Capitalism, Heresy and Henry David Thoreau
The question of identity, the “who am I?” that lurks around the corners of every decision we make, begs an answer in all reaches of life. In the dawn before societies were formed, before humans started agreeing to agree with one another for their common well being, that question probably demanded little consideration. It was most likely overshadowed by more pressing questions like, “Can I eat this?” or “Is it ever going to stop snowing?” But with social cooperation, those issues gradually began to take care of themselves, opening the door to the bigger ones and causing a great deal of confusion.
In Western culture today, the questions of survival are largely abstract. And while “who am I?” may seem to be abstract, as well, it is actually one that is answered for us before we even realize we are asking it. In a capitalist society, the answer to the question is simple: you are what you do. We all remember the innocence of childhood, where dreams are not fallacies but simply plans, and there are endless answers to the query, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” We are raised with the understanding that to do is to be, and the occupation you choose will come to define the person you are.
With the equation figured out, it seems necessary only to fit ourselves into it. But if this were the case, society would be as stagnant as the equation itself, a self-feeding system that is satiated in getting only what it asks. History proves that society is not stagnant, but moveable, changeable, and capable of progress. That progress is a result of those negotiators along the way, who have taken that equation and inserted additional factors, not simply giving to society what it asks, but asking more of society, pushing it to a new place.
Henry David Thoreau was one such negotiator, preceded and followed by countless others. As his friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson, eulogized the man, “It cost him nothing to say No; indeed, he found it much easier than to say Yes.” (Emerson, “Thoreau,” p. 240). Thoreau’s ability to say ‘No,’- No to the established social order, to “the way things are,” to the equation that appeared to be a given- afforded him the ability to say ‘Yes’ to himself and his own drives. With that ‘No,’ Thoreau could be anything he wanted to be. And, in doing so, he not only changed himself and his own condition, he changed the order he so readily rejected. Once Thoreau revealed that the common mode of living was not the only mode of living, he made change possible within that mode, for anyone to later walk through and negotiate for himself.
The Equation
German sociologist and political economist Max Weber provides a helpful perspective on the system in which Thoreau finds himself an unwilling participant. Prior to his famous Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which will draw for us a clear picture of the Western capitalist system, Weber writes in his “Definition of Sociology,” (c. 1987), of a term he calls “nomological knowledge.” He defines this term as, âÂ?¦the general, overarching and normative knowledge to which we relate all our thinking, actions and experience, and in which these must all be incorporated if things are to seem ‘right’. . . . It contains, in various degrees of development, a world-view, notions of God, the cosmos and nature, manifold ideas of regulation and chance, of what is acceptable or unacceptable, true or false, tried and tested or dubious.
It is this network of knowledge that we are all born into, which defines, in a phrase, “the way things are.” In 1905, Weber sought to understand why thing were the way they were in Western capitalist society. For those born into the system, their mode of working may have seemed the least bit extraordinary, but to Weber it was a curious anomaly that defied man’s nature. While it seems expected that man should work as much as he has to, taking his cues from his survival instincts, in fact the Western capitalists lived by working as much as they could. Of this “peculiar ethic,” Weber writes: “The summum bonum of this ethic, the earning of more and more money, combined with the strict avoidance of all spontaneous enjoyment of life, is above all completely devoid of any eudaemonistic, not to say hedonistic, admixture.” (Weber, “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,” p. 53).
In Weber’s description of this “Capitalist Spirit,” he reveals its subjectivity by commenting on its distinction from other value systems. It is devoid of eudaemonism, a system of ethics that values actions based on their capacity to produce happiness, as well as hedonism, the ethical theory that pleasure is the highest good and proper aim of human life. Within the ethical system of capitalism, “Man is dominated by the making of money, by acquisition as the ultimate purpose of his life.” (Weber, “The Protestant Ethic,” p. 53).
Capitalism is not just an economic but also an ethical system, one that assigns value and therefore determines purpose. This duality is essential to its influence in the question of identity. If acquisition is the ultimate purpose in life, then yes, you are what you do, and you are only as successful as your ability to acquire proves. Furthermore, you are obligated to use your abilities to make money if you are to be considered a valuable part of society.
According to Weber, it is this ethical system that makes up much of the nomological knowledge of Western and particularly American culture. As he writes, “The capitalistic economy of the present day is an immense cosmos into which the individual is born, and which presents itself to him, at least as an individual, as an unalterable order of things in which he must live.” (Weber, “The Protestant Ethic,” p. 54). Such is the equation of work and purpose, and conformity to this standard, whether you are aware of it or not, is a prerequisite for success. Before your innocent mind can even consider the dreams of, “What do you want to be when you grow up,” you must accept that to work is to be. Furthermore, you must accept that the value of your work must be measured in dollars and cents.
