Self Reliance

Ralph Waldo Emerson was an American and a man of many hats; he dabbled in essay writing, philosophy, and poetry. Emerson is considered to have been part of a movement called transcendentalism, which was characterized by a belief that there is spiritual state that far surpasses anything discovered through the physical or empirical states. In the 1840's, he released a compilation of essays called Essays: First Series, the second of which was called "Self Reliance". This literary piece introduced the idea that relying on one's self is foundational for development. Although this piece of literature is long, dense, and somewhat repetitive, its contents can be broken down into three key points.

The first of these key points is the need for independent thought. Early on in the essay, Emerson brings up one of man's shortcomings: the feeling of inadequacy in regards to personal thought. He claims that we need to welcome originality in our thoughts with open arms; in fact Emerson wants us shout our unique ideas to the world. If we fail to do this, Emerson says, we are suppressing the individuality. Being young makes this task easy because we are bold, loud, and fearless. With an increase in age comes an increase in apathy, and as a result Emerson claims that our personal liberty wanes.

Non-conformity is the second of these key points found in Self Reliance. This term/point implies that we must exhibit uniqueness in everything we do. Emerson makes it clear that we should be true to ourselves and not be overcome by the influence of our peers. The reasoning behind this is that one can only trully trust himself. Others are selfish and malevolent, and they have motives that are not in line with our own. By conforming to your peers, you are doing yourself a great injustice and putting on a facade for those around you. Why be someone you are not? This Emerson's underlying message.

The final key point in Emerson's Self Reliance is that consistency is misconceived as a positive thing; it is assumed to bring order, purpose, and routine to an individual's life. On the contrary, it is Emerson's assertion that consistency can be detrimental to a man: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." The problem with a routine is that it makes an individual function on auto-pilot, without taking into account the world around them. By rebelling against this, one is open to new things, ideas, and adventures. Consistency, in Emerson's opinion, causes complacency while inconsistency breads creativity. In support of this notion, he references Jesus, Socrates, Newton and others. They were inconsistent and misunderstood, and because of this they thrived.

The feelings that this piece evoke in me are excitement and relief. I have always been a very independent person, so it is refreshing to hear from Emerson say that my tendency to rely on myself is not necessarily a bad thing. Despite the fact that humans are social creatures, Emerson and I are in accord over the fact that we both think individuality is vital for human flourishing. This is not too say that relationships are a bad thing; it is to say that refusing to conform to the wishes of others is a noble and vital cause. The biggest thing I learned from this article was Emerson's take on consistency. Consistency is always thought of as a good thing and is synonymous with words like reliable, responsible and steadfast. However, consistency might be thought of in a different light with words like predictable, conventional, subservient. All in all, after reading the article, my mind was static in terms of dependence and conformity (I believe that both are harmful to ones development) and dynamic in terms of consistency.

Self Reliance definitely fits in with the big picture, and I see two important connections in particular. The first is to the other reading for 2/2/10 titled "What Self-Esteem is and is Not". I think the parallels between these two pieces of literature are key to one's understanding of either. Despite the fact that they use different terms (self reliance vs. self esteem) and different approaches (former notions and contemporary notions), I think that Emerson and Branden's message are essentially the same: well being is something that comes from within and that we are in serious trouble when other people become a dominant influence on us. There agreement on the topic gives weight to both arguments. The second connection, in regards to Self Reliance, is to course material we discussed early on in the semester. One of the first readings talked about how humans are dynamic individuals and thus exposing them to an unvarying stimulus can be detrimental. Humans build strength and versatility when there is a lack of consistency. Although we originally discussed this topic in regards to physical stimuli, it is easy applicable with Emerson's third message: consistency is bad. It seems clear, with the support of these two examples, that a routine can be damaging to ones health. Just like constant light can ruin an individuals eye sight, so can consistency ruin an individuals independence and versatility.

With all of these things considered, it is easy to see that this essay's intent was to foster independence, condemn conformity, and denounce conformity in order to ensure individualism. The reason Emerson feels so strongly about this individualism is because original thoughts, ideas, and innovations are a direct result of it. Without individualism, nothing new and of worth would ever be created. This is without a doubt applicable to my life. My first instinct in a lot of situations is to mimic a person or process that has had success in the past. The reasoning behind this is simple: if it worked once it will work again. Having read self reliance, I will now be wary of this thought process. Although imitation may get the job done, it prevents originality. If I intend to be a mover and shaker in the world (which I do), then I will need to take these notions about independence, conformity, and consistency to heart. From now on, I will strive to create, strive to rebel, and strive to be unpredictable; thanks to Emerson, I feel as if these three things are key to success.

Questions:

In what situations is a routine okay? Or is a routine never okay? It seems as if there is probably a time when its alright to have activities planned out.

How does one rebel against conformity if it is all they have known for all of there life? And what if they are then condemned for their lack of conformity?

Where does someone like a mentor fall into the ideas contained in self-reliance?