In the chapter “Economy”, Thoreau identifies four necessities for living; food, shelter, clothing and fuel. On the subject of clothing Thoreau says “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.” What do you think this quote says about clothing today, as both a commodity and a necessity? Is clothing nothing more than a bare necessity as Thoreau suggests? Why do we tend to associate our identities with pieces of cloth?
A theme I noticed and would like to highlight in this section of the book is when Thoreau starts to talk about ‘Shelter’. Much like when he discusses the clothing in society, arguing that it is often driven by novelty and societal opinions rather than utility, the topic of shelter is similar.
The priorities surrounding these two topics have shifted. Clothing is designed to retain heat and cover the skin. Shelter is designed to provide protection from the elements. However, many people prioritize having fashionable or clean clothes over having clothes suited for warm or cold weather.
People are often judged by their clothes or house in society, hence the priority shift. This change of priority can (and does) result in economic shifts as well.
“And when the farmer has got his house, he may not be the richer but the poorer for it, and it be the house that has got him. As I understand it, that was a valid objection urged by Momus against the house which Minerva made, that she “had not made it movable, by which means a bad neighborhood might be avoided;” and it may still be urged, for our houses are such unwieldy property that we are often imprisoned rather than housed in them” (pg. 146)
When aiming for a certain objective driven in part by society, Thoreau concludes that it often results in unhappiness and economic downfall. Furthermore, we have been told in society to aim for “better”, “modern”, or more “luxurious” things.
“Most men appear never to have considered what a house is, and are actually though needlessly poor all their lives because they think that they must have such a one as their neighbors have.” (pg. 148)
So, my question is this: What other ways have you noticed our priorities shifting? Thoreau seems to shine a negative view on how society shapes our views, do you agree or disagree? Why? What are some other examples of this as seen in Walden?
In Thoreau’s chapter titled Economy, the text turns to the natural state of the world and the footprint we as humans have on it. My main takeaways from this chapter are embodied by Thoreau’s ideology that the four necessities of life consist of “food, clothing, shelter, and fuel.” Which works in conjunction with the idea that “nature itself does much to provide these, a person willing to accept the basic gifts of nature can live off the land with minimal toil. Any attempt at luxury is likely to prove more a hindrance than a help to an individual’s improvement.”
My interpretation of this message is that we as a society must first define acceptance and understand what it means for an individual to accepting of the provisions that the natural world provides. In the experiment at Walden Pond, Thoreau fully dives into the idea of a simplistic lifestyle. Along with this simplistic approach to living, he values the provisions of the natural world. Effectively accepting the fuels and shelter provided by the natural landscape to provide a life of subsistence.
My question is how far have we (as a society) strayed from utilizing the natural landscape to provide our means of life?
What would more of these social experiments look like if we took technology out of the equation and lived off the grid for six months?
How many people are willing to take modern amenities out of their lives if they knew that the natural world could provide all the basic needs for a good life and provide major ecological improvements in the same process?
In the chapter Economy, Thoreau introduces this idea that “As with our colleges, so with a hundred ‘modern improvements’ there is an illusion about them; there is not always a positive advance.” (Pg. 40) This statement, to me, shows that Thoreau was very mindful, that although an invention may create a better life, or an easier one, whether it be through entertainment, or convenience, there is a necessary evil associated. Throughout the chapter, Thoreau uses the term ‘borrowing’ in a sense that he truly owns nothing, thus he has to borrow from the Earth. Modern invention has a positive connotation with it, and during the time that Thoreau was writing Walden, the world was going through an Industrial change. Thoreau noticed that nature itself was being degraded, for the purpose of human advancement, and the shiny, new things try to distract us from the degradation caused to make it.
Shortly after these statements, Thoreau talks about the construction of telegram lines, saying that “We are in great haste to to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.” I interpret this as, instead of trying to force communication, we need to listen. If Maine has a message for Texas, or vice versa, it will be made without human intervention. However, as Thoreau communicates later, messages transmitted from human to human are not the most urgent of messages. The fastest communicated messages are not always the most urgent, and don’t carry the most weight.
My question in regards to this chapter is, as a society so set on modernization, are we able to continue to advance while paying attention to the serious matters?
Does advancement hinder our focus on major issues, in every scenario?
What kind of advancement is Thoreau referencing in this chapter? He talks a lot about railroads, but there is many different types of modern advancement. Would Thoreau be against modern health science?
In the chapter “Economy”, Thoreau makes it abundantly clear that he is set on doing everything from building his house to traveling to and from town on his own. His independence is admirable and reflects what many people living on frontiers believe as well, which is that if you want something done right, you must do it yourself. Moreover, Thoreau believes that doing things yourself is also a more valuable and rewarding experience than paying for services that will do things for you.
One quote which reflects this sentiment from the chapter is: “Who knows but if men constructed their dwellings with their own hands, and provided food for themselves and families simply and honestly enough, the poetic faculty would be universally developed, as birds universally sing when they are so engaged.”.
Another quote which outlines Thoreau’s sentiment is: “I have learned that the swiftest traveller is he that goes afoot.”.
How does Thoreau’s feelings towards being independent in everything he does both help and hurt the sustainability of his settlement and his community? Does Thoreau’s reliance on his community for food and building materials reinforce or diminish the experiment’s goal? Finally, if many others were to attempt such an experiment more permanently would the sustainability of the community be positively or negatively affected?
In “Economy,” Thoreau discusses the principles of simple living and the costs, both financial and spiritual, of modern life. He states, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. From the desperate city you go into the desperate country and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats.” What does Thoreau mean by “quiet desperation”?
Thoreau criticizes the ways in which people accumulate wealth and material goods. How do his views challenge current attitudes towards consumerism and economic success? “A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone.” In what ways can letting go of material possessions lead to a richer life?
Thoreau says, “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately” What does it mean to “live deliberately,” and how can this idea be applied in today’s fast-paced world?
In Thoreau’s “Economy”, he argues that “comforts of life” are “hinderances to the elevation of mankind,” and that living a simple and meager life is the way to true wisdom. He argues that the pathway to impartiality and wisdom in life is voluntary poverty. Therefore, if one loves wisdom, one should live “… a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust.”
