In ‘Economy’ Thoreau recounts his experience at Walden Pond, where he “lived alone in the woods… living by the labor of my hands only” (Thoreau, 3). Walden seems to be driven by his search for what is important/necessary in life. Thoreau particularly praises self-reliance- note him entering into the woods utterly reliant on himself. He speaks of the independence of a day laborer, and the freedom it brings to devote themselves “to his chosen pursuits” (67). In addition, he sites his preference for solitary living, as it provides more freedom.
Sustainable Development often seems to align itself with collective action. However, Thoreau stresses self-reliance. Can these things be intertwined, or do they exist separate from one another?
Henry David Thoreau in “Economy” talks about the essentials man needs to survive. He names food and shelter as the most crucial supplies needed to sustain humans, but also notes clothing and fuel (Thoreau, 11). Thoreau says “most luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only indispensable, but positive hinderances to the elevation of mankind. With respect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever lived a more simple and meagre life than the poor” (Thoreau, 15). Do you think his attitude towards this would have changed if he had not been able to move back to “civilized society” and forced to live off the land for survival rather than an experiment? It is easy to be critical of the farmers way of life when he can go back to such luxuries.
Economy was a very complex and detailed chapter regarding what Thoreau considers to be everything you need in life. Thoreau has a very simplistic view, considered radical by many at the time, of how a person should be living their life and what happiness should be derived from. He believed the only things you need in order for life are food, shelter, clothing, and fuel (11). He is perplexed that humans have come to desire luxury and non-essential goods to deem themselves happy and content. However, he later points out that his mindset is ‘very selfish’ (69) and recognizes the sacrifices he has made to reach this point in life. I think this is very telling because many people see him as an extremist, but this shows while he thinks what he is doing is the truest form of freedom and life, he recognizes that not everyone can achieve this. This brings up an interesting point to me, if Thoreau realizes that this type of life is not for everyone, how do you think we can live with true happiness as he calls it in a material world? It also makes me question whether or not it is people’s greed that drives this materialistic mindset or is it because of the capitalist system we are in?
Thoreau’s “Economy” criticizes conventional structures of education and authority. As a part of this critique, Thoreau denounces the common association between age and wisdom, stating that “One may almost doubt if the wisest man has learned anything of absolute value by living. Practically, the old have no very important advice to give the young” (Thoreau 8). Although he believes that experience doesn’t necessarily generate wisdom, Thoreau also highlights its importance to learning, asking, “How could youths better learn to live than by at once trying the experiment of living?” (48). How are Thoreau’s beliefs about authority and learning influenced by his belief in subjective knowledge? If knowledge is truly individualized, what makes someone wise and what, if anything, gives Thoreau the intellectual authority to give others advice through “Walden”?
Henry David Thoreau, throughout the entirety of “Economy” kept bringing the emphasis back to simplicity, basic necessity, and what should truly be considered “riches.” In particular, Thoreau states, “By the words, necessary of life, I mean whatever, of all the man obtain by his own exertions, has been from the first, or from long use has become, so important to human life that few, if any…ever attempt to do without it,” (Thoreau, 9). From what I gathered from this quote, Thoreau claims that necessity should be determined by whether or not every single human being, regardless of social or financial status, requires it, or would be worse off without. This led me to think about how immense of a disconnect there is from what someone in the United States would consider an absolute necessity as opposed to what someone from the agricultural areas of Kashmir would. Americans (tend to) have such an burning intent to stay rooted in the ways of convenience and consumerism, so how do we draw the line? How are we to convince, or even discuss with, creatures of habit to reconsider the meaning of a Need?
Towards the end of “Economy,” Thoreau admits that he has “hitherto indulged very little in philanthropic enterprises,” (69) but then spends significant time discussing “goodness tainted,” (70) and the like of philanthropic practices. After describing a personal encounter with someone poor who refused help, Thoreau offers insight on similar circumstances, saying “… it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve,” (72). I believe this thought process aligns with many discussions in sustainable development surrounding food aid, charity, and the like, which actually support the current system which creates the need for aid or charity in the first place. Although, I think Thoreau may have come to this conclusion from his beliefs surrounding consumerism and physical possessions, meaning the problem isn’t that the poor lack possessions and rather is that society enforces the belief that physical possessions are what we need. Is it an overgeneralization to group philanthropic practices in this way, as “goodness tainted” and suggest avoiding them all together? I wonder what his critique would be on present day society given the need for materialistic things to literally survive. Not everyone can be self-sufficient, nor does everyone have access to land, seeds, tools etc., or only has themselves to support. As we have discussed the importance of entitlement exchange and the like, how can we support people who are systematically denied basic human rights and needs to survive, while also ensuring we do not fulfill this “hole” in the system so as to simultaneously support it?
Thoreau states, “It is hard to have a southern overseer; it is worse to have a northern one; but worst of all when you are the slave-driver of yourself”(7), where he is presumably attributing to the northern and southern portions of America’s east coast during slavery, however, I find it hard not to imagine he may also be speaking to colonialism and global slavery in which the global south is in an “inferior” position in terms of being economic slaves to the global north. From our class’s first reading by Wolfgang Sachs, we are reminded that Harry Truman referred to poorer or less economically advanced countries as “underdeveloped” (72), propagating this Western societal construct that those who are “below” us (be it the global south, slaves, or even laborers working under a corporation) should strive to become more similar to the Westernized model of functioning. There are these narratives created and perpetuated by our economy’s persistent obsession with abundance and profit that indoctrinate societies, globally, to adhere to and strive for the Western view of a desirable life. Thoreau goes on to say, “…[he is] but the slave and prisoner of his own opinion of himself”… “Public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion”, I’d argue that this statement is only partially true; is our opinion of our self really ours? Or is it a socially implemented psychological outcome of a long lineage of colonization, slavery, and capitalism making us value ourselves only when we partake in certain actions or obtain material items? Is our interpretation of our own worth based upon the judgment of others, exacerbated by these socially constructed value systems that attribute worth with accumulation and wealth? “Underdeveloped” regions didn’t know they were behind, backward, or lacking until the West changed the perception of their value system. Would we view ourselves as worthier individuals had we not been convinced our worth was determined by the approval of the system and everyone inherently entangled within it? To reiterate and eliminate confusion, the main question I’m getting at here is: Is our opinion of our self really “ours”?
Based on our class discussion Tuesday and information given in the introduction of our book, it is fair to say that Thoreau experienced many transformations throughout his life. How do these major life events and transformations come through to the audience in his first chapter of the book, “Economy”? What transformations show through Thoreau’s writing by the end of the first chapter?
In Henry Thoreau’s “Economy”, he discusses the different necessities of life. Whether that may be just a few inches of grass to eat and water to drink for a bison with a possible need of shelter. While for man the necessities of life can be seen as “several heads of food, shelter, clothing, and fuel.” With nature doing much to provide these necessities, a man who is inclined to accept them can live off the land with less of a struggle. However if one is in search of more than what is offered by nature itself, they will find themselves less satisfied in life and always in search for something more “luxurious.” Thoreau goes on to say, “…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.” Thoreau uses warmth as a metaphor in relation to luxury. “The luxuriously rich are not kept comfortably warm, but unnaturally hot.” With that being said, what would one consider necessities in this day and age? Is the norm in this present moment keeping us comfortably warm or is our advanced society as a whole unnaturally hot?
In Henry David Thoreau’s ‘Economy’ he provides readers with insight into his two-year, two-month stay at Walden pond. As Thoreau views society from a distance, he talks about the modern man who only has an eye for material gains. He stresses that farmers have begun to lose their relationship with nature as farming has become yet another way to gain property and wealth. When Thoreau’s neighbors “inherited farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools” he described this as ‘misfortune’. He continues by stating “for these are more easily acquired than got rid of ”. (Thoreau, 22) In today’s society, I would consider this statement to be invalid since sustainable farming has become abundant and land is nearly unfeasible to obtain unless inherited. Why does Thoreau consider this inheritance to be a “misfortune”?
Thoreau’s perspective on community is one that has surprised and confused me the most thus far in reading. He writes, “We belong to the community. It is not the tailor alone who is the ninth part of a man; it is as much the preacher, and the merchant, and the farmer. Where is this division of labor to end? and what object does it finally serve?”
Is this a critique on literal community? For a man who denounces relying on the system of materialism or consumerism, it’s interesting that he would also denounce the idea of relying on your own community or your neighbors in order to survive. Does he really expect the individual to be fully self sufficient? Is that realistic or possible, when he himself relied on his neighbors for certain goods to make his own house?
Or is this maybe his way of referencing the capitalist nature of division of labor as a whole, critiquing the idea of primitive accumulation?
