Please consider the two new poll questions. I can't believe we have read 20 different authors already, but then again we are one-third finished with our reading for this semester. I do appreciate how much effort you are putting into the class. I think you will find that the harder you study now, the easier it will become at the end of this term, and also next term. Many of the concepts we are discussing now are "foundational." By the way, if you want a measure of how highly esteemed the so-called American Renaissance canon is, look at the numbering of the pages in your Norton Anthology. We arrive at Emerson on page 488, having marched all the way from the year 1492 to the year 1836 (1.42 pages per year). But for us to get to the year 1862, we must read all the way to page 1220 (28.2 pages per year). From 1862 to 2004 takes us to page 2874 (11.6 pages per year). So you can see how disproportionately the 1840s and 1850s decades are represented.
As for the last poll, the "Panic" question was quite popular and generated some interesting results. Like all good questions, I think both answers are essentially correct; panic sometimes generates more cautious responses and sometimes generates more radical ones. The "Enlightenment" question was less popular, perhaps because the wording was so long and complex. But it is good to see that there are a variety of viewpoints in the class.
I have one follow-up to today's discussion. A number of you mentioned the concept of "American Dream" in your comments last week, which I did not discuss today. My first comment about "American Dream" is that you can see this is not a new concept; every writer we discuss has a sort of American Dream, all the way back to Columbus, Winthrop, etc. The very essence of "America" is that it is a dream, not really a historical place and time (like "North American continent" or "United States"), but instead an ideological concept. Indeed you can read Shakespeare's Tempest or Thomas More's Utopia and see an American Dream from someone who has never even set foot on American soil. Something that is fascinating about Mexican literature is that it has a very similar "American Dream" until the military defeat to the U.S. in the 1840s. Thereafter the dream for Mexico is to become a version of "America" that is different from or better than the U.S. But we notice that these concepts of the American Dream evolve over time. Not only that, but multiple concepts of the American Dream may compete against one another at the same time; clearly Bradford and Morton had different dreams! The Civil War of 1861-65 is a perfect example, as both sides believed they were defending the American Dream and completing the American Revolution. All the same, it seems to me when you all use the phrase "American Dream," you refer more specifically to an updated version of the dream you find in Franklin and Crevecouer. Meaning that the American Dream is for an immigrant from any nation to come to U.S. America and gain a comfortable social and economic position by means of hard work. So I just want to point out that we can refer to "American Dream" as a general concept, but also more specifically to this one type of "American Dream."
Reading Assignments
- Finish Norton Headnote (440-449)
- Emerson biography (488-92) and his "Self Reliance" (start on bottom 532 to "the right of every man" on top 540, "Man is timid and apologetic on middle 541 to "what is called death" on middle 542, "But now we are a mob" on top 543 to "in their speculative views" on top 545, "2. It is for want of self-culture" on middle 546 to end on top 550)
- O'Sullivan's "Annexation" (handout; extras available in green basket... try "History of Texas" on Wikipedia if you want a background reference, specifically sections 5-9 of that webpage)
- Thoreau biography (825-29) and his "Resistance to Civil Government," usually called "Civil Disobedience" (start on 829 to "or thinking at all" on middle 842, "No man with a genius" on bottom 843 to end on 844)
Lucille, Caleigh, Esther, Sydney, Crystal, Jane, Jennie, Alyssa, Zoe
Answers
- 51. (Ting Ju) The first one always seems to be the theoretical question! OK so, a famous critic named Harold Bloom has argued that literature develops through a kind of "patricidal" or Oedipal conflict where the younger writer tries to destroy or overtake the older writer. He calls this "the anxiety of influence." So for instance, Virgil must overtake Homer, Dante must overtake Virgil, Milton must overtake Dante, Blake must overtake Milton, etc. etc. Emerson's theory on 533, 539, and 547 is somewhat similar. On 445-47 you see a very different theory of literary development expressed. How would you describe this theory? And how can you relate it to Franklin's "junto" and to the political or economic structure of 19th-century American life?
