The modern-day masquerade is represented through clothing I believe, and one which in reading Walden a statement Thoreau would agree with as well. Writing “it is an interesting question how far men would retain their relative rank if they were divested of their clothes” (Thoreau 21). Today similar sentiments are portrayed specifically through the usage of brands, which depict a sense of superiority most commonly those of Gucci, Prada, Louis Vuitton etc… worn by celebrities and individuals of wealth. Additionally, Thoreau describes our clothes as a “false skin” which rains true in society today, the somewhat infamous and Met Gala held every year in May oftentimes receives critique and judgement from the general public as A-list celebrities gather in million-dollar pieces to walk the red carpet and never be worn again. The attendees oftentimes famous musicians or actors use this event to display their riches in form of clothing. Thoreau discusses the question if individuals would be able to portray the same stature without clothes… if the rank of clothing did not portray the status which it currently does would the likes of mankind have the ability to differentiate between rich and poor?
As we mentioned would be the case in class, Thoreau feels very controversial. What surprised me was that I myself am divided on agreeing with his points. I find myself understanding the principals of his arguments and thinking that they align fundamentally with sustainability, though I want to add a more contemporary layer of nuance to a lot of what he is saying. I will extrapolate my confliction with an example here.
Early on in Economy, and multiple times after Thoreau is very critical of old people. First saying, ” Age is no better, hardly so well, qualified for an instructor as youth, for it has not profited so much as it has lost.” and “No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof.” These two quotes are part of a section devaluing the advice (perhaps we typically call it wisdom) that comes from people older than us. I assume that Thoreau is writing specifically about old people he can physically interact with, so people who are still alive. Though, he does mention ancient thinking and doing, and discredits that too.
I have a few thoughts- conflicting, as I mentioned before. For one, my freshman year self would love to agree with him. Old people are the common denominator for all of the environmental, civil and economic grave what we are dug into today. It is easy to look at Biden and Trump and hate on old people. But over the evolution of college I have learned about the value of pre-capitalistic “old.” In SD we talk so much about the value of ancient indigenous practices– often the most sustainable ag examples we can find. So yes, old white capitalist are easy to hate on, but the nuance he is missing (and in this day and age maybe feels a little tone deaf) is the respect for the ancient practices, specifically agriculturally and subsequently economically, of indigenous people that have created lasting sustainable systems.
I guess this question is more of a note of surprise that I can empathize with his ideas but I am also quick to critique Thoreau with my modern prospective. Do you feel similarly? Also there are many more quotes about his hatred and devaluation of old people.
After reading Chapter One, something that has stood out to me about this chapter is how Thoreau was talking about how a man’s thoughts of himself would indicate his fate. Another thing that stood out to me was how Thoreau was talking about how he was wondering that we can be so frivolous when it comes to servitude, and how it’s difficult to be a northern overviewer. Another thing that really stood out to me in this chapter was when he was talking about old people, especially when he said that old people don’t have any important advice for young people and how old and young people should be viewed. I feel like in a lot of cases, both young people and old people would contribute important stuff to society.
My question: why does Thoreau view people who are older as people who can’t contribute that much to society?
When reading Thoreau, I can understand the controversial opinions about him. He sometimes seems to be self-conceited (or rather, self confident?) but knows it and admits to it throughout his writing. One fascinating aspect about Thoreau, that I’m sure draws people in, that we discussed in class was his thoughts and experiences with poverty and the discussion of how much our materials truly matter within the context of class. I’m not sure if many of these opinions on the poor are controversial but nevertheless, it’s understandably a main topic of contemplation within Economy. Some of these materials mentioned may speak to our own homes.
“The most interesting dwellings in this country, as the painter knows, are the most unpretending, humble log huts and cottages of the poor commonly; it is the life of the inhabitants whose shells they are, and not any peculiarity in their surfaces merely, which makes them picturesque; and equally interesting will be the citizen’s suburban box, when his life shall be as simple and as agreeable to the imagination, and there is as little straining after effect in the style of his dwelling. A great proportion of architectural ornaments are literally hollow, and a September gale would strip them off, like borrowed plumes without injury to the substantials. They can do without architecture who have no olives nor wines in the cellar.” pg. 45
Thoreau paints the dwellings of poor people as “the most interesting” or “picturesque” compared to those who are rich enough to decorate their homes or have full cellars of olives and wines. These homes are seen as empty and lifeless. How does this connect to his own dwelling that he created; do you think this may be glamourizing his own living situation as the most interesting (present and past) or just speaking fact as fact/outside of the context of his homemade home? Could it be both?
In the early passages of Thoreau’s “Economy”, Thoreau more or less takes a shot at a family-oriented lifestyle. He speaks of how inheriting wealth in the form of a business or farm is often much easier than getting rid of it and leads to people toiling their lives away without any real purpose or reward. He even went so far as to argue that the Twelve Labors of Hercules were an easier task as they had a purpose and an end goal. Thoreau argues that this “civilized” mindset where people yearn to be with one another is just a means to add yet another cog to the consumerist machine. However, when we look at the Modernization theory of development (shoutout Dinesh), it is in fact the creation of individuals that lead to increased consumerism, and family units are actually much more sustainable in relative terms.
— Considering that the theory of modernization wasn’t created/implemented until much further down the line after Walden, do you think that if Thoreau were privy to today’s society and global economy, he would take back his statement regarding the benefits of being an “individual”?
In Walden, a book written by Thoreau to respond to questions about his 26 month spiritual journey at Walden Pond, he positions himself in stark opposition to traditional ways of living. Thoreau argues that once a man critically self-reflects on his life, he will be informed of the hindrances to personal happiness, growth, and true wellbeing. These hindrances are quite normalized and with them being passed down intergenerationally, they are blindly accepted and reproduced. Thoreau embodies the belief that people should not be tied down by society’s definition of ‘living’, which he exemplified with his stay at Walden. In attempts to encourage his audience to embark on spiritual journeys similar to his own, or to at least recognize the institutions that make us live unfulfilling lives, Thoreau’s Walden contains many quite sassy, but relevant exposés on widely socially accepted means of living that do not agree with the spiritual man. Thoreau urges us to leave behind values of society that he characterizes and worthless and in ways, dehumanizing, paving the way for each man to discover his own meaning of life.
In his first chapter of Walden, called “Economy”, Thoreau claims:
“A man who has at length found something to do will not need to get a new suit to do it in; for him the old will do, that has lain dusty in the garret for an indeterminate period. Old shoes will serve a hero longer than they have served his valet—if a hero ever has a valet—bare feet are older than shoes, and he can make them do. Only they who go to soirées and legislative balls must have new coats, coats to change as often as the man changes in them.” (pp. 24)
Though Thoreau is emphasizing the nonessential nature of materialistic goods, of which society has deemed essential, his message implies that these core values can be applied more broadly. In pursuit of goods, ways of living, and statuses, we unnecessarily and unnaturally change the man’s spirit. Thoreau refers to the man who must have new clothing as one that changes as often as his coat does. In what other ways can we apply the message that he is conveying? In other words, what socially acceptable actions do we indulge in that (arguably unnaturally) change the way we encounter daily life?
In Thoreaus’s Walden he is able to take a step back from everyday life by living at Walden Pond, allowing him to view society from the outside so to speak. Also allowing him to perfect his life by living simply and closely with nature. Through doing so he is able to point out flaws he sees within society. He criticizes other men who chase wealth and status their entire lives explaining that as animals all we truly require is food referring to our basic needs. I liked this quote which illuminates how our motivation to work is actually hindering us from finding true happiness and meaning ,”Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them.” He believes that we have become too materialistic as a society and feel that we have lost sight of our true needs. I would definitely agree with him on this as many of the things we work for or buy are simply unnecessary to our lives in the grand scheme of things yet we desire them to fill some sort of purpose. Everything has been so commodified and isn’t about surviving, helping others survive or serving a deeper meaning but it’s purely serving its purpose for capital gain. I love this because this is more relevant today than ever, our entire lives are commodified, structured to be apart of the machine and find success in the capitalistic mindset rather than enjoying the real fruits of life so to speak. However Thoreau offers a solution that will aid in finding perfection to men that is self criticism of ones own life. The root of this dilemma is accepting of tradition and unquestioningly accepting what their parents and grandparents believed to be the meaning of life rather than determining their own beliefs which would be significantly different.
My question would then be is it possible to operate and live in a capitalist society and adhere to Thoreau’s beliefs? Does one need to live off the grid in order to truly find this or can it be maintained as a state of mind whilst functioning within this society? Does this not change capitalism entirely? – Will Bradford
Throughout Thoreau’s first chapter of Walden, ‘Economy’, it is stated several times that he mistrusts his seniors, and often believes that younger generations, who are in the throes of experience, have more knowledge and wisdom to offer than their “mentors”. Thoreau states “I have lived some thirty years on this planet, and I have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors. They have told me nothing, and probably cannot tell me any thing to the purpose. Here is life, an experiment to a great extent untried by me; but it does not avail me that they have tried it. If I have any experience which I think valuable, I am sure to reflect that this my Mentors said nothing about.” From this quote, we can form an understanding of Thoreau’s opinion on the advice of seniors and can relate it to a previous quote from the chapter; “Moreover, I, on my side, require of every writer, first or last, a simple and sincere account of his own life, and not merely what he has heard of other men’s lives; some such account as he would send to his kindred from a distant land; for if he has lived sincerely, it must have been in a distant land to me. Perhaps these pages are more particularly addressed to poor students. As for the rest of my readers, they will accept such portions as apply to them. I trust that none will stretch the seams in putting on the coat, for it may do good service to him whom it fits.” I’ve chosen these quotes to accompany each other because it is evident in both that Thoreau believes knowledge and understanding to be a completely individual and personal pursuit. No one understanding can fit the mold for all people because no two lives can be shared. Knowledge gained through the advice from a mentor pales in comparison to the knowledge learned through actual lived experience.
With this in mind, I’d like to ask where you believe mentorship fits into society’s growth. Would you say having a mentor or person you can depend on for advice is necessary for personal growth? Or is it unnecessary when one can learn from experience?
Like most memoirs and first-hand accounts, Henry David Thoreau’s Walden is intensely shaped by the context in which it was written. His distinction between “savages” and “civilized men”. The comically low receipt for house materials, and his assertion that “the student who wishes for a shelter can obtain one for a lifetime at an expense not greater than the rent which he now pays annually (Thoreau 42)”. The relative ease at which he disconnects from civilization in his attempt to find solitude. In a modern context, these observations and actions come across rather dated, or even incomprehensible to the “poor student” of today. We cannot expect a text nearly 200 years old to hold up to all scrutiny, and yet, many of Thoreau’s musings on labor, freedom, and consumerism still ring true. He argues that labor in its current form results in the loss of inner and outer freedom, keeping us shackled to the necessity for work, regardless of its potential for spiritual and emotional fulfillment. In a both literal and metaphorical sense, does Thoreau’s mission in Walden still have merit in today’s economic and political climate? Despite being nearly impossible to recreate, what can we gain from his commitment to living off the grid? Where do you see his observations on labor and consumerism manifest in reality?
Henry David Thoreau’s, Walden, Henry David Thoreau’s, Walden, in the chapter, “Economy”, discusses the idea of necessities and luxuries. “By the words, necessary of life, I mean whatever, of all that man obtains by his own exertions, has been from the first, or from long use has become, so important to human life that few, if any, whether from savageness, or poverty, or philosophy, ever attempt to do without it.” This quote stood out to me because it got me thinking about what is truly important and necessary in life. Of course, we both thought of food, water, and shelter, the real necessities. Thoreau goes on to discuss what has become luxuries for us, “Man has invented, not only houses, but clothes and cooked food; and possibly from the accidental discovery of the warmth of fire, and the consequent use of it, at first a luxury, arose the present necessity to sit by it.” Fire being a luxury had never occurred to me. The fact that Thoreau so simply believes that fire is an accidental luxury was an idea that I would’ve once disagreed with. Humans are able to produce our own body heat, yet cavemen sat in their caves by a fire, leading to our heated homes.
Have we truly adapted to a more luxurious lifestyle, or have we pushed the limits of human population so far that we now do in fact need external warmth for survival? Have we moved away so far from where humans are meant to be that we have created additional necessities? Will we ever revert back to how we are meant to live?
