1 Socio-political context
Here are two things happening in 1837:
These events, when viewed from the audience’s perspective (Emerson’s audience is Harvard students; all wealthy white young men), amount to a startling challenge to the status quo. The audience is comprised of people who probably see themselves as heirs to political, economic, and other forms of prestige and authority; but economic and social instability challenge these.
2 Introduction
See p. 83. Note how Emerson contrasts the demonstrated “mechanical skill” of the US with its “sluggard intellect.” The idea of an “American scholar” is almost tongue-in-cheek.
Emerson is going to do two things in this essay:
- provide a sketch of who “the scholar” is, what the scholar does, and then
- (in a very quick few remarks at the end) provide a sketch of how that theory would be applied to the US.
3 Theory of “the scholar”
His theory of the scholar depends on a theory of human beings in general.
The background to this theory is the view of one Emanuel Swedenborg, a theologian with the following interpretation of a story in the Judaeo-Christian Bible: that at one time there was just one human being living in the Garden of Eden (or two: Adam and Eve), but that owing to their “original sin,” they were kicked out of the Garden. As a result of getting kicked out, they were converted from one (or two) people into a multitude of people. The fact that there are many human beings is thus a sign of our imperfection (our ‘original sign’).
Now, what is important to Emerson about this idea (“that the gods, in the beginning, divided Man into men” [84]) is that it means each of the several vocations we human beings perform is just a partial reflection of the capacities of that “original” and single human being. In other words, each vocation (teacher, lawyer, construction worker, etc.) that individuals fulfill is just part of what that original being is capable of.
It is true none of us can be that original human being, but we have a sort of obligation to fulfill our particular vocations with a view to realizing, as a whole (i.e., as a society), all of the various vocations that we can, and simultaneously enjoying the fruits of each other’s labor. In a sense, each of us realizes a part of the nature of that original human being by realizing our specific vocational aspect of it. But that human is only realized if we do it for each other’s benefits. A certain kind of specialization is in a way alien to human nature, then.
The scholar, on this theory, “is Man Thinking” (see p. 85). That is, the scholar is someone who realizes that specific part of humanity in general that is capable of thinking. Like others, the scholar has a duty, however, to realize this capacity with a view to social utility (with a view to making society better, to making people happier, say), but, as we’ll see, there are forces that compel the scholar otherwise.
4 Education of the scholar
How do scholars come about? Emerson claims here that the scholar becomes a scholar (see a quick summary on p. 11) by
- nature
- education (books)
- action
- the fulfillment of certain duties
4.1 Nature and the youthful scholar: the idealist (pp. 85–87)
By “nature” here Emerson doesn’t just mean the external world. He means “the wilderness.”
The youthful scholar discovers in the effort to classify nature that the world ‘coincidentally’ reflects his mind. See the basic claim on p. 85 in green.
4.2 The bookworm (pp. 87–91)
The bookworm is someone who looks to books alone for truth, and is deceived about the nature of truth by the fixed nature of books. See the three passages highlighted on p. 87 and p. 88 for the main idea.
Thinking ought to be an activity whose purpose is to promote the well-being of humanity in general; thinking ought to be a vital activity. The problem with the bookworm is the confusion of the record (the book) with the thought.
4.3 The scholar and action (pp. 91–95)
Action is essential to knowledge for a reason that is the inverse of the necessary specialization of human vocations. For inasmuch as each of us presents a fragment of human nature, that nature in turn comprises, in sum, all of the various vocations that we are capable of. But then each of these, when most fully and precisely realized, is accomplished only in the fullness of a completely human existence.
The scholar, for example, is “Man Thinking.” That means that the scholar realizes the ability to think that humans in general have. But then, inasmuch as that ability is an ability of humans, and humans are capable of so much else, to correctly realize the “thinking” capacity means to realize it, to the extent that this is possible, alongside all of the other capacities distinctive of human being. Emerson’s word for this sort of more comprehensive realization of thinking is “action.”
4.4 The duties of the scholar (pp. 95–)
Note the convenient note here on p. 95, telling us where we’ve been and where we’re going.
What are the “duties” of the scholar? They are are to imbue others with confidence. Think of them, on the ‘one human’ theory, as analogous to the “duties” of reason in our individual lives. The duties of our reason are to determine what we’re going to do, and to give us the confidence to do them. See the basic idea in green on p. 95.
5 The American scholar
Emerson doesn’t turn to the American scholar, in particular, until p. 100. See the highlighted passage on pp. 101–102.
And think about this question in preparation for our meeting on the 24th: Is there a tension between “Self-Reliance’s” view that we ought to take an interest in ourselves, in our own self-knowledge, and “The American Scholar’s” view that we ought to employ reason to the benefit of others?