As Thoreau discussed in “Economy” he was able to simmer out his lifestyle and live a simpler life for a short period when he lived at Walden Pond. Thoreau was able to move into the woods and successfully build his own home, grow his own food, utilize his surroundings, and cook and warm his home with a woodstove. Would this simpler lifestyle be possible in today’s society? I think on a small scale it certainly can as we see people commit to this lifestyle all the time, but would it be possible on a large scale? As Thoreau mentioned people have become incredibly materialistic and focused on making more and more money so that they can acquire “things”. In our modern-day capitalist society, emphasis is placed on profit and financial gain through the exploitation of people and the earth, with this concept in mind you’d think that it would turn people away from that style of life and towards a simpler one. This has happened and obviously plays a huge part in why we are all here today involved in Sustainable Development. What this economic structure has done is created huge economic powerhouses that have obtained ungodly amounts of wealth and power that essentially run our government and make decisions based on their best interest, not the people. Is it possible to overthrow our current economic system and sway the masses to give up their materialistic lifestyle in order to live a simpler life? If so, what would be the first step?
In Economy in Walden, Thoreau states “Be sure that you give the poor the aid they most need, though it be your example which leaves them far behind. If you give money, spend yourself with it, and do not merely abandon it to them.” Many times during this section of the book, Thoreau has mentioned a lot of points along the lines of the poor and money. With that being said this quote seems to point to the fact that we send people to ‘developing’ countries to help develop their economy and society when in fact the people who live in these countries don’t want these changes. Instead, we need to be providing these places for the help they ask for and listen to the ways they want it rather than pushing our own rhetoric onto them. Does providing monetary needs without taking the time to understand the community we are working with truly help them? Even on a small scale, this tactic doesn’t work without providing the time because of the way our society is built. So in a way, does it make giving money to people ‘in need’ invalid compared to the time we could give?
In Thoreau’s chapter “Solitude,” he stressed the distinction between isolation and loneliness, ensuring that he is not lonely in isolation but rather comfortable and joyous being enveloped in the natural world. In describing this he states, “I have a great deal of company in my house; especially in the morning when nobody calls. Let me suggest a few comparisons, so that some may convey an idea of my situation. I am no more lonely than the loon in the pond that laughs so loud, or than Walden Pond itself… I am no more lonely than a single mullein or dandelion in a pasture, or a bean leaf, or sorrel, or a horse-fly, or a bumblebee.” (129) By likening himself to the plants and animals he is surrounded with, Thoreau seems to say that though he may be an individual “alone” in nature, he cannot be lonely among nature and the cycles of life he has inserted himself into that surround him, for no individual can truly be alone when surrounded by so many other organisms in constant interaction. Through only reading this chapter, it could be interpreted that Thoreau did not experience much human interaction, preferring the natural world to society. However, in the next chapter “Visitors,” Thoreau explains “I think I love society as much as most, and am ready enough to fasten myself like a bloodsucker for the time for the time to any full-blooded man that comes in my way. I am naturally no hermit, but might possibly sit out the sturdiest frequenter of the bar room if my business called me tither.” (132) Throughout the rest of this chapter, Thoreau details the many visitors he entertains and specifically which types of visitors he does not particularly like. He goes into great depth describing (somewhat sanctimoniously) a particular visitor for whom he holds a deep reverence for regarding his self reliant and solitary way of life and worldview that seems to be mostly in line with his own. He seems to speak of this man with the same admiration and acclaim as he does nature and solitude within nature. Though Thoreau is often read as a strong proponent of individualism, who would rather live a reclusive life, self-reliant on nature and away from society, in “visitors” we see that human connection is actually important to him, however he prefers connection to humans that he finds to be agreeable and self reliant like himself. How might this challenge his individualist stance? Do you think that being a part of, and enjoying, society actually robs one of the ability to be individual? Do you think that you can be and unique individual while still conforming to certain societal standards? After all, just like Thoreau is an individual when he is alone in nature surrounded by constant natural relations, can’t a person in society be and individual in society surrounded by social relations? Is reclusively necessary in order to truly understand oneself outside of the lens of society and form your own opinions?
Thoreau in “Economy” speaks about how man is too busy to enjoy the simple things in life, he writes “Most men…are so occupied with the facetious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them” (6). As man we are unable to enjoy what life has to offer because we are too busy working our lives away, I feel that this can still be true in some sense today. Thoreau also writes “Public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion”, which can play into why man is so eager to work, so they have something to show for it to not only others but themselves. Why have we linked working with being successful, when we can not enjoy our lives if we are working them away?
While Thoreau “self-isolated” himself in the woods of Concord, Massachusetts, he reflects on life, society, etc. In the beginning of “Economy,” Thoreau speaks on how life is often lived wrong. On page 5, Thoreau says “men labor by mistake.” What does he mean by this? Is he saying that we do unnecessary work throughout life? Or that life is meant to be lived leisurely? Furthermore, Thoreau says “he [men] has no time to be anything but a machine” (6). If we aren’t meant to work hard in life, how are we supposed to live our life? Is it correct to make the assumption that Thoreau has a very laze-fare attitude on life?
Throughout the chapter “Economy” Thoreau certainly criticizes the ways in which our society in America is shaped, especially in regards to what we deem as necessary for existence. I found the following quote from page six to be intriguing: “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…Actually, the laboring man has not leisure for a true integrity day by day…his labor would be depreciated in the market. He has no time to be anything but a machine.” The point Thoreau makes in this statement, I believe, rings true in today’s American society. Most people devote themselves almost if not completely to their job/career in pursuit of a “meaningful” life but through this devotion, often miss the mark in terms of true enjoyment. Later in the chapter Thoreau states, “No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof. What everybody echoes or in silence passes by as true today may turn out to be falsehood tomorrow, mere smoke of opinion (8).” These points lead me to ask: given the current state of society (in regard to the idea that to live a successful and “enjoyable” life you must devote your life to working for a conventional wage), are we living our lives in ways that are valuable outside of monetary income? Even if we were able to create radical change within our society, could we ever shift to a way of life which does not view people solely as members of a workforce?
In Thoreau’s chapter “Economy”, I immediately noticed that even though he addressed the fact that he didn’t want to over use “I” in his writing, in respect to egotism, he comes off as patronizing and arrogant within the first few pages. He is extremely critical to players in the market economy, and almost comes off in a mocking tone. I first noticed this on page 6, he writes “most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them. Their fingers, from excessive toil, are too clumsy and tremble too much for that.” He then continues to say that “He [man] has no time to be anything but a machine.” It seems like he should direct this arrogance and condescending tone towards the market economy itself, but he has chosen to mock the players of the market. Does his tone seem off putting to the point he is trying to make? Why does he feel he is better than these working people, when they were just as stuck in this position as he once was? Would he have been more influential if he had given advice, rather than patronizing people in these positions?
Henry David Thoreau, in his book “Walden,” wrote in length about his extended stay in the woods and how this solitude shaped the themes of this book, stating on the first page, “I lived alone, in the woods, a mile from any neighbor, in a house which I had built myself, on the shore of Walden Pond, in Concord, Massachusetts, and earned my living by the labor of my hands only. I lived there two years and two months. At present I am a sojourner in civilized life again.” He disapproves of the constant need in our free market society for continuous, back-breaking labor, and the serfdom of inherited and laborious farming, which he comes to write about through the isolation he stayed in during a two year period.
On the contrary, we discussed during our outdoor class meeting that Thoreau did not spend the entirety of his two years of solitude in actual solitude and indeed had some regular forms of human interaction and community. The people of Concord knew this, as they were the ones in contact with him, and I wonder how this book was accepted in the town through this fact. What was the general consensus of the book when it first came out and did it come with any backlash or thoughts of hypocrisy? Was his naturalist message muddled through these interactions (as much of the book thus far is about him living in solitude)? Were any of the people from Concord upset or offended by the blunt ways Thoreau described his distaste for modern civilization?
In Thoreau’s chapter “Economy”, he discusses a lot about things Man needs and thinks he needs to survive. One of the things that Man thinks he needs to survive is nice clothes, “as for Clothing, to come at once to the practical part of the question, perhaps we are led oftener by the love of novelty and a regard for the opinions of men, in procuring it, than by true utility” (20). He then goes on to discuss how clothing is really for keeping people warm and cover people up so they aren’t naked. Yet people care about if the clothes are patched up and the overall aesthetic of the clothing itself. How the price for long lasting clothing is pricier but still affordable, but people will buy cheaper clothing. He even says, “who could wear a patch, or two extra seams only, over the knee? Most behave as if they believed that their prospects for life would be ruined if they should do it” (21). He discusses the importance for clothing to be long lasting compared to just trying to stay up tp date on trends with cheaper clothing. Which is interesting because we have a problem with fast fashion today. Does his opinion of clothing still apply today? If it does, how similar is his opinion match with current problems in fast fashion? Is this problem more societal than it is about affordability?
