Monday, February 20, 2012
UMBC HIST355: The Market, Nature, and Romanticism
Why is the bean field important to Thoreau? What are the differences between Emerson's and Thoreau's approaches to understanding the natural world? Why can't they embrace the inland economy the way their colonial forebears had? Any other thoughts on these particular Romantics and their worldviews? [in terms of thinking about how night air became good air, pay attention to the role of Romanticism]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The bean field was important to Thoreau because that's where he planted the beans [and other crops that] he was going to consume. Since he put so much effort into doing this hard labor to create his beans, the beans were what he loved and came attached to.Thoreau spent all day and night through the beginning till the end of the season to tend his bean field. All his life he planted beans and corn. He had no idea why came to treasure his plantings but he did it anyway.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between Emerson and Thoreau is that Emerson saw the land as a profit. He thought of man as consumers and producers. He thought whatever land brings would bring him/man wealth. On the other hand, Thoreau relied on bringing hard labor as well as joy in planting these crops because he liked it. He had no idea he enjoyed it though the hard work but he done the planting throughout all his life. The old ways of planting and enjoying doing the work was all gone.
They couldn't really embrace what their forebears had because technologies were changed. There were railroads as well as locomotives that were being made to make things in life easier and faster.
I think the Romantics relied on distinct observation and what they heard (sounds). Romantics used great words to form images in your mind about what they were talking about.
To best understand and illustrate the fundamental difference between Emerson and Thoreau's approaches to understanding nature, one could point out Thoreau's passion for his crops, especially beans. Thoreau was not far from obsessed when it came to his bean fields, but not without due reason;
ReplyDeletemuch of his life had been devoted to and thankful for the success of his bean fields. From preparing the field, to planting the seed, to harvesting the crop, he appears to have relished the hands on labor and the rewarding feeling obtained through his one on one connection to his land. Thoreau owed a lot to his bean fields and therefore viewed nature with respect and awe.
In contrast, Emerson viewed any piece of land worth pouring labor into as a potential source of profit. Rather than using the land for nothing more than what was needed, Emerson sought to maximize the lands commercial value.
As Grace pointed out, these two men could not take part in the same inland economy as their forbearers because of technological advances. The introduction of fast reliable travel to areas that were once relatively remote inland settlements resulted in the loss of the need or want for an inland economy in favor of the more profitable export economy.
Thoreau planted the beans, not to eat, as he says hes a pythagorean( followers of the creator of the Pythagorean theorem, they don't eat beans because of their affinity for life and the belief life is linked with beans) he planted the beans in order to gain a better understanding of the land and the life of those who interact with the land every day. Thoreau talks about his contemporaries writing in Europe or reflecting in India, where his personal reflection and writing is coming because of his affection for these beans and the raw personal connection of working with the land in his earliest childhood.
ReplyDeleteEmerson seems to view things on a larger scale then Thoreau with a lot of mention of the "soul" and things having a higher meaning. Whereas Thoreau actively goes out and tries to develop his own relationship with the earth and how it works while Emerson is more content with abstract ideas.
Thoreau finds the work hard, long and less his natural cause in life where as Emerson sees the land as an abuse of the earth and the greater soul of earth to be utilized efficiently and well.
Thoreau has succeeded in his childhood dreams. The bean leaves, corn blades, and potato vines are the symbol of his achievements, hard work, and struggle. Thoreau expresses to us that he has grown intimate towards his bean plant and uses the word “husbandry” to describe what type of relationship he has with his beans.
ReplyDeleteEmerson’s approach to understanding the natural world is completely taken under a romantic and spiritual tone. He sees the world, nature and human, as a whole. Emersion explains that the phenomena that is nature is the soul describing it as young and nimble, not religious, innocent, etc. Emerson also sees his land as profitable and a means to gain power and wealth. He provides many notions about how a man can be successful stating a successful man should be a consumer and a producer and will fail if he does not pay his debts and nor add something to the commonwealth.
Thoreau’s approach is simply an appreciation for his home and his surroundings. The plants and animals around him provide a sense of peacefulness and gratitude. He also is appreciative from his passion of growing beans. The environment around him is a symbol of his success.
As Grace stated, I also agree that technological advances are the reason why they cannot embrace inland economy that way their colonial forebears had.
