Self Reliance

Emerson makes his arguments along several threads. While he champions the present and rejects things like reverence or nostalgia for the past (these things too easily breed imitation), he does allude to former “greats” in various fields to prove the effectiveness of individualism. He specifically mentions the biblical figure Moses, the Greek philosopher Plato, the English poet John Milton (author of Paradise Lost), the English playwright William Shakespeare, and a few other men associated with American revolutionary politics and the Scientific Revolution. Those men made their respective contributions to the world, and men who follow in their wake will make distinct contributions. This is why imitation is valueless and originality is virtuous in Emerson’s model.

Another element of the argument of “Self-Reliance” is its implications in the realm of religion. Emerson rejects the legitimacy of rigid power hierarchies within organized religion and devalues prayer for the sake merely of materialistic gain. Prayer in a transactional sense, encouraged by common religious practices, goes against the true purpose of communion with God, which should be to better one’s self and access one’s own divinity.

In his language, Emerson focuses exclusively on men and boys. He admires “the nonchalance of boys” who, in Emerson’s estimation, are “independent” and “irresponsible” and vocally judgmental without fear of consequence or disapproval. Emerson also explicitly mentions freeing one’s self from the expectations of fathers, mothers, wives, brothers, and friends (but not husbands). All of the historical figures he mentions and prizes are white and male, either associated with European countries and movements or Christianity.

There are also class- and race-based implications to Emerson’s assertions. He expresses neither sympathy nor pity for the poor and resents the man who will support the needy just because it is a kind and reputable thing to do. Individualism means prioritizing one’s self and taking full control over one’s resources and abilities. The outside pressure to contribute to the public good challenges this purely self-driven approach to life and is an affront to the concept of self-reliance. A man relying on other men for survival and resources, in Emerson’s view, is dangerously far from relying only on himself. This perspective, of course, ignores systemic and contingent causes of poverty and holds to the idea that a person’s own value and ethic are the sole factors that shape his circumstances.

Emerson explicitly compares “civilized” Americans to “the naked New Zealander,” “the savage.” While this dichotomous language reinforces notions of white supremacy and upholds Western values of European-style civilizations, Emerson employs it to praise the foreigners he identifies. He champions men who are removed from industrial society and maintain basic survival skills. These statements employ the trope of the “noble savage,” a stock character who is enviable for his strength and purity that result from escaping the corruption of modern civilization, but tragic for his presumed incompatibility with modernity that will inevitably render him extinct. Casting Indigenous people as relics of the past, even in this superficially complementary framework, denies them humanity, the capacity for adaptability, and agency.

Emerson envisions a revolutionary quality in self-reliance. He reimagines progress, suggesting that societal progress is not linear and therefore it is worthless to pursue it as such. Instead, each man can achieve progress within himself and perfect his own piece of a malleable society that ebbs and flows in different respects over time. Emerson does not use this perspective to ultimately condemn American society. He hopes that in cultivating new genius on American soil, American society will truly become great.