He argues this building on the basis of there being a minimum requirement for shelter and clothing, which the luxuriously rich de-acclimate themselves to, keeping themselves “not simply… comfortably warm, but unnaturally hot.” Is the intentional re-acclimation to ‘colder’ temperatures (i.e. living without extravagances) the key to wisdom? Without intent, is there wisdom inherent in poverty?
Is there (or should there be) a distinction made between voluntary and involuntary poverty? Is one who lives a “simple and meager” life out of necessity rather than choice worse positioned to be wise? What wisdom is derived from having means and choosing not to use them in life?
Throughout Thoreau’s Economy there is a reoccurring sentiment that our toil is never-ending, “the twelve labors of Hercules were trifling in comparison with those which my neighbors have undertaken; for they were only twelve, and had an end; but I could never see that these men slew or captured any monster or finished any labor” (pg. 4). Thoreau emphasizes that the work we complete is truly never completed. Many have the idea to work so they may enjoy luxuries, but the luxuries are never enjoyed for one never seems to have enough. Are we ever truly free from work? If so, how? When at home are we not dreading the return to work or feeling guilty for taking a break? Even if we can escape, poverty looms close, causing anxiety.
Thoreau later raises the question: is our toil necessary? While he does not deny there are nonnegotiable to human survival many of the things people work for are not crucial to survival. The capitalist society we reside in thrives off greed and Thoreau criticizes excess that is often coveted, praising a reserved lifestyle. He writes “he has no time to be anything but a machine;” showing his distaste for the never-ending work that implies chase of a lavish life (pg. 6). The quote brings to mind the division of labor that alienates one from their community and oneself. As one becomes caught in the consumer cycle and forgets the very things that make us human: kindness, independent thought, free will (etc.). Is Thoreau comparing man to a machine because the work society demands strips us of our humanity? Or is humanity the very thing that calls us to endure this labor we find inescapable?
Within Thoreau’s Economy, there is a large discussion surrounding labor. By describing the four necessities of life to only be food, shelter, clothing, and fuel, Thoreau disputes the need for all other luxuries. The desire for more than what is needed only requires excess labor that halts the improvement of a person. To truly be morally sound, one must first be willing to operate on their labor alone, with help from others only in the form of borrowing. However, even Thoreau himself does not claim to be able to live a life in this way, saying Walden was only temporary. He does not even show the ability to let go of his self-centeredness and maintain a life of self-labor and borrowing. He does not deny that he is not the first to practice this ideal, but rather demonstrates that it is not an easy path to follow for a lifetime.
Another point I found interesting is on the topic of improvement. Thoreau states that “the majority are able at last either to own or hire the modern house with all its improvements. While civilization has been improving our houses, it has not equally improved the men who are to inhabit them”. Thoreau critiques the ideals of the civilized man and points out that palaces do not create kings. The perception many have of improvement is that of obtaining gross necessaries, going against the basic needs of life. Society tends to look at those with less belongings as savage and poor, but is the man with riches not more degraded? Using labor to promote the gain of luxuries does not necessarily translate to accomplishment. True richness is not in the size of one’s house and the number of items one has, but the rare ability to utilize everything one owns.
My question is, with the direction our society has been heading, is it possible to stop the flow of overconsumption and return to a state in which one only relies on the absolute basic necessities of life? Is there a new basic necessity besides the ones Thoreau stated that we should be considering?
One of the themes we talked about in class and I noticed was central in Thoreau’s chapter on economy: what is actually considered to be poor?
Because, as we mentioned, he brings up this question in his statement on pg 4. Even the poor students.
Making us question what he means by the statement poor? Is it simply without money or something else?
I, however, think Thoreau tells us exactly what he means by the word poor.
Later in the chapter, when he states
Some of you, we all know, are poor, find it hard to live, and are sometimes, as it were, gasping for breath. I have no doubt that some of you who read this book are unable to pay for all the dinners that you have actually eaten for the coats and shoes that are fast wearing or are or are already worn out, and have come to this page to spend borrowed or stolen time, robbing your creditors of an hour. It is very evident what mean and sneaking lives many of you live, pg.7
And in this excerpt, as we see, he’s not only mentioning being poor of money in the sense of not being able to pay for clothes but also being poor of time and freedom in certain ways, which I gather from his other excerpt where he mentions that.
Better if they had been born in the open pasture and suckled by a wolf, that they might have seen with clearer eyes what field they were called to labor in. Who made them serfs of the soil? Why should they eat their sixty acres when man is condemned to eat only his peck of dirt? Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born?
Criticizing social life So my question is, does Thoreu then mean someone can be poor of freedom and money, or does less money mean you’re richer in that freedom? Because as we see he criticizes society for its materialism, does he actually mean poor in the opposite ways of which we typically consider it, as the person who focuses less on materials and has less is rich, whereas the typical materialistic veiw is poor?
In Economy, Thoreau feels society is so busy with unnecessary cares and work that we can’t fully appreciate and experience life. Today work has become less physically demanding due to technology but time has become more demanding. People are constantly rushing and don’t make space for gratitude, conscious movement, and intimate communication.
Thoreau says “Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them. Their fingers, from excessive toil, are too clumsy and tremble too much for that. Actually, the laboring man has not leisure for a true integrity day by day; he cannot afford to sustain the manliest relations to men; his labor would be depreciated in the market. He has no time to be anything but a machine.”
Due to our concern with insignificant matters and our lack of connection to each other, division and hate are ordinary. How do you think one can live most abundantly? Do we have to remove ourselves from society in order to see what we truly desire?
Between the pages of 32 and 35 Thoreau is discussing the contradictions of capitalism. He explains this through an analogy between his neighbors’ hard work in relation to their inability to own their own farm and house. Thoreau explains that through the process of striving for such luxuries you are playing into the illusion of capitalism. One of the illusions that Thoreau seems to think he is demystifying is capitalism’s ability to convince “civilized men” they are promised stability for working their lives away. The quote that embodied this theme is on page 34,
“The farmer is endeavoring to solve the problem of a livelihood by a formula more complicated than the problem itself. To get his shoestrings he speculates in herds of cattle. With consummate skill he has set his trap with a hair spring to catch comfort and independence, and then, as he turned away, got his own leg into it. This is the reason he is poor; and for a similar reason we are all poor in respect to a thousand savage comforts, though surrounded by luxuries…And when the farmer has got his house, he may not be the richer but the poorer for it, and it be the house that has got him.”