In Walden, by Henry David Thoreau, specifically the chapter “Economy,” Thoreau explores the human ideologies and beliefs on life itself. The concept and purpose of life has transformed drastically from those in earlier time periods, who were in a sort of basic environment. And how the motives and objectives of men were built upon survival rather than modern ideas of labor and materialistic concepts. I found very interesting and to be a very logical idea, is when Thoreau described the only true necessary of life is heat. Which as he described is not only to be heat as in hot temperatures, but that heat is also represented by shelter, which encloses us. Food, which heats our internal temperature. Clothes for insulation of our bodies. All humans should be concerned with is maintaining their heat. Thoreau is stating this in relation to the modern ideas of human necessity, rejecting them.
Rejecting these modern concepts of necessity is directed connected to the ideas of constant human control. Overly focused and fixated on the new-age practices, humans stray from flowing with life and being grounded within nature and oneself. A quote that I felt demonstrated these ideas goes as follows,”How vigilant we are! determined not to live by faith if we can avoid it; all the day long on the alert, at night we unwillingly say our prayers and commit ourselves to uncertainties. So thoroughly and sincerely are we compelled to live, reverencing our life, and denying the possibility of change” (Thoreau, 12). In particular the concept of faith struck my interest and I would like to know how you interpret this quote and how you think Thoreau is referring to faith. Do you think he is implying that humans lack faith? Is it referring to religious beliefs? Or having faith in oneself?
In Walden, Thoreau critiques the economic system of his time, suggesting that the pursuit of material wealth and the pressures of societal expectations prevent individuals from living deliberately and reconnecting with nature. In class on Tuesday, we discussed market and economy, but in more of Thoreau’s ideas of the word and not the modern day intentions of them in which they may seem more closely related than ever before. I decided to reread this chapter in order to reassess my thoughts and better understand his world. I realized that his economy means so much more than the sense often taught in school. He thinks of the economy both as a blanket statement on the current state of the group but also a quiet reflection into each and every person’s psyche within the group. He insists that in order to find freedom outside of this that one must search introspectively as to what truly matters to them past materialism and commodification. This got me thinking into how some struggle to find this which ultimately, led to my questions.
How might college culture, which often emphasizes career success, consumerism, and social status, perpetuate this same disconnection from a more meaningful and mindful existence? Can we truly live in alignment with Thoreau’s idea of “economy” while navigating the demands of today? Is it possible to find freedom within the current economic structures or must we, like Thoreau, actively reject or redefine them to pursue a life of purpose and clarity?
In Walden, particularly the Economics chapter, Thoreau heavily criticizes the obsession that we as a society have with things such as wealth, labor, and consumption while arguing that in order to truly grow as a person we should practice economic simplicity so we can focus on both intellectual growth and spiritual growth.
Say that hypothetically one day everyone just decided randomly to try living like Thoreau did when he was at Walden, do you think that this would have any major consequences on society? How would the government react to this? Seeing as at least currently governments seem to care more about money and profit as opposed to the actual people.
One thing that Thoreau stresses throughout this entire chapter is that individualism is something that most people lack, and that people should respect their own individuality and that of others. Individualism, for Thoreau, means a lot of things. It means cultivating an inner life through solitude and introspection, and also advocating for independence, both material and intellectual. He chose to live alone at Walden Pond to demonstrate that one could lead a fulfilling life by simplifying their needs and relying on their own labor. I believe a lot of the ideas he pushed for were and still are very relevant, that we shouldn’t be sheeps in a herd, and that without sufficient self discovery the good we try to do for others may end up doing worse, but I also believe that individualism has taken on a different modern meaning. Most people are encouraged through marketing tactics to express their unique identities through the products they buy, creating a desire for personalized items that cater to their specific tastes and preferences, ultimately driving the need to acquire more goods to reflect their individual self-image. In an age where you can choose from hundreds of different bottled water brands, and it is normalized to buy new clothes every season, has individuality gone from a path to simplicity to a consumerist machine? Is modern day individualism what has been pushing consumerism into our mainstream lives? If so, can we use Thoreau’s visions of individualism to fight against consumerism and how so?
In the chapter “Economy”, Thoreau gives us this story:
“An average house in this neighborhood costs perhaps eight hundred dollars, and to lay up this sum will take from ten to fifteen years of the laborer’s life, even if he is not encumbered with a family – estimating the pecuniary value of every man’s labor at one dollar a day, for if some receive more, others receive less – so that he must have spent more than half his life commonly before his wigwam will be earned. If we suppose him to pay a rent instead, this is but a doubtful choice of evils. Would the savage have been wise to exchange his wigwam for a palace on these terms?”
In this excerpt, he describes the oftentimes grueling and exploitative nature of procuring a home. Such cases were true then just as as they are now for a significant majority of people. What does Thoreau’s analysis tell us about the way our economic sphere is structured, and why hasn’t it changed since he wrote Walden? Focusing on the last line of the quote, that are the more philosophical thoughts it provokes? If every man works just as hard as the other, why are some able to live in palaces and others in shacks?
“If the human mind has always been essentially the same, then it has neither progressed or declined from age to age”. I believe what he is suggesting is that if the human mind does not change then people from the ancient times possess that same metal capabilities before and after his timeline. Does that mean Egyptian pyramids, sustainable technology, cars, and phones have the same ‘value’ in a sense as well? I find this very interesting because it has me questioning: is a phone more advanced than Egyptian pyramids? The pyramid bricks weigh 80 tons. Egyptian people did not have machines like cranes to move with them, but they still completed the task. If we were to create a time machine would Egyptians be able to find a way to operate a phone or sustainable technology machines. Then again what he could be implying is that our technology and culture might change but humanity’s creativity and self-awareness does not change. However, in this sentence “He possessed, to a remarkable degree, the gift of being able to hearten and encourage others, particularly the young and untried”. What does he mean by untried? His views on older people are very unusual. Older people might not be able to contribute to society physically depending on their health, but they can contribute to society mentally with their wisdom. They have the knowledge and wisdom that young people rely on all the time. One reason young people often avoid repeating their parents’ mistakes is that older family members warn them about the consequences. Or maybe a grandfather passed down his knowledge to his grandson on how to play the guitar or piano and it sparked an interest. Back toward his ‘human mind neither progressed or declined from age to age’. I am very certain that older people have played a huge role in inspiring humanity’s creativity. Is he trying to imply that older people are stuck in their ways and young people can bring something new to the table?
For my Week #1 Question I wanted to discuss a passage from Thoreau’s chapter Economy I found still particularly relevant regarding society today. At the beginning of the chapter Thoreau explores the limitations of responsibility. He pities his neighbors who inherit farms and career paths and claims that being raised by a wild animal would be a more fortunate situation to find one’s self in. He continues this idea by exploring the arbitrary boxes and rules society confines itself in, specifically through the implications of one’s clothing.
“We don garment after garment, as if we grew like exogenous plants by addition without. Our outside an often thin and fanciful clothes are our epidermis, or false skin, which partakes not of our life, and may be stripped off here and there without fatal injury; our thicker garments , constantly worn, are our cellular integument, or cortex; but our shirts are our liber, or true bark, which cannot be removed without girdling and destroying the man (Thoreau, 23).
Thoreau describes clothing as a type of mask or performance that is worn as “false skin.” He claims that this performance actually inhibits an individual from authentically living. He goes on to describe the thickest layer of clothing as a type of barrier between a person, and perhaps, truly connecting to the world around them.
How does Thoreau’s perspective on outward conformities apply to modern life, are his critiques still relevant? How does Thoreau’s conclusions on social conformity allude to his decision to live at Walden Pond and publish his observations as Walden?
In Thoreau’s first chapter of Walden, titled “Economy,” he explores many ideas that are still relevant today. One such idea is about materialism and consumerism, as told by Walden through clothing along with other things. Thoreau discusses how, even then, people were constantly buying new clothes as the latest styles and fashions came out. We know how this has reached an extreme level in modern times, leading to the fast fashion crisis and a huge amount of waste. Something that Thoreau understood to be a problem in 1854, close to 175 years ago, has only worsened since then. Thoreau talks about how it isn’t important what clothes you wear or if they’re old. These irrational trends and trivial spending habits on luxuries will never make a person happy and fulfilled. Thoreau writes, “When the soldier is hit by a cannon-ball, rags are as becoming as purple.” It doesn’t matter if you’re wearing rags or a thousand-dollar ball gown; we are all going to die, and then we won’t be remembered for the insignificant things we wore, but rather for who we were as a person, what we did well in life, and the people we helped. Another quote I felt was important was, “But if my jacket and trousers, my hat and shoes, are fit to worship God in, they will do; will they not?” If it’s good enough for god, it’s good enough for anyone else. These are not the things one must spend their time and money worrying about. This aligns with Thoreau’s sentiment: “The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it.” Rather than focusing on material things and consumerism, we must reconnect with nature and traditional ways of life.
How does Thoreau’s emphasis on minimalism in clothing challenge our current-day obsession with fashion as a status symbol? How can we find balance as a society between self-expression through clothing and living more simply and sustainably like Thoreau (perhaps secondhand)? What are some similar examples where a “flaw” was recognized in society years ago, but has only worsened since then?
In “Economy”, Thoreau explores the importance of simplicity and self-reliance in life. Thoreau advocates for stripping away excess and focusing on the necessities, arguing that true wealth is found not in material possessions but in the ability to live deliberately and with purpose. He critiques societal norms that prioritize material accumulation and warns against becoming enslaved to the pursuit of wealth. Thoreau writes, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation.” This observation underscores his belief that many people sacrifice their freedom and contentment to relentlessly pursue societal expectations, often neglecting their inner lives and personal fulfillment. By choosing a life of simplicity at Walden Pond, Thoreau demonstrates his philosophy of living intentionally and in harmony with nature.
Thoreau’s critique of materialism raises profound questions about the role of societal expectations in shaping individual lives. He challenges readers to examine their own relationship with consumption and conformity. In today’s consumer-driven world, his ideas feel particularly relevant. How much of our lives are dictated by the pursuit of material wealth, and how often do we pause to question what truly brings us happiness?
Thoreau gains many of insights from the nature around him and uses such as analogies within his thoughts and the dissection of the society he felt he and his fellow humans have been trapped in by each other. We believe we know what we want but I do not think we do really know what we as individuals want. “Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them”(pg. 20). Along side the quote that Thoreau decided to end Economy on, “… if thy hand has plenty, be liberal as the date tree; but if it affords nothing to giveaway, be an azad, or free man, like the cypress” (pg. 94). This might be taken slightly out of context but is the free man one who does not have anything to give and does not need to pluck the finer fruits, or is the free man one who has everything to give but also knows how to pluck the finer fruits? Or is the freeman a combination on this spectrum of giving and taking? If your hands are full of these finer fruits why wouldn’t you want to share them with your fellow human? Be free pick the finer fruits but don’t be upset when your hands are empty.
In the chapter “Economy,” Thoreau sets the scene for Walden and his experiment living a more simple, secluded life, sharing the thoughts that came to him as he began his experiment. I find he leans into a bit of dramatic effect when proving his points. He starts off this chapter with a lot of bold and curt statements that can hit deep at first glance. The copy of Walden that I’m reading now is an illustrated version and popular quotes are highlighted throughout the text, and the first quote that is illustrated is “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” This paragraph later continues on with “A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work,” (5). He goes on to criticize the differences between necessities and luxuries in life, as well as excessive labor and wealth.
While I don’t disagree that his emphasis on simplicity throughout the reading is valid and could be a productive opposition to materialism of today, I find it interesting that he makes these claims from his cabin at Walden. It makes sense, but I wonder if a lot of his thoughts and feelings would be applicable to most of the human population. Of course he would feel this way as he is intentionally separating himself from this life he knows. But is that how others feel as well? So for my question, do we agree with his statement that “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation”? What might Thoreau be implying as ‘desperation’ and is simplicity truly the fix?
In the chapter titled ‘Economy’ in Thoreau’s book, Walden, Thoreau sets the scene as an experience living the simple life at the Walden Pond, showing how little materialistic items one really needs to live their life. He also critiques the concept of our labor-driven society, which is a topic that I have always wondered about. The following quote stood out to me: “This spending of the best part of ones life earning money in order to enjoy a questionable liberty during the least valuable part of it reminds me of the Englishman who went to India to make a fortune first, in order that he might return to England and live the life of a poet.” This quote points out the lifestyle that so many people have for years and currently live in, arguing that most people sacrifice their time and freedom to make money for unnecessary things and unsure futures. I also feel like in this chapter a job has been made out to be something that does not provide someone with happiness, but wealth, and wealth in turn provides people with happiness. However, most people do not become wealthy from their jobs, as it is now just a means of survival.
