“Thoreau”ly Unconventional: Examining How Henry David Thoreau Differs from American Society

“I find it, as ever, very unprofitable to have much to do with men,” once said Henry David Thoreau: “it is sowing the wind, but not reaping even the whirlwind; only reaping an unprofitable calm and stagnation”. Such words portray a great distance between Thoreau and his peers. The statement serves as just a small glimpse into the lens with which Thoreau really chose to view his American society. The truth of Thoreau, which appears after additional examination of his works, is that he was not only different from his fellow men, but that he and his beliefs were wholly unconventional when compared to those of his society. When compared to the public, those who participated in the things that Thoreau struggled to accept, like institutions such as government or slavery, as well as when compared to those who practiced the hallmarks of the “American dream”, such as industrialism, the right to vote, and acquisition of wealth, Thoreau was altogether a man of divergence from many of the facets of American government and society. Ultimately, through Thoreau’s writing in “Resistance to Civil Government”, as well as “Slavery in Massachusetts” and Walden, this comes to light, as Thoreau ceaselessly exemplifies the contrast between his own line of thinking and the thinking of his American society.

In many ways, Henry David Thoreau was a champion of the unconventional. In a plethora of his works, Thoreau sets himself up as a man unwilling to conform to mainstream America. James Duban, author and professor of English at the University of North Texas, in “Conscience and Consciousness: The Liberal Christian Context of Thoreau’s Political Ethics”, refers to this “antimajoritarianism” seen across Thoreau. Duban explains how Thoreau’s love of individualism made him this champion of “a majority of one”, or a “wise minority” (211). Though Thoreau’s individualism works for him in some ways, the reliance on only a single individual makes it so that he is not a part of the larger group, the majority. This is what makes him an outlier, of sorts. Thoreau was unconventional in the fact that he did not care to adhere so strictly to American society. This idea of Thoreauvian non-conformity to mainstream America is also explored in “Standing ‘Aloof’ from the State: Thoreau on Self-Government”, an article written by Associate Professor of Political Science at American University, Ruth Lane. Lane says, “Thoreau seeks to give courage, not only to unconventional individuals, but to all who do not fit neatly into mainstream categories” (306). Here, Lane is specifically considering Thoreau’s Walden, yet this point about Thoreau could be sourced from nearly any of his works. Thoreau’s ideas about self-government make him an outlier, a man that does not conform to his greater “mainstream” society. This is best described by Charles Madison, when he says of Thoreau, “he found himself again and again rebelling against the claims and conventions of society” (114). Madison, in his article titled “Henry David Thoreau: Transcendental Individualist”, describes perfectly the relationship that Thoreau had with American society. Thoreau consistently rebelled against those things his society held dear, making him a champion of the unconventional.

Thoreau’s stark differences with the majority of the American public at his time is demonstrated, overall, by his rejection of specific practices of the society. Charles Madison summarizes this by saying, “he grew up questioning the mores and manners of his generation” (121). This questioning of his own led Thoreau to write works that largely condemn certain practices of his own generation. One of his most notable practices that Thoreau spoke out against was slavery. In fact, one main purpose of Thoreau’s “Resistance to Civil Government” was to condemn slavery, after he was placed in jail for a night, due to the fact that he did not pay taxes to a government that was proslavery (Norton 841). In addition, “Slavery in Massachusetts” also allowed Thoreau to express his thoughts regarding slavery and his state government. To Thoreau, the issue of slavery was largely a government issue, and his hatred for the practice was also intertwined with hatred for government. In his works, Thoreau clearly opposes the state and its institutions which many others placed their trust in. According to Madison, Thoreau exceeded even the loudest of the abolitionists, or the most loyal followers of Jefferson’s ideas, in this— the “extremity” of his stance against governmental power. Madison also writes, “to him, institutions were ‘the will of the dead’ to oppress the living…”, and Thoreau did not hold respect or acceptance for them (114). Not only did Thoreau lack respect for the American government, but he wanted to be distant from it. He urged his fellow citizens to do the same. In “Slavery in Massachusetts”, he says, “I would remind my countrymen, that they are to be men first, and Americans only at a late and convenient hour” (9). This strong opposition to government, this desire for distance from it, and from society’s institutions, is just an overview of how Thoreau’s idiosyncrasies set him apart from his fellow citizen.

