Instead, I think he meant for us to acknowledge the influence outside forces have and still choose to do what we want. Not changing our actions or our words to go hand in hand with what the rest of the world is doing/saying. And though popular opinion is definitly powerful, as in our country the vote of the majority determines the laws that govern us. It shouldn't be the scale by which we make our own life decisions, because at the end of the day when everyone else leaves you're the one who has to live with the decisions you've made.
patty your muff
ReplyDeleteHey, you guys really got it going here, although I don't know what Nils is talking about here above. Should be an interesting double tomorrow. Maybe we should read the blog posts out loud and then have some sort of Battle Royale debate. Or maybe not.
ReplyDeleteHere is Stephen's comment. He couldn't get it to post.
ReplyDeleteI am in a rather interesting situation here. It seems that most people have gone with Emerson's arguments. I full-heartedly agree with his arguments, so much so that I do not wish to agree with everyone else. Unfortunately I am not able to contort my opinions enough to do so. This makes me wonder if many of those agreeing with Emerson truly feel that way, or are they just taking the easy way out instead of forming their own opinion. This is also quite ironic because it is completely perpendicular to Emerson’s views of nonconformity. Playing devil's advocate can be somewhat entertaining and it is fulfilling to be one who is unafraid to state what many are thinking but can’t draw the courage to speak their mind. I find myself smiling while reading students' endorsements of individuality knowing full well they will never act upon this principle. I certainly do not see many people being honest with themselves about their true opinions. I challenge those who agreed with Emerson to pass on the next class shirt day, or realize you don't really care about that service club you joined and quit. I have been criticized many times for viewing things for what they really are. If one wishes to stand out from the crowd, he must realize that most things have ulterior motivates, and avoid those things covered in a shroud of contrived psycho-babble. Hey I managed to do it, agree with everyone else and disagree at the same time.
I believe that it is very important for people to differ from the norm. They do not need to be so different like Washington and go all out, as Ciaran said, but it is good to differ a little. If there is no difference in people, there is no individuality. The people who differ greatly from the social norm can change history greatly, and the world would not be the same without the people who went all out. But not many people go all out. People will just differ a little, and be themselves, and shape who they are. If everybody differs from the social norm, differing becomes normal, and everyone can be excepted despite their flaws. I agree with what Nils said about people having different views of normal. If everyone was normal, life would be boring. There would be no eccentricity. Everyone would live the same way. Life would suck. So I believe people can be normal, but if you want your life to be fun, you have to differ from the norm sometimes.
ReplyDeleteOh Ya Babe.
ReplyDeleteNormality is what yo make it to be, you can think of yourself as perfectly normal, but the person next to you can believe that you somehow escaped of an insane asylum. A strong sense of self is what promotes people to success, as Tom said, but you also have to stick to the norm to some degree. There are many things that are standardized, that people do not even think about questioning. Such as whether or not to wear your clothes today. Differing from the norm is not always a positive thing, because there are so many ways in doing so, and many of them can end up causing harm in one way or another. To choose whether to conform or to set your own standards can be a challenge, but there must be some internal debate or you end up being a mindless drone; doing other peoples wishes. You have to meet society half way, conforming to the most respectable of the norms, things that you do without even thinking about them, but also being an individual and be a trendsetter yourself. Using our school as an example, would you choose to wear dress code on a certain day, or be the person wearing jeans and a shirt on a Tuesday. While there are many choices in-between, the two serve as the norm and non-norm. With each being the polar opposite of each other, most people choose something in-between, meeting society half way as I said earlier. There is hardly ever total conformation for an action, but it happens in a similar manner.
ReplyDeleteHere is David's post:
ReplyDeleteIn this quote, Emerson basically says that the best man in one who knows what he wants out of life and will not change his mind because it is the norm. I agree with what Evan said about not being swayed by other people's expectations, but I don't neccessarily feel that you should go out of your way to "break the mold". Rebellion isn't the important part; the important part is determining your beliefs and goals, and sticking to them. By trying to rebel, in a way, you are letting society affect your beliefs.