In today’s day and age, is it possible to balance personal happiness with financial responsibility? Is it too late to balance those two things in today’s economy? If not, what would it take to achieve this?
In the first chapter of Walden, titled “Economy”, Thoreau critiques societal conformity, materialism, and consumerism, and he emphasizes the limitations that they place on “authentic” living. He uses clothing as a metaphor, exploring how outward conformity masks true individuality and often creates barriers between people and the natural world, describing clothing as “false skin”.
His experiment at Walden displays his rejection of societal norms. His observations challenge us to reconsider our own values and priorities, particularly in a world dominated by consumerism. All of which has led to environmental degradation and unethical labor practices.
What can we learn from his lessons in philosophy and how can we apply to address modern issues such as environmental degradation and social inequity? How does his metaphor of clothing as a “false skin” reflect broader societal pressures to conform? How can his call for simplistic and authentic living inspire solutions to modern issues?
Thoreau’s “Economy” provides a thoughtful discussion of civilization and the philosophical, spiritual, and practical challenges faced by man. These challenges come as a result of a society that has become increasingly disconnected from nature, centering around consumerism, superficiality, and exploitation. Thoreau argues for the value of returning to a simpler way of life, highlighting food, shelter, clothing, and fuel as all that is needed to satisfy man’s needs. Focusing on satisfying just these necessities leads to a kind of freedom and self-discovery that, according to Thoreau, can not be undervalued. He goes on to compare the civilized man with the savage, their differences in lifestyle, and the trade-offs associated with them. A particular passage from this section stood out to me:
“Nevertheless this points to an important distinction between the civilized man and the savage; and, no doubt, they have designs on us for our benefit, in making the life of a civilized people an institution , in which the life of the individual is to a great extent absorbed, in order to preserve and perfect that of the race. But I wish to show at what a sacrifice this advantage is at present obtained, and to suggest that we may possibly so live as to secure all the advantage without suffering any of the disadvantage.”
Do you agree with Thoreau’s assertion about civilization “absorbing” the individual for overall progress, and the increasing cost associated with that?
Later on, Thoreau describes one of the costs associated with this arrangement being the time and labor sacrificed to reap the “benefits”, citing the often perpetual cycle of debt and poverty associated with land/home ownership. He seemingly critiques the idea that higher standards of living are not directly correlated with a higher quality of life, “While civilization has been improving our houses, it has not equally improved the men who are to inhabit them. It has created palaces, but it was not so easy to create noblemen and kings”.
The ideas presented by Thoreau in seem to hold a similar sentiment to the critiques we see of society in sustainable development. How do you view the overlap, if any, between Thoreau’s ideas about civilization and the ideas expressed in sustainable development? How would these ideas be applied to society practically? Is it moral to actively pursue a lower standard of living in society?
“Talk of a divinity in man! Look at the teamster on the highway, wending to market by day or night; does any divinity stir within him? His highest duty to fodder and water his horses! What is his destiny to him compared with the shipping interests? Does not he drive for Squire Make-a-stir? How godlike, how immortal, is he? See how he cowers and sneaks, how vaguely all the day he fears, not being immortal nor divine, but the slave and prisoner of his own opinion of himself, a fame won by his own deeds. Public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion. What a man thinks of himself, that it is which determines, or rather indicates, his fate. Self-emancipation even in the West Indian provinces of the fancy and imagination, —what Wilberforce is there to bring that about? Think, also, of the ladies of the land weaving toilet cushions against the last day, not to betray too green an interest in their fates! As if you could kill time without injuring eternity.” (Economy pg 6)
This passage early on in Economy really stuck out to me. In it, Thoreau questions not only the morality possessed by those who harm others due to their entanglement within the economic machine, but their proximity and relationship to the divine. He questions if they possess divinity or if their lives are driven by frivolous worldly frameworks like ‘shipping interests’. Is this person’s life revolved around being a busy merchant or such, far removed from divinity? He points out how terribly weak willed and cowardly someone must be whose life revolves around the economy and exploitation of others, and calls him a “slave and prisoner of his own opinion of himself”. I believe that Thoreau, if able to experience the modern era we are living through now, would be disgusted by the wealth disparities and influence CEOs and billionaires possess. He criticizes those who deny their inner divinity and godlike qualities to become a part of the economic machine. He criticizes these peoples’ tendency to prioritize public opinion within their society over one’s opinion of themselves. Disconnecting from personal interests and feelings far removes one from divinity, and they become a prisoner of society’s harsh judgements. My question about this section is, what would Thoreau be most baffled by, within the framework of divine proximity, economic entanglement, and self imprisonment, if he were able to experience America now? How would he explain the minds of billionaires who monopolized industries and garnered wealth through standing on the backs of hard working Americans?
After reading the first chapter in Walden named “Economy”, I do agree with the statement that Thoreau is controversial. His critique of the relationship between monetary gain and the pursuit of happiness is one that I agree with, but in this current capitalistic-driven society, it is impossible to separate money from the equation. Thoreau advocates for simplicity, a life where people should be self-sufficient because that is how people truly gain freedom. Considering, Thoreau’s experiment in living at the Walden Pond, it presents the question of how practical this approach is in the modern world. How could Thoreau’s principles be involved in our consumer-driven economy? How could we apply these principles and still remain true to his values or self-reliance and conscious consumption?
Walden Thoreau was a common (poor) man in the nineteenth century who began writing in his twenties. His writings consisted mostly of deep philosophical processing and analysis of multiple themes relating to home humanity and self. The reader can identify psychological concepts within his writings that can be easily translated into definitions that aid understanding of human nature. Some major psychology and philosophy-related themes are human locus of control, Id, self-concepts, priming, semantic memory, and many more. There are countless quotes, paragraphs, and pages to dissect from his writings. I could write numerous pages on just a paragraph from what he wrote in the Economy chapter. A forum doesn’t justify his perspective, and I’m sure he’d be insulted if I wrote a small paragraph dimming his manifesto, which is exactly what I’m going to do. However, I’m sure he’d be thrilled that poor students are reading his content. Maybe Walden will be what I write about for my final paper…..
In the first few pages, he captures the audience’s attention with his extremely pessimistic economic views on the average farmer’s inheritance. Walden states that misfortuned farming men being brought into this world are better off if they had been “born in the open pasture and suckled by a wolf” then “[they might have seen with clearer eyes what field they were to labor in]”. He believed that people are ignorant and mistaken in the world, everyone is occupied with factitious and superfluously coarse labors of life where its finer fruits cannot be plucked.
Like I said before, there is loads to say. He discusses the divinity of man and conflicting viewpoints of self-control in the common man. Concepts and hints of free will and determinism are sprinkled throughout the chapter. He also dives into economy and civilization towards the middle. I’m sure he and Karl Marx would have gotten along together fine. Walden also discusses clothing for multiple pages, and how a man’s attire carries his weight. Nothing I disagree with about his clothing pages; well, maybe this quote…. “Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new”. This quote is fifty-fifty, like much of his philosophy I agree with. Today, people do not laugh at old fashion, but it is embraced. There are billions more people on the planet and everyone has a different taste, while most people want to keep up with the new. Whether it’s clothing or some bullshit.
Thoreau’s standout claim and overarching message from the chapter titled “Economy” is a stark critique of capitalism and the human tendency to value material objects above all else. He discusses the idea of economy not only in economic/financial language but through a philosophical lens. Thoreau argues that true intrinsic happiness is not derived from the accumulation of material possessions. Rather, he advocates for a life of simplicity and challenging one’s self to become as in-tune with nature as possible. I agree with most of what Thoreau says in this chapter, particularly the need to minimize material desire and the importance of the aforementioned relationship with nature. My question to the class would be this: “What is it about human nature that causes us to inherently desire material possession so deeply? Is this a biological trait or one that humanity assumed over time as society became more and more advanced?”
In the opening chapter of “Walden and Other Writings”, Thoreau discusses his decision to life simply and self-sufficiently in the woods near Walden Pond. He wrote “Moreover, I, on my side, require of every writer, first or last, a simple and sincere account of his own life, and not merely what he has heard of other men’s lives; some such account as he would send to his kindred from a distant land; for if he has lived sincerely, it must have been in a distant land to me” (Thoreau 3). The contrast between his simplistic and somewhat isolated lifestyle and the lifestyle that many of us live today is staggering. It offers a commentary on the divergence between our society’s way of living and how we have molded into a consumer-based world. How does his critique of modern society’s materialism and consumerism resonate with contemporary life? Do you think his call for a simpler, more intentional existence is still relevant today?
Simplicity. It began frustrating me how many times Thoreau used a new analogy or phrasing just to relay his single argument in a clear phrase at the end of the chapter. It became so annoyingly repetitive that I started to wonder if this was, in fact, his entire point. What annoyed me even more is that I started to agree with him (on selected points). Removing unnecessary luxuries theoretically aids in dismantling the undesired structure he criticizes, he makes a good point. Boasting about how “easily” he achieved this during his stay at Walden publicly challenges the idea of wealth and material success. His constant reiteration of the same core argument, stripping away unnecessary things to live a more intentional life, to me, seems as a rhetorical strategy to force the reader into a state of introspection. What I’m trying to say is, do you think Thoreau’s tone, which to me came across as condescending toward both the elderly and the poor, and his constant reiteration of his point, is a deliberate rhetorical choice to make the reader think deeper into his argument and reflect on one’s material needs? I agree that this repetition, while irritating, seems intentional in nudging us to reflect deeply on where we hold value and who encourages it. He is very straightforward with his views and seems dismissive to those who do not live according to his ideal. However, this could also be a part of his strategy to provoke thought, almost like he is trying to shake people out of complacency by making them uncomfortable. Reading this now years after he published it I think this is the whole point of economy and why Walden is generationally successful, his critique of materialism and the pursuit of status speaks directly to the structure of modern western society.
Simplicity. It began frustrating me how many times Thoreau used a new analogy or phrasing just to relay his single argument in a clear phrase at the end of the chapter. It became so annoyingly repetitive that I started to wonder if this was, in fact, his entire point. What annoyed me even more is that I started to agree with him (on selected points). Removing unnecessary luxuries theoretically aids in dismantling the undesired structure he criticizes, he makes a good point. Boasting about how “easily” he achieved this during his stay at Walden publicly challenges the idea of wealth and material success. His constant reiteration of the same core argument, stripping away unnecessary things to live a more intentional life, to me, seems as a rhetorical strategy to force the reader into a state of introspection. What I’m trying to say is, do you think Thoreau’s tone, which to me came across as condescending toward both the elderly and the poor, and his constant reiteration of his point, is a deliberate rhetorical choice to make the reader think deeper into his argument and reflect on one’s material needs? I agree that this repetition, while irritating, seems intentional in nudging us to reflect deeply on where we hold value and who encourages it. He is very straightforward with his views and seems dismissive to those who do not live according to his ideal. However, this could also be a part of his strategy to provoke thought, almost like he is trying to shake people out of complacency by making them uncomfortable. Reading this now years after he published it I think this is the whole point of economy and why Walden is generationally successful, his critique of materialism and the pursuit of status speaks directly to the structure of modern western society.
After reading others discussions along with the conversations we have had in class i’ve noticed a couple themes. We have talked about the controversies behind the way that Thoreau sees himself as well as how he sees others. He tends to see himself and his point of view as the right one and discredits others as seemingly unintelligent if they don’t agree with him. The way he drags elders by writing them off as having nothing to give, and judging the “rags” that are worn by others less wealthy.
What really caught my attention though was the numbers he gave when it came to owning a house. It would take an entire lifetime for a worker to acquire enough money to buy a home. It was seemingly impossible to get out of the loop of renting from the rich and in turn making them more rich. When Thoreau built his house he spent less than $30, but said the rent workers were paying monthy was more than that. We are made to believe that renting is worth it, and what option do we really have? You have to have shelter, but who says what kind of shelter that has to be. We are trained to follow what is taught to us so closely that the idea of building a house on your own is usually seen as more expensive, but in most cases that is a lie. We don’t think about the possibility of stepping out and following our own path, and instead stay in the same system that keeps us from succeeding and building wealth. Is this from a lack of education, or simply fear?