Thoreau had a unique take on the importance of elders within society. As he writes on page 8 in Walden, “Age is no better, hardly so well, qualified for an instructor as youth, for it has not profited so much as it has lost. One may almost doubt if the wisest man has learned anything of absolute value by living”. Thoreau genuinely believes the youth have more to teach the elders than the other way around, but explains this roots primarily from his own personal experience. After thirty years, he says, he has yet to “hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors”. In many ways with my own experience I can understand where he is coming from. However, when you look at indigenous cultures and others around the world, you will find that the seniors do often hold the most wisdom, especially pertaining to relationships with the land and Mother Earth. Because of this I find it hard to fully agree with Thoreau on his notion that we should ignore the advice given from our elders, although they may not be “living” the way we are today, our seniors can keep us from making the same mistakes that were made in the past. Based on your own personal experience, how do you resonate with Thoreau’s perspective on the elders? Are there only specific teachings we should be listening to from them? What teachings do you believe we should try to push on to our youth when we become the next generation of elders?
In the chapter “Solitude”, Henry David Thoreau discusses his time living in a tiny house in Concord, Massachusetts. His reasoning for living in the woods and the experiences he endured influence many of the key themes throughout the book. In “Economy”, Thoreau states “most luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only indispensable, but positive hinderances to the elevation of mankind. With respect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever lived a more simple and meagre life than the poor.” (15) Is Thoreau trying to prove a point to the rest of society that you don’t need “things” to survive or to make you happy? Does he seem arrogant because he lives a life that goes against society’s expectations? What does the rest of Concord think about someone who is part of their society but at the same time very distant from their social way of life? The word solitude itself is a synonym for loneliness, remoteness, and isolation. Thoreau explicitly states that he was not lonely. He states, “I have a great deal of company in my house; especially in the morning when nobody calls. Let me suggest a few comparisons, so that some may convey an idea of my situation. I am no more lonely than the loon in the pond that laughs so loud, or than Walden Pond itself… I am no more lonely than a single mullein or dandelion in a pasture, or a bean leaf, or sorrel, or a horse-fly, or a bumblebee.” (129) Thoreau was also not completely isolated or remote. He had frequent visitors and had interactions with parts of society. Does this experience of his show a good example of what life is separate from what we call now a capitalist society? Is there truly a way to have freedom from this unsustainable economic way of life?
Throughout “Economy”, Thoreau discusses his liking for a simple lifestyle, minimalism, and over-consumption. During this time, consumption was not as big of a part of society as what modern capitalism has brought us today. Thoreau describes the wealthy consumers as “overheated” and that clothing is merely to recollect “vital heat” (20). There is an excess of warmth for those that choose to over-consume articles of clothing. Thoreau goes one discussing minimalism and the virtue of a simple life but contradicts his stress of simplicity on page 47: “I intend to build me a house which will surpass any on the Main street in Concord grandeur and luxury, as soon as it pleases me as much and will cost me no more than my present one”. In this statement, is Thoreau contradicting his persuasion of minimalism, or is he simply bringing humor to his construction as to mock the wealthy that live on Main street? Knowing how Thoreau ended up living off the land in his polyculture plot without consuming much, does this bring a clearer answer to the contradictive statement?
In Thoreau’s “Economy,” he highlights the irony of people living in a free country but confined to labor. He states that inheriting a farm is a misfortune, and asks, “Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born?” (5), and says, “Most men, even in this comparatively free country…are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them,” (6). I found both of those quotes interesting, especially later on in the chapter when Thoreau compares the homes of people in the US to homes of people in other countries who are happier living with much less, and in less luxurious accommodations. Thoreau seems to argue that we should learn to be content with less rather than focusing on continually obtaining more. He also implies the importance of changing our current societal view of what is considered a necessity, to what our ancestors viewed as necessities in the past. Though we live in a free country, many people are “trapped” in their field of work and would not have the means to survive without constantly working their entire lives. Are we in the United States, particularly lower income working class people, truly as free as we think we are? Of course we are extremely privileged to live in a country with many freedoms and liberties that people around the world do not have and that should not be taken for granted, but I thought that was a thought-provoking idea that Thoreau brought up.
In Thoreau’s “Economy,” he says, “it is said that Deucalion and Pyrrha created men by throwing stones over their heads behind them.” The story of Deucalion and Pyrrha can be compared to the biblical version of Noah’s ark, a story which purifies the world from sin. Deucalion and Pyrrha were perceived to be the most righteous among men and women, so they were told by the gods to build a boat to survive the great flood. The pair repopulated the earth by throwing the “bones of their mother” over their shoulders after seeking advice from an oracle. Deucalion and Pyrrha then rules over the new population of humans as their king and queen. Thoreau continues, “so much for a blind obedience to a blundering oracle, throwing the stones over their heads behind them, and not seeing where they fell.” I questioned what Thoreau meant by this and learning the myth of Deucalion and Pyrrha brought me a lot of clarity to what he was saying. I think Thoreau is expressing his lack of respect to authority and questioning the “blind obedience” humans demonstrate towards the ruling and upper class. I agree that obedience and authority should be challenged to keep powerful figures from exploiting the working class. However, I question if Thoreau meant anything more out of the stones being thrown behind over their heads and not seeing where they fell. Maybe he is referencing the confidence of authority figures have over their subjects’ blind obedience to them? Or is he simply referencing the details of the Greek myth? How else could the stones be represented in the context of Thoreaus writing?
“To be awake is to be alive.” This quote from Thoreau comes after his rant praising the morning. He writes that he’s never truly spoken to someone who has been completely awake. Following this he insists on the need for simplicity in life and references the term “sleepers.”
My discussion question is based on this phrase. Because we know that Thoreau emphasizes that not every person is fully aware of their existence and “awakeness”, this perspective inclined me to believe that when he writes “sleepers” he is implying that these men are unconsciously and not completely living to their full ability. He even explicitly writes “Did you ever think what those sleepers are that underlie the railroad? Each one is a man, an Irish-man, or a Yankee man.” But he then tells us that these sleepers, who walk in their sleep and stand in wrong positions get covered in sand and run over by cars and trains. Is it just me and am I completely misinterpreting the entirety of Thoreau’s expression of awake and sleep? After reading and re-reading I could not mend the gap between Thoreau’s first description of sleepers as men. It almost seemed as if these sleepers were illusions of mistreated or misunderstood consequences of those who are not actually dead but in Thoreau’s perspective, not actually alive either. I use the word mistreated because of his quote “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.” To me, the tone of this text is belittling and sarcastic and a way of emphasizing the wasteful and fast past excessive need for progression that can encompass man.
Are these “sleepers” a specific type of man? To reference a sleeper does that mean as an individual or as a collective group? Are sleepers necessarily man at all or a perception of dark, poor possibilities of a man’s life?
In Thoreau’s “Economy,” Thoreau speaks of simplistic living and practicing living a life of solitude. He judges the Indian man, who tries to do business with a wealthy lawyer by weaving baskets in hopes of finding income through the rich. Thoreau states, “… not the less in my case, did I think it worth my while to weave them [baskets], and instead of studying how to make it worth men’s while to buy my baskets, I studied rather how to avoid the necessity of selling them. The life which men praise and regard as successful is but one kind. Why should we exaggerate any one kind at the expense of the others? (18). Thoreau finds it conflicting of any man to rely on another person, yet how would he truly understand the life that another man lives? What makes it acceptable for Thoreau to judge the Indian man’s business, when he, himself, is a white man with privilege?
Throughout the first few chapters of this reading, Thoreau makes many statements regarding change, and also saying that he does not value the things that the his elders have told him because none of what they have told him he believes to be true. This leads to my first question, even in today’s time is it still fair to deny the knowledge and values of your elders? Secondly, in the following chapter, he states, “But I would say to my fellows, once for all, As long as possible live free and uncommitted. It makes but little difference whether you are committed to a farm or the county jail.” (Pg.79) What significance does comparing tending a farm have and being in a county jail have?
In Thoreau’s “Economy,” Thoreau looks into the power clothing holds. How our modern and civilized society ties meaning and status to the clothing people wear. He talks about the importance of unpatched clothes and what patched clothes show society. Though out the whole reading I was shocked to see how much about society and its values haven’t changed. We still heavily see clothing as a status symbol. Thoreau tries to challenge this by thinking “yet I am sure that there is greater anxiety, commonly, to have fashionable, or at least clean and unpatched clothes, than to have a sound conscience” (21). This quote also ties into the “good behavior” quote we discussed in class. All of Thoreau’s thoughts and actions are question by the people of Concord. Thoreau paints an excellent picture of how do you get people to change and care about things that really matter. How do you get people to look behind the surface and see who a person really is regardless of their clothes? How do you devalue clothes and value a clean conscience? How do you change the “economy”?