- 52. (Rea) I want you to do some research and find at least two essays from the past 25 years that call for a "Taiwanese national literature." Then choose a representative quotation of about one paragraph from both essays and post these for your answer.
- 53. (Iris) It has been said that Emerson is inspired by the Southwestern humorists; for instance, the "transparent eyeball" derives from a fascination of Southwestern humorists with gauging out or removing eyeballs! Compare "Self-Reliance" to "Big Bear." The first half of this task is easy... find thematic similarities. The second half is more difficult task... find linguistic/stylistic similarities.
- 54. (Joy) Contrast Emerson to one or more of the following: Winthrop, Smith, Franklin, Crevecouer, Jefferson, Hamilton, Irving, Hawthorne (your choice)
- 55. (Peggy) Give some theories as to how O'Sullivan's Irish ethnic background may affect his views in the "Annexation" essay.
- 56. (Letitia) Compare O'Sullivan's concept of "manifest destiny" (top of 2nd page) to Emerson's concept of "self-reliance."
- 57. (Emma) Why does O'Sullivan think that Mexican sovereignty in Texas and California is "artificial" (middle of 3rd page), whereas American sovereignty is "natural"?
- 58. (Teresa) How is it possible that O'Sullivan favors a war with Mexico and Thoreau doesn't favor it when the logic of popular sovereignty on the 3rd page of "Annexation" seems to be precisely that of "Resistance to Civil Government" on 829-30?
- 59. (Qian Yu) Do you agree with Thoreau's principle "that government is best which governs least" (829)? Explain. Do you think it is actually possible to, as he urges, "wash [your] hands" (834) of participation in injustice, in the year 2009? Explain.
- 60. (Viola) The Norton editor notes on 828 that Thoreau's essay was a "crucial influence" on both Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. The similarities are obvious, but I want you to analyze some of the differences between Thoreau's form of "resistance" and that of Ghandi and King.
here is Letitia, my answer is to 56
ReplyDeleteEmerson‘s “Self Reliance” concept influences so many people, including O’ Sullivan, and maybe on some level help form or enhance “Manifest Destiny” ideology which still prevails in American nowadays.
Emerson’s “Self Reliance” highly elevates human’s value. He encourages people to believe in their instincts and to identify the positive meaning of self existence. Everyone should be loyal to their heart and respect their instincts because these are representations of god. God exists in nature and human nature. Self-identify and self- respect concepts influence American value greatly and deeply.
Manifest Destiny is an over-explained vision of “Self Reliance”.
When Emerson just wants to tells us ‘Hey, you are not worthless, trust yourself and be confident!’ some people might go too far. They become very confident with themselves, maybe too confident. Then the confidence turns into arrogant and aggressive attitudes. They think they have rightful motivation and reason to do whatever they “think” is right, because they have manifest destiny to do so.
Emerson’s concept becomes an extreme. Although O’ Sullivan focuses on the spread of American style democracy, not to conquer lands, the fact is America do acquires more lands and resources. ‘Manifest Destiny’ is easily to be used as an excuse for people to hide their real ambition.
It’s Rea. Here is my answerer to question 52.
ReplyDeleteI find a book called《台灣文學正名》. The book is a collection of some essays calling for rectifying the name of “Taiwanese Literature”, and it was published in 2006. I think these essays fit the requests for “calling for Taiwanese National Literature in the past 25 years.” These essays were originally written in “Taiwanese”, which is a developing language consisting of characters and phonetic signs, and some of the essays were “translated into Chinese” in this book. By the way, I think it’s quite interesting that I search for information about Taiwanese literature in American literature class.