“If we do not get out sleepers, and forge rails, and devote days and nights to the work, but go to tinkering upon our lives to improve them , who will build railroads? And if railroads are not built, how shall we get to heaven in season? But if we stay at home and mind our business, who will want railroads? We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us. Did you ever think what those sleepers are that underlie the railroad? Each one is a man, an Irishman, or a Yankee man. The rails are laid on them, and they are covered with sand, and the cars run smoothly over them. They are sound sleepers, I assure you. And every few years a new lot is laid down and run over; so that, if some have the pleasure of riding on a rail, others have the misfortune to be ridden upon. And when they run over a man that is walking in his sleep, a supernumerary sleeper in the wrong position, and wake him up, they suddenly stop the cars, and make a hue and cry about it, as if this were an exception. I am glad to know that it takes a gang of men for every five miles to keep the sleepers down and level in their beds as it is, for this is a sign that they may sometime get up again.”
The quote above is very long but I felt like I had to include the whole thing in order to answer my questions. This quote intrigues me and confuses me simultaneously, but I think it confuses me more. Does Thoreau mean that the men that the railroad is built on are the laborers and the passengers are the elite? And when he talks about stopping the cars when a man wakes up I believe he means that when someone wakes up to reality he is ridiculed by his peers but I feel like I am missing something. I would love to discuss this quote in class.
Thoreau speaks largely on the outward forces of community and economy that keep us in these societal bubbles. These forces being the need to stay within the pre established economy and markets both monetary and social that mandate the need for work. This “work” of course to pay and update luxuries so we go to the new and better things, and so that we may afford the necessities such as water, food, and shelter. Thoreau says, “But men labor under a mistake. The better part of the man is soon plowed into the soil for compost. By a seeming fate, commonly called necessity, they are employed, as it says in an old book, laying up treasures which moth and rust will corrupt and thieves break through and steal. It is a fool’s life, as they will find when they get to the end of it, if not before.” Walden pg.5. This along with what he states previously, demonstrates people are seemingly stuck in this loop of working to live yet they work so much they can not afford to live. The answer is seemingly obvious, work less and find ways to live without needing the new and best that is being teased to the masses. However, what happens when there are people that do live without the new and best but are still tied to their debts both fiscal and social? What happens when there are people that can not afford to leave society because their feet are tied to the pre established economy?
Thoreau also states, “Who could wear a patch , or two extra seams only, over the knee? Most people behave as if they believe that their prospects for life would be ruined if they should do it. It would be easier for them to hobble to town with a broken leg than with a broken pantaloon.” Walden pg.21. This refers to the people that can not live without the “new” and need to feel the social acceptance through means of having the best. These are people that, in opposition to those who can not afford them, go out of their way to have the best and would feel shame if that did not present themselves in a way that portrayed class and mirrored that of their peers. However, I argue that today in the modern age, the people that go out of their way to present themselves tend to mirror those who can not to seem more relatable. The people that we all see wearing pants with holes that they themselves did not make, those who make their pilgrimage to the Goodwill in their brand new Branco to ravage the racks first thing in the morning. These people masquerade as the workers so that they may be grouped in with the “poor students” that Thoreau says will understand his writing. If these wolves lie amongst the sheep but are not tied to the shepherd, how do we differentiate those who can and those who cannot? How do the people that can not afford to sever their ties to their economy and live if the solutions are being taken by the people who are masquerading? – Austin Chavez
In the chapter “Economy” Thoreau discusses his personal experiences to criticize humanity’s shift in lifestyle, one that prioritizes work and material gain over a simple or “the good life”. I found that he often directs his deep criticisms towards specific types of people rather than the complex systems that have made it more challenging to live a simple life as Thoreau has. He says, “Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them.” Walden pg. 3. Blaming people’s so-called ignorance, as a Harvard educated white man, seems unjustifiable, especially in regards to the time period he lived. It raises me to question, Would Thoreau’s ideal solution of simplifying our lifestyles be achievable today? I think society needs to shift to a more simple lifestyle and decrease consumerism, but Thoreau’s personal experiences seem very condescending of people who are not able to do the same as him.
While reading the first chapter of Walden, I couldn’t help but put Thoreau in dialogue with another thinker I’ve been reading in another class – Marx. These two men were born within a year of one another and bore witness to the rise of industrial capitalism in their respective countries, which was clearly foundational to both of their philosophies. More specifically, what’s striking to me as I read Walden and portions of The German Ideology is how both men speak to the phenomenon of alienation in industrial society from different, yet complementary perspectives. In many ways, Thoreau echoes the sentiments of Marx when he discusses the consequences of intensified division of labor/specialization in work, disconnection from nature, the mechanization of human labor, commodity fetishism, etc. What makes these two perspectives complimentary to me is how Marx tackles capitalist exploitation (alienation) from a production standpoint, whereas Thoreau primarily addresses it from the angle of personal consumption. With that being said, there are also serious tensions between their modes of thinking. This brings me to my question: is there a way to reconcile Thoreau’s message of personal austerity with Marx’s vision of proletariat mass mobilization and material abundance under communism?
Thoreau’s first chapter in Walden, “Economy,” examines the capitalist mindset of overconsumption and how it exploits the poor. As he observes the townspeople around him, he notices that they are living a life of luxury that they cannot afford in order to satisfy their desire to be seen as important.”Indeed, the more you have of such things, the poorer you are.” Thoreau advocates for the utilitarian use of items rather than those that convey social status. I interpret this book as a call to action after reading the first chapter, which aims to convince the men in his life to give up the capitalistic idea that success and fulfillment are based on one’s material belongings. Thoreau writes, “Dress a scarecrow in your last shift, you standing shiftless by who would not soonest salute the scarecrow?” Thoreau makes the argument that the capitalistic mindset exploits the lower classes in believing their worth is tied to the clothes on their bodies. With the rise of social media, which promotes fast fashion that can create new trends in large quantities every week, this way of thinking may be even more relevant today. These clothing trends are typically low-cost and quickly discarded in order to remain relevant in society. In that sense, I understand Thoreau’s point of view, because I believe there is a major problem in the fashion industry where products are designed for aesthetics rather than quality. “It is the luxurious and dissipated who set the fashions which the herd so diligently follow.” Today’s fast fashion industry is based on producing low-cost knockoffs of brand-name products and selling them in order for middle and lower-class people to keep up with the wealthy. Reading Economy Thoreau seemed to advocate not only a utilitarian way of life, but also a complete dissipation of expression through one’s own possessions. I disagree with him on this point because I believe we can benefit from self-expression without harming ourselves or the environment. It was mentioned in class that Thoreau had his clothes washed for him, implying that he did not fully adhere to his philosophy. I would advocate for slow fashion, in which we patch up our clothes but are not afraid to buy something that makes us happy on occasion. In class, we learned the expression “Sankofa,” which roughly translates to “do not be afraid to fetch what you have left behind.” Do you believe that societies today can adopt the ideas that Thoreau is urging his townspeople, or have we had tunnel vision for so long that it is too late to go back?
After my reading of the first chapter there was one idea that really stood out to me. This being that Thoreau’s suggestion that a person’s perception of themselves shapes their future, this is deeply tied to his philosophy of self-reliance and individualism. In the eyes of Thoreau how we perceive ourselves and our belfies has a massive influence on how we end up living our lives and the paths that we then choose to follow. An excellent example of this would be that if we see ourselves constrained by our society, we are likely to limit our options and tell ourselves we are undeserving of certain lifestyles or job opportunities, this can result in us falling into a routine that is decided by clouded judgement.
My question given Thoreau’s ideals on self-perception and the shaping of our lives, do we think that it would be possible for us to become fully self-reliant in today’s world? What type of external or internal pressures could keep us from succeeding?
Though it takes some time to work through, I do really enjoy Thoreau’s style of writing, and found many quotes throughout this first chapter to be quite powerful. One that particularly stood out to me on page 118 reads “One farmer says to me, ‘You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make bones with;’ and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying his system with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plough along in spite of every obstacle.” This stuck with me, not only because of its wording, but because it can be related to other situations on individual, community, and global levels. With the time period in mind, I assume that this quote heavily implies the fault of the slavery systems which had not yet been abolished. With our current time period in mind, what particular sustainable development situations/social justice issues come to mind with this quote, and how do they differentiate on local, regional, national, and international levels?
In Economy, Thoreau reminds us that conventional ways of thinking and conducting our business often require us to abandon our true nature, preventing us from the spiritual and intellectual growth necessary for self-actualization.
“The greater part of what my neighbors call good I believe in my soul to be bad, and if I repent of anything, it is very likely to be my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well? You may say the wisest thing you can, old man — you who have lived seventy years, not without honor of a kind — I hear an irresistible voice which invites me away from all that.”
“Public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion. What a man thinks of himself, that it is which determines, or rather indicates, his fate.”
In making ourselves into something we are not, we become the purveyors of our own toiling. Although certain societal norms and prescribed labels can sway us from our true nature to protect ourselves, at the end of the day we have autonomy over self opinion. The recent executive order seeking to “restore biological truth to the federal government,” (ironically ignoring the biological truth of intersex people), has been at the forefront of my mind as my trans brothers, sisters, and I wonder how this explicit imposition of this binary regime will affect our safety and autonomy.
“Birds do not sing in caves, nor do doves cherish their innocence in dovecots.”
Our first house is our body, our first economy: the management of that divine dwelling. We make ourselves through our intuition and values, and to let our management be dictated by external opinions is akin to possession. We are asked to give up our nature to inhabit the values of another entity. Through the self-making process of my transition I opened myself to that irresistible voice, for the first time “knowing what it is to live in open air.”
Thoreau shared multiple examples of self-emancipation and I would like to ask: How have each of us rejected harmful societal rules or public opinions in order to honor our true nature?
Conversely, what societal rules keep you from exploring your own nature and following a different path than what is expected? In other words, what demon possesses you to behave so well?
In the Chapter “Economy” by Thoreau, I feel compelled to write about Thoreau’s work for being ahead of his time. In a society that has continued to develop, promote mass consumption, and encourage people to buy certain “luxuries” to earn status from their peers, Thoreau’s “Economy” critiques the distance between labor and consumption. Thoreau develops the idea that consumerism brings short term satisfaction but is not truly fulfilling nor sustainable. In the quote “The luxuriously rich are not simply kept comfortably warm, but unnaturally hot; as I implied before, they are cooked, of course à la mode. . . .(140)” Thoreau refers to the overconsumption of certain lifestyles. By meeting your basic needs, you are kept “warm” and comfortable. While having too much, you are “cooked” by engaging too much in over-indulgence in material possessions.
In contrast, Thoreau believes that living should be under simpler terms. Humans go beyond just the needs of comfort, which Thoreau finds to be unnecessary and cause disconnection from the natural world. Thoreau’s thoughts seem more inward focused, becoming a better person in society by looking at yourself deeper and creating awareness within the spaces you occupy.
Thoreau also writes of the disconnect between consumption and labor, which contemporarily has only increased. He mentioned that within capitalism debt lingers but because of comparisons with peers, not when it comes to meeting basic needs. There is a certain need for a positive public opinion, which Thoreau critiques in his concept of “silent poor”. He expands by saying that our laborers are responsible for creating wealth, which oftentimes is unrecognized.
In the quote “ The myriads who built the pyramids to be the tombs of the Pharaohs were fed on garlic, and it may be were not decently buried themselves (350)” emphasizes the conditions of the laborers who were living in extreme poverty while also creating one of the most well known structures in the world and another level of irony were potentially buried in unmarked graves while the Pharaohs were buried lavishy. He refers to this concept as to how many of the luxuries of life are disconnected from their history and the hands they have gone through. In our societal structure, value is placed on material possessions rather than the well-being of laborers.
Overall, Thoreau brings up issues that are increasingly relevant in modern times and develops frameworks that are not often thought about. By seeing materials/luxuries through the eyes of the labor, as well as his critique of over-indulgence in a world that is engulfed by capitalistic societal norms, Thoreau’s perspective remains nuanced and contributed to ethical concerns.