It seems he believes that living without such luxuries is easier than getting “caught up” in complicated problems. This theme I understand and partially agree with. Striving to constantly meet imaginary goals that were pre-determined by your economy and its society, does result in emptiness. However, his claim on page 35 feels a little extreme when he says only death will set them free from this chase of luxuries. Do we think he is fair in suggesting such extreme claims of another person’s happiness or why they remain poor? Further, this makes me think about modern environmental arguments that so quickly turn negative and completely exclude the value of life in terms of relationships, experiences, and the beauty within hardships.
Early in the capter economy, Thureau talks about how young men inherit farms to maintain when they have no experience in the field. “Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born?” This quote corrolates to how many young people are thrown into the world with little experience or knowledge on how to become successful. Like the yound man who inherited a farm, most people begin working until they day they die so that the can afford to live a somewhat comftorable life. He then goes on to highlight how people in the lower income population of this country are unable to appriciate the “finer fruits” of life. this again ties into the idea that the typical person spends too much time working in order to survive that they cannot appriciate many of the pleasures of life.
My question is this. How are we supposed to enjoy the “finer fruits” if most of us are set up to fail from the moment we are born? How can one achieve the idea of luxury and what does that really mean? Does luxury mean living in a huge house with lots of nice things? Or does it mean living with access to lifes four necessities (food, shelter, clothing, and fule) at a reasonable cost so that one may continue to survive?
Thoreau mentioned a quote that caught my eye on page 12 that reads “The necessaries of life for man in this climate may, accurately enough, be distributed under the several heads of Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel; for not till we have secured these are we prepared to entertain the true problems of life with freedom and a prospect of success.” This quote and the words “necessary of life” he mentioned really made me start to think of what people in our world now would say is necessary of/for life. Thoreau mentions these four necessaries of life in different ways than I believe they are viewed in our modern world, where shelter and clothing were viewed as means of retaining our heat and protecting us…however, I believe that the extravagant lives that people in our modern world have started living has changed the meanings of these necessities. Where we can see in our world now that the clothes we wear and the houses we live in seem to commonly be aimed at reflecting the amount of money we have, instead of serving their intended purpose.
My questions are… What made Thoreau think that there were only four “necessaries of life”, and why did he only list these four? How/why has the modern world shaped the “necessaries” in our lives and skewed our view of wants vs needs? Are the modern wants we desire in our lives starting to outweigh our natural needs and fueling this change in what we view as a priority and a “need” for survival?
Thoreau spends the entire chapter discussing his views on labor and living a simple life where he provides entirely for himself. For the latter half of the chapter, he begins to describe to us the ways in which he built his home on Walden Pond, and the expenses that he procured and how he offset those expenses. He wished to live almost entirely of the Earth, by creating his own home and his garden, and by borrowing materials when he needed them as opposed to purchasing. The simple way of living- of not purchasing new clothes every time there was a new event or by continuously wearing a pair of shoes – was all part of living the good life to him. He sought to pursue the true meaning of economy as opposed to the political economy of Smith and others that the world has been practicing for years.
On page 64 he begins to discuss curtains and how he has no need for them for he has nature. “I find it still better economy to retreat behind some curtain nature has provided, than to add a single item to the details of housekeeping. A lady once offered me a mat, but as I had no room to spare within the house, nor time to spare within or without to shake it, I declined it, preferring to wipe my feet on the sod before my door. It is best to avoid the beginnings of evil.” He then uses the quote “The evil that men do lives after them”
In this context what is the evil that is beginning? What is the evil that men are doing? Is it possible that the evil is simply capitalism or the superfluous objects that ones keep within their home to decorate it and show that they can in fact have those things? Previously in the chapter he had discussed how he had borrowed things or had used things others had given him. Why was it the mat to simply wipe his feet on that crossed the line and was considered the beginnings of evil?
Later in the chapter on page 74 he states “Our manners have been corrupted by communication with the saints.” While this is later in the chapter after he begins to discuss philanthropy, do you think it has any connection to the evil that he discusses ten pages prior? What are the manners that have been corrupted?
In Thoreau’s chapter “Economy,” he explores the ideas of hands-on work and personal connection. On page 50 Thoreau states, “One says to me, “I wonder that you do not lay up money; you love to travel; you might take the cars and go to Fitchburg to-day and see the country.” But I am wiser than that. I have learned that the swiftest traveler is he that goes afoot,” where Thoreau discusses the importance of self journey (50). Further, Thoreau compares how he enacts his own travel to that of those traveling by railroad. Where he describes the value of the railroad by stating, “to make a railroad round the world available to all mankind is equivalent to grading the whole surface of the planet,” (Thoreau, 50). Where the railroad is creating a disturbance amongst the land it is placed on.
Thoreau discusses the ideas of traveling, and specifically how the act of traveling by railroad is leading to a disconnection between people and land. Thoreau claims that traveling by railroad is a useless expense.
Within the framework of Thoreau’s importance on traveling by walking, does Thoreau want to describe ideas of sustainability and environmentalism in his discussion of walking and traveling by train, or is this quote more of a discussion on self progress and self satisfaction or sufficiency?
Thoreau’s writings in this chapter argues that we should turn away from government, central authority, and religion. These entities give the appearance of providing the ‘good life’ , but that is not the reality. He then, guides us towards the idea that we must turn to nature for the ‘good life’.