1) 台灣在中國清朝統治時期，「文言文」 是唯一的正統；日本統治時期，「日文」 又成為當時的主流；蔣介石集團佔領台灣之後，台灣人又得改學「中文」。難道台灣人就是注定要學習統治者的語言嗎？……
總之，「台灣文學」就是「台灣人」用「台灣語言」創作的任何文學作品！台灣人是指認同台灣且具有台灣國籍的人；台語包含「原住民語」、「客語」和「台語」。「台灣文學」必須是在”一台一中”和「中國文學」對等狀況下的「台灣文學」，而非”兩個中國”的「中華民國文學」，更不是”一個中國”下的「中國文學」！
蔣為文，〈「中華民國文學」等同「台灣文學」嗎？〉《台灣文學正名》，38、39頁
2) ……但是到目前為止，中文還不是台灣的社會性語言，目前台灣民間的日常用語，尤其是三十五歲以上的台灣人，亦就是在實際負責台灣社會的年齡階層裡，台語仍然是主要的生活語言，簡言之，目前的台灣仍然是一個台語為主體的社會，所以用台語所寫的作品，最貼近台灣人與台灣的實況，可以說就是「原汁」，不是「翻譯」，文學創作講究的是原作，「翻譯」必然會走樣……
我在〈回歸台灣文學的面腔〉文章裡說過：「文學絕對是有聲音的東西，它的聲音就從它所用的語言那兒來，用什麼語言寫的文學作品裡頭就存在什麼語言的聲音。」 我們要從文學作品裡聽到台灣人最普遍、最真實的聲音，當然也要浸淫在台語文學當中，也只有台語作品才能夠較完整來傳達台灣人的聲音，所以台語文學應該是台灣文學的代表。……
林央敏，〈文學不可逃避語言的界定〉《台灣文學正名》，102、103頁
In other parts of the second essay, the author takes the definition of American literature, that is, the literature composed by Americans in English, as an example to strengthen his theory. According to him, English is the major language used in the U.S.; therefore, it expresses Americans the best. Similarly, since Taiwanese is the major language used in Taiwan (actually I doubt this), Taiwanese should be the ruling language in Taiwanese literature. I think this comment connects to our course to some extend.
Here are my brief translations of the quotations above. I hope I make myself clear to you:
ReplyDelete1) In the past colonial periods, people in Taiwan were taught languages from their colonists: the Qing Dynasty, Japanese and the Chiang Kai‐shek group. Why do Taiwanese have to learn the languages of colonist?
Anyway, Taiwanese literature is any piece of work that is produced by Taiwanese in Taiwanese languages. “Taiwanese” means anyone who has Taiwan nationality and identifies with this land. And the “Taiwanese languages” includes aboriginal languages, Hakka and Taiwanese. The “Taiwanese literature” must exist in contrary to the “Chinese literature” in the notion that China and Taiwan are separate units.
2) …However, Chinese is not the major social language in Taiwan today. The core of Taiwanese society, people who aged above 35, are still using Taiwanese as their major language in daily life. It means that Taiwanese is the mainstream in Taiwan. Therefore, Taiwanese is the best language to represent Taiwan, and convey the voice of Taiwan.
Rea, this is great. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThis is Jenny. Here’s the question:
ReplyDeleteI wonder how education connects with Emerson’s Self- reliance. Education is sometimes like a brain-wash. However, if there’s no appropriate or basic education, how could people follow their mind, or find their own rules to decide their opinion on everything?
Hi this is Ting Ju here to answer Question 51.
ReplyDeleteI would say 19th century is a period full of sparks for American writers. Everywhere, anytime, the writers read and discuss and absorb one another’s idea. They advocate with those they agree, and argue with those they disagree. They are not afraid of admitting to be influenced by some others or asking advice from one another. There is no longer “patricidal” phenomenon as Harold Bloom describes. There is no superior to be surpassed, no influence to be avoided, but only contemporaries with various idea and styles. American writers in 19th century have really frequent conversations with one another which tightly bond them together.
