Henry David Thoreau’s "Self-Culture"as A Means Of Social Reform

Critics often accuse Thoreau of emphasizing "self-culture" or individual moral reform at the expense of social reform. This dissertation, however, holds that "self-culture" cannot be simply understood as individual moral reform. It actually constitutes Thoreau’s particular approach to reforming society which involves three aspects:how to improve the individual through a moral reform, how to pursue "self-culture" in a capitalist market economy, and how to position the self-culturing individual in actual politics. The present dissertation aims to explore these issues through a critical study of Thoreau’s "self-culture" as a means of social reform.The idea of "self-culture" was originally a religious doctrine advocated by William Ellery Channing and Ralph Waldo Emerson, referring to an ongoing process of spiritual and moral cultivation within the individual. Both Channing and Emerson were concerned with preaching and promoting "self-culture" among the public, wishing to effect social reform through the improvement of each individual. Thoreau was also committed to "self-culture" as a means of social reform, but compared with Channing and Emerson, Thoreau not only elaborated on the particular ways of "self-culture" as a moral reform, but also contemplated some important questions involved in the process, particularly the possibility of "self-culture" in a capitalist market economy and the self-positioning of self-culturing individuals in democratic politics.The main body of the dissertation is divided into three chapters which treat respectively the three aspects of Thoreau’s "self-culture" as a means of social reform. The first chapter discusses Thoreau’s critique of social reformers in the antebellum period and his insistence on the precedence of a moral reform within the individual. In Thoreau’s view, antebellum reformers in general were too concerned with reforming the world, or society, but not concerned enough about reforming themselves. The problems of the social and political order were rooted in individuals-the corrupt institutions were only the symptom. Accordingly, he recommends that reformers improve themselves first by conducting a moral reform within, which involves a series of spiritual and moral disciplines, such as social withdrawal and self-reliance, friendship, self-control, reading, and study of nature. The argument is that, compared with the conception of social reform as a direct, external, and collective mode of action, Thoreau’s "self-culture" as a means of social reform is distinguished by its emphasis on individual moral reform as the basis and first step of reforming society at large.Chapter Two examines the second aspect of Thoreau’s "self-culture" as a means of social reform, i.e., how can one conduct "self-culture" in a capitalist market economy? It first discusses Thoreau’s powerful critique of capitalism, including commercialization of life and dominance of commodities over people, intensification of work, division of labor, inequality in the distribution of wealth, alienation and reification of nature and man, all of which, according to Thoreau, constitute great difficulties and limitations to one’s pursuit of "self-culture." As a response, Thoreau proposes in Walden "an economy of living," that is, a series of techniques and strategies by means of which the individual can remain free to pursue "self-culture" despite living in unfavorable economic conditions, including "voluntary poverty,’ subsistence farming, minimum involvement in exchange, and moralization of labor. However, Thoreau not only pays inadequate attention to the material conditions of the individual and the unequal socio-economic power relationships between different classes, but also lacks a critique of his own ambivalent relationship with the market economy. Despite his well-known anti-market attitude, a careful reading reveals that Thoreau is actually unable to emancipate himself completely from the marketplace. In the end, his critique proves far more powerful than his solution.Chapter Three investigates the third aspect of Thoreau’s "self-culture" as a means of social reform, i.e., how should self-culturing individuals position themselves in actual politics? It first examines Thoreau’s critique of American politics, slavery in particular, based on his belief in a higher moral law. In Thoreau’s view, the institution of slavery not only ran counter to the higher law but also threatened individual freedom and the ideal of "self-culture." Then how should the self-culturing individual act in the face of such social injustice? According to Thoreau, the only obligation of self-culturing individuals is to do at any time what they think right, that is, they should always act according to the dictates of their consciences. However, despite his insistence on the superiority and legitimacy of higher law and individual conscience, Thoreau does not adequately explain the meaning and content of these two terms. As bases of political obligation and action, they are actually inherently subjective and cannot sustain universal applicability. Moreover, Thoreau’s politics of conscience entails an ideal positioning of the individual within modern democracy, in which one’s political life is systematically subordinated to one’s private life of "self-culture." At once responsible for living deliberately and responsive to the claims of conscience, the self-culturing individual would inevitably be caught in a dilemma and find no way out. Finally, his idea of individual conscientious action, with its inherent antiinstitutionalism and opposition to collective actions, is not only too simple and idealistic as a way to address political problems, but also essentially incompatible with the principle and practice of democratic politics.In conclusion, Thoreau’s "self-culture" as a means of social reform is significant for its emphasis on the individual basis of social reform and on the capacity of the individual to make improvements to society as a whole. It is problematic, however, in that it attempts a simultaneous realization of a detached individual life and an effective social and political influence; it emphasizes self-sufficiency in a market society but ignores the constitutive effect of capitalism on the individual; it insists on the efficacy of individual conscience as the only criterion of political action yet lacks a critique of its inherent subjectivity and impracticability.