One more specific avenue where Thoreau differs from American society is in his contempt towards industrialism and wealth. In a time with increasing innovation and advancements in technology, Thoreau was determined not to fall-in with this rapid advancement that was American industrialization. Madison highlights this in his article, referencing Thoreau’s dislike of the spread of factories (113). Continual push for advancement has long been a trait of the American people, as seen during Thoreau’s historical context of living amidst the industrial age. However, Thoreau seemed to possess a very un-American attitude towards industry and wealth, two hallmarks of the “American dream”. In Walden, Thoreau states, “our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which it was already but too easy to arrive at; as railroads lead to Boston or New York” (885). This view of advancement sets Thoreau apart from his people, who are a people looking to make progress through industrialization. Unlike the majority, Thoreau seemingly despised railroads, factories, and all manner of advancements. An example of this disposition is found in Walden, when he writes, “We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate” (885). Even the telegraph, for all its revolutionizing of communication, is just another enemy to Thoreau.

The lack of understanding of the “American dream” is also exhibited through Thoreau, when he argues against the acquisition of wealth. He actually goes as far to say that wealth renders one impoverished, because it makes men a slave to things (Madison 113). Even so, Thoreau’s view puts him in the very small minority. An iconic rags-to-riches story is all-American. Yet, a totally negative attitude towards wealth is abundant in Thoreau’s Walden. He writes, “love your life, poor as it is. You may perhaps have some pleasant, thrilling, glorious hours, even in a poorhouse” (Norton 931). The sentiment here is not something that aligns with the narrative of America—a place where anyone could strike it rich. Whether through the gold-rush, industry, or invention, those in Thoreau’s society could hope to acquire that very American dream of great wealth. Yet Thoreau does not believe people should hope for such. He asserts that citizens should be happy with what they already have, whether poor or not. He displays clear admiration for the trait of contentment, here, and generally, the advice is good on a surface-level. It is true, in some respects, that those who live a poor life can still hope to live a meaningful one, despite their situation.

On the other hand, America is a land of opportunity (at least for those like Thoreau), so his contentment is equally an enemy of advancement. Nevertheless, Thoreau charges readers of Walden to be “content with less” (Norton 877). His ideal life is one that is not concerned with wealth or possessions. Elsewhere in Walden, he urges readers not to worry about getting new things like clothes or friends: “Superfluous wealth can buy superfluities only. Money is not required to buy one necessary of the soul” (Norton 931). Again, Thoreau makes his stance on wealth clear; to him it is wholly unnecessary, though the American narrative of the importance of seeking wealth disagrees.

Another position where Thoreau opposes fundamental American ideals is in his refusal to vote. Though the history of voting is not always a history of freedom for all, the fundamental belief in right to vote is a main foundation of American life and culture. Thoreau, however, did not share this belief with his fellow Americans. According to Madison, the ballot was just a “political instrument” to Thoreau, so he simply refused to participate (115). In “Resistance to Civil Government” Thoreau makes his feelings towards voting well-known. Famously, he writes, “All voting is a sort of gaming… with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it” (Norton 846). Thoreau ultimately reduces the right to nothing more than a game of backgammon. He also asserts that participating in voting, because it is a right and a duty of the citizen that one treasures, is nothing more than a show of “feeble desire” to express that one wishes it to prevail (Norton 846). For Thoreau, voting bears no real weight on freedom. Furthermore, he believes there is no virtue in anything enacted by masses of men (Norton 847). Thoreau clearly struggles to accept desires if they come from a majority, as evident through his distrust in anything that comes from a large group. Furthermore, his refusal to vote is but additional proof of his divergence from society.

Not surprisingly, Thoreau carries a tone of “me” vs. “them” throughout his works. In “Slavery in Massachusetts”, Thoreau’s reactions to state government and fellow citizens showcase his own perceived distance between himself and his neighbors. Patrick K. Dooley, in “Thoreau on Civil Disobedience: From Pacificism to Violence”, points out how Thoreau was shocked by his fellow citizens’ actions towards slavery. Dooley explains how Thoreau struggled with his fellow citizens’ hypocrisy—they would “decry” slavery in other states, but they would be oblivious to the slavery in Massachusetts (182). Though Thoreau held contempt for the backwards ways of his neighboring citizens, Dooley points out that the source of the corruption of the citizen was, in Thoreau’s mind, ultimately the government.