Throughout “economy” in Walden, Thoreau talks about a simple lifestyle that hinders the distractions of the normal world. He highlights that there are only four necessities and over consumption is bad for people as a whole. The four necessities he picks out are food, shelter, clothing, and fuel. Although the uses these four necessities he claims to rely mostly on nature and naturally found resources. He then goes on to talk about how people will have dissatisfaction with their possessions and there are two ways to combat that. Getting more things or changing their root of their own desires. I think I want to raise the question if this is applicable to our society now and how we view possessions? Are there only two ways to combat the problems of over consumption?
In Economy, Thoreau talks about the “necessaries of life.” He believes these to be food, clothing, shelter and fuel, and that most everything else is a luxury. Do you think these things have changed since Thoreau’s time? He discusses how all walks of life have different necessaries, “to the Bison of the prairie it is a few inches of palatable grass with water to drink…” Since they are somewhat different across species, do you think that these “necessaries” are the same for all humans? If not, what might one individual need that another wouldn’t?
Thoreau writes, “When a man is warmed by the several modes which I have described, what does he want next? Surely not more warmth of the same kind, as more and richer food, larger and more splendid houses, finer and more abundant clothing, more numerous incessant and hotter fires, and the like.” In Thoreau’s lifetime, he is seeing the beginnings of what we can now identify is an ideal of American abundance. In this passage and the previous, he implies that having less will lead to less desire. He praises voluntary poverty and claims that is how men are the wisest. He writes, “…men have become the tools of their tools.”
On fashion, he writes, “We don garment after garment, as if we grew like exogenous plants by addition without. Our outside and 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 so destroying the man.” He also says, “Of what use this measuring of me if she does not measure my character, but only the breadth of my shoulders, as it were a peg to hang the coat on? We worship not the Graces, nor the Parcæ, but Fashion.”
Is poverty and lack of consuming the answer to woes that drive materialism? If so, how can that truth coincide with the fact that humans, ever since their recorded existence, have naturally created culture, adorning themselves and their communities with meaningful objects, special and often ritualistic clothing? Are our most innate desires to be fought? It seems that it is difficult in this context to draw a line between frivolous and meaningful, and perhaps it is a byproduct of extreme consumerism for that line to be blurred, maybe even nonexistent.
In Economy by Henry David Thoreau, he points out on page 6 “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.” What I took from this quote is that mankind is so wrapped up in making money and owning materialistic fortune that they push themselves to do jobs or occupations that make them so unhappy on a regular basis. The basic necessities of life get ignored even though they provide a more peaceful state of being. Thoreau relates this unhappiness or discontentment to a form of self inflicted slavery. “I sometimes wonder that we can be so frivolous, I may almost say, as to attend the gross but somewhat foreign form of servitude called Negro Slavery, there are so many keen and subtle masters that enslave both North and South….Worse of all when you are the slave-driver of yourself.” (page 7)
When a person is not living to enjoy the fruits of nature, or the basic necessities to thrive and survive, are we enslaving ourselves with faulty idealizations of what we consider “societally adequate” or “normal”? What are some examples of a mindset shift between being centered and focused on material wealth versus being focused on more natural forms of living? Is it the same as going from an enslaved mindset to a more liberated one?
In Economy, Thoreau writes about his way of life through minimalism and solitude. He notes the importance of food, shelter, clothing, and fuel and uniquely emphasizes the lack of importance for other things. Excess living was a trend that he despised and saw gaining popularity at the time, which has only grown exponentially over the years. If Thoreau could see what the world looks like today, would he think that it was possible to shift peoples focus on growth, profit, and capitalism overall? If so, how? Given the vast changes that have occurred since he wrote Economy, would his view on technology and advancement change at all in terms of things like medicine, education, etc.? I feel like that would be unlikely and he would hate the world as it is today, but would he entertain the possibilities that certain advancements open up if they were used in better ways?
Thoreau articulates the importance of self-reliance, a skill that seems to have escaped the majority of our modern society. The vast bulk of our society is dependant on capitalism and currency to survive, with a few exceptions such as barter economies. In addition to self-reliance, Thoreau emphasizes the importance of simplicity. A simple and self-reliant lifestyle allows more opportunities for leisure, self-reflection, and independence.
Thoreau is able to build his home and his life with his own hands, the backyard of a friend, and persistence. I think today in our World, the idea of acquiring a home without a bank loan seems close to impossible. The progression of our society has gifted us miraculous technological advancements, but it has come at the price of separating us from nature. Do you think Thoreau would be able to live for two more years at Walden Pond if he were alive today? Furthermore, do you think there is any feasible path for you to personally live as Thoreau did in our current society?
I think it’s very interesting how Thoreau sees his relationship with nature. He is very honest about his debt towards nature and the need to return back what you have borrowed. He has a lot of ecological thoughts that tie into economics. In “Economy” I also noticed that he considered borrowing from humans very important as well. While being able to barrow he definitely believes in a voluntary poverty which I was first confused by but all so intrigued. This is a view that was very different from the view of the elders in Concord. His desire for self sufficiency is a noble and valiant effort, but I see some holes in that thought process without having to contribute labor to acquire money to start his ventures of producing his own things. How does Thoreau’s plan to sustain himself balance the life of capitalistic contributions?
The chapter, Economy, in Walden by Thoreau discusses a lot about living simplistically, and his own disregarding of materialist behaviors. He discusses the importance of food, clothes, and shelter as the main necessities to life, stating on page 13, “The grand necessity, then, for our bodies, is to keep warm, to keep the vital heat in us.” I believe this vital heat that he is talking about could be either literal heat provided by a fire or a bed, or this vital heat could refer to a metaphoric homeostasis where your soul must keep warm so that you may have the will to live a life that may sometimes be more of a burden (physically, mentally, or emotionally). Would you sacrifice material items in order to challenge your will and change as a person?
In this reading, Thoreau has a lot to say about self reliance and individualism. After reading this chapter, I wonder to what extent Thoreau’s writings in Walden should be considered a blueprint for ideals and principles in Sustainable Development, and whether SD is worth being considered within the context of his writing, excluding his concern with personal connections to nature. As Walden seems to be more about Throeau’s spiritual journey, and his own reflections on this journey. As Thoreau writes about why he decided to embark on this journey, he says, in one of his more famous quotes “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived…I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world…” When reading Thoreau and his writing, I do not primarily think of it as a journey towards sustainable living, but a journey of one individual, and his documentation of it.
In Economy, we learn of Thoreau’s view on life, and what he thinks is necessary. Fuel, food, clothing and shelter are the 4 main necessities according to him. Throughout the chapter, he challenges many of the normalities of the average persons life in society, between their time spent working, and their time dedicated to simpler, and more enjoyable aspects. We prioritize work over these simple pleasures, which is often required in order to make a living. Today, this is even more so a common lifestyle. I wonder what Thoreau might think of how much time is dedicated to work, with the average 9-5, 5 day a week job. Often times, our work reaches into our home lives as well. Should we dedicate so much energy to work, especially in how often our culture simply discusses our jobs?
In Thoreau’s Walden, the chapter tilted ‘Economy’ discusses many subjects, but the underlying theme connecting each of these subjects to each other is man, and furthermore community, in relation both to nature and, in the case of community, between individual human subjects. Thoreau aimed to understand what humans are outside the confines of coercive social institutions through seeking the necessary separation from society. While it is true that Thoreau didn’t completely isolate himself from society at large, the reasoning for this necessary separation was this: outside the influence of coercive social institutions, human beings are more capable of reaching a form of self-actualization which is in accordance with their ‘true’ nature, and not any behaviors or desires originating from this social influence. A quote which I think accurately describes this relationship between the individual and the society, and which informs an understanding of why Thoreau sought this separation, is-“We belong to the community. It is not the tailor alone who is the ninth part of a man; it is as much the preacher, and the merchant, and the farmer. Where is this division of labor to end? and what object does it finally serve?” As the tailor produces the clothing of individuals who wear them to stay warm, and the priest provides respite for one’s spiritual needs, and the farmer produces the sustenance of others, we must acknowledge that our ‘selves’ are necessarily shaped by our social relations. These social relations, being necessary for the production of life-sustaining resources and institutions (agriculture, governments, social life), causally influence the ways in which conceptions of ‘self’ and ‘nature’ are constructed. A question I would ask is this: Are these life-sustaining process limited in their potential forms, and does this limitation necessarily effect the conceptions of ‘self’ in society.