How might people adopt the idea of living simply without being consumed by a world of over-indulgence and consumerism? Are the only means to do so to move away from industrial life like Thoreau?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
The modern-day masquerade is represented through clothing I believe, and one which in reading Walden a statement Thoreau would agree with as well. Writing “it is an interesting question how far men would retain their relative rank if they were divested of their clothes” (Thoreau 21). Today similar sentiments are portrayed specifically through the usage of brands, which depict a sense of superiority most commonly those of Gucci, Prada, Louis Vuitton etc… worn by celebrities and individuals of wealth. Additionally, Thoreau describes our clothes as a “false skin” which rains true in society today, the somewhat infamous and Met Gala held every year in May oftentimes receives critique and judgement from the general public as A-list celebrities gather in million-dollar pieces to walk the red carpet and never be worn again. The attendees oftentimes famous musicians or actors use this event to display their riches in form of clothing. Thoreau discusses the question if individuals would be able to portray the same stature without clothes… if the rank of clothing did not portray the status which it currently does would the likes of mankind have the ability to differentiate between rich and poor?
-Ayden Dayhoff
As we mentioned would be the case in class, Thoreau feels very controversial. What surprised me was that I myself am divided on agreeing with his points. I find myself understanding the principals of his arguments and thinking that they align fundamentally with sustainability, though I want to add a more contemporary layer of nuance to a lot of what he is saying. I will extrapolate my confliction with an example here.
Early on in Economy, and multiple times after Thoreau is very critical of old people. First saying, ” Age is no better, hardly so well, qualified for an instructor as youth, for it has not profited so much as it has lost.” and “No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof.” These two quotes are part of a section devaluing the advice (perhaps we typically call it wisdom) that comes from people older than us. I assume that Thoreau is writing specifically about old people he can physically interact with, so people who are still alive. Though, he does mention ancient thinking and doing, and discredits that too.
I have a few thoughts- conflicting, as I mentioned before. For one, my freshman year self would love to agree with him. Old people are the common denominator for all of the environmental, civil and economic grave what we are dug into today. It is easy to look at Biden and Trump and hate on old people. But over the evolution of college I have learned about the value of pre-capitalistic “old.” In SD we talk so much about the value of ancient indigenous practices– often the most sustainable ag examples we can find. So yes, old white capitalist are easy to hate on, but the nuance he is missing (and in this day and age maybe feels a little tone deaf) is the respect for the ancient practices, specifically agriculturally and subsequently economically, of indigenous people that have created lasting sustainable systems.
I guess this question is more of a note of surprise that I can empathize with his ideas but I am also quick to critique Thoreau with my modern prospective. Do you feel similarly? Also there are many more quotes about his hatred and devaluation of old people.
Posey Lester-Niles
After reading Chapter One, something that has stood out to me about this chapter is how Thoreau was talking about how a man’s thoughts of himself would indicate his fate. Another thing that stood out to me was how Thoreau was talking about how he was wondering that we can be so frivolous when it comes to servitude, and how it’s difficult to be a northern overviewer. Another thing that really stood out to me in this chapter was when he was talking about old people, especially when he said that old people don’t have any important advice for young people and how old and young people should be viewed. I feel like in a lot of cases, both young people and old people would contribute important stuff to society.
My question: why does Thoreau view people who are older as people who can’t contribute that much to society?
When reading Thoreau, I can understand the controversial opinions about him. He sometimes seems to be self-conceited (or rather, self confident?) but knows it and admits to it throughout his writing. One fascinating aspect about Thoreau, that I’m sure draws people in, that we discussed in class was his thoughts and experiences with poverty and the discussion of how much our materials truly matter within the context of class. I’m not sure if many of these opinions on the poor are controversial but nevertheless, it’s understandably a main topic of contemplation within Economy. Some of these materials mentioned may speak to our own homes.
“The most interesting dwellings in this country, as the painter knows, are the most unpretending, humble log huts and cottages of the poor commonly; it is the life of the inhabitants whose shells they are, and not any peculiarity in their surfaces merely, which makes them picturesque; and equally interesting will be the citizen’s suburban box, when his life shall be as simple and as agreeable to the imagination, and there is as little straining after effect in the style of his dwelling. A great proportion of architectural ornaments are literally hollow, and a September gale would strip them off, like borrowed plumes without injury to the substantials. They can do without architecture who have no olives nor wines in the cellar.” pg. 45
Thoreau paints the dwellings of poor people as “the most interesting” or “picturesque” compared to those who are rich enough to decorate their homes or have full cellars of olives and wines. These homes are seen as empty and lifeless. How does this connect to his own dwelling that he created; do you think this may be glamourizing his own living situation as the most interesting (present and past) or just speaking fact as fact/outside of the context of his homemade home? Could it be both?
-Iona Blackburn
In the early passages of Thoreau’s “Economy”, Thoreau more or less takes a shot at a family-oriented lifestyle. He speaks of how inheriting wealth in the form of a business or farm is often much easier than getting rid of it and leads to people toiling their lives away without any real purpose or reward. He even went so far as to argue that the Twelve Labors of Hercules were an easier task as they had a purpose and an end goal. Thoreau argues that this “civilized” mindset where people yearn to be with one another is just a means to add yet another cog to the consumerist machine. However, when we look at the Modernization theory of development (shoutout Dinesh), it is in fact the creation of individuals that lead to increased consumerism, and family units are actually much more sustainable in relative terms.
— Considering that the theory of modernization wasn’t created/implemented until much further down the line after Walden, do you think that if Thoreau were privy to today’s society and global economy, he would take back his statement regarding the benefits of being an “individual”?
-Jack Brion
Carson Mease
In Walden, a book written by Thoreau to respond to questions about his 26 month spiritual journey at Walden Pond, he positions himself in stark opposition to traditional ways of living. Thoreau argues that once a man critically self-reflects on his life, he will be informed of the hindrances to personal happiness, growth, and true wellbeing. These hindrances are quite normalized and with them being passed down intergenerationally, they are blindly accepted and reproduced. Thoreau embodies the belief that people should not be tied down by society’s definition of ‘living’, which he exemplified with his stay at Walden. In attempts to encourage his audience to embark on spiritual journeys similar to his own, or to at least recognize the institutions that make us live unfulfilling lives, Thoreau’s Walden contains many quite sassy, but relevant exposés on widely socially accepted means of living that do not agree with the spiritual man. Thoreau urges us to leave behind values of society that he characterizes and worthless and in ways, dehumanizing, paving the way for each man to discover his own meaning of life.
In his first chapter of Walden, called “Economy”, Thoreau claims:
“A man who has at length found something to do will not need to get a new suit to do it in; for him the old will do, that has lain dusty in the garret for an indeterminate period. Old shoes will serve a hero longer than they have served his valet—if a hero ever has a valet—bare feet are older than shoes, and he can make them do. Only they who go to soirées and legislative balls must have new coats, coats to change as often as the man changes in them.” (pp. 24)
Though Thoreau is emphasizing the nonessential nature of materialistic goods, of which society has deemed essential, his message implies that these core values can be applied more broadly. In pursuit of goods, ways of living, and statuses, we unnecessarily and unnaturally change the man’s spirit. Thoreau refers to the man who must have new clothing as one that changes as often as his coat does. In what other ways can we apply the message that he is conveying? In other words, what socially acceptable actions do we indulge in that (arguably unnaturally) change the way we encounter daily life?
In Thoreaus’s Walden he is able to take a step back from everyday life by living at Walden Pond, allowing him to view society from the outside so to speak. Also allowing him to perfect his life by living simply and closely with nature. Through doing so he is able to point out flaws he sees within society. He criticizes other men who chase wealth and status their entire lives explaining that as animals all we truly require is food referring to our basic needs. I liked this quote which illuminates how our motivation to work is actually hindering us from finding true happiness and meaning ,”Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them.” He believes that we have become too materialistic as a society and feel that we have lost sight of our true needs. I would definitely agree with him on this as many of the things we work for or buy are simply unnecessary to our lives in the grand scheme of things yet we desire them to fill some sort of purpose. Everything has been so commodified and isn’t about surviving, helping others survive or serving a deeper meaning but it’s purely serving its purpose for capital gain. I love this because this is more relevant today than ever, our entire lives are commodified, structured to be apart of the machine and find success in the capitalistic mindset rather than enjoying the real fruits of life so to speak. However Thoreau offers a solution that will aid in finding perfection to men that is self criticism of ones own life. The root of this dilemma is accepting of tradition and unquestioningly accepting what their parents and grandparents believed to be the meaning of life rather than determining their own beliefs which would be significantly different.
My question would then be is it possible to operate and live in a capitalist society and adhere to Thoreau’s beliefs? Does one need to live off the grid in order to truly find this or can it be maintained as a state of mind whilst functioning within this society? Does this not change capitalism entirely? – Will Bradford
Throughout Thoreau’s first chapter of Walden, ‘Economy’, it is stated several times that he mistrusts his seniors, and often believes that younger generations, who are in the throes of experience, have more knowledge and wisdom to offer than their “mentors”. Thoreau states “I have lived some thirty years on this planet, and I have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors. They have told me nothing, and probably cannot tell me any thing to the purpose. Here is life, an experiment to a great extent untried by me; but it does not avail me that they have tried it. If I have any experience which I think valuable, I am sure to reflect that this my Mentors said nothing about.” From this quote, we can form an understanding of Thoreau’s opinion on the advice of seniors and can relate it to a previous quote from the chapter; “Moreover, I, on my side, require of every writer, first or last, a simple and sincere account of his own life, and not merely what he has heard of other men’s lives; some such account as he would send to his kindred from a distant land; for if he has lived sincerely, it must have been in a distant land to me. Perhaps these pages are more particularly addressed to poor students. As for the rest of my readers, they will accept such portions as apply to them. I trust that none will stretch the seams in putting on the coat, for it may do good service to him whom it fits.” I’ve chosen these quotes to accompany each other because it is evident in both that Thoreau believes knowledge and understanding to be a completely individual and personal pursuit. No one understanding can fit the mold for all people because no two lives can be shared. Knowledge gained through the advice from a mentor pales in comparison to the knowledge learned through actual lived experience.
With this in mind, I’d like to ask where you believe mentorship fits into society’s growth. Would you say having a mentor or person you can depend on for advice is necessary for personal growth? Or is it unnecessary when one can learn from experience?
Like most memoirs and first-hand accounts, Henry David Thoreau’s Walden is intensely shaped by the context in which it was written. His distinction between “savages” and “civilized men”. The comically low receipt for house materials, and his assertion that “the student who wishes for a shelter can obtain one for a lifetime at an expense not greater than the rent which he now pays annually (Thoreau 42)”. The relative ease at which he disconnects from civilization in his attempt to find solitude. In a modern context, these observations and actions come across rather dated, or even incomprehensible to the “poor student” of today. We cannot expect a text nearly 200 years old to hold up to all scrutiny, and yet, many of Thoreau’s musings on labor, freedom, and consumerism still ring true. He argues that labor in its current form results in the loss of inner and outer freedom, keeping us shackled to the necessity for work, regardless of its potential for spiritual and emotional fulfillment. In a both literal and metaphorical sense, does Thoreau’s mission in Walden still have merit in today’s economic and political climate? Despite being nearly impossible to recreate, what can we gain from his commitment to living off the grid? Where do you see his observations on labor and consumerism manifest in reality?
This is John Turner btw
Henry David Thoreau’s, Walden, Henry David Thoreau’s, Walden, in the chapter, “Economy”, discusses the idea of necessities and luxuries. “By the words, necessary of life, I mean whatever, of all that man obtains by his own exertions, has been from the first, or from long use has become, so important to human life that few, if any, whether from savageness, or poverty, or philosophy, ever attempt to do without it.” This quote stood out to me because it got me thinking about what is truly important and necessary in life. Of course, we both thought of food, water, and shelter, the real necessities. Thoreau goes on to discuss what has become luxuries for us, “Man has invented, not only houses, but clothes and cooked food; and possibly from the accidental discovery of the warmth of fire, and the consequent use of it, at first a luxury, arose the present necessity to sit by it.” Fire being a luxury had never occurred to me. The fact that Thoreau so simply believes that fire is an accidental luxury was an idea that I would’ve once disagreed with. Humans are able to produce our own body heat, yet cavemen sat in their caves by a fire, leading to our heated homes.
Have we truly adapted to a more luxurious lifestyle, or have we pushed the limits of human population so far that we now do in fact need external warmth for survival? Have we moved away so far from where humans are meant to be that we have created additional necessities? Will we ever revert back to how we are meant to live?
Parker Williamson
In Walden, by Henry David Thoreau, specifically the chapter “Economy,” Thoreau explores the human ideologies and beliefs on life itself. The concept and purpose of life has transformed drastically from those in earlier time periods, who were in a sort of basic environment. And how the motives and objectives of men were built upon survival rather than modern ideas of labor and materialistic concepts. I found very interesting and to be a very logical idea, is when Thoreau described the only true necessary of life is heat. Which as he described is not only to be heat as in hot temperatures, but that heat is also represented by shelter, which encloses us. Food, which heats our internal temperature. Clothes for insulation of our bodies. All humans should be concerned with is maintaining their heat. Thoreau is stating this in relation to the modern ideas of human necessity, rejecting them.