Because of lively response back and forth, American writers influence others and become influenced by others at the same time. They have more exposure to different information, rather than the past, staying in the study and create one’s own literary work alone. On the other hand, Franklin’s junto works somewhat similarly with this theory. They exchange opinions, discuss issues, and debate with each other; thus, they can learn a lot from each other. However, junto is a more organized group. They have determinate date and way for the gathering. They have certain issues to debate each week. And most important of all, the members come from very different backgrounds, so they may have wider views and more resource (ex. library) to share with one another.
Considering the context of the period, I would say there are three aspects associated with this background: Firstly, the development of printing and transport skills makes it much easier to obtain the fastest and newest literary works. Secondly, by writing and responding American writers can communicate with others who also share the concerns towards the society and the nation. But the most important of all, this is a period in which America has expanding territory and population. America starts to face complicated issues such as pro- or antislavery, woman rights, new immigrants, role of the federal government, etc. The previous optimistic American philosophy is not sufficient for the solution. Therefore, American writers are trying to find a way of figuring all these things out. They publicize their works, and also give support or argue with one another. It is the time period the discussion of a reform starts to take place. Consequently, along with the reform itself, the mission given to literary works also gradually changes the concept of literature.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Thoreau's Resistance to Civil Government, I wondered if this text worked right a way when it was released or it was forbidden by the government and wasn't being respected until Thoreau's death or years after the text release?
ReplyDeleteBecause if I was the government, I'll try my best to prevent this kind of speech statement, which may bring lots of trouble to me.
I’m Peggy. Here is my answer for question 55. I think O’Sullivan’s ethic background as an Irish emigrant did affect his some viewpoints in this article “Annexation.” First of all, he considered that the annexation of Texas was their “manifest destiny”. I think this idea had something to do with Catholic concept. He thought America should disseminate their democracy because it was their mission from God. Besides, he also mentioned that he it was inevitable for Texas’s annexation because lots of Anglo-Saxon was already on Texas’ border. Lot of Anglo-Americans immigrated to this place. I think this situation was just like the immigration of Anglo-Saxon from Europe to America, including Irish immigrants. They immigrated to American and then dominated States gradually. Therefore, I think O’Sullivan’s idea toward Texas was affected by his background in some way.
ReplyDeleteHi, this is Jane.
ReplyDelete1. I still don’t understand whether Thoreau’s attitude is optimistic or pessimistic towards human’s ability (and responsibility) to improve the world. Thoreau believes that people should not participate in injustice. Since the American’s are responsible for what they demand the government to do, as Thoreau argues, they have to be aware of the authority which the government operates. However, I don’t think that Thoreau believes that people should actively promote a more just world. I mean that Thoreau is striving for a “better government” or a “maturer democracy” instead of a better moral world. I think Thoreau makes a slightly distinction between the two concepts. (am I wrong?) I mean that the essay is for the nation only (inwards) instead of speaking out to the international public.(outwards)
2. In the middle of p.830, he says “After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period of continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest.” I think this is what happened to a democratic government. The strongest party tries to rule over the nation as long as they can. Because they own more resources and money, they usually obtained what they desired. I wonder whether this is the normal conditions of a democratic government~.
Hi, this is Caleigh asking a question. :)
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding, Emerson said in "Self-Reliance" that man should be thinking independently, have original thoughts and not always rely on others' words for their action and thoughts. Sometimes people tend to be afraid of revealing their private hearts and their true feelings, but Emerson encouraged them to do so. He didn't approve of the ways that people are being timid and apologetic, constantly quoting others to support their statements, and that we should not always give praises to certain texts and lines.
I'm wondering if this Emerson's encouragement for cring out "I think" and "I am" ever contributed to the individual sense of the Americans nowadays?
Take the process of composing for example. When I was taught to write at school in Chinese, the teachers are happy to see us quoting the big sentences and citing true examples. In other words, by doing so we get good grades. Nevertheless, when I was taught to write in English, the instructors encouraged me to use "I think" and "I believe" as the start. I seldom did that in my Chinese writings.