How does he guide us there? One reference I have pulled from this weeks reading is about housing and how many people actually own their house in modern society. “In the savage state every family owns a shelter as good as the best, and sufficient for its coarser and simpler wants; but I think that I speak within bounds when I say that, though the birds of the air have their nests, and the foxes their holes, and the savages their wigwams, in modern civilized society not more than one half the families own a shelter. In the large towns and cities, where civilization especially prevails, the number of those who own a shelter is a very small fraction of the whole. The rest pay an annual tax for this outside garment of all, become indispensable summer and winter, which would buy a village of Indian wigwams, but now helps to keep them poor as long as they live” (p. 28-29)
In this passage he not only point out how we have lost sight of what is really the purpose of a house. Shelter. But how these McMansions and suburban paradises are not sustainable economy.
In Thoreau’s “Economy” the moral of his experiment at Walden Pond was to essentially illustrate how we can all benefit from a simplified lifestyle. Accumulating excess possessions not only demands more of our energy but, according to Thoreau, it can also lead to spiritual oppression, therefore diminishing our inner freedom. I really would like to emphasize this idea by relating it to the current state of the world today. We live in a society that is always moving, so fast paced, and it seems as if we can never catch a break (unless that’s just me…). The idea of slowing down and taking a second to simply enjoy the present moment rather than suffering for most of your years just to bear the fruits later in your life…which very well might not even happen.
I like that Thoreau also brings up the point that we forget we have a choice in all of this. We often tend to follow these older generation ideologies, which are usually held up by imperial and colonial structures who determine the knowledge we have… and knowledge is never a full account of events. We must be open to change, as nature is forever changing. I guess my question would be; How can embracing a more thoughtful, present-focused ideology, similar to Thoreau’s, help us deal with modern day detachment? How can we embrace the flexibility and change that are deep-rooted in both nature and our human experience, while also challenging established philosophies and institutions that support this fast-paced lifestyle?
In Thoreau’s chapter of “Economy” He explores the topic of Walden pond. It is to try to live a more simple lifestyle that is not guarded by capitalistic views or monetary value but rather the more spiritual oppression and how our morals have changed. In the idea of minimalism and self preservation of moral beliefs. Thoreau mentions how people do not care about the consequence’s of their own actions as he states in Page 3. “So much for a blind obedience to a blundering oracle, throwing the stones over their heads behind them, and not seeing where they fell”. We fall short of the empathy to see our own short comings and the issues we lay upon the land and one another.
I feel that Thoreau is a person of tranquility in nature. Seeing both the balance of nature and man. Thoreau mentions that is it hard to start anything without having the right tools or help, on page 14. “It is difficult to begin without borrowing, but perhaps it is the most generous course thus to permit your fellow-men to have an interest in your enterprise.” Even in the idea of living a more simple lifestyle you must find help as he borrowed an axe to chop the trees to build his shelter. What is the turning point from borrowing tools to start your own path grow into not being able to tell your own consequences or even caring about the path you have left behind? How can we change for the beneficial impacts on nature given our current human existence and experience, are we only born to take rather then to nurture or cherish?
In Economy, Thoreau criticizes society’s focus on wealth and luxury, arguing that it leads to lives of “quiet desperation” without true happiness. He promotes simple living, saying that true richness comes from needing less, not having more. Thoreau believes that chasing luxury requires too much work and hinders personal growth. He advocates for voluntary poverty, where living simply and relying on oneself leads to wisdom and independence. Although he admits that living this way is hard to sustain, Thoreau points out that society’s obsession with material improvements hasn’t made people better. He questions whether having more really improves life, suggesting that overconsumption harms the human spirit. Thoreau’s ideas challenge us to consider whether we can move away from excess and return to valuing the basic necessities of life.
My question is, what catastrophic event or time period must take place for people to realize that overconsumption and lack of environmental awareness is not going to be sustainable? I believe that it eventually must take world famine or extremely intense natural disasters for people to realize what needs to be prioritized.
I see a lot of Thoreau’s points echoed in contemporary critiques of the economy, not solely in scholarly writing but mostly in informal conversations with peers or shifting opinions of the good life on the internet. We want to break free of relentless consumerism, learn how to repair our clothes instead of buying them new, weave our metaphorical baskets without having to prove them worth other men’s while to buy; people are seeking new ways to maintain their vital heat without compromising their morals or ‘playing the game’ when it is becoming clear there is no “modest allowance or room in the courthouse” promised to us if we do.
Toward the beginning of the chapter Thoreau establishes that “the laboring man has not leisure for a true integrity day by day; he cannot afford to sustain the manliest relations to men […] he has no time to be anything but a machine,” and follows with a sentiment that really struck me; “The finest qualities of our nature, like the bloom on fruits, can be preserved only by the most delicate handling. Yet we do not treat ourselves nor one another this tenderly.” Later he reveals that his intended audience are the “discontented masses who idly complain of the hardness of their lot” because it seems he ultimately still believes we have more freedom to shift and live our lives by better methods than the “seemingly wealthy” trapped in “their own golden or silver fetters.” Before going to Walden, Thoreau speaks of not feeling secure despite being a productive member of society by doing honest and necessary work. Instead of choosing to spending his time working to find a way to get the validation and standing to make his endeavors worthwhile, he sought to find a way to avoid the necessity of selling himself by forging his own path at Walden pond.
My series of questions are: What can we glean from Thoreau’s experiment at Walden in finding ways to treat ourselves, others and nature more tenderly despite often feeling trapped by the demands of our labor? What role does self-cultivation and deliberate introspection play in this? Does voluntary/involuntary poverty leave people better equipped to address and change the hardness of the times than those with wealth and resources?
In Thoreau’s chapter “Economy”, he goes into great depth the ways in which one can live a simple life, stating that the only necessities of life are Food, Water, shelter and clothing. He believes that working within the economic machine is akin to selling ones soul, and it is impossible to truly be a free man while still living in the clutches of the system. He is a strong believer that true happiness and wisdom comes from experience and taking control of ones life.
One question I wanted to ask about this way of life is, does Thoreau’s “good life” further encourage individualism that is so prominent within American society? Is a healthy community not also essential for contentment?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
In the chapter “Economy”, Thoreau identifies four necessities for living; food, shelter, clothing and fuel. On the subject of clothing Thoreau says “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.” What do you think this quote says about clothing today, as both a commodity and a necessity? Is clothing nothing more than a bare necessity as Thoreau suggests? Why do we tend to associate our identities with pieces of cloth?
