Nineteenth-Century Individualism and The Market Economy: Individualist Themes in Emerson, Thoreau, and Sumner 1st Edition Luke Philip Plotica (Auth.)
Nineteenth-Century Individualism and The Market Economy: Individualist Themes in Emerson, Thoreau, and Sumner 1st Edition Luke Philip Plotica (Auth.)
Nineteenth-Century Individualism and The Market Economy: Individualist Themes in Emerson, Thoreau, and Sumner 1st Edition Luke Philip Plotica (Auth.)
Individualist Themes in
Emerson, Thoreau, & Sumner
Nineteenth-Century
Individualism and the
Market Economy
Individualist Themes in Emerson, Thoreau,
and Sumner
Luke Philip Plotica
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA, USA
This book has benefitted, at various points, from the learning and the
thoughtful and generous suggestions of Jane Bennett, Chad Lavin,
Howard Lubert, and Stefanie Mäder. I owe special thanks to Howard,
whose undergraduate courses in American political and legal thought cul-
tivated my lasting interest in the overarching themes that follow, and to
Jane, whose graduate courses gave me a deeper appreciation of Thoreau.
Throughout the writing process, I have also had the good fortune of
working in a department that values all aspects of the study of things
political. Finally, I appreciate the editorial and production guidance of
Michelle Chen and John Stegner.
Portions of Chap. 3 appear in “Thoreau and the Politics of Ordinary
Actions,” Political Theory 44 (4) (August 2016): 470–95.
vii
Contents
ix
x Contents
Index 273
CHAPTER 1
flourish most under market systems; others, like Bellah or Marx, claim
a negative relationship, and maintain that human personality and flour-
ishing are deformed by the market and its attendant individualism.
Whether because of shared values, mentality, or practices, the consensus
view is that individualism and the market are, so to speak, siblings.
This widely held notion is not without some basis. The two have, as a
rule, developed together. What we commonly refer to as “the individual”
was temporally and practically co-emergent with complex market econo-
mies, each conditioning and conditioned by the other (Oakeshott 1991,
363–83). The two have also been joined rhetorically and ideologically in
political, legal, and cultural struggles, such as in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth-century battles over the genesis of the regulatory state
in America, and in the opposition invoked on nearly all sides during the
Cold War between individualism and capitalism on the one hand, and
collectivism and communism on the other. Through both choice and
chance, the conceptual and practical connections between individualism
and the market have become so entrenched in the modern imagination
that few seriously entertain the possibility that one could exist without,
or could stand in real tension with, the other.
The central purpose of this book is to complicate the often assumed
and rarely questioned partnership between the individual and the market
by examining the intertwined history of these two figures as their con-
cepts and practices developed in nineteenth-century America. That time
and place provide especially fertile ground for such a study. As historian
Daniel Walker Howe has observed, Americans in that century widely
“cherished the ideal of self-making” as the common yet personal voca-
tion of all (2007, 656). Characterizing the prevailing spirit of the time,
in 1827, Ralph Waldo Emerson described this transformative century
as “the age of the first person singular” (1963, 70). While it would be
an overstatement to say that nineteenth-century America was a nation
of individualists (in a philosophical sense), it is no exaggeration to say
that Americans in that century came to understand themselves ever more
fully as individuals, and to embrace ideals of individuality and individu-
alism out of practical opportunity and necessity if not systematic ideol-
ogy. Individualism was on the march, even in the words and deeds of
those who did not intend to advance it. Yet, “the meaning of ‘individ-
ualism’ depends on the historical setting” and in America, both during
and since the nineteenth century, the emergence and maturation of a
market economy have been a central, inescapable feature of that setting
1 INTRODUCTION—A NATION OF INDIVIDUALS AND MARKETS 3
the market. The existence of such diverse and robust visions of indi-
vidualism, and of how individuals relate to markets and to one another
through them, betokens the simplicity of prevailing notions that individ-
ualist doctrines are at bottom theories of the ideal market participant.