Throughout Emerson's piece he talks of the land as a potential sorce of profit. He speaks of how an individual can use the technology of the time and some ingenuity to turn a profit from the land around them. He does not speak as humbly of the land as does Thoreau. Thoreau seems to have more of a respectful connection with the land when talking about his bean plants. He cares for his crops, in particularly his beans plants. He has a humble demeanor with the cultivation of his land and crops, he seems to do it out of the love of the personal emotional reward he receives from farming whereas Emerson does it for the physical reward, the profit. Emerson sees the natural world as a canvas and the individual is a artist, however the "masterpiece" he is creating is one of personal profit which is far from Thoreau's view. The times have changed and this has lead to a different view that the people in these societies see the world.
ReplyDeleteWhy is the bean field important to Thoreau?
ReplyDeleteThe bean field was important to Thoreau for various reasons. The field reminded him of his childhood. It was his way connecting with nature and his way of exerting his presence and influence onto the land. Working the land was his way of understanding and studying the world equivalent to his contemporaries that would go to Boston or Rome for the arts, New York or London to trade, and India for other such devotions. He found a certain attraction and magnetism in cultivating the earth from the sweat of his own brow.
What are the differences between Emerson's and Thoreau's approaches to understanding the natural world?
Emerson's understanding of the natural world exhibits a certain balance with humans. He views people to be in unity with the natural world, as being just another entity of the natural world. The Human relationship with the natural world is one of consuming and producing. Humans are natural consumers of the environment. Consuming nature produces a some sort of alien energy resulting in thought or visions. Emerson's hope is that people give back to the natural world by the means of production. Emerson also sees that natural world as perfect in that it provides everything that people would ever need. People need to see or discover what the natural world has to offer and create a better order for better way of life. Emerson sees the natural world as for the taking for better human existence.
Thoreau sees the natural world as uncivilized. He wants a world of harmony between the savage world and civilization. He does not strive for bettering all human kind but only strives to better is connection with nature. He loves his bean field and does not wish to innovate by using hired hands or manure to improve his beans. He only wishes to leave his mark and influence upon the natural world in the form of self-reliance.
Why can't they embrace the inland economy the way their colonial forebears had?
Inland economy of the colonial forebears had the advantage of working with virgin lands. Thoreau's bean field was used up. Also, it would appear that agriculture turned commercial. The local economies had become specialized that small farms no longer have a chance to compete with the large plantations. The colonial forebears had an abundance of land for their choosing. When they exhaust their land, they would just move on up the river and start another farm. People now had to be innovative in choosing land for the goal of getting ahead and providing to others. People can not just be consumers anymore, they must also be producers in order to make it in the post-colonial world.
Any other thoughts on these particular Romantics and their worldviews? [in terms of thinking about how night air became good air, pay attention to the role of Romanticism]
Superstition ruled peoples lives. They looked upon themselves as being larger than life. The good in the world was from their own doing. The bad in the world, also, was from their own doing (or lack there of). Ideas about the unknown are left up to fear; it isn't until science admitted its previous wrongs and provide new knowledge did people begin to change their view of the outside world. People are gullible are will believe almost anything as long as it has a compelling argument or goes with their current views.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThoreau viewed his crops as a necessary ingredient to keeping him alive. He viewed his beans and crops as a way to produce food for the present and the future. This turned into an obsession in his everyday routine. Thoreau views his process of producing food as taking one single day at a time to improve the natural quality of his crops. Emerson sees the world as a system of processes. He believes that there are certain obligations humans have to the earth and vice versa. Emerson believes the natural world was created to serve mankind. Man relies on himself to survive and nature provides the necessary tools which help him survive.
ReplyDeleteThe bean field was important to Thoreau because he had a deep personal connection with it. Its where he grew up and were he labored in it night and day with no help and yet in the end grew a substantial crop.
ReplyDeleteThoreau gave a perspective that its a gift to work the land and that the nature that works around it or interacts with it should be respected. Also, that by working it by yourself yields to better sustainability . While, Emerson gave a perspective that nature is to be used to turn a profit by using technology to maximize the value that is given by what is taken from the land.
They couldn't embrace the inland economy like their forefathers had because development of the coastal economy was reaching into the inland economy via the steam powered trains. Also the advent of new technologies caused a change in how agriculture was produced.