By Evan Morgan
Anna Gardner – Walden “Economy”
A theme I noticed and would like to highlight in this section of the book is when Thoreau starts to talk about ‘Shelter’. Much like when he discusses the clothing in society, arguing that it is often driven by novelty and societal opinions rather than utility, the topic of shelter is similar.
The priorities surrounding these two topics have shifted. Clothing is designed to retain heat and cover the skin. Shelter is designed to provide protection from the elements. However, many people prioritize having fashionable or clean clothes over having clothes suited for warm or cold weather.
People are often judged by their clothes or house in society, hence the priority shift. This change of priority can (and does) result in economic shifts as well.
“And when the farmer has got his house, he may not be the richer but the poorer for it, and it be the house that has got him. As I understand it, that was a valid objection urged by Momus against the house which Minerva made, that she “had not made it movable, by which means a bad neighborhood might be avoided;” and it may still be urged, for our houses are such unwieldy property that we are often imprisoned rather than housed in them” (pg. 146)
When aiming for a certain objective driven in part by society, Thoreau concludes that it often results in unhappiness and economic downfall. Furthermore, we have been told in society to aim for “better”, “modern”, or more “luxurious” things.
“Most men appear never to have considered what a house is, and are actually though needlessly poor all their lives because they think that they must have such a one as their neighbors have.” (pg. 148)
So, my question is this: What other ways have you noticed our priorities shifting? Thoreau seems to shine a negative view on how society shapes our views, do you agree or disagree? Why? What are some other examples of this as seen in Walden?
Cooper White~ Thoreau “Economy in Walden”
In Thoreau’s chapter titled Economy, the text turns to the natural state of the world and the footprint we as humans have on it. My main takeaways from this chapter are embodied by Thoreau’s ideology that the four necessities of life consist of “food, clothing, shelter, and fuel.” Which works in conjunction with the idea that “nature itself does much to provide these, a person willing to accept the basic gifts of nature can live off the land with minimal toil. Any attempt at luxury is likely to prove more a hindrance than a help to an individual’s improvement.”
My interpretation of this message is that we as a society must first define acceptance and understand what it means for an individual to accepting of the provisions that the natural world provides. In the experiment at Walden Pond, Thoreau fully dives into the idea of a simplistic lifestyle. Along with this simplistic approach to living, he values the provisions of the natural world. Effectively accepting the fuels and shelter provided by the natural landscape to provide a life of subsistence.
My question is how far have we (as a society) strayed from utilizing the natural landscape to provide our means of life?
What would more of these social experiments look like if we took technology out of the equation and lived off the grid for six months?
How many people are willing to take modern amenities out of their lives if they knew that the natural world could provide all the basic needs for a good life and provide major ecological improvements in the same process?
Ben Watson Response
In the chapter Economy, Thoreau introduces this idea that “As with our colleges, so with a hundred ‘modern improvements’ there is an illusion about them; there is not always a positive advance.” (Pg. 40) This statement, to me, shows that Thoreau was very mindful, that although an invention may create a better life, or an easier one, whether it be through entertainment, or convenience, there is a necessary evil associated. Throughout the chapter, Thoreau uses the term ‘borrowing’ in a sense that he truly owns nothing, thus he has to borrow from the Earth. Modern invention has a positive connotation with it, and during the time that Thoreau was writing Walden, the world was going through an Industrial change. Thoreau noticed that nature itself was being degraded, for the purpose of human advancement, and the shiny, new things try to distract us from the degradation caused to make it.
Shortly after these statements, Thoreau talks about the construction of telegram lines, saying that “We are in great haste to to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.” I interpret this as, instead of trying to force communication, we need to listen. If Maine has a message for Texas, or vice versa, it will be made without human intervention. However, as Thoreau communicates later, messages transmitted from human to human are not the most urgent of messages. The fastest communicated messages are not always the most urgent, and don’t carry the most weight.
My question in regards to this chapter is, as a society so set on modernization, are we able to continue to advance while paying attention to the serious matters?
Does advancement hinder our focus on major issues, in every scenario?
What kind of advancement is Thoreau referencing in this chapter? He talks a lot about railroads, but there is many different types of modern advancement. Would Thoreau be against modern health science?
In the chapter “Economy”, Thoreau makes it abundantly clear that he is set on doing everything from building his house to traveling to and from town on his own. His independence is admirable and reflects what many people living on frontiers believe as well, which is that if you want something done right, you must do it yourself. Moreover, Thoreau believes that doing things yourself is also a more valuable and rewarding experience than paying for services that will do things for you.
One quote which reflects this sentiment from the chapter is: “Who knows but if men constructed their dwellings with their own hands, and provided food for themselves and families simply and honestly enough, the poetic faculty would be universally developed, as birds universally sing when they are so engaged.”.
Another quote which outlines Thoreau’s sentiment is: “I have learned that the swiftest traveller is he that goes afoot.”.
How does Thoreau’s feelings towards being independent in everything he does both help and hurt the sustainability of his settlement and his community? Does Thoreau’s reliance on his community for food and building materials reinforce or diminish the experiment’s goal? Finally, if many others were to attempt such an experiment more permanently would the sustainability of the community be positively or negatively affected?
This was my question – Cole Tomlin
In “Economy,” Thoreau discusses the principles of simple living and the costs, both financial and spiritual, of modern life. He states, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. From the desperate city you go into the desperate country and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats.” What does Thoreau mean by “quiet desperation”?
Thoreau criticizes the ways in which people accumulate wealth and material goods. How do his views challenge current attitudes towards consumerism and economic success? “A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone.” In what ways can letting go of material possessions lead to a richer life?
Thoreau says, “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately” What does it mean to “live deliberately,” and how can this idea be applied in today’s fast-paced world?
Rose Benton
In Thoreau’s “Economy”, he argues that “comforts of life” are “hinderances to the elevation of mankind,” and that living a simple and meager life is the way to true wisdom. He argues that the pathway to impartiality and wisdom in life is voluntary poverty. Therefore, if one loves wisdom, one should live “… a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust.”