Compared to the Chinese culture, which traditionally tend to suppress the different and encourage everyone being the same, the Americans, in my ideas, are not afraid of saying out their individual thinking and actually welcome different voices. I wonder if Emerson's points at that period of time affected or form this sort of situation in some way?
Here is my answer to question 53
ReplyDeleteIn “Self-reliance”, Emerson clams that human kind should do what they really want to do; they must trust themselves; and people shouldn’t evade difficulties and challenges. The story-teller in “The Big Bear of Arkansas” is an immigrant, Jim Doggett, who faces the challenge without fear and lives according to his will.
Although Thorpe provides a humorous metaphor of the dog (p.78), the two authors both give examples to show their reader that everyone have their advantage in different field. (Emerson provides the example of the youth, p. 534)
In addition, it’s interesting that the two articles both mention “nature”. In page 541, “Its nature is satisfied, and it satisfies nature.” Emerson uses the natural condition of roses to warn that human should live in present, but not future or past. On the other hand, Jim Doggett says, “I don’t plant any more: nature intended Arkansas for a hunting ground, and I do according to nature.” The hunter orients the nature and struggle for live. (P, 82)
As for the answer of second part, I found the two writers often enhance the image of their idea by using metaphor. On the other hand, “‘utmost syllable’ of his confession” in page 533 made me think of “Indian whoop” (p. 74) which might be consider as a kind of yielding from the insight of heart.
This is Teresa. Here is my answer to question 58.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I agree with Peggy that O’Sullivan’s idea has affected by his Catholic concept. According to Wikipedia, “Manifest Destiny is a term that was used in the 19th century to designate the belief that the United States was destined, even divinely ordained, to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean.” Manifest destiny, this term, first appeared in O’Sullivan’s “Annexation”. He believes that God grants America to disseminate the idea of democracy to the world, and the war is one of modes to accomplish this mission. Although O’Sullivan showed in “Annexation” that he actually did not favor the war with Mexico, he still believes that America and Mexico might benefit from this war at the end.
This is Emma's answer to question 57.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Mexican dominion over Texas was inherited from Spain after the victory of Mexican War of Independence. Mexico never exerted any real governmental authority over such a remote country, and California, too, was a similar case. Therefore, the sovereignty is merely a “title”.
Second, settlers of the two countries conquered the wilderness and built up their homeland all by themselves, instead of by the help of Mexican government. For this reason, they have a right to independence, which is natural and just. Thus, they can for sure decide to join the United State.
Third, for a long time, Anglo-American settlers continuously immigrated into Texas and California. With the growth of the Anglo-Saxon population, the independence of the two places is predictable and inevitable; intervention of the United State is needless. That Mexican government deliberately forbad the immigration with a view to maintaining its sovereignty is a tyranny and military dominion.
For the three points above, O’Sullivan illustrates that Mexican sovereignty in Texas and California is “artificial” whereas American sovereignty is “natural.”
This is Sydney. In Emerson’s “Self Reliance”, he mentions that Infancy and “boys” conform to nobody; others conform to them. It makes me wonder at their transition to manhood without self-reliance. If they conform nobody, how could they change? Also, we see the facts that adults do prattle and play with them in a period of time; however, infants imitate adults’ behavior in much longer time. If the imitation is the voice of their own hearts, then it is definitely that they become the “conformist” adults. So how can we distinguish the infants ( and children) and adults into different categories since those adults are developed from self-reliant infants naturally? If infants are regarded as self- reliant and common adults not; what happens at the turning point?
ReplyDeleteThis is Esther.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading the biography of Emerson, I found something strange: it seems that Emerson is not as “dull” as what the narrator says on Norton:“In the more conventional setting of Boston Public Latin School, where he was sent at age nine, and Harvard College, which he attended from 1817 to 1821, Emerson showed no particular promise. Graduating from Harvard thirtieth in a class of fifty- nine, Emerson served in several Boston- area schools, unable to impose his authority on his pupils.” (p.489) Or it could be impossible for him to gain himself such great fame and achievement on his thirties. But just as he points out, before his success, he is nothing more than a hopeless schoolmaster. What I wonder is: since his accomplishment is well known to the public (which means it’s no need to be doubted), the variance existing before and after his attainment (transforms from a loser to a man with great influential power) comes from the biased description from the Norton editor (too much devalued his early life) or from the overestimated effect of those famous European writers? Or, he just suddenly enlightened (by God or some magical power) after his journey to Europe?