The Bean Field is shown to be very important to Thoreau because it brings him joy to take care and grow his own crops/food. It is comparable to an "extinct nation that had anciently dwelt" and not similar to that of more modern practices. He enjoys the feeling of using his hands in maintaining and raising the beans.
ReplyDeleteThoreau and Emerson differ greatly as Emerson only thought to profit off the land and thought that "it is to spend for power not pleasure". They cannot embrace the inland economy due to the advancement of technologies as referenced by Thoreau and the use of the train disturbing the tranquility of his home.
The bean field was important to Thoreau mainly because it was his task to plant and care for the beans as a young boy thus teaching him responsibility and assisting in him becoming a man. His bean field, while it may seem minor to most, was a pivotal event in his life because it taught him how to be an independent, responsible human being.
ReplyDeleteEmerson tended to see nature, and land, as a possible means of profit and production. He believes since every man is a consumer, he then ought to also be a producer. This thought process takes away the intimacy described by Thoreau when talking about his precious bean field.
It's not entirely feasible for either Emerson or Thoreau to "embrace the inland economy" the way their forebearers had. For one, the lands had been previously abused by the first settlers who sought mainly profit, and thought little of long term consequence. Also, technology made the process of how the inland economy was used because technology such as steam and trains becomes more of a burden on the land, even if, outwardly, it doesn't seem to be a burden for the people.
Why is the bean field important to Thoreau?
ReplyDeleteThoreau saw his bean field very differently that how other looked at their crops. He meticulously groomed his beans and almost acted like they were human beings. Thoreau believed that the beans "attached" him to the earth and that he could gain a better understanding of the nature around him through his beans. He also called his beans "a rare amusement" which makes me believe that he really just enjoyed "taking care" of his beans and had no demand to sell them for profit.
What are the differences between Emerson's and Thoreau's approaches to understanding the natural world?
Emerson says that "the man must be capitalist" which leads me to believe that to him nature serves a purpose in society; that purpose being to make money. He doesn't care what crops make money or how you make money with crops, all that matters to him is that you can make money. On the contrary, Thoreau takes a much more emotional route when talking about his environment. He never talked about how much money he could make with his crops, he only talked about them being peaceful and he really enjoyed cultivating them. His writing seemed very in sync with the land whereas Emerson just wanted the land to serve a purpose.
Why can't they embrace the inland economy the way their colonial forebears had?
I think they can't embrace the inland economy the way their colonial forebears did because of technological advancements. As far as technology goes they were still in the very early years, but still there were many things being invented that made things much easier and faster. This sense of ease and expedience made exporting much more profitable that any inland economy.
Both Emerson's and Thoreau's voices rang out clearly in their pieces. I loved the beginning of Emerson's piece, with its spiritual naturalism, almost Eastern. I was turned off by the language in the end of his piece, even though I somewhat agree with his ideas. "we are all One...so everyone has to be the greediest, most capitalistic person he can be." Kind of a weird logic.
ReplyDeleteThoreau has a great sense of humor. His stuff about the passersby giving him their opinions of his bean husbandry was classic.
All of the initial questions seem to have been answered thoroughly, so I'll just say that reading the Emerson piece taught me that philosophy/ideology and practice are not necessarily related. In the time of the Romantics this Eastern animism ("we are all one") was in the Western purview, but Emerson uses it to make a virtue of selfish action and environmental exploitation.
I think the bean field is so important to Thoreau because it is not only his lively-hood but he takes pride in the work he does. He is proud of growing his crops and taking care of them. He saw himself as not fully removed from the ways of past agrarians. Although Emerson's romantic language was deceiving for me in regards to his notion for man to take full advantage and gain a profit from nature. Both men described nature beautifully however, Thoreau seemed content with living off the land and had more of the "substinance plus" kind of mind frame while Emerson would probably criticize Thoreau for not pursuing more profit or gain from the land. I think they embrace the inland economy differently than their forebearers because the land had already been changed greatly over the years due to civilization, advancements of technology such as the railroad and peoples relationship with the role of nature had changed.