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
In ‘Economy’ Thoreau recounts his experience at Walden Pond, where he “lived alone in the woods… living by the labor of my hands only” (Thoreau, 3). Walden seems to be driven by his search for what is important/necessary in life. Thoreau particularly praises self-reliance- note him entering into the woods utterly reliant on himself. He speaks of the independence of a day laborer, and the freedom it brings to devote themselves “to his chosen pursuits” (67). In addition, he sites his preference for solitary living, as it provides more freedom.
Sustainable Development often seems to align itself with collective action. However, Thoreau stresses self-reliance. Can these things be intertwined, or do they exist separate from one another?
Henry David Thoreau in “Economy” talks about the essentials man needs to survive. He names food and shelter as the most crucial supplies needed to sustain humans, but also notes clothing and fuel (Thoreau, 11). Thoreau says “most luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only indispensable, but positive hinderances to the elevation of mankind. With respect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever lived a more simple and meagre life than the poor” (Thoreau, 15). Do you think his attitude towards this would have changed if he had not been able to move back to “civilized society” and forced to live off the land for survival rather than an experiment? It is easy to be critical of the farmers way of life when he can go back to such luxuries.
Economy was a very complex and detailed chapter regarding what Thoreau considers to be everything you need in life. Thoreau has a very simplistic view, considered radical by many at the time, of how a person should be living their life and what happiness should be derived from. He believed the only things you need in order for life are food, shelter, clothing, and fuel (11). He is perplexed that humans have come to desire luxury and non-essential goods to deem themselves happy and content. However, he later points out that his mindset is ‘very selfish’ (69) and recognizes the sacrifices he has made to reach this point in life. I think this is very telling because many people see him as an extremist, but this shows while he thinks what he is doing is the truest form of freedom and life, he recognizes that not everyone can achieve this. This brings up an interesting point to me, if Thoreau realizes that this type of life is not for everyone, how do you think we can live with true happiness as he calls it in a material world? It also makes me question whether or not it is people’s greed that drives this materialistic mindset or is it because of the capitalist system we are in?
Thoreau’s “Economy” criticizes conventional structures of education and authority. As a part of this critique, Thoreau denounces the common association between age and wisdom, stating that “One may almost doubt if the wisest man has learned anything of absolute value by living. Practically, the old have no very important advice to give the young” (Thoreau 8). Although he believes that experience doesn’t necessarily generate wisdom, Thoreau also highlights its importance to learning, asking, “How could youths better learn to live than by at once trying the experiment of living?” (48). How are Thoreau’s beliefs about authority and learning influenced by his belief in subjective knowledge? If knowledge is truly individualized, what makes someone wise and what, if anything, gives Thoreau the intellectual authority to give others advice through “Walden”?
Henry David Thoreau, throughout the entirety of “Economy” kept bringing the emphasis back to simplicity, basic necessity, and what should truly be considered “riches.” In particular, Thoreau states, “By the words, necessary of life, I mean whatever, of all the man obtain by his own exertions, has been from the first, or from long use has become, so important to human life that few, if any…ever attempt to do without it,” (Thoreau, 9). From what I gathered from this quote, Thoreau claims that necessity should be determined by whether or not every single human being, regardless of social or financial status, requires it, or would be worse off without. This led me to think about how immense of a disconnect there is from what someone in the United States would consider an absolute necessity as opposed to what someone from the agricultural areas of Kashmir would. Americans (tend to) have such an burning intent to stay rooted in the ways of convenience and consumerism, so how do we draw the line? How are we to convince, or even discuss with, creatures of habit to reconsider the meaning of a Need?
Towards the end of “Economy,” Thoreau admits that he has “hitherto indulged very little in philanthropic enterprises,” (69) but then spends significant time discussing “goodness tainted,” (70) and the like of philanthropic practices. After describing a personal encounter with someone poor who refused help, Thoreau offers insight on similar circumstances, saying “… it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve,” (72). I believe this thought process aligns with many discussions in sustainable development surrounding food aid, charity, and the like, which actually support the current system which creates the need for aid or charity in the first place. Although, I think Thoreau may have come to this conclusion from his beliefs surrounding consumerism and physical possessions, meaning the problem isn’t that the poor lack possessions and rather is that society enforces the belief that physical possessions are what we need. Is it an overgeneralization to group philanthropic practices in this way, as “goodness tainted” and suggest avoiding them all together? I wonder what his critique would be on present day society given the need for materialistic things to literally survive. Not everyone can be self-sufficient, nor does everyone have access to land, seeds, tools etc., or only has themselves to support. As we have discussed the importance of entitlement exchange and the like, how can we support people who are systematically denied basic human rights and needs to survive, while also ensuring we do not fulfill this “hole” in the system so as to simultaneously support it?
Thoreau states, “It is hard to have a southern overseer; it is worse to have a northern one; but worst of all when you are the slave-driver of yourself”(7), where he is presumably attributing to the northern and southern portions of America’s east coast during slavery, however, I find it hard not to imagine he may also be speaking to colonialism and global slavery in which the global south is in an “inferior” position in terms of being economic slaves to the global north. From our class’s first reading by Wolfgang Sachs, we are reminded that Harry Truman referred to poorer or less economically advanced countries as “underdeveloped” (72), propagating this Western societal construct that those who are “below” us (be it the global south, slaves, or even laborers working under a corporation) should strive to become more similar to the Westernized model of functioning. There are these narratives created and perpetuated by our economy’s persistent obsession with abundance and profit that indoctrinate societies, globally, to adhere to and strive for the Western view of a desirable life. Thoreau goes on to say, “…[he is] but the slave and prisoner of his own opinion of himself”… “Public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion”, I’d argue that this statement is only partially true; is our opinion of our self really ours? Or is it a socially implemented psychological outcome of a long lineage of colonization, slavery, and capitalism making us value ourselves only when we partake in certain actions or obtain material items? Is our interpretation of our own worth based upon the judgment of others, exacerbated by these socially constructed value systems that attribute worth with accumulation and wealth? “Underdeveloped” regions didn’t know they were behind, backward, or lacking until the West changed the perception of their value system. Would we view ourselves as worthier individuals had we not been convinced our worth was determined by the approval of the system and everyone inherently entangled within it? To reiterate and eliminate confusion, the main question I’m getting at here is: Is our opinion of our self really “ours”?
Based on our class discussion Tuesday and information given in the introduction of our book, it is fair to say that Thoreau experienced many transformations throughout his life. How do these major life events and transformations come through to the audience in his first chapter of the book, “Economy”? What transformations show through Thoreau’s writing by the end of the first chapter?
In Henry Thoreau’s “Economy”, he discusses the different necessities of life. Whether that may be just a few inches of grass to eat and water to drink for a bison with a possible need of shelter. While for man the necessities of life can be seen as “several heads of food, shelter, clothing, and fuel.” With nature doing much to provide these necessities, a man who is inclined to accept them can live off the land with less of a struggle. However if one is in search of more than what is offered by nature itself, they will find themselves less satisfied in life and always in search for something more “luxurious.” Thoreau goes on to say, “…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.” Thoreau uses warmth as a metaphor in relation to luxury. “The luxuriously rich are not kept comfortably warm, but unnaturally hot.” With that being said, what would one consider necessities in this day and age? Is the norm in this present moment keeping us comfortably warm or is our advanced society as a whole unnaturally hot?
In Henry David Thoreau’s ‘Economy’ he provides readers with insight into his two-year, two-month stay at Walden pond. As Thoreau views society from a distance, he talks about the modern man who only has an eye for material gains. He stresses that farmers have begun to lose their relationship with nature as farming has become yet another way to gain property and wealth. When Thoreau’s neighbors “inherited farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools” he described this as ‘misfortune’. He continues by stating “for these are more easily acquired than got rid of ”. (Thoreau, 22) In today’s society, I would consider this statement to be invalid since sustainable farming has become abundant and land is nearly unfeasible to obtain unless inherited. Why does Thoreau consider this inheritance to be a “misfortune”?
Thoreau’s perspective on community is one that has surprised and confused me the most thus far in reading. He writes, “We belong to the community. It is not the tailor alone who is the ninth part of a man; it is as much the preacher, and the merchant, and the farmer. Where is this division of labor to end? and what object does it finally serve?”
Is this a critique on literal community? For a man who denounces relying on the system of materialism or consumerism, it’s interesting that he would also denounce the idea of relying on your own community or your neighbors in order to survive. Does he really expect the individual to be fully self sufficient? Is that realistic or possible, when he himself relied on his neighbors for certain goods to make his own house?
Or is this maybe his way of referencing the capitalist nature of division of labor as a whole, critiquing the idea of primitive accumulation?