The Heretic
In the teachings of Kabbalah, an ancient school of Jewish mysticism, the role of the heretic is to root out the institutionalized notions of God, those perpetrated by the churches and synagogues of established religion. Heretics obliterate the conceptualized in favor of a purer, untutored understanding of the divine. It is said that, “When this condition persists over several generations, heresy inevitably emerges as cultural expression, uprooting the memory of God and all religious institutions.” When the institution is a social one and not a religious one, the heretic may be harder to recognize, for he is not the man uprooting a notion of God but the very notions by which you may conceive of God- the notions by which you think; the values by which you live. The heretic of topic here is Henry David Thoreau.
Thoreau’s heresy lay in his refusal to accept the “immense cosmos” identified by Weber- the spirit of capitalism and its inherent value system. While Weber assumes that the system is so deeply set and the machine so well oiled that no one may cause friction within it, Thoreau is a testament to the minute force necessary to produce a rift in its workflow. Thoreau did not reject the idea of society, just as the heretic doesn’t necessarily reject the notion of God. As Thoreau himself writes, “âÂ?¦instead of studying how to make it worth men’s while to buy my baskets, I studied rather how to avoid the necessity of selling them. The life which men praise and regard as successful is but one kind. Why should we exaggerate any one kind at the expense of the others?” (Thoreau, “Walden,” p.12) What he did was reject the institutions of society where they failed him. He said No to what it asked of him and set out to determine instead what he would ask of himself.
During his two-year experiment, Thoreau reaches a critical understanding about law. After all, what is society if not a set of laws- rules both said and unsaid- by which its inhabitants are expected to live. By distancing himself from society, Thoreau quickly learns that there are the natural laws by which all life is ruled, and to these the rules of society are a far second.
Whereas Weber asserts that the system drives men to act as they do, Thoreau proves that this is only a condition and not a necessity. And his conclusion is thus:
It is not for man to put himself in such an attitude to society, but to maintain himself in whatever attitude he find himself through obedience to the laws of his being, which will never be one of opposition to a just government, if he should chance to meet with such. (Thoreau, “Walden,” p. 208-209)
Thoreau’s reference to the “laws of man’s being” is a declaration of individualism, that man is ruled from within- from his nature and the natural order of life- and not from without. He holds these laws as supreme and divine, qualities to which society should aspire, if it is to be just. According to Thoreau, the true individual, who obeys the laws he finds within him, is the example of justice and rightness.
The coercion and compulsion of social values Weber describes is a result of man’s obedience to the laws of his society, the unspoken laws of the capitalist spirit, over those of his being. As Weber discovers in the experiments of raising wages (Weber, “The Protestant Ethic,” p. 61), it is not natural for man to work as much as he can. Thus, in the capitalist system, man has been trained out of his nature to accommodate the system and not himself.
What Thoreau calls for is the inverse of this condition: to train society out of its nature to accommodate the individual. When Thoreau refuses to pay his taxes as an act of civil disobedience against the state’s support of slavery, he is quite literally saying ‘No’ to society to show his disagreement with its rules. Of the event, he writes, “It is true, I might have resisted forcibly with more or less effect, might have run ‘amok’ against society; but I preferred that society should run ‘amok’ against me, it being the desperate party.” (Thoreau, “Walden,” p.111) As Emerson has said, it cost him nothing to say ‘No.’ But Furthermore, his ‘No’ cost society something- it forced society to acknowledge his disobedience and to respond to it, thus causing a rift in its system.
During his experiment at Walden pond, with the distance it offers from society both literally and figuratively, Thoreau finds this individualism. He realizes the laws of his being and obeys them, despite their friction with society. But in his ‘No,’ to society, Thoreau does more than just change himself. He changes the rules. He beats a new path- not that others might follow in the trail he makes, but that they might recognize this ability to forge a path where before there was none. While the friction of one man against the whole machine of society may seem miniscule, it is the awakening of choice that allows for one man’s ‘No’ to become monumental. And as he says, “The symbol of an ancient man’s thought becomes a modern man’s speech.” (Thoreau, “Walden,” p. 67). That is, his singular accomplishment at Walden is a testament for anyone who may come across it.
Thoreau’s question is not, “What do you want to be?” It is, “What do you want to do?” And what else do you want to do? To the question, “What do you want to be?” his answer would probably be along the lines of, “Why would I want to be anything other than Henry David Thoreau?” Thoreau’s writing asserts that you do not have to aspire to be something, as society would have you believe; you already are.
WORKS CITED:
Weber, Max. “Sociological Writings.” Edited by Wolf Heydebrand, published in 1994 by Continuum. (republished @ URL: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/weber.htm)
Matt, Daniel C. “The Essential Kabbalah.” Castle Books. New Jersey. 1997. P. 34.