Rejecting these modern concepts of necessity is directed connected to the ideas of constant human control. Overly focused and fixated on the new-age practices, humans stray from flowing with life and being grounded within nature and oneself. A quote that I felt demonstrated these ideas goes as follows,”How vigilant we are! determined not to live by faith if we can avoid it; all the day long on the alert, at night we unwillingly say our prayers and commit ourselves to uncertainties. So thoroughly and sincerely are we compelled to live, reverencing our life, and denying the possibility of change” (Thoreau, 12). In particular the concept of faith struck my interest and I would like to know how you interpret this quote and how you think Thoreau is referring to faith. Do you think he is implying that humans lack faith? Is it referring to religious beliefs? Or having faith in oneself?
Abbey Smith
In Walden, Thoreau critiques the economic system of his time, suggesting that the pursuit of material wealth and the pressures of societal expectations prevent individuals from living deliberately and reconnecting with nature. In class on Tuesday, we discussed market and economy, but in more of Thoreau’s ideas of the word and not the modern day intentions of them in which they may seem more closely related than ever before. I decided to reread this chapter in order to reassess my thoughts and better understand his world. I realized that his economy means so much more than the sense often taught in school. He thinks of the economy both as a blanket statement on the current state of the group but also a quiet reflection into each and every person’s psyche within the group. He insists that in order to find freedom outside of this that one must search introspectively as to what truly matters to them past materialism and commodification. This got me thinking into how some struggle to find this which ultimately, led to my questions.
How might college culture, which often emphasizes career success, consumerism, and social status, perpetuate this same disconnection from a more meaningful and mindful existence? Can we truly live in alignment with Thoreau’s idea of “economy” while navigating the demands of today? Is it possible to find freedom within the current economic structures or must we, like Thoreau, actively reject or redefine them to pursue a life of purpose and clarity?
-Tyler Nece
In Walden, particularly the Economics chapter, Thoreau heavily criticizes the obsession that we as a society have with things such as wealth, labor, and consumption while arguing that in order to truly grow as a person we should practice economic simplicity so we can focus on both intellectual growth and spiritual growth.
Say that hypothetically one day everyone just decided randomly to try living like Thoreau did when he was at Walden, do you think that this would have any major consequences on society? How would the government react to this? Seeing as at least currently governments seem to care more about money and profit as opposed to the actual people.
-Connor Kuharcik
One thing that Thoreau stresses throughout this entire chapter is that individualism is something that most people lack, and that people should respect their own individuality and that of others. Individualism, for Thoreau, means a lot of things. It means cultivating an inner life through solitude and introspection, and also advocating for independence, both material and intellectual. He chose to live alone at Walden Pond to demonstrate that one could lead a fulfilling life by simplifying their needs and relying on their own labor. I believe a lot of the ideas he pushed for were and still are very relevant, that we shouldn’t be sheeps in a herd, and that without sufficient self discovery the good we try to do for others may end up doing worse, but I also believe that individualism has taken on a different modern meaning. Most people are encouraged through marketing tactics to express their unique identities through the products they buy, creating a desire for personalized items that cater to their specific tastes and preferences, ultimately driving the need to acquire more goods to reflect their individual self-image. In an age where you can choose from hundreds of different bottled water brands, and it is normalized to buy new clothes every season, has individuality gone from a path to simplicity to a consumerist machine? Is modern day individualism what has been pushing consumerism into our mainstream lives? If so, can we use Thoreau’s visions of individualism to fight against consumerism and how so?
Peyton Berger
In the chapter “Economy”, Thoreau gives us this story:
“An average house in this neighborhood costs perhaps eight hundred dollars, and to lay up this sum will take from ten to fifteen years of the laborer’s life, even if he is not encumbered with a family – estimating the pecuniary value of every man’s labor at one dollar a day, for if some receive more, others receive less – so that he must have spent more than half his life commonly before his wigwam will be earned. If we suppose him to pay a rent instead, this is but a doubtful choice of evils. Would the savage have been wise to exchange his wigwam for a palace on these terms?”
In this excerpt, he describes the oftentimes grueling and exploitative nature of procuring a home. Such cases were true then just as as they are now for a significant majority of people. What does Thoreau’s analysis tell us about the way our economic sphere is structured, and why hasn’t it changed since he wrote Walden? Focusing on the last line of the quote, that are the more philosophical thoughts it provokes? If every man works just as hard as the other, why are some able to live in palaces and others in shacks?
Kendall Williamson
“If the human mind has always been essentially the same, then it has neither progressed or declined from age to age”. I believe what he is suggesting is that if the human mind does not change then people from the ancient times possess that same metal capabilities before and after his timeline. Does that mean Egyptian pyramids, sustainable technology, cars, and phones have the same ‘value’ in a sense as well? I find this very interesting because it has me questioning: is a phone more advanced than Egyptian pyramids? The pyramid bricks weigh 80 tons. Egyptian people did not have machines like cranes to move with them, but they still completed the task. If we were to create a time machine would Egyptians be able to find a way to operate a phone or sustainable technology machines. Then again what he could be implying is that our technology and culture might change but humanity’s creativity and self-awareness does not change. However, in this sentence “He possessed, to a remarkable degree, the gift of being able to hearten and encourage others, particularly the young and untried”. What does he mean by untried? His views on older people are very unusual. Older people might not be able to contribute to society physically depending on their health, but they can contribute to society mentally with their wisdom. They have the knowledge and wisdom that young people rely on all the time. One reason young people often avoid repeating their parents’ mistakes is that older family members warn them about the consequences. Or maybe a grandfather passed down his knowledge to his grandson on how to play the guitar or piano and it sparked an interest. Back toward his ‘human mind neither progressed or declined from age to age’. I am very certain that older people have played a huge role in inspiring humanity’s creativity. Is he trying to imply that older people are stuck in their ways and young people can bring something new to the table?
Kye Harris
For my Week #1 Question I wanted to discuss a passage from Thoreau’s chapter Economy I found still particularly relevant regarding society today. At the beginning of the chapter Thoreau explores the limitations of responsibility. He pities his neighbors who inherit farms and career paths and claims that being raised by a wild animal would be a more fortunate situation to find one’s self in. He continues this idea by exploring the arbitrary boxes and rules society confines itself in, specifically through the implications of one’s clothing.
“We don garment after garment, as if we grew like exogenous plants by addition without. Our outside an often thin and fanciful clothes are our epidermis, or false skin, which partakes not of our life, and may be stripped off here and there without fatal injury; our thicker garments , constantly worn, are our cellular integument, or cortex; but our shirts are our liber, or true bark, which cannot be removed without girdling and destroying the man (Thoreau, 23).
Thoreau describes clothing as a type of mask or performance that is worn as “false skin.” He claims that this performance actually inhibits an individual from authentically living. He goes on to describe the thickest layer of clothing as a type of barrier between a person, and perhaps, truly connecting to the world around them.
How does Thoreau’s perspective on outward conformities apply to modern life, are his critiques still relevant? How does Thoreau’s conclusions on social conformity allude to his decision to live at Walden Pond and publish his observations as Walden?
Clara NeSmith
In Thoreau’s first chapter of Walden, titled “Economy,” he explores many ideas that are still relevant today. One such idea is about materialism and consumerism, as told by Walden through clothing along with other things. Thoreau discusses how, even then, people were constantly buying new clothes as the latest styles and fashions came out. We know how this has reached an extreme level in modern times, leading to the fast fashion crisis and a huge amount of waste. Something that Thoreau understood to be a problem in 1854, close to 175 years ago, has only worsened since then. Thoreau talks about how it isn’t important what clothes you wear or if they’re old. These irrational trends and trivial spending habits on luxuries will never make a person happy and fulfilled. Thoreau writes, “When the soldier is hit by a cannon-ball, rags are as becoming as purple.” It doesn’t matter if you’re wearing rags or a thousand-dollar ball gown; we are all going to die, and then we won’t be remembered for the insignificant things we wore, but rather for who we were as a person, what we did well in life, and the people we helped. Another quote I felt was important was, “But if my jacket and trousers, my hat and shoes, are fit to worship God in, they will do; will they not?” If it’s good enough for god, it’s good enough for anyone else. These are not the things one must spend their time and money worrying about. This aligns with Thoreau’s sentiment: “The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it.” Rather than focusing on material things and consumerism, we must reconnect with nature and traditional ways of life.
How does Thoreau’s emphasis on minimalism in clothing challenge our current-day obsession with fashion as a status symbol? How can we find balance as a society between self-expression through clothing and living more simply and sustainably like Thoreau (perhaps secondhand)? What are some similar examples where a “flaw” was recognized in society years ago, but has only worsened since then?
Sophia Hall
In “Economy”, Thoreau explores the importance of simplicity and self-reliance in life. Thoreau advocates for stripping away excess and focusing on the necessities, arguing that true wealth is found not in material possessions but in the ability to live deliberately and with purpose. He critiques societal norms that prioritize material accumulation and warns against becoming enslaved to the pursuit of wealth. Thoreau writes, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation.” This observation underscores his belief that many people sacrifice their freedom and contentment to relentlessly pursue societal expectations, often neglecting their inner lives and personal fulfillment. By choosing a life of simplicity at Walden Pond, Thoreau demonstrates his philosophy of living intentionally and in harmony with nature.
Thoreau’s critique of materialism raises profound questions about the role of societal expectations in shaping individual lives. He challenges readers to examine their own relationship with consumption and conformity. In today’s consumer-driven world, his ideas feel particularly relevant. How much of our lives are dictated by the pursuit of material wealth, and how often do we pause to question what truly brings us happiness?
Meg Misiak
Thoreau gains many of insights from the nature around him and uses such as analogies within his thoughts and the dissection of the society he felt he and his fellow humans have been trapped in by each other. We believe we know what we want but I do not think we do really know what we as individuals want. “Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them”(pg. 20). Along side the quote that Thoreau decided to end Economy on, “… if thy hand has plenty, be liberal as the date tree; but if it affords nothing to giveaway, be an azad, or free man, like the cypress” (pg. 94). This might be taken slightly out of context but is the free man one who does not have anything to give and does not need to pluck the finer fruits, or is the free man one who has everything to give but also knows how to pluck the finer fruits? Or is the freeman a combination on this spectrum of giving and taking? If your hands are full of these finer fruits why wouldn’t you want to share them with your fellow human? Be free pick the finer fruits but don’t be upset when your hands are empty.
-elan
In the chapter “Economy,” Thoreau sets the scene for Walden and his experiment living a more simple, secluded life, sharing the thoughts that came to him as he began his experiment. I find he leans into a bit of dramatic effect when proving his points. He starts off this chapter with a lot of bold and curt statements that can hit deep at first glance. The copy of Walden that I’m reading now is an illustrated version and popular quotes are highlighted throughout the text, and the first quote that is illustrated is “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” This paragraph later continues on with “A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work,” (5). He goes on to criticize the differences between necessities and luxuries in life, as well as excessive labor and wealth.
While I don’t disagree that his emphasis on simplicity throughout the reading is valid and could be a productive opposition to materialism of today, I find it interesting that he makes these claims from his cabin at Walden. It makes sense, but I wonder if a lot of his thoughts and feelings would be applicable to most of the human population. Of course he would feel this way as he is intentionally separating himself from this life he knows. But is that how others feel as well? So for my question, do we agree with his statement that “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation”? What might Thoreau be implying as ‘desperation’ and is simplicity truly the fix?
Ella Holmes
In the chapter titled ‘Economy’ in Thoreau’s book, Walden, Thoreau sets the scene as an experience living the simple life at the Walden Pond, showing how little materialistic items one really needs to live their life. He also critiques the concept of our labor-driven society, which is a topic that I have always wondered about. The following quote stood out to me: “This spending of the best part of ones life earning money in order to enjoy a questionable liberty during the least valuable part of it reminds me of the Englishman who went to India to make a fortune first, in order that he might return to England and live the life of a poet.” This quote points out the lifestyle that so many people have for years and currently live in, arguing that most people sacrifice their time and freedom to make money for unnecessary things and unsure futures. I also feel like in this chapter a job has been made out to be something that does not provide someone with happiness, but wealth, and wealth in turn provides people with happiness. However, most people do not become wealthy from their jobs, as it is now just a means of survival.