As Thoreau discussed in “Economy” he was able to simmer out his lifestyle and live a simpler life for a short period when he lived at Walden Pond. Thoreau was able to move into the woods and successfully build his own home, grow his own food, utilize his surroundings, and cook and warm his home with a woodstove. Would this simpler lifestyle be possible in today’s society? I think on a small scale it certainly can as we see people commit to this lifestyle all the time, but would it be possible on a large scale? As Thoreau mentioned people have become incredibly materialistic and focused on making more and more money so that they can acquire “things”. In our modern-day capitalist society, emphasis is placed on profit and financial gain through the exploitation of people and the earth, with this concept in mind you’d think that it would turn people away from that style of life and towards a simpler one. This has happened and obviously plays a huge part in why we are all here today involved in Sustainable Development. What this economic structure has done is created huge economic powerhouses that have obtained ungodly amounts of wealth and power that essentially run our government and make decisions based on their best interest, not the people. Is it possible to overthrow our current economic system and sway the masses to give up their materialistic lifestyle in order to live a simpler life? If so, what would be the first step?
In Economy in Walden, Thoreau states “Be sure that you give the poor the aid they most need, though it be your example which leaves them far behind. If you give money, spend yourself with it, and do not merely abandon it to them.” Many times during this section of the book, Thoreau has mentioned a lot of points along the lines of the poor and money. With that being said this quote seems to point to the fact that we send people to ‘developing’ countries to help develop their economy and society when in fact the people who live in these countries don’t want these changes. Instead, we need to be providing these places for the help they ask for and listen to the ways they want it rather than pushing our own rhetoric onto them. Does providing monetary needs without taking the time to understand the community we are working with truly help them? Even on a small scale, this tactic doesn’t work without providing the time because of the way our society is built. So in a way, does it make giving money to people ‘in need’ invalid compared to the time we could give?
In Thoreau’s chapter “Solitude,” he stressed the distinction between isolation and loneliness, ensuring that he is not lonely in isolation but rather comfortable and joyous being enveloped in the natural world. In describing this he states, “I have a great deal of company in my house; especially in the morning when nobody calls. Let me suggest a few comparisons, so that some may convey an idea of my situation. I am no more lonely than the loon in the pond that laughs so loud, or than Walden Pond itself… I am no more lonely than a single mullein or dandelion in a pasture, or a bean leaf, or sorrel, or a horse-fly, or a bumblebee.” (129) By likening himself to the plants and animals he is surrounded with, Thoreau seems to say that though he may be an individual “alone” in nature, he cannot be lonely among nature and the cycles of life he has inserted himself into that surround him, for no individual can truly be alone when surrounded by so many other organisms in constant interaction. Through only reading this chapter, it could be interpreted that Thoreau did not experience much human interaction, preferring the natural world to society. However, in the next chapter “Visitors,” Thoreau explains “I think I love society as much as most, and am ready enough to fasten myself like a bloodsucker for the time for the time to any full-blooded man that comes in my way. I am naturally no hermit, but might possibly sit out the sturdiest frequenter of the bar room if my business called me tither.” (132) Throughout the rest of this chapter, Thoreau details the many visitors he entertains and specifically which types of visitors he does not particularly like. He goes into great depth describing (somewhat sanctimoniously) a particular visitor for whom he holds a deep reverence for regarding his self reliant and solitary way of life and worldview that seems to be mostly in line with his own. He seems to speak of this man with the same admiration and acclaim as he does nature and solitude within nature. Though Thoreau is often read as a strong proponent of individualism, who would rather live a reclusive life, self-reliant on nature and away from society, in “visitors” we see that human connection is actually important to him, however he prefers connection to humans that he finds to be agreeable and self reliant like himself. How might this challenge his individualist stance? Do you think that being a part of, and enjoying, society actually robs one of the ability to be individual? Do you think that you can be and unique individual while still conforming to certain societal standards? After all, just like Thoreau is an individual when he is alone in nature surrounded by constant natural relations, can’t a person in society be and individual in society surrounded by social relations? Is reclusively necessary in order to truly understand oneself outside of the lens of society and form your own opinions?
Thoreau in “Economy” speaks about how man is too busy to enjoy the simple things in life, he writes “Most men…are so occupied with the facetious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them” (6). As man we are unable to enjoy what life has to offer because we are too busy working our lives away, I feel that this can still be true in some sense today. Thoreau also writes “Public opinion is a weak tyrant compared with our own private opinion”, which can play into why man is so eager to work, so they have something to show for it to not only others but themselves. Why have we linked working with being successful, when we can not enjoy our lives if we are working them away?
While Thoreau “self-isolated” himself in the woods of Concord, Massachusetts, he reflects on life, society, etc. In the beginning of “Economy,” Thoreau speaks on how life is often lived wrong. On page 5, Thoreau says “men labor by mistake.” What does he mean by this? Is he saying that we do unnecessary work throughout life? Or that life is meant to be lived leisurely? Furthermore, Thoreau says “he [men] has no time to be anything but a machine” (6). If we aren’t meant to work hard in life, how are we supposed to live our life? Is it correct to make the assumption that Thoreau has a very laze-fare attitude on life?
Throughout the chapter “Economy” Thoreau certainly criticizes the ways in which our society in America is shaped, especially in regards to what we deem as necessary for existence. I found the following quote from page six to be intriguing: “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…Actually, the laboring man has not leisure for a true integrity day by day…his labor would be depreciated in the market. He has no time to be anything but a machine.” The point Thoreau makes in this statement, I believe, rings true in today’s American society. Most people devote themselves almost if not completely to their job/career in pursuit of a “meaningful” life but through this devotion, often miss the mark in terms of true enjoyment. Later in the chapter Thoreau states, “No way of thinking or doing, however ancient, can be trusted without proof. What everybody echoes or in silence passes by as true today may turn out to be falsehood tomorrow, mere smoke of opinion (8).” These points lead me to ask: given the current state of society (in regard to the idea that to live a successful and “enjoyable” life you must devote your life to working for a conventional wage), are we living our lives in ways that are valuable outside of monetary income? Even if we were able to create radical change within our society, could we ever shift to a way of life which does not view people solely as members of a workforce?
In Thoreau’s chapter “Economy”, I immediately noticed that even though he addressed the fact that he didn’t want to over use “I” in his writing, in respect to egotism, he comes off as patronizing and arrogant within the first few pages. He is extremely critical to players in the market economy, and almost comes off in a mocking tone. I first noticed this on page 6, he writes “most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them. Their fingers, from excessive toil, are too clumsy and tremble too much for that.” He then continues to say that “He [man] has no time to be anything but a machine.” It seems like he should direct this arrogance and condescending tone towards the market economy itself, but he has chosen to mock the players of the market. Does his tone seem off putting to the point he is trying to make? Why does he feel he is better than these working people, when they were just as stuck in this position as he once was? Would he have been more influential if he had given advice, rather than patronizing people in these positions?
Henry David Thoreau, in his book “Walden,” wrote in length about his extended stay in the woods and how this solitude shaped the themes of this book, stating on the first page, “I lived alone, in the woods, a mile from any neighbor, in a house which I had built myself, on the shore of Walden Pond, in Concord, Massachusetts, and earned my living by the labor of my hands only. I lived there two years and two months. At present I am a sojourner in civilized life again.” He disapproves of the constant need in our free market society for continuous, back-breaking labor, and the serfdom of inherited and laborious farming, which he comes to write about through the isolation he stayed in during a two year period.
On the contrary, we discussed during our outdoor class meeting that Thoreau did not spend the entirety of his two years of solitude in actual solitude and indeed had some regular forms of human interaction and community. The people of Concord knew this, as they were the ones in contact with him, and I wonder how this book was accepted in the town through this fact. What was the general consensus of the book when it first came out and did it come with any backlash or thoughts of hypocrisy? Was his naturalist message muddled through these interactions (as much of the book thus far is about him living in solitude)? Were any of the people from Concord upset or offended by the blunt ways Thoreau described his distaste for modern civilization?
In Thoreau’s chapter “Economy”, he discusses a lot about things Man needs and thinks he needs to survive. One of the things that Man thinks he needs to survive is nice clothes, “as for Clothing, to come at once to the practical part of the question, perhaps we are led oftener by the love of novelty and a regard for the opinions of men, in procuring it, than by true utility” (20). He then goes on to discuss how clothing is really for keeping people warm and cover people up so they aren’t naked. Yet people care about if the clothes are patched up and the overall aesthetic of the clothing itself. How the price for long lasting clothing is pricier but still affordable, but people will buy cheaper clothing. He even says, “who could wear a patch, or two extra seams only, over the knee? Most behave as if they believed that their prospects for life would be ruined if they should do it” (21). He discusses the importance for clothing to be long lasting compared to just trying to stay up tp date on trends with cheaper clothing. Which is interesting because we have a problem with fast fashion today. Does his opinion of clothing still apply today? If it does, how similar is his opinion match with current problems in fast fashion? Is this problem more societal than it is about affordability?