ReplyDeleteThoreau's bean fields are important to him because, in a way, they're his connection to the earth. He takes great heed in caring for them; they're his pride and joy. Why beans in particular? He's not really sure: "I came to love my rows, my beans, though so many more than I wanted. They attached me to the earth, and so I got strength like Antæus. But why should I raise them? Only Heaven knows.…What shall I learn of beans or beans of me? I cherish them…" (p. 182)
ReplyDeleteEmerson sees the natural world more spiritually than Thoreau does. He makes allegorical metaphors of man being like nature, and accents humans' connection with nature. He also thinks it's important for man to not just take, but to also give something back: "Every man is a consumer, and ought to be a producer. He fails to make his place good in the world unless he not only pays his debt but also adds something to the common wealth." (p. 179)
Thoreau had an obsession for planting beans in his crops and loved to do so. He devoted most of his time tending to his crops, throughout most days during the growing seasons. He viewed his crops as a necessary item to live in his environment. He revolved his life around the natural environment because he grew up on that land. He has a childhood connection with the land giving him much appreciation for his land.
ReplyDeleteEmerson saw the land as a major source of profit. Planting to increase income was Emerson's main goal. He believed the natural environment is perfect to help the economy and natural population flourish with a stable source of income and agricultural product
The bean field is important to Thoreau because he believes that performing hard work such as growing crops like beans, produces not only monetary profit, but more importantly brings honor and respect to his work. He who tills the soil becomes closer to the earth/nature by cultivating the fruits of nature in his crops. Thoreau emphasizes the cultivation of the soil should be the main focus/purpose that a farmer should have instead of generating wealth and profit.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the main difference between Emerson and Thoreau’s approaches to understanding the natural world is how each author interprets the farmer’s motivation for his agricultural pursuits. For example, Emerson saw farming as an opportunity to benefit monetarily from nature. He believed that the farmer’s main motivation to farm should be to make a profit from their crops, while Thoreau’s thought otherwise. Thoreau believed that farming should not just be about how much money the crops could produce for the farmer, but he believed that growing crops was a worthwhile pursuit in and of it self. Working the soil in union with nature was payment enough. The reward from farming comes from embracing hard work and appreciating the benefits that the earth can provide through the cultivation of crops.
I also believe that the technology had a tremendous affect on the farmers who were not able to embrace the inland economy the way their colonial forebears had, because of the advancement in technology. The transporting of goods by railroads expanded the markets for the products they produced, making farming more competitive, thereby relegating farming to strictly a business venture. This was a dramatic change to the life style of the traditional farmers that Emerson and Thoreau wrote about. The farmers they portrayed were living in the traditional way of growing crops and mainly living off the food they produced. Any other way of living for these farmers was obscure to them.
In terms of this article, How Night Air Became Good Air, this article is best described in the literary realm of Romanticism. It is precisely written by Peter C. Baldwin who was able to portray the difficulty society had adjusting to what we now take for granted regarding the air at night. For example Peter C. Baldwin used descriptive details to portray the difficulty in explaining the benefits of the good air at night, and allaying their fears that it was harmful to their health as well as portraying the benefits of good night air.
by: Matt Shutz
Per Nick Urick:
ReplyDeleteThoreou viewed his bean fields as a way of life. A strong love between himself and the fields existed that went deep into his past and was very much a part of his present. The bean fields to him were a means to eat but more a way of better understanding how life works.
Emmerson and Thoreau both have different views and explanations of nature. Emmerson looks at nature as various pieces that all work together to create the whole or as he calls it the “soul.” He states that nature is in no way religious as well. Emmerson in a slight sense also looks at nature as a way to better humankind. On the other hand Thoreau views nature as a thing of pure beauty. As stated earlier he is very into his various crops, especially his seven mile bean field. He stated “I tasted them out of compliment to nature” when referring to a strawberry that had fallen to the ground. Both of these men had great minds and viewed the world in interesting fashions.
I believe Emmerson and Thoreau can’t embrace the way of their forebearers because they view it as old fashioned and a thing of the past. Both men made many references to how railroads are such a big part of life in the new world in regards to transporting vital goods between cities.
Especially Thoreau who was even thought of as a railway employee.
The bean field is important to Thoreau because he saw it as a way for him to better understand and connect himself to nature. He felt a sense of accomplishment and pride when he successfully cultivated his beans, and felt that the only challenges he faced were not human-induced, but only through nature.