He argues this building on the basis of there being a minimum requirement for shelter and clothing, which the luxuriously rich de-acclimate themselves to, keeping themselves “not simply… comfortably warm, but unnaturally hot.” Is the intentional re-acclimation to ‘colder’ temperatures (i.e. living without extravagances) the key to wisdom? Without intent, is there wisdom inherent in poverty?
Is there (or should there be) a distinction made between voluntary and involuntary poverty? Is one who lives a “simple and meager” life out of necessity rather than choice worse positioned to be wise? What wisdom is derived from having means and choosing not to use them in life?
Throughout Thoreau’s Economy there is a reoccurring sentiment that our toil is never-ending, “the twelve labors of Hercules were trifling in comparison with those which my neighbors have undertaken; for they were only twelve, and had an end; but I could never see that these men slew or captured any monster or finished any labor” (pg. 4). Thoreau emphasizes that the work we complete is truly never completed. Many have the idea to work so they may enjoy luxuries, but the luxuries are never enjoyed for one never seems to have enough. Are we ever truly free from work? If so, how? When at home are we not dreading the return to work or feeling guilty for taking a break? Even if we can escape, poverty looms close, causing anxiety.
Thoreau later raises the question: is our toil necessary? While he does not deny there are nonnegotiable to human survival many of the things people work for are not crucial to survival. The capitalist society we reside in thrives off greed and Thoreau criticizes excess that is often coveted, praising a reserved lifestyle. He writes “he has no time to be anything but a machine;” showing his distaste for the never-ending work that implies chase of a lavish life (pg. 6). The quote brings to mind the division of labor that alienates one from their community and oneself. As one becomes caught in the consumer cycle and forgets the very things that make us human: kindness, independent thought, free will (etc.). Is Thoreau comparing man to a machine because the work society demands strips us of our humanity? Or is humanity the very thing that calls us to endure this labor we find inescapable?
By: Anna Harrison
Hanna Cowles
Within Thoreau’s Economy, there is a large discussion surrounding labor. By describing the four necessities of life to only be food, shelter, clothing, and fuel, Thoreau disputes the need for all other luxuries. The desire for more than what is needed only requires excess labor that halts the improvement of a person. To truly be morally sound, one must first be willing to operate on their labor alone, with help from others only in the form of borrowing. However, even Thoreau himself does not claim to be able to live a life in this way, saying Walden was only temporary. He does not even show the ability to let go of his self-centeredness and maintain a life of self-labor and borrowing. He does not deny that he is not the first to practice this ideal, but rather demonstrates that it is not an easy path to follow for a lifetime.
Another point I found interesting is on the topic of improvement. Thoreau states that “the majority are able at last either to own or hire the modern house with all its improvements. While civilization has been improving our houses, it has not equally improved the men who are to inhabit them”. Thoreau critiques the ideals of the civilized man and points out that palaces do not create kings. The perception many have of improvement is that of obtaining gross necessaries, going against the basic needs of life. Society tends to look at those with less belongings as savage and poor, but is the man with riches not more degraded? Using labor to promote the gain of luxuries does not necessarily translate to accomplishment. True richness is not in the size of one’s house and the number of items one has, but the rare ability to utilize everything one owns.
My question is, with the direction our society has been heading, is it possible to stop the flow of overconsumption and return to a state in which one only relies on the absolute basic necessities of life? Is there a new basic necessity besides the ones Thoreau stated that we should be considering?
One of the themes we talked about in class and I noticed was central in Thoreau’s chapter on economy: what is actually considered to be poor?
Because, as we mentioned, he brings up this question in his statement on pg 4.
Even the poor students.
Making us question what he means by the statement poor? Is it simply without money or something else?
I, however, think Thoreau tells us exactly what he means by the word poor.
Later in the chapter, when he states
Some of you, we all know, are poor, find it hard to live, and are sometimes, as it were, gasping for breath. I have no doubt that some of you who read this book are unable to pay for all the dinners that you have actually eaten for the coats and shoes that are fast wearing or are or are already worn out, and have come to this page to spend borrowed or stolen time, robbing your creditors of an hour. It is very evident what mean and sneaking lives many of you live, pg.7
And in this excerpt, as we see, he’s not only mentioning being poor of money in the sense of not being able to pay for clothes but also being poor of time and freedom in certain ways, which I gather from his other excerpt where he mentions that.
Better if they had been born in the open pasture and suckled by a wolf, that they might have seen with clearer eyes what field they were called to labor in. Who made them serfs of the soil? Why should they eat their sixty acres when man is condemned to eat only his peck of dirt? Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born?
Criticizing social life
So my question is, does Thoreu then mean someone can be poor of freedom and money, or does less money mean you’re richer in that freedom? Because as we see he criticizes society for its materialism, does he actually mean poor in the opposite ways of which we typically consider it, as the person who focuses less on materials and has less is rich, whereas the typical materialistic veiw is poor?
just realized I didn’t put my name on this
-Megan Langlois
Maddy Gartland
In Economy, Thoreau feels society is so busy with unnecessary cares and work that we can’t fully appreciate and experience life. Today work has become less physically demanding due to technology but time has become more demanding. People are constantly rushing and don’t make space for gratitude, conscious movement, and intimate communication.
Thoreau says “Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them. Their fingers, from excessive toil, are too clumsy and tremble too much for that. Actually, the laboring man has not leisure for a true integrity day by day; he cannot afford to sustain the manliest relations to men; his labor would be depreciated in the market. He has no time to be anything but a machine.”
Due to our concern with insignificant matters and our lack of connection to each other, division and hate are ordinary. How do you think one can live most abundantly? Do we have to remove ourselves from society in order to see what we truly desire?