Thoreau had a unique take on the importance of elders within society. As he writes on page 8 in Walden, “Age is no better, hardly so well, qualified for an instructor as youth, for it has not profited so much as it has lost. One may almost doubt if the wisest man has learned anything of absolute value by living”. Thoreau genuinely believes the youth have more to teach the elders than the other way around, but explains this roots primarily from his own personal experience. After thirty years, he says, he has yet to “hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors”. In many ways with my own experience I can understand where he is coming from. However, when you look at indigenous cultures and others around the world, you will find that the seniors do often hold the most wisdom, especially pertaining to relationships with the land and Mother Earth. Because of this I find it hard to fully agree with Thoreau on his notion that we should ignore the advice given from our elders, although they may not be “living” the way we are today, our seniors can keep us from making the same mistakes that were made in the past. Based on your own personal experience, how do you resonate with Thoreau’s perspective on the elders? Are there only specific teachings we should be listening to from them? What teachings do you believe we should try to push on to our youth when we become the next generation of elders?
In the chapter “Solitude”, Henry David Thoreau discusses his time living in a tiny house in Concord, Massachusetts. His reasoning for living in the woods and the experiences he endured influence many of the key themes throughout the book. In “Economy”, Thoreau states “most luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only indispensable, but positive hinderances to the elevation of mankind. With respect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever lived a more simple and meagre life than the poor.” (15) Is Thoreau trying to prove a point to the rest of society that you don’t need “things” to survive or to make you happy? Does he seem arrogant because he lives a life that goes against society’s expectations? What does the rest of Concord think about someone who is part of their society but at the same time very distant from their social way of life? The word solitude itself is a synonym for loneliness, remoteness, and isolation. Thoreau explicitly states that he was not lonely. He states, “I have a great deal of company in my house; especially in the morning when nobody calls. Let me suggest a few comparisons, so that some may convey an idea of my situation. I am no more lonely than the loon in the pond that laughs so loud, or than Walden Pond itself… I am no more lonely than a single mullein or dandelion in a pasture, or a bean leaf, or sorrel, or a horse-fly, or a bumblebee.” (129) Thoreau was also not completely isolated or remote. He had frequent visitors and had interactions with parts of society. Does this experience of his show a good example of what life is separate from what we call now a capitalist society? Is there truly a way to have freedom from this unsustainable economic way of life?
Throughout “Economy”, Thoreau discusses his liking for a simple lifestyle, minimalism, and over-consumption. During this time, consumption was not as big of a part of society as what modern capitalism has brought us today. Thoreau describes the wealthy consumers as “overheated” and that clothing is merely to recollect “vital heat” (20). There is an excess of warmth for those that choose to over-consume articles of clothing. Thoreau goes one discussing minimalism and the virtue of a simple life but contradicts his stress of simplicity on page 47: “I intend to build me a house which will surpass any on the Main street in Concord grandeur and luxury, as soon as it pleases me as much and will cost me no more than my present one”. In this statement, is Thoreau contradicting his persuasion of minimalism, or is he simply bringing humor to his construction as to mock the wealthy that live on Main street? Knowing how Thoreau ended up living off the land in his polyculture plot without consuming much, does this bring a clearer answer to the contradictive statement?
In Thoreau’s “Economy,” he highlights the irony of people living in a free country but confined to labor. He states that inheriting a farm is a misfortune, and asks, “Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born?” (5), and says, “Most men, even in this comparatively free country…are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them,” (6). I found both of those quotes interesting, especially later on in the chapter when Thoreau compares the homes of people in the US to homes of people in other countries who are happier living with much less, and in less luxurious accommodations. Thoreau seems to argue that we should learn to be content with less rather than focusing on continually obtaining more. He also implies the importance of changing our current societal view of what is considered a necessity, to what our ancestors viewed as necessities in the past. Though we live in a free country, many people are “trapped” in their field of work and would not have the means to survive without constantly working their entire lives. Are we in the United States, particularly lower income working class people, truly as free as we think we are? Of course we are extremely privileged to live in a country with many freedoms and liberties that people around the world do not have and that should not be taken for granted, but I thought that was a thought-provoking idea that Thoreau brought up.
In Thoreau’s “Economy,” he says, “it is said that Deucalion and Pyrrha created men by throwing stones over their heads behind them.” The story of Deucalion and Pyrrha can be compared to the biblical version of Noah’s ark, a story which purifies the world from sin. Deucalion and Pyrrha were perceived to be the most righteous among men and women, so they were told by the gods to build a boat to survive the great flood. The pair repopulated the earth by throwing the “bones of their mother” over their shoulders after seeking advice from an oracle. Deucalion and Pyrrha then rules over the new population of humans as their king and queen. Thoreau continues, “so much for a blind obedience to a blundering oracle, throwing the stones over their heads behind them, and not seeing where they fell.” I questioned what Thoreau meant by this and learning the myth of Deucalion and Pyrrha brought me a lot of clarity to what he was saying. I think Thoreau is expressing his lack of respect to authority and questioning the “blind obedience” humans demonstrate towards the ruling and upper class. I agree that obedience and authority should be challenged to keep powerful figures from exploiting the working class. However, I question if Thoreau meant anything more out of the stones being thrown behind over their heads and not seeing where they fell. Maybe he is referencing the confidence of authority figures have over their subjects’ blind obedience to them? Or is he simply referencing the details of the Greek myth? How else could the stones be represented in the context of Thoreaus writing?
“To be awake is to be alive.” This quote from Thoreau comes after his rant praising the morning. He writes that he’s never truly spoken to someone who has been completely awake. Following this he insists on the need for simplicity in life and references the term “sleepers.”
My discussion question is based on this phrase. Because we know that Thoreau emphasizes that not every person is fully aware of their existence and “awakeness”, this perspective inclined me to believe that when he writes “sleepers” he is implying that these men are unconsciously and not completely living to their full ability. He even explicitly writes “Did you ever think what those sleepers are that underlie the railroad? Each one is a man, an Irish-man, or a Yankee man.” But he then tells us that these sleepers, who walk in their sleep and stand in wrong positions get covered in sand and run over by cars and trains. Is it just me and am I completely misinterpreting the entirety of Thoreau’s expression of awake and sleep? After reading and re-reading I could not mend the gap between Thoreau’s first description of sleepers as men. It almost seemed as if these sleepers were illusions of mistreated or misunderstood consequences of those who are not actually dead but in Thoreau’s perspective, not actually alive either. I use the word mistreated because of his quote “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.” To me, the tone of this text is belittling and sarcastic and a way of emphasizing the wasteful and fast past excessive need for progression that can encompass man.
Are these “sleepers” a specific type of man? To reference a sleeper does that mean as an individual or as a collective group? Are sleepers necessarily man at all or a perception of dark, poor possibilities of a man’s life?
In Thoreau’s “Economy,” Thoreau speaks of simplistic living and practicing living a life of solitude. He judges the Indian man, who tries to do business with a wealthy lawyer by weaving baskets in hopes of finding income through the rich. Thoreau states, “… not the less in my case, did I think it worth my while to weave them [baskets], and instead of studying how to make it worth men’s while to buy my baskets, I studied rather how to avoid the necessity of selling them. The life which men praise and regard as successful is but one kind. Why should we exaggerate any one kind at the expense of the others? (18). Thoreau finds it conflicting of any man to rely on another person, yet how would he truly understand the life that another man lives? What makes it acceptable for Thoreau to judge the Indian man’s business, when he, himself, is a white man with privilege?
Throughout the first few chapters of this reading, Thoreau makes many statements regarding change, and also saying that he does not value the things that the his elders have told him because none of what they have told him he believes to be true. This leads to my first question, even in today’s time is it still fair to deny the knowledge and values of your elders? Secondly, in the following chapter, he states, “But I would say to my fellows, once for all, As long as possible live free and uncommitted. It makes but little difference whether you are committed to a farm or the county jail.” (Pg.79) What significance does comparing tending a farm have and being in a county jail have?
In Thoreau’s “Economy,” Thoreau looks into the power clothing holds. How our modern and civilized society ties meaning and status to the clothing people wear. He talks about the importance of unpatched clothes and what patched clothes show society. Though out the whole reading I was shocked to see how much about society and its values haven’t changed. We still heavily see clothing as a status symbol. Thoreau tries to challenge this by thinking “yet I am sure that there is greater anxiety, commonly, to have fashionable, or at least clean and unpatched clothes, than to have a sound conscience” (21). This quote also ties into the “good behavior” quote we discussed in class. All of Thoreau’s thoughts and actions are question by the people of Concord. Thoreau paints an excellent picture of how do you get people to change and care about things that really matter. How do you get people to look behind the surface and see who a person really is regardless of their clothes? How do you devalue clothes and value a clean conscience? How do you change the “economy”?
