Why this book:  This is actually an essay and not a book. It is perhaps Emerson’s best known and most influential essay and it came up in a discussion with a close friend who like me is a fan of R.W. Emerson.  We  both recalled how impressed we were with this essay when we had read it before,  and decided to read it again and see what it can teach us now. This was my 3rd time reading it. But not my last.

Summary in 3 Sentences: This is Ralph Waldo Emerson’s manifesto on what he believes man should aspire to be or become – not mankind, but each person.  He describes his Self Reliant Man as free, independent and to whatever degree possible, self-sufficient, responsible and decisive, in contrast to the majority of men who are afraid to assume risk and decide for themselves how to live, so they simply default to social convention to tell them how to live.  Emerson’s manifesto is spiritual insofar as he states that most men abandon their God-given duty to fulfill their human potential out of fear  – fear of disapproval, fear of failure, fear of their own power, fear of death.

Main points in this essay:  Much of his essay is a description of what Emerson variously refers to as the “Self Reliant Man” or the “True Man.”   I’ll stick with Self Reliant Man.   I am understanding it as referring to non-gender specific “man,” though in keeping with his time and culture, Emerson probably meant men specifically.    He describes how the Self Reliant Man behaves, thinks, chooses to live, in part by contrasting him with those who are NOT  Self-Reliant Men. These he variously calls conformists, cowards, clients, the mob, sots.

The Self Reliant Man decides for himself what is best and does not let his beliefs, commitments, values be swayed by a desire to fit in, or to propitiate the beliefs, values, commitments of others.  He is not afraid of disapproval.  He is ready to stand alone, and accept the consequences. “Be it known unto you that henceforward I obey no law less than the eternal law.”  “If you can love me for what I am, we shall be the happier. If you cannot, I will still seek to deserve that you should.  I will not hide my tastes or aversions.”

He mocks most men as “…timorous, desponding whimperers.. afraid of the truth, afraid of fortune, afraid of death, and afraid of each other.”  Their occupations, avocations, pleasures, marriages, religions, careers – their ives – were chosen by others -by social convention – not by themselves.  He calls them “parlor soldiers… (who) shun the rugged battle of fate, where strength is born.”  The Self Reliant Man does consider what society and convention offers, but also considers as legitimate options for himself what society disapproves, or may oppose, and looks into his own heart to decide what is right for him.  He is proud, unafraid, and willing to accept the costs of standing apart from the parlor soldiers.

The primary source of our Self Reliant Man’s wisdom and self-reliance is his trust in his intuition.  The Self Reliant Man believes strongly that his intuition is in touch with Truth, and is connected to a greater wisdom that exists outside of himself.  In trying to understand this almost mystical sensibility, I am reminded of Jung’s collective unconscious and Plato’s mystical belief in our connection to the light outside the cave.  Emerson believed that our intuition is a reflection of our divine soul.  His Self Reliant Man has faith in this “truth” and looks to his intuition for guidance, while most men look for guidance in the approving or disapproving eyes of their social group.   Self-Reliant Men know that their intuition “proceeds from the same source whence their life and being also proceed.”   Intuition is the window into the soul, and “the relations of the soul to the divine spirit are so pure that it is profane to seek to interpose helps.”

Throughout this essay,  Emerson refers to God, the Almighty, the ever-blessed ONE, and essentially says that the Self Reliant Man is the great person God created each of us to be. Most of us however, yield to the temptations of comfort, security, and conformity, and therefore never achieve greatness. Most of us never become “self reliant” –  never become the Self Reliant Man, never become Nietzsche’s ubermensch, nor Aristotle’s magnanimous man.  In fact, like Nietzsche some 50 years later, Emerson calls upon man to make himself godlike  – to “cast off the common motives of humanity .. to trust himself for a taskmaster.”  Emerson sets the bar high – to become god-like – and elsewhere challenges us to become at one with God.  “As soon as the man is at one with God, he will not beg.”

Emerson attacks the religious conventions of his day, but he does so subtly.   He is no Martin Luther though he refers to Martin Luther as a model.   I wonder if he is careful here – almost hypocritically so – pulling his punches and make his points in a way that will not overly antagonize the sensibilities of his more religious readers.  This does speak to one of my criticisms of this essay: If we do not compromise some, do not pull our punches sometimes, do not accept and appreciate those who may not have the strength or desire to become “self reliant,” the ensuing ostracism and marginalization may not allow us to positively impact those “timorous desponding whimperers” that make up the  majority of mankind.

I did appreciate his comment on prayer noting that “Prayer that craves a particular commodity, anything less than all good, is vicious.”   Prayer – and he implies all religion – should contemplate life and all that happens from the highest, most beneficent perspective – a God’s eye view. And yet man has allowed his religion to descend into the swamp of narrow human prejudices.  The Self Reliant Man despises men who beg God.

His insistence on living in the present – to be in touch with nature contains echoes of Buddhism and today’s meditation and mindfulness movement.    He says that man “does not live in the present, but with reverted eye laments the past, or, heedless of the riches that surround him, stands on tiptoe to foresee the future.”

He ridicules those who love to travel.  He claims that the fetish for travel is a means for people to distract themselves from themselves – and thereby they miss the beauty that exists all around them.  “Traveling is a fool’s paradise.”  Most men are enamored of the “shiny objects” and curiosities of things foreign or outside their own experience, often missing that which is truly good and wonderful in their own midst.  The fetish for new and exciting distracts us from the real quality that is found inside ourselves, in our own hearts, in how we’ve created our own lives.  Many of us choose to travel rather than be with ourselves, rather than to learn to appreciate and savor the world we have created for ourselves, and live in.