In today’s day and age, is it possible to balance personal happiness with financial responsibility? Is it too late to balance those two things in today’s economy? If not, what would it take to achieve this?
-Margo Smith
In the first chapter of Walden, titled “Economy”, Thoreau critiques societal conformity, materialism, and consumerism, and he emphasizes the limitations that they place on “authentic” living. He uses clothing as a metaphor, exploring how outward conformity masks true individuality and often creates barriers between people and the natural world, describing clothing as “false skin”.
His experiment at Walden displays his rejection of societal norms. His observations challenge us to reconsider our own values and priorities, particularly in a world dominated by consumerism. All of which has led to environmental degradation and unethical labor practices.
What can we learn from his lessons in philosophy and how can we apply to address modern issues such as environmental degradation and social inequity? How does his metaphor of clothing as a “false skin” reflect broader societal pressures to conform? How can his call for simplistic and authentic living inspire solutions to modern issues?
-Kendall Nerenberg
Thoreau’s “Economy” provides a thoughtful discussion of civilization and the philosophical, spiritual, and practical challenges faced by man. These challenges come as a result of a society that has become increasingly disconnected from nature, centering around consumerism, superficiality, and exploitation. Thoreau argues for the value of returning to a simpler way of life, highlighting food, shelter, clothing, and fuel as all that is needed to satisfy man’s needs. Focusing on satisfying just these necessities leads to a kind of freedom and self-discovery that, according to Thoreau, can not be undervalued. He goes on to compare the civilized man with the savage, their differences in lifestyle, and the trade-offs associated with them. A particular passage from this section stood out to me:
“Nevertheless this points to an important distinction between the civilized man and the savage; and, no doubt, they have designs on us for our benefit, in making the life of a civilized people an institution , in which the life of the individual is to a great extent absorbed, in order to preserve and perfect that of the race. But I wish to show at what a sacrifice this advantage is at present obtained, and to suggest that we may possibly so live as to secure all the advantage without suffering any of the disadvantage.”
Do you agree with Thoreau’s assertion about civilization “absorbing” the individual for overall progress, and the increasing cost associated with that?
Later on, Thoreau describes one of the costs associated with this arrangement being the time and labor sacrificed to reap the “benefits”, citing the often perpetual cycle of debt and poverty associated with land/home ownership. He seemingly critiques the idea that higher standards of living are not directly correlated with a higher quality of life, “While civilization has been improving our houses, it has not equally improved the men who are to inhabit them. It has created palaces, but it was not so easy to create noblemen and kings”.
The ideas presented by Thoreau in seem to hold a similar sentiment to the critiques we see of society in sustainable development. How do you view the overlap, if any, between Thoreau’s ideas about civilization and the ideas expressed in sustainable development? How would these ideas be applied to society practically? Is it moral to actively pursue a lower standard of living in society?
-Max Lawrence
“Talk of a divinity in man! Look at the teamster on the highway, wending to market by day or night; does any divinity stir within him? His highest duty to fodder and water his horses! What is his destiny to him compared with the shipping interests? Does not he drive for Squire Make-a-stir? How godlike, how immortal, is he? See how he cowers and sneaks, how vaguely all the day he fears, not being immortal nor divine, but the slave and prisoner of his own opinion of himself, a fame won by his own deeds. Public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion. What a man thinks of himself, that it is which determines, or rather indicates, his fate. Self-emancipation even in the West Indian provinces of the fancy and imagination, —what Wilberforce is there to bring that about? Think, also, of the ladies of the land weaving toilet cushions against the last day, not to betray too green an interest in their fates! As if you could kill time without injuring eternity.” (Economy pg 6)
This passage early on in Economy really stuck out to me. In it, Thoreau questions not only the morality possessed by those who harm others due to their entanglement within the economic machine, but their proximity and relationship to the divine. He questions if they possess divinity or if their lives are driven by frivolous worldly frameworks like ‘shipping interests’. Is this person’s life revolved around being a busy merchant or such, far removed from divinity? He points out how terribly weak willed and cowardly someone must be whose life revolves around the economy and exploitation of others, and calls him a “slave and prisoner of his own opinion of himself”. I believe that Thoreau, if able to experience the modern era we are living through now, would be disgusted by the wealth disparities and influence CEOs and billionaires possess. He criticizes those who deny their inner divinity and godlike qualities to become a part of the economic machine. He criticizes these peoples’ tendency to prioritize public opinion within their society over one’s opinion of themselves. Disconnecting from personal interests and feelings far removes one from divinity, and they become a prisoner of society’s harsh judgements. My question about this section is, what would Thoreau be most baffled by, within the framework of divine proximity, economic entanglement, and self imprisonment, if he were able to experience America now? How would he explain the minds of billionaires who monopolized industries and garnered wealth through standing on the backs of hard working Americans?
Caroline Laschinger
After reading the first chapter in Walden named “Economy”, I do agree with the statement that Thoreau is controversial. His critique of the relationship between monetary gain and the pursuit of happiness is one that I agree with, but in this current capitalistic-driven society, it is impossible to separate money from the equation. Thoreau advocates for simplicity, a life where people should be self-sufficient because that is how people truly gain freedom. Considering, Thoreau’s experiment in living at the Walden Pond, it presents the question of how practical this approach is in the modern world. How could Thoreau’s principles be involved in our consumer-driven economy? How could we apply these principles and still remain true to his values or self-reliance and conscious consumption?
Fia Mascari
Walden Thoreau was a common (poor) man in the nineteenth century who began writing in his twenties. His writings consisted mostly of deep philosophical processing and analysis of multiple themes relating to home humanity and self. The reader can identify psychological concepts within his writings that can be easily translated into definitions that aid understanding of human nature. Some major psychology and philosophy-related themes are human locus of control, Id, self-concepts, priming, semantic memory, and many more. There are countless quotes, paragraphs, and pages to dissect from his writings. I could write numerous pages on just a paragraph from what he wrote in the Economy chapter. A forum doesn’t justify his perspective, and I’m sure he’d be insulted if I wrote a small paragraph dimming his manifesto, which is exactly what I’m going to do. However, I’m sure he’d be thrilled that poor students are reading his content. Maybe Walden will be what I write about for my final paper…..
In the first few pages, he captures the audience’s attention with his extremely pessimistic economic views on the average farmer’s inheritance. Walden states that misfortuned farming men being brought into this world are better off if they had been “born in the open pasture and suckled by a wolf” then “[they might have seen with clearer eyes what field they were to labor in]”. He believed that people are ignorant and mistaken in the world, everyone is occupied with factitious and superfluously coarse labors of life where its finer fruits cannot be plucked.
Like I said before, there is loads to say. He discusses the divinity of man and conflicting viewpoints of self-control in the common man. Concepts and hints of free will and determinism are sprinkled throughout the chapter. He also dives into economy and civilization towards the middle. I’m sure he and Karl Marx would have gotten along together fine. Walden also discusses clothing for multiple pages, and how a man’s attire carries his weight. Nothing I disagree with about his clothing pages; well, maybe this quote…. “Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new”. This quote is fifty-fifty, like much of his philosophy I agree with. Today, people do not laugh at old fashion, but it is embraced. There are billions more people on the planet and everyone has a different taste, while most people want to keep up with the new. Whether it’s clothing or some bullshit.
Thoreau’s standout claim and overarching message from the chapter titled “Economy” is a stark critique of capitalism and the human tendency to value material objects above all else. He discusses the idea of economy not only in economic/financial language but through a philosophical lens. Thoreau argues that true intrinsic happiness is not derived from the accumulation of material possessions. Rather, he advocates for a life of simplicity and challenging one’s self to become as in-tune with nature as possible. I agree with most of what Thoreau says in this chapter, particularly the need to minimize material desire and the importance of the aforementioned relationship with nature. My question to the class would be this: “What is it about human nature that causes us to inherently desire material possession so deeply? Is this a biological trait or one that humanity assumed over time as society became more and more advanced?”
In the opening chapter of “Walden and Other Writings”, Thoreau discusses his decision to life simply and self-sufficiently in the woods near Walden Pond. He wrote “Moreover, I, on my side, require of every writer, first or last, a simple and sincere account of his own life, and not merely what he has heard of other men’s lives; some such account as he would send to his kindred from a distant land; for if he has lived sincerely, it must have been in a distant land to me” (Thoreau 3). The contrast between his simplistic and somewhat isolated lifestyle and the lifestyle that many of us live today is staggering. It offers a commentary on the divergence between our society’s way of living and how we have molded into a consumer-based world. How does his critique of modern society’s materialism and consumerism resonate with contemporary life? Do you think his call for a simpler, more intentional existence is still relevant today?
Simplicity. It began frustrating me how many times Thoreau used a new analogy or phrasing just to relay his single argument in a clear phrase at the end of the chapter. It became so annoyingly repetitive that I started to wonder if this was, in fact, his entire point. What annoyed me even more is that I started to agree with him (on selected points). Removing unnecessary luxuries theoretically aids in dismantling the undesired structure he criticizes, he makes a good point. Boasting about how “easily” he achieved this during his stay at Walden publicly challenges the idea of wealth and material success. His constant reiteration of the same core argument, stripping away unnecessary things to live a more intentional life, to me, seems as a rhetorical strategy to force the reader into a state of introspection. What I’m trying to say is, do you think Thoreau’s tone, which to me came across as condescending toward both the elderly and the poor, and his constant reiteration of his point, is a deliberate rhetorical choice to make the reader think deeper into his argument and reflect on one’s material needs? I agree that this repetition, while irritating, seems intentional in nudging us to reflect deeply on where we hold value and who encourages it. He is very straightforward with his views and seems dismissive to those who do not live according to his ideal. However, this could also be a part of his strategy to provoke thought, almost like he is trying to shake people out of complacency by making them uncomfortable. Reading this now years after he published it I think this is the whole point of economy and why Walden is generationally successful, his critique of materialism and the pursuit of status speaks directly to the structure of modern western society.
Sasha Fuellhart
Simplicity. It began frustrating me how many times Thoreau used a new analogy or phrasing just to relay his single argument in a clear phrase at the end of the chapter. It became so annoyingly repetitive that I started to wonder if this was, in fact, his entire point. What annoyed me even more is that I started to agree with him (on selected points). Removing unnecessary luxuries theoretically aids in dismantling the undesired structure he criticizes, he makes a good point. Boasting about how “easily” he achieved this during his stay at Walden publicly challenges the idea of wealth and material success. His constant reiteration of the same core argument, stripping away unnecessary things to live a more intentional life, to me, seems as a rhetorical strategy to force the reader into a state of introspection. What I’m trying to say is, do you think Thoreau’s tone, which to me came across as condescending toward both the elderly and the poor, and his constant reiteration of his point, is a deliberate rhetorical choice to make the reader think deeper into his argument and reflect on one’s material needs? I agree that this repetition, while irritating, seems intentional in nudging us to reflect deeply on where we hold value and who encourages it. He is very straightforward with his views and seems dismissive to those who do not live according to his ideal. However, this could also be a part of his strategy to provoke thought, almost like he is trying to shake people out of complacency by making them uncomfortable. Reading this now years after he published it I think this is the whole point of economy and why Walden is generationally successful, his critique of materialism and the pursuit of status speaks directly to the structure of modern western society.
Sasha Fuellhart
After reading others discussions along with the conversations we have had in class i’ve noticed a couple themes. We have talked about the controversies behind the way that Thoreau sees himself as well as how he sees others. He tends to see himself and his point of view as the right one and discredits others as seemingly unintelligent if they don’t agree with him. The way he drags elders by writing them off as having nothing to give, and judging the “rags” that are worn by others less wealthy.
What really caught my attention though was the numbers he gave when it came to owning a house. It would take an entire lifetime for a worker to acquire enough money to buy a home. It was seemingly impossible to get out of the loop of renting from the rich and in turn making them more rich. When Thoreau built his house he spent less than $30, but said the rent workers were paying monthy was more than that. We are made to believe that renting is worth it, and what option do we really have? You have to have shelter, but who says what kind of shelter that has to be. We are trained to follow what is taught to us so closely that the idea of building a house on your own is usually seen as more expensive, but in most cases that is a lie. We don’t think about the possibility of stepping out and following our own path, and instead stay in the same system that keeps us from succeeding and building wealth. Is this from a lack of education, or simply fear?