Between the pages of 32 and 35 Thoreau is discussing the contradictions of capitalism. He explains this through an analogy between his neighbors’ hard work in relation to their inability to own their own farm and house. Thoreau explains that through the process of striving for such luxuries you are playing into the illusion of capitalism. One of the illusions that Thoreau seems to think he is demystifying is capitalism’s ability to convince “civilized men” they are promised stability for working their lives away. The quote that embodied this theme is on page 34,
“The farmer is endeavoring to solve the problem of a livelihood by a formula more complicated than the problem itself. To get his shoestrings he speculates in herds of cattle. With consummate skill he has set his trap with a hair spring to catch comfort and independence, and then, as he turned away, got his own leg into it. This is the reason he is poor; and for a similar reason we are all poor in respect to a thousand savage comforts, though surrounded by luxuries…And when the farmer has got his house, he may not be the richer but the poorer for it, and it be the house that has got him.”
It seems he believes that living without such luxuries is easier than getting “caught up” in complicated problems. This theme I understand and partially agree with. Striving to constantly meet imaginary goals that were pre-determined by your economy and its society, does result in emptiness. However, his claim on page 35 feels a little extreme when he says only death will set them free from this chase of luxuries. Do we think he is fair in suggesting such extreme claims of another person’s happiness or why they remain poor? Further, this makes me think about modern environmental arguments that so quickly turn negative and completely exclude the value of life in terms of relationships, experiences, and the beauty within hardships.
-Dez
Liam Evans
Early in the capter economy, Thureau talks about how young men inherit farms to maintain when they have no experience in the field. “Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born?” This quote corrolates to how many young people are thrown into the world with little experience or knowledge on how to become successful. Like the yound man who inherited a farm, most people begin working until they day they die so that the can afford to live a somewhat comftorable life. He then goes on to highlight how people in the lower income population of this country are unable to appriciate the “finer fruits” of life. this again ties into the idea that the typical person spends too much time working in order to survive that they cannot appriciate many of the pleasures of life.
My question is this. How are we supposed to enjoy the “finer fruits” if most of us are set up to fail from the moment we are born? How can one achieve the idea of luxury and what does that really mean? Does luxury mean living in a huge house with lots of nice things? Or does it mean living with access to lifes four necessities (food, shelter, clothing, and fule) at a reasonable cost so that one may continue to survive?
Thoreau mentioned a quote that caught my eye on page 12 that reads “The necessaries of life for man in this climate may, accurately enough, be distributed under the several heads of Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Fuel; for not till we have secured these are we prepared to entertain the true problems of life with freedom and a prospect of success.” This quote and the words “necessary of life” he mentioned really made me start to think of what people in our world now would say is necessary of/for life. Thoreau mentions these four necessaries of life in different ways than I believe they are viewed in our modern world, where shelter and clothing were viewed as means of retaining our heat and protecting us…however, I believe that the extravagant lives that people in our modern world have started living has changed the meanings of these necessities. Where we can see in our world now that the clothes we wear and the houses we live in seem to commonly be aimed at reflecting the amount of money we have, instead of serving their intended purpose.
My questions are… What made Thoreau think that there were only four “necessaries of life”, and why did he only list these four? How/why has the modern world shaped the “necessaries” in our lives and skewed our view of wants vs needs? Are the modern wants we desire in our lives starting to outweigh our natural needs and fueling this change in what we view as a priority and a “need” for survival?
by Perry Daughtry
Em Morris – Walden – Economy
Thoreau spends the entire chapter discussing his views on labor and living a simple life where he provides entirely for himself. For the latter half of the chapter, he begins to describe to us the ways in which he built his home on Walden Pond, and the expenses that he procured and how he offset those expenses. He wished to live almost entirely of the Earth, by creating his own home and his garden, and by borrowing materials when he needed them as opposed to purchasing. The simple way of living- of not purchasing new clothes every time there was a new event or by continuously wearing a pair of shoes – was all part of living the good life to him. He sought to pursue the true meaning of economy as opposed to the political economy of Smith and others that the world has been practicing for years.
On page 64 he begins to discuss curtains and how he has no need for them for he has nature. “I find it still better economy to retreat behind some curtain nature has provided, than to add a single item to the details of housekeeping. A lady once offered me a mat, but as I had no room to spare within the house, nor time to spare within or without to shake it, I declined it, preferring to wipe my feet on the sod before my door. It is best to avoid the beginnings of evil.” He then uses the quote “The evil that men do lives after them”
In this context what is the evil that is beginning? What is the evil that men are doing? Is it possible that the evil is simply capitalism or the superfluous objects that ones keep within their home to decorate it and show that they can in fact have those things? Previously in the chapter he had discussed how he had borrowed things or had used things others had given him. Why was it the mat to simply wipe his feet on that crossed the line and was considered the beginnings of evil?
Later in the chapter on page 74 he states “Our manners have been corrupted by communication with the saints.” While this is later in the chapter after he begins to discuss philanthropy, do you think it has any connection to the evil that he discusses ten pages prior? What are the manners that have been corrupted?
Alaina Case
In Thoreau’s chapter “Economy,” he explores the ideas of hands-on work and personal connection. On page 50 Thoreau states, “One says to me, “I wonder that you do not lay up money; you love to travel; you might take the cars and go to Fitchburg to-day and see the country.” But I am wiser than that. I have learned that the swiftest traveler is he that goes afoot,” where Thoreau discusses the importance of self journey (50). Further, Thoreau compares how he enacts his own travel to that of those traveling by railroad. Where he describes the value of the railroad by stating, “to make a railroad round the world available to all mankind is equivalent to grading the whole surface of the planet,” (Thoreau, 50). Where the railroad is creating a disturbance amongst the land it is placed on.
Thoreau discusses the ideas of traveling, and specifically how the act of traveling by railroad is leading to a disconnection between people and land. Thoreau claims that traveling by railroad is a useless expense.
Within the framework of Thoreau’s importance on traveling by walking, does Thoreau want to describe ideas of sustainability and environmentalism in his discussion of walking and traveling by train, or is this quote more of a discussion on self progress and self satisfaction or sufficiency?
Cecilia Roche
Thoreau’s writings in this chapter argues that we should turn away from government, central authority, and religion. These entities give the appearance of providing the ‘good life’ , but that is not the reality. He then, guides us towards the idea that we must turn to nature for the ‘good life’.