According to Dooley, Thoreau had grown suspicious of the state and its “insidious” impact on the lives and reasoning of citizens (183). Thoreau, already distant from his neighboring citizens in Massachusetts, writes, “What should concern Massachusetts is not the Nebraska Bill, nor the Fugitive Slave Bill, but her own slaveholding and servility. Let the State dissolve her union with the slaveholder” (11). Thoreau, in “Slavery in Massachusetts”, charges the citizens in his local sphere to do better in recognizing the wrongs taking place in their own state. Whereas, in “Resistance to Civil Government”, Thoreau only referred to the institution of slavery in a broad sense, refusing allegiance to the overall country, here, Thoreau expresses separation from the government on a much-smaller level. Thoreau stands against his home state, writing, “show me Massachusetts, and I refuse her my allegiance, and express contempt for her courts” (12). Thoreau, as made evident in his writings, not only built a physical wall of separation between himself and the world in Walden, but he built a mental, metaphorical wall between himself and his government, and this is seen at one of its fullest stages in “Slavery in Massachusetts”. An ultimate reiteration is this: Thoreau’s divergence from ideals of American society appears in Walden, grows throughout “Resistance to Civil Government”, and fully rears its head in “Slavery in Massachusetts”, where he makes his contempt for his government, and his society, fully known.

Unconventional ideas, though sometimes celebrated by those on the margins of society, can also be dangerous, or they can, at the very least, be met with negativity. Beyond Thoreau’s circle, “Resistance to Civil Government” initially received negative feedback, due to the fact that it was alarming and radical to locals. The Norton Introduction to Thoreau explains how the essay was deemed “crazy” by many (842). This is no surprise, as the work did seek to criticize many ideals that America subscribed to. Additionally, the anthology also includes a snippet about the reader response to “Slavery in Massachusetts”, as well as reader response to Walden. Walden, the tamest in regards to radical ideas, luckily received a good deal of praise, especially from English novelist George Eliot. Eliot even considered the work beautiful (842). Though Walden questions certain values that Americans are known to hold dear, values such as wealth, it ultimately is a chronicled experiment that presented readers with a possible way to live. It was not particularly radical or demanding. Though the ideas expressed within can correlate to ideas found in Thoreau’s other works, Walden is not nearly as isolating as its premise would suggest. Of “Slavery in Massachusetts”, the Norton Introduction says that it was one of Thoreau’s most widely read works from his lifetime (842). One could speculate that the climactic tone garnered it this much attention. Even so, by the twentieth century, the tamest of Thoreau’s works had ultimately won-out. Walden had surpassed all of his works in popularity to become a masterpiece of American literature.

Ultimately, Henry David Thoreau expresses a wave of ideas that served to separate him from his society. He was wholly unconventional, especially when compared to the majority of the American public, and he struggled to accept many facets of the “American dream” such as industrialism, acquisition of wealth, and the right to vote. Thoreau also distanced himself from his society and his government, due largely to issues involving slavery. Between his works, readers see a Thoreau who eventually comes to reject both his federal government and his state government. Thus, through Thoreau’s writing in “Resistance to Civil Government”, as well as “Slavery in Massachusetts” and Walden, Thoreau overall exemplifies a wide contrast between his own line of thinking and the thinking of his fellow American citizens. Thoreau, though now an icon and an integral part of American literature, was not nearly so in-line with America’s ideals as one might expect him to be, based off of his respected legacy. The contempt of government, distrust of voting, negativity towards technological advancements, and dissatisfaction with wealth are all ways in which Thoreau is presented as a counter to America’s main ideals and values. Thoreau’s works make it evident that Thoreau was not compliant with American society, then, nor would he be now.

---

Works Cited

Baym, Nina, et al. “Henry David Thoreau: Resistance to Civil Government.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature, W.W. Norton & Company, 2013, pp. 843–858.

Baym, Nina, et al. “Henry David Thoreau: Walden.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature, W.W. Norton & Company, 2013, pp. 858–934.

Dooley, Patrick K. “‘THOREAU ON CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: FROM PACIFICISM TO VIOLENCE.’” Journal of Thought, vol. 13, no. 3, Caddo Gap Press, 1978, pp. 180–87, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42588709.

Duban, James. “Conscience and Consciousness: The Liberal Christian Context of Thoreau’s Political Ethics.” The New England Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 2, New England Quarterly, Inc., 1987, pp. 208–22, https://doi.org/10.2307/365606.

Thoreau, Henry David. “Henry David Thoreau: Slavery in Massachusetts” [PDF file], available from https://pdcrodas.webs.ull.es/culturas/ThoreauSlaveryInMassachusetts.pdf

Lane, Ruth. “Standing ‘Aloof’ from the State: Thoreau on Self-Government.” The Review of Politics, vol. 67, no. 2, [University of Notre Dame du lac on behalf of Review of Politics, Cambridge University Press], 2005, pp. 283–310, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25046412.

Madison, Charles A. “Henry David Thoreau: Transcendental Individualist.” Ethics, vol. 54, no. 2, University of Chicago Press, 1944, pp. 110–23, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2988876.