Landon Dancy
“If we do not get out sleepers, and forge rails, and devote days and nights to the work, but go to tinkering upon our lives to improve them , who will build railroads? And if railroads are not built, how shall we get to heaven in season? But if we stay at home and mind our business, who will want railroads? We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us. Did you ever think what those sleepers are that underlie the railroad? Each one is a man, an Irishman, or a Yankee man. The rails are laid on them, and they are covered with sand, and the cars run smoothly over them. They are sound sleepers, I assure you. And every few years a new lot is laid down and run over; so that, if some have the pleasure of riding on a rail, others have the misfortune to be ridden upon. And when they run over a man that is walking in his sleep, a supernumerary sleeper in the wrong position, and wake him up, they suddenly stop the cars, and make a hue and cry about it, as if this were an exception. I am glad to know that it takes a gang of men for every five miles to keep the sleepers down and level in their beds as it is, for this is a sign that they may sometime get up again.”
The quote above is very long but I felt like I had to include the whole thing in order to answer my questions. This quote intrigues me and confuses me simultaneously, but I think it confuses me more. Does Thoreau mean that the men that the railroad is built on are the laborers and the passengers are the elite? And when he talks about stopping the cars when a man wakes up I believe he means that when someone wakes up to reality he is ridiculed by his peers but I feel like I am missing something. I would love to discuss this quote in class.
Thoreau speaks largely on the outward forces of community and economy that keep us in these societal bubbles. These forces being the need to stay within the pre established economy and markets both monetary and social that mandate the need for work. This “work” of course to pay and update luxuries so we go to the new and better things, and so that we may afford the necessities such as water, food, and shelter. Thoreau says, “But men labor under a mistake. The better part of the man is soon plowed into the soil for compost. By a seeming fate, commonly called necessity, they are employed, as it says in an old book, laying up treasures which moth and rust will corrupt and thieves break through and steal. It is a fool’s life, as they will find when they get to the end of it, if not before.” Walden pg.5. This along with what he states previously, demonstrates people are seemingly stuck in this loop of working to live yet they work so much they can not afford to live. The answer is seemingly obvious, work less and find ways to live without needing the new and best that is being teased to the masses. However, what happens when there are people that do live without the new and best but are still tied to their debts both fiscal and social? What happens when there are people that can not afford to leave society because their feet are tied to the pre established economy?
Thoreau also states, “Who could wear a patch , or two extra seams only, over the knee? Most people behave as if they believe that their prospects for life would be ruined if they should do it. It would be easier for them to hobble to town with a broken leg than with a broken pantaloon.” Walden pg.21. This refers to the people that can not live without the “new” and need to feel the social acceptance through means of having the best. These are people that, in opposition to those who can not afford them, go out of their way to have the best and would feel shame if that did not present themselves in a way that portrayed class and mirrored that of their peers. However, I argue that today in the modern age, the people that go out of their way to present themselves tend to mirror those who can not to seem more relatable. The people that we all see wearing pants with holes that they themselves did not make, those who make their pilgrimage to the Goodwill in their brand new Branco to ravage the racks first thing in the morning. These people masquerade as the workers so that they may be grouped in with the “poor students” that Thoreau says will understand his writing. If these wolves lie amongst the sheep but are not tied to the shepherd, how do we differentiate those who can and those who cannot? How do the people that can not afford to sever their ties to their economy and live if the solutions are being taken by the people who are masquerading? – Austin Chavez
In the chapter “Economy” Thoreau discusses his personal experiences to criticize humanity’s shift in lifestyle, one that prioritizes work and material gain over a simple or “the good life”. I found that he often directs his deep criticisms towards specific types of people rather than the complex systems that have made it more challenging to live a simple life as Thoreau has. He says, “Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them.” Walden pg. 3. Blaming people’s so-called ignorance, as a Harvard educated white man, seems unjustifiable, especially in regards to the time period he lived. It raises me to question, Would Thoreau’s ideal solution of simplifying our lifestyles be achievable today? I think society needs to shift to a more simple lifestyle and decrease consumerism, but Thoreau’s personal experiences seem very condescending of people who are not able to do the same as him.
Amelia Hagen
While reading the first chapter of Walden, I couldn’t help but put Thoreau in dialogue with another thinker I’ve been reading in another class – Marx. These two men were born within a year of one another and bore witness to the rise of industrial capitalism in their respective countries, which was clearly foundational to both of their philosophies. More specifically, what’s striking to me as I read Walden and portions of The German Ideology is how both men speak to the phenomenon of alienation in industrial society from different, yet complementary perspectives. In many ways, Thoreau echoes the sentiments of Marx when he discusses the consequences of intensified division of labor/specialization in work, disconnection from nature, the mechanization of human labor, commodity fetishism, etc. What makes these two perspectives complimentary to me is how Marx tackles capitalist exploitation (alienation) from a production standpoint, whereas Thoreau primarily addresses it from the angle of personal consumption. With that being said, there are also serious tensions between their modes of thinking. This brings me to my question: is there a way to reconcile Thoreau’s message of personal austerity with Marx’s vision of proletariat mass mobilization and material abundance under communism?
Jack Ely
Thoreau’s first chapter in Walden, “Economy,” examines the capitalist mindset of overconsumption and how it exploits the poor. As he observes the townspeople around him, he notices that they are living a life of luxury that they cannot afford in order to satisfy their desire to be seen as important.”Indeed, the more you have of such things, the poorer you are.” Thoreau advocates for the utilitarian use of items rather than those that convey social status. I interpret this book as a call to action after reading the first chapter, which aims to convince the men in his life to give up the capitalistic idea that success and fulfillment are based on one’s material belongings. Thoreau writes, “Dress a scarecrow in your last shift, you standing shiftless by who would not soonest salute the scarecrow?” Thoreau makes the argument that the capitalistic mindset exploits the lower classes in believing their worth is tied to the clothes on their bodies. With the rise of social media, which promotes fast fashion that can create new trends in large quantities every week, this way of thinking may be even more relevant today. These clothing trends are typically low-cost and quickly discarded in order to remain relevant in society. In that sense, I understand Thoreau’s point of view, because I believe there is a major problem in the fashion industry where products are designed for aesthetics rather than quality. “It is the luxurious and dissipated who set the fashions which the herd so diligently follow.” Today’s fast fashion industry is based on producing low-cost knockoffs of brand-name products and selling them in order for middle and lower-class people to keep up with the wealthy. Reading Economy Thoreau seemed to advocate not only a utilitarian way of life, but also a complete dissipation of expression through one’s own possessions. I disagree with him on this point because I believe we can benefit from self-expression without harming ourselves or the environment. It was mentioned in class that Thoreau had his clothes washed for him, implying that he did not fully adhere to his philosophy. I would advocate for slow fashion, in which we patch up our clothes but are not afraid to buy something that makes us happy on occasion. In class, we learned the expression “Sankofa,” which roughly translates to “do not be afraid to fetch what you have left behind.” Do you believe that societies today can adopt the ideas that Thoreau is urging his townspeople, or have we had tunnel vision for so long that it is too late to go back?
Aura Cochran
After my reading of the first chapter there was one idea that really stood out to me. This being that Thoreau’s suggestion that a person’s perception of themselves shapes their future, this is deeply tied to his philosophy of self-reliance and individualism. In the eyes of Thoreau how we perceive ourselves and our belfies has a massive influence on how we end up living our lives and the paths that we then choose to follow. An excellent example of this would be that if we see ourselves constrained by our society, we are likely to limit our options and tell ourselves we are undeserving of certain lifestyles or job opportunities, this can result in us falling into a routine that is decided by clouded judgement.
My question given Thoreau’s ideals on self-perception and the shaping of our lives, do we think that it would be possible for us to become fully self-reliant in today’s world? What type of external or internal pressures could keep us from succeeding?
-Lex Blake
Though it takes some time to work through, I do really enjoy Thoreau’s style of writing, and found many quotes throughout this first chapter to be quite powerful. One that particularly stood out to me on page 118 reads “One farmer says to me, ‘You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make bones with;’ and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying his system with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plough along in spite of every obstacle.” This stuck with me, not only because of its wording, but because it can be related to other situations on individual, community, and global levels. With the time period in mind, I assume that this quote heavily implies the fault of the slavery systems which had not yet been abolished. With our current time period in mind, what particular sustainable development situations/social justice issues come to mind with this quote, and how do they differentiate on local, regional, national, and international levels?
Paige Kaine
Transcendental Transsexualism by Aaron Batty
In Economy, Thoreau reminds us that conventional ways of thinking and conducting our business often require us to abandon our true nature, preventing us from the spiritual and intellectual growth necessary for self-actualization.
“The greater part of what my neighbors call good I believe in my soul to be bad, and if I repent of anything, it is very likely to be my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well? You may say the wisest thing you can, old man — you who have lived seventy years, not without honor of a kind — I hear an irresistible voice which invites me away from all that.”
“Public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion. What a man thinks of himself, that it is which determines, or rather indicates, his fate.”
In making ourselves into something we are not, we become the purveyors of our own toiling. Although certain societal norms and prescribed labels can sway us from our true nature to protect ourselves, at the end of the day we have autonomy over self opinion. The recent executive order seeking to “restore biological truth to the federal government,” (ironically ignoring the biological truth of intersex people), has been at the forefront of my mind as my trans brothers, sisters, and I wonder how this explicit imposition of this binary regime will affect our safety and autonomy.
“Birds do not sing in caves, nor do doves cherish their innocence in dovecots.”
Our first house is our body, our first economy: the management of that divine dwelling. We make ourselves through our intuition and values, and to let our management be dictated by external opinions is akin to possession. We are asked to give up our nature to inhabit the values of another entity. Through the self-making process of my transition I opened myself to that irresistible voice, for the first time “knowing what it is to live in open air.”
Thoreau shared multiple examples of self-emancipation and I would like to ask: How have each of us rejected harmful societal rules or public opinions in order to honor our true nature?
Conversely, what societal rules keep you from exploring your own nature and following a different path than what is expected? In other words, what demon possesses you to behave so well?
In the Chapter “Economy” by Thoreau, I feel compelled to write about Thoreau’s work for being ahead of his time. In a society that has continued to develop, promote mass consumption, and encourage people to buy certain “luxuries” to earn status from their peers, Thoreau’s “Economy” critiques the distance between labor and consumption. Thoreau develops the idea that consumerism brings short term satisfaction but is not truly fulfilling nor sustainable. In the quote “The luxuriously rich are not simply kept comfortably warm, but unnaturally hot; as I implied before, they are cooked, of course à la mode. . . .(140)” Thoreau refers to the overconsumption of certain lifestyles. By meeting your basic needs, you are kept “warm” and comfortable. While having too much, you are “cooked” by engaging too much in over-indulgence in material possessions.
In contrast, Thoreau believes that living should be under simpler terms. Humans go beyond just the needs of comfort, which Thoreau finds to be unnecessary and cause disconnection from the natural world. Thoreau’s thoughts seem more inward focused, becoming a better person in society by looking at yourself deeper and creating awareness within the spaces you occupy.
Thoreau also writes of the disconnect between consumption and labor, which contemporarily has only increased. He mentioned that within capitalism debt lingers but because of comparisons with peers, not when it comes to meeting basic needs. There is a certain need for a positive public opinion, which Thoreau critiques in his concept of “silent poor”. He expands by saying that our laborers are responsible for creating wealth, which oftentimes is unrecognized.
In the quote “ The myriads who built the pyramids to be the tombs of the Pharaohs were fed on garlic, and it may be were not decently buried themselves (350)” emphasizes the conditions of the laborers who were living in extreme poverty while also creating one of the most well known structures in the world and another level of irony were potentially buried in unmarked graves while the Pharaohs were buried lavishy. He refers to this concept as to how many of the luxuries of life are disconnected from their history and the hands they have gone through. In our societal structure, value is placed on material possessions rather than the well-being of laborers.
Overall, Thoreau brings up issues that are increasingly relevant in modern times and develops frameworks that are not often thought about. By seeing materials/luxuries through the eyes of the labor, as well as his critique of over-indulgence in a world that is engulfed by capitalistic societal norms, Thoreau’s perspective remains nuanced and contributed to ethical concerns.
How might people adopt the idea of living simply without being consumed by a world of over-indulgence and consumerism? Are the only means to do so to move away from industrial life like Thoreau?
Ava Allen