There is so much Nietzsche in this essay.  From extolling the superior and independent man, to lambasting the herd of normal men, the mob,  who simply believe what others believe, do what others expect them to do, and live “off the shelf lives.”  I hear Nietzsche (and even Machiavelli) in his statement that power is the essential measure of right.

Emerson’s Self Reliant Man, his integrity, his faith in himself, his courage and spiritual resilience are – to use an expression I recently learned –  Unfuckwithable!

I find this essay very inspiring.  I love his poetic language and metaphors.  There is a reason that this essay has been called the manifesto of the American character.  The American in me loves this essay.

My response to some of what I read in Self Reliance – Emerson’s essay was a powerful statement in its day, and pointed to the stifling conformity that he saw in small town living in early 19th century Concord, Mass.  In Aristotelian fashion I think he may have overshot the golden mean between mindless conformity and reckless, un-inhibited social rebellion.  I don’t believe he was too concerned with people taking his self-reliance too far; he was more concerned with getting people to think for themselves and be willing to be somewhat more independent, somewhat more nonconformist.  But I’m not sure he didn’t overshoot his mark.

I don’t think he gave enough credit to the value of “interdependence” and community.  We are never completely “self- reliant.”  We need others to grow, to live, to become strong, to become self-reliant.  We need others to feed our bodies, and minds, to nurture our “spirit,” to give us the tools to create an independent spirit.  And many of those who Emerson derides as living boring and unfulfilled lives, provide the food, clothing, shelter social institutions in our communities that allow the strong to become great.  Emerson wasn’t concerned about too many people following his advice.  His philosophy – as was Nietzsche’s –  advocated that the strong few step forward, lead,  and inspire others to get out of their comfort zones.  I think his is an unapologetically elitist philosophy – but Emerson doesn’t admit that.

He makes the statement that “For nonconformity, the world whips you with its displeasure.”  In some cases the world may kill you, or your family and friends for your nonconformity.  In some cases, it may be heroic suicide to buck social conventions. In some cases it may be a rational choice to pick one’s battles, go along to get along, and live to fight another day.

His imperative to stand alone, must be understood in context.  To stand alone, to declare oneself  “self reliant” may have challenges more dramatic than the disapproval of the ladies home league, or the minister, or the guardians of convention and conformity in one’s social group.  It is important to recall that heroes who would fit Emerson’s Self Reliant Man model have often been killed for their beliefs – Socrates, Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King to name a few well known examples.  This is not an argument against Emerson’s Self Reliant Man – these are all heroes because of the sacrifice they made, and their sacrifice needs to be part of the discussion.

While I enjoyed his sharp and witty rebukes of the common herd of people, not everyone can be Emerson’s Self-Reliant Man.  We must love the weaker ones too, we need them too. And we must love that part of ourselves that we see in them – for aren’t we all guilty of some of what he accuses and despises in his common man?  We must recognize ourselves in them, while we simultaneously seek to NOT be them, seek to overcome our own inertia that pulls out to comfort and complacency, so that we may lead and inspire others to be better, and perhaps more self reliant.

Regarding his thoughts on intuition – In my heart of hearts I am very much in synch with his views.  However, my recent readings of Yuval Harari (Sapiens and Homo Deus) and Sam Harris (Waking Up) demand that I understand the rationalist and materialist perspective, and that I seriously question whether we indeed have an immortal soul, or that our intuitions are connected to a universal God-spirit that has designs on our well-being.   Courage and honesty demand that I be prepared to live well while accepting that there may not be a greater being of which we all are a part. As I read his comments on soul and intuition and God, my analytical training wants to pin him down on these mushy concepts.

A great review of this essay and a somewhat different perspective is from my friend Yolla who inspired me to re-read and re-examine this essay.  Her review can be read here.

Great lines and famous quotes from Self Reliance:

• In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts.
• And we are now men…not minors and invalids in a protected corner, not cowards fleeing before a revolution, but guides, redeemers and benefactors, obeying the Almighty effort and advancing on Chaos and the Dark.
• God will not have his work made manifest by cowards.
• Society everywhere is in conspiracy agains the manhood of every one of its members…The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs.
• Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist.
• For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure.
• A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, and philosophers and divines.
• To be great is to be misunderstood.
• Men imagine that they communicate their virtue or vice only by overt actions, and do not see that virtue or vice emit a breath every moment.
• The force of character is cumulative.
• Instead of the gong for dinner, let us hear the Spartan fife. (I love this one!)
• Honor is venerable to us because it is no ephemera. It is always ancient virtue…is self-dependent, self derived, and therefore of an old immaculate pedigree, even if shown in a young person.  (not sure I fully agree after seeing what passes for honor in the Mafia, ISIS and other radical sects)
• Let us affront and reprimand the smooth mediocrity and squalid contentment of the times.
• Power is, in nature, the essential measure of right.  Nature suffers nothing to remain in her kingdoms which cannot help itself.
• Insist on yourself; never imitate.
• All men plume themselves on the improvement of society, and no man improves.  …Society never advances.
• …the white man has lost his aboriginal strength.
• The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet….and it may be a question …whether we have not lost by refinement some energy, by a Christianity, entrenched in establishments and forms, some vigor of wild virtue.
• Society is a wave. The wave moves onward, but the water of which it is composed does not.
• ..The reliance on Property, including the reliance on governments which protect it, is the want of self-reliance.
• (Most men) measure their esteem of each other by what each has, not by what each is.
• Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring  you peace but the triumph of principle.