How does he guide us there? One reference I have pulled from this weeks reading is about housing and how many people actually own their house in modern society. “In the savage state every family owns a shelter as good as the best, and sufficient for its coarser and simpler wants; but I think that I speak within bounds when I say that, though the birds of the air have their nests, and the foxes their holes, and the savages their wigwams, in modern civilized society not more than one half the families own a shelter. In the large towns and cities, where civilization
especially prevails, the number of those who own a shelter is a very small fraction of the whole. The rest pay an annual tax for this outside garment of all, become indispensable summer and winter, which would buy a village of Indian wigwams, but now helps to keep them poor as long as they live” (p. 28-29)
In this passage he not only point out how we have lost sight of what is really the purpose of a house. Shelter. But how these McMansions and suburban paradises are not sustainable economy.
In Thoreau’s “Economy” the moral of his experiment at Walden Pond was to essentially illustrate how we can all benefit from a simplified lifestyle. Accumulating excess possessions not only demands more of our energy but, according to Thoreau, it can also lead to spiritual oppression, therefore diminishing our inner freedom. I really would like to emphasize this idea by relating it to the current state of the world today. We live in a society that is always moving, so fast paced, and it seems as if we can never catch a break (unless that’s just me…). The idea of slowing down and taking a second to simply enjoy the present moment rather than suffering for most of your years just to bear the fruits later in your life…which very well might not even happen.
I like that Thoreau also brings up the point that we forget we have a choice in all of this. We often tend to follow these older generation ideologies, which are usually held up by imperial and colonial structures who determine the knowledge we have… and knowledge is never a full account of events. We must be open to change, as nature is forever changing. I guess my question would be; How can embracing a more thoughtful, present-focused ideology, similar to Thoreau’s, help us deal with modern day detachment? How can we embrace the flexibility and change that are deep-rooted in both nature and our human experience, while also challenging established philosophies and institutions that support this fast-paced lifestyle?
-Michelle Hood
Grady Isaacs,
In Thoreau’s chapter of “Economy” He explores the topic of Walden pond. It is to try to live a more simple lifestyle that is not guarded by capitalistic views or monetary value but rather the more spiritual oppression and how our morals have changed. In the idea of minimalism and self preservation of moral beliefs. Thoreau mentions how people do not care about the consequence’s of their own actions as he states in Page 3. “So much for a blind obedience to a blundering oracle, throwing the stones over their heads behind them, and not seeing where they fell”. We fall short of the empathy to see our own short comings and the issues we lay upon the land and one another.
I feel that Thoreau is a person of tranquility in nature. Seeing both the balance of nature and man. Thoreau mentions that is it hard to start anything without having the right tools or help, on page 14. “It is difficult to begin without borrowing, but perhaps it is the most generous course thus to permit your fellow-men to have an interest in your enterprise.” Even in the idea of living a more simple lifestyle you must find help as he borrowed an axe to chop the trees to build his shelter. What is the turning point from borrowing tools to start your own path grow into not being able to tell your own consequences or even caring about the path you have left behind? How can we change for the beneficial impacts on nature given our current human existence and experience, are we only born to take rather then to nurture or cherish?
Jonathan Phillips
In Economy, Thoreau criticizes society’s focus on wealth and luxury, arguing that it leads to lives of “quiet desperation” without true happiness. He promotes simple living, saying that true richness comes from needing less, not having more. Thoreau believes that chasing luxury requires too much work and hinders personal growth. He advocates for voluntary poverty, where living simply and relying on oneself leads to wisdom and independence. Although he admits that living this way is hard to sustain, Thoreau points out that society’s obsession with material improvements hasn’t made people better. He questions whether having more really improves life, suggesting that overconsumption harms the human spirit. Thoreau’s ideas challenge us to consider whether we can move away from excess and return to valuing the basic necessities of life.
My question is, what catastrophic event or time period must take place for people to realize that overconsumption and lack of environmental awareness is not going to be sustainable? I believe that it eventually must take world famine or extremely intense natural disasters for people to realize what needs to be prioritized.
Aaron Batty
I see a lot of Thoreau’s points echoed in contemporary critiques of the economy, not solely in scholarly writing but mostly in informal conversations with peers or shifting opinions of the good life on the internet. We want to break free of relentless consumerism, learn how to repair our clothes instead of buying them new, weave our metaphorical baskets without having to prove them worth other men’s while to buy; people are seeking new ways to maintain their vital heat without compromising their morals or ‘playing the game’ when it is becoming clear there is no “modest allowance or room in the courthouse” promised to us if we do.
Toward the beginning of the chapter Thoreau establishes that “the laboring man has not leisure for a true integrity day by day; he cannot afford to sustain the manliest relations to men […] he has no time to be anything but a machine,” and follows with a sentiment that really struck me; “The finest qualities of our nature, like the bloom on fruits, can be preserved only by the most delicate handling. Yet we do not treat ourselves nor one another this tenderly.” Later he reveals that his intended audience are the “discontented masses who idly complain of the hardness of their lot” because it seems he ultimately still believes we have more freedom to shift and live our lives by better methods than the “seemingly wealthy” trapped in “their own golden or silver fetters.” Before going to Walden, Thoreau speaks of not feeling secure despite being a productive member of society by doing honest and necessary work. Instead of choosing to spending his time working to find a way to get the validation and standing to make his endeavors worthwhile, he sought to find a way to avoid the necessity of selling himself by forging his own path at Walden pond.
My series of questions are: What can we glean from Thoreau’s experiment at Walden in finding ways to treat ourselves, others and nature more tenderly despite often feeling trapped by the demands of our labor? What role does self-cultivation and deliberate introspection play in this? Does voluntary/involuntary poverty leave people better equipped to address and change the hardness of the times than those with wealth and resources?
In Thoreau’s chapter “Economy”, he goes into great depth the ways in which one can live a simple life, stating that the only necessities of life are Food, Water, shelter and clothing. He believes that working within the economic machine is akin to selling ones soul, and it is impossible to truly be a free man while still living in the clutches of the system. He is a strong believer that true happiness and wisdom comes from experience and taking control of ones life.
One question I wanted to ask about this way of life is, does Thoreau’s “good life” further encourage individualism that is so prominent within American society? Is a healthy community not also essential for contentment?