ReplyDeleteThoreau's account of nature was much more descriptive and scientific than Emerson's. Thoreau pointed out specific species of plants and animals and their characteristics, what sounds they make and where they fit into the environment. He seems to dislike the sounds that interrupt the peaceful nature, such as the whistle of the train. He takes careful time to observe the beauty that he can see in nature, which is definitely a romantic trait.
Like other romantics, Emerson shares the thoughts that man can view himself as one with nature. The romantics can see how being in nature can actually benefit them, not just turn them savage. He says that every man is a consumer and ought to be a producer, and that man is expensive. He describes wealth as the application of mind to nature, which is no doubt a view influenced by the inland economy. He notes that nature has always been there, but the merchants apply their minds to nature to use it in new ways or bring it to new markets in order to make money off of it. He explains the way for merchants to be successful is to absorb and invest. While Emerson does not share the same inland economy views as their colonial predecessors, but he understands how humans profit from nature.
Thoreau is so attracted to his bean field because he enjoys feeling attached to the earth. He writes that laboring over his bean crop, he "got strength like Antaeus", the character from Greek mythology that embodied unflagging strength as long as he remained in contact with the ground. He feels a connection with working the soil, but not necessarily with the beans themselves since he does not intend to consume them.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Emerson looks more deeply into nature, finding connections between nature and the human soul. He, however, places more emphasis on using nature as a means of production. He writes that "He [man] fails to make his place good in the world unless he not only pays his debt but also adds something to the common wealth." Unlike, Thoreau who finds a connection with nature by merely cultivating the soil, Emerson believes that Man is not making any good in the world unless he is using nature to its fullest potential, which requires making a profit monetarily.
Concerning how night air became good....
ReplyDeleteI found the article to be very interesting. I did not know that our forefathers considered the night air to be filthy. It makes since that our perception of the night air changed as science and technology improved.
That said, I considered our forefathers to be incredibly ignorant. Even considering the state of science in that era, it is hard to believe that they could not figure out that is was bugs, but "misama" that is causing their pains. Even if I never went to school, I could tell that mosquitoes and fleas are incredibly annoying, filthy looking, and leave blemishes on my skin when bitten. Shortly afterwards, in that era, I would get severely sick. I would also be able to tell if I cut off ventilation, I would feel worse and the room smells even worse than that. An overreaction of freezing drafty rooms cannot explain this.
Thoreau recognized the bean field as a provider of sustenance, he recognized a relationship where he gave to the field and the field gave to him. He came to love and respect the bean field. Emerson viewed land like the bean field as something different, as something to be used to produce things for people. He also sought a deeper intrinsic connection between the person and the land.
ReplyDeleteThe evolution of the night air into acceptance and something to be appreciated was fueled by a greater yearning in men to understand more about our natural world.
Thoreau had a romantic outlook on nature and certainly the idea of the, "sublime" was always in the back of his mind. the sense of awe one might experience when looking at an amazing sunset, or valley, is something Thoreau was constantly grasping at and appreciating. the land was not there to be dominated, but rather nature was above man and should be respected. His relationship with the bean field was a way of getting closer to this sublime, not for food or profit.
ReplyDeleteWhile Emerson's views on nature differ from Thoreau's, there's no doubt that Emerson was inspired by the natural world, and made a connection between it and god. he writes, "the only prophet of that which must be, is the great nature in which we rest as the earth lies in the soft arms of the atmosphere." Emerson however, saw the natural world as a great resource that man should take advantage of wherever possible. Emerson refers to a long list of resources including copper, tin, coal, and crops, and deems them, "intrument he(man) is to emply".
Thoreau and Emerson have a different look at nature. For Thoreau he made a connection with his bean fields and took pride in planting and found a genuine love for the fields. Emerson did feel a connection with nature but his main reason for planting was to make profit. He said in his passage that "He fails to make his place good in the world unless he pays his debt but also adds something to the common wealth." I took that as he needs to contribute to the economy and the way he is doing that is by plating beans.
ReplyDeleteThoreau develops a relationship with the land that is based in respect. He diligently works in the bean fields because he enjoys it and because it brings him closer to the land. Emerson on the other hands views the land as potentially able to turn a profit. Emerson uses the land and the new technology available to enrich himself, his relationship with the land is one directional. But Thoreau learns from the land caring for it in a way that shows his reverie for the abilities of nature.
ReplyDelete