Throughout “economy” in Walden, Thoreau talks about a simple lifestyle that hinders the distractions of the normal world. He highlights that there are only four necessities and over consumption is bad for people as a whole. The four necessities he picks out are food, shelter, clothing, and fuel. Although the uses these four necessities he claims to rely mostly on nature and naturally found resources. He then goes on to talk about how people will have dissatisfaction with their possessions and there are two ways to combat that. Getting more things or changing their root of their own desires. I think I want to raise the question if this is applicable to our society now and how we view possessions? Are there only two ways to combat the problems of over consumption?
In Economy, Thoreau talks about the “necessaries of life.” He believes these to be food, clothing, shelter and fuel, and that most everything else is a luxury. Do you think these things have changed since Thoreau’s time? He discusses how all walks of life have different necessaries, “to the Bison of the prairie it is a few inches of palatable grass with water to drink…” Since they are somewhat different across species, do you think that these “necessaries” are the same for all humans? If not, what might one individual need that another wouldn’t?
Thoreau writes, “When a man is warmed by the several modes which I have described, what does he want next? Surely not more warmth of the same kind, as more and richer food, larger and more splendid houses, finer and more abundant clothing, more numerous incessant and hotter fires, and the like.” In Thoreau’s lifetime, he is seeing the beginnings of what we can now identify is an ideal of American abundance. In this passage and the previous, he implies that having less will lead to less desire. He praises voluntary poverty and claims that is how men are the wisest. He writes, “…men have become the tools of their tools.”
On fashion, he writes, “We don garment after garment, as if we grew like exogenous plants by addition without. Our outside and 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 so destroying the man.” He also says, “Of what use this measuring of me if she does not measure my character, but only the breadth of my shoulders, as it were a peg to hang the coat on? We worship not the Graces, nor the Parcæ, but Fashion.”
Is poverty and lack of consuming the answer to woes that drive materialism? If so, how can that truth coincide with the fact that humans, ever since their recorded existence, have naturally created culture, adorning themselves and their communities with meaningful objects, special and often ritualistic clothing? Are our most innate desires to be fought? It seems that it is difficult in this context to draw a line between frivolous and meaningful, and perhaps it is a byproduct of extreme consumerism for that line to be blurred, maybe even nonexistent.
In Economy by Henry David Thoreau, he points out on page 6 “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.” What I took from this quote is that mankind is so wrapped up in making money and owning materialistic fortune that they push themselves to do jobs or occupations that make them so unhappy on a regular basis. The basic necessities of life get ignored even though they provide a more peaceful state of being. Thoreau relates this unhappiness or discontentment to a form of self inflicted slavery. “I sometimes wonder that we can be so frivolous, I may almost say, as to attend the gross but somewhat foreign form of servitude called Negro Slavery, there are so many keen and subtle masters that enslave both North and South….Worse of all when you are the slave-driver of yourself.” (page 7)
When a person is not living to enjoy the fruits of nature, or the basic necessities to thrive and survive, are we enslaving ourselves with faulty idealizations of what we consider “societally adequate” or “normal”? What are some examples of a mindset shift between being centered and focused on material wealth versus being focused on more natural forms of living? Is it the same as going from an enslaved mindset to a more liberated one?
In Economy, Thoreau writes about his way of life through minimalism and solitude. He notes the importance of food, shelter, clothing, and fuel and uniquely emphasizes the lack of importance for other things. Excess living was a trend that he despised and saw gaining popularity at the time, which has only grown exponentially over the years. If Thoreau could see what the world looks like today, would he think that it was possible to shift peoples focus on growth, profit, and capitalism overall? If so, how? Given the vast changes that have occurred since he wrote Economy, would his view on technology and advancement change at all in terms of things like medicine, education, etc.? I feel like that would be unlikely and he would hate the world as it is today, but would he entertain the possibilities that certain advancements open up if they were used in better ways?
Thoreau articulates the importance of self-reliance, a skill that seems to have escaped the majority of our modern society. The vast bulk of our society is dependant on capitalism and currency to survive, with a few exceptions such as barter economies. In addition to self-reliance, Thoreau emphasizes the importance of simplicity. A simple and self-reliant lifestyle allows more opportunities for leisure, self-reflection, and independence.
Thoreau is able to build his home and his life with his own hands, the backyard of a friend, and persistence. I think today in our World, the idea of acquiring a home without a bank loan seems close to impossible. The progression of our society has gifted us miraculous technological advancements, but it has come at the price of separating us from nature. Do you think Thoreau would be able to live for two more years at Walden Pond if he were alive today? Furthermore, do you think there is any feasible path for you to personally live as Thoreau did in our current society?
I think it’s very interesting how Thoreau sees his relationship with nature. He is very honest about his debt towards nature and the need to return back what you have borrowed. He has a lot of ecological thoughts that tie into economics. In “Economy” I also noticed that he considered borrowing from humans very important as well. While being able to barrow he definitely believes in a voluntary poverty which I was first confused by but all so intrigued. This is a view that was very different from the view of the elders in Concord. His desire for self sufficiency is a noble and valiant effort, but I see some holes in that thought process without having to contribute labor to acquire money to start his ventures of producing his own things. How does Thoreau’s plan to sustain himself balance the life of capitalistic contributions?
The chapter, Economy, in Walden by Thoreau discusses a lot about living simplistically, and his own disregarding of materialist behaviors. He discusses the importance of food, clothes, and shelter as the main necessities to life, stating on page 13, “The grand necessity, then, for our bodies, is to keep warm, to keep the vital heat in us.” I believe this vital heat that he is talking about could be either literal heat provided by a fire or a bed, or this vital heat could refer to a metaphoric homeostasis where your soul must keep warm so that you may have the will to live a life that may sometimes be more of a burden (physically, mentally, or emotionally). Would you sacrifice material items in order to challenge your will and change as a person?
In this reading, Thoreau has a lot to say about self reliance and individualism. After reading this chapter, I wonder to what extent Thoreau’s writings in Walden should be considered a blueprint for ideals and principles in Sustainable Development, and whether SD is worth being considered within the context of his writing, excluding his concern with personal connections to nature. As Walden seems to be more about Throeau’s spiritual journey, and his own reflections on this journey. As Thoreau writes about why he decided to embark on this journey, he says, in one of his more famous quotes “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived…I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world…” When reading Thoreau and his writing, I do not primarily think of it as a journey towards sustainable living, but a journey of one individual, and his documentation of it.
In Economy, we learn of Thoreau’s view on life, and what he thinks is necessary. Fuel, food, clothing and shelter are the 4 main necessities according to him. Throughout the chapter, he challenges many of the normalities of the average persons life in society, between their time spent working, and their time dedicated to simpler, and more enjoyable aspects. We prioritize work over these simple pleasures, which is often required in order to make a living. Today, this is even more so a common lifestyle. I wonder what Thoreau might think of how much time is dedicated to work, with the average 9-5, 5 day a week job. Often times, our work reaches into our home lives as well. Should we dedicate so much energy to work, especially in how often our culture simply discusses our jobs?
In Thoreau’s Walden, the chapter tilted ‘Economy’ discusses many subjects, but the underlying theme connecting each of these subjects to each other is man, and furthermore community, in relation both to nature and, in the case of community, between individual human subjects. Thoreau aimed to understand what humans are outside the confines of coercive social institutions through seeking the necessary separation from society. While it is true that Thoreau didn’t completely isolate himself from society at large, the reasoning for this necessary separation was this: outside the influence of coercive social institutions, human beings are more capable of reaching a form of self-actualization which is in accordance with their ‘true’ nature, and not any behaviors or desires originating from this social influence. A quote which I think accurately describes this relationship between the individual and the society, and which informs an understanding of why Thoreau sought this separation, is-“We belong to the community. It is not the tailor alone who is the ninth part of a man; it is as much the preacher, and the merchant, and the farmer. Where is this division of labor to end? and what object does it finally serve?” As the tailor produces the clothing of individuals who wear them to stay warm, and the priest provides respite for one’s spiritual needs, and the farmer produces the sustenance of others, we must acknowledge that our ‘selves’ are necessarily shaped by our social relations. These social relations, being necessary for the production of life-sustaining resources and institutions (agriculture, governments, social life), causally influence the ways in which conceptions of ‘self’ and ‘nature’ are constructed. A question I would ask is this: Are these life-sustaining process limited in their potential forms, and does this limitation necessarily effect the conceptions of ‘self’ in society.