Viola's answer to question 60:
ReplyDeleteI see from Thoreau’s “Resistance to Civil Government” his modestly request for a better national progress on individual rights. The two main ideas from it are: first, demanding for a man with a genius for legislation, and second, each individual shall think further beyond a limited democracy nation which is based on limited individual justice. Thoreau has exclusive picture for human’s future in his mind, and his influence on future world is perhaps hugely beyond his imagination, but he did not come to be that man with genius he demanded for (though there should be no one has clearer idea of this figure than himself), his resistance is smaller compared to Ghandi and King. As a pioneer of the form “resistance,” he considered well and wrote well, but he has no specific description of how and what can be done in resistance to civil government but represented by only minor action such as refusing to pay his poll tax. He acted as a modest figure that confirmed the government’s work but also asked for better. He did not really protest the whole contemporary environment. One concept distinguishes him from Ghandi and King is as blow: “…,he always insisted that all principled action had to be undertaken by the individual rather than through groups.”
Ghandi and King on the other hand, are forced by separate national circumstances that they had to step out for the civil, to be specifically saying, Ghandi for the colonized and discriminated, and King for the black and poor white. To gather the weaker power they had a stronger voice to the civil and also, the world. Their demands were more concrete than Thoreau’s because they are the material of his. Though both portrait under the form “resistance,” Ghandi and King must violate Thoreau’s idea that all principled action had to be undertaken by the individual rather than through groups. Here I compare them with Thoreau on the basis that they led specific activities but Thoreau hadn’t. The two heroes indeed fan up a group of civil people to resist their government and succeeded. However the many bloody sacrificed and overridden good govern during the activities are still easy to imagine. These are the things Thoreau unwilling to see but already foresaw. Maybe that’s why he did not come to be that hero. I’m more convinced that there is actually no resistance without violence. At least a resistance with activity can’t be without violence.
Though I have read the assigned reading paragraph of Emerson's "Self-Reliance", I don't really know in what degree does Emerson mean when he says that we should rely on ourselves. Does he mean that we should alienate ourselves from the society; that we do our own work, communicate with god&the nature solitarily, and that we live by trusting ourselves, our emotions, out instinctions. Is that so? Or is he saying that we should cut our connection with any social bond,that we grew things to feed ourselves and live by our own, just like Thoreau's life in the woods?
ReplyDeleteHello Aaron the following is my answer to question 59.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I agree with Thoreau’s principle “that government is best which govern least”. I think when Thoreau pointed out that government does not have to govern too much, it does not mean that the government should do nothing. Now in the democratic society, people know how to fight for and protect their right. What the government has to do is to ensure people’s right. Also the government should protect people from being invading. That is, the government should give appropriate support when people are in need. But it does not have to interfere in many aspects, for instance, economy, society, and religion. There will be a mechanism which can naturally guide to the right end in every field.
I think it is almost impossible to wash one’s hand of participation in injustice in the year of 2009. Now the society is controlled by money and power. Money and power are the two materials leading corruption. Once things concern with power or money, there will be injustice. In the year of 2009, there is still bribery in the society. People who have money even can bribe the judge who represents justice. Therefore, I do not think it is possible to end the injustice even in 2009.
This is Crystal Hsu, posting the question:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Emerson’s biography, realizing the concepts such as self-reliance and individual institution promoted by him, I still could not get an exactly idea about “Transcendentalism.” Does it mean that every one ought to follow the individual faith and maintain their own rights rather than being confined to the outward authority or any other influences?