My choice of Emerson, Thoreau, and Sumner is calculated to illus-
trate this plurality of individualisms. Each of them developed their ideas
in a critical engagement with the transformations of their day, and their
thought “cannot be separated from market practices and institutions
in their own time” (Teichgraeber 1995, 267). Each confronts condi-
tions at the heart of American economic, social, and political life, and
each presents a “heroic ideal of the self-constructed individual” (Howe
1997, 109). Yet they arrive at interestingly different understandings of
the relationship between the individual and the market: Emerson believes
that the self-reliant individual might avail herself of the opportunities
furnished by a market economy; Thoreau repudiates the market as the
antagonist of the deliberate life of individuality; and Sumner wholeheart-
edly embraces the market as the social stage upon which the natural
struggle between individuals plays out. Each thus renders an account of
individualism that is addressed to the palpable realities of the rise and
maturation of the market system in nineteenth-century America, though
they each depict different points along a notional continuum.
While there exist numerous works devoted in significant measure to
the economic thought of Emerson, Thoreau, and, to a lesser extent,
Sumner, many of which I draw upon and respond to in what follows, few
extant works study these thinkers’ respective doctrines of individualism as
attempts to navigate the conditions of life in a market society, and none
substantially address all three along any common theme whatsoever. Yet
Emerson, Thoreau, and Sumner present a valuable array of ideas regard-
ing how the individual can properly flourish as an individual under the
sorts of economic conditions that are all but ubiquitous in the world as
we know it today. Thus, I do not merely hope to close an alleged gap in
the literature, I hope to better illustrate the continuing relevance of these
thinkers and to provoke more adequate appreciation and understand-
ing of the depth and diversity of individualism by way of their examples.
What is more, they provide glimpses of the development of individual-
ism and the market across the bulk of a century. Their works illustrate
how the maturation of the American market system prompted changed
understandings of the individual and individualism, making some views
seem more or less plausible than others (though I shall suggest that all
1 INTRODUCTION—A NATION OF INDIVIDUALS AND MARKETS 5
three remain compelling, even if they have not all remained fashionable).
Arranging the study that follows in roughly chronological order—mov-
ing from Emerson to Thoreau to Sumner—allows their respective doc-
trines to index economic and cultural change, highlighting the historical
accounts contained in their works in addition to their philosophical, liter-
ary, and critical content. I hope thereby to present related images com-
prising an intellectual triptych, rather than disconnected snapshots in the
history of ideas. However, the main concepts I shall employ throughout
this study warrant some contextualization and elaboration at the outset.
Burckhardt popularized the view that “the individual” emerged from the
culture of Renaissance humanism, out of the ashes of the static, hierar-
chical communities of European feudalism (1860/1945).3 More recent
accounts look farther back and find the first signs of “the individual” in
medieval European culture (e.g., Braunstein 1988; Duby 1988; Morris
1972) or farther still, to the deepest roots of Western culture, often
emphasizing the influence of Christianity (Siedentop 2014; Taylor
1989). The common thread running throughout all such accounts is
that in the not too distant past “the ‘individual’ became the organiz-
ing social role in the West,” a way of understanding ourselves that we
have, however insensibly, invented for ourselves (Siedentop 2014, 2).
This transformation transpired gradually, and in distinct ways in different
times and places. In America, the pivotal chapter of the story of the indi-
vidual was the nineteenth century, an era marked by an “inward turning”
and “deepened sense of individual autonomy” manifest in nearly all parts
of society and all dimensions of life, fundamentally altering how persons
understood themselves, one another, and the terms and prospects of
their shared existence (Turner 1985, 208).
The ascendancy of the individual was accompanied by new ideals of
the potentialities of personhood or selfhood, of what the individual is
capable of doing and becoming. In societies organized around groups
rather than individuals, much of a person’s identity and path in life are
determined by shared customs, institutions, and hierarchies, leaving few
genuine alternatives to choose between (Oakeshott 1991, 365). Though
such generalizations are easily exaggerated, it is clear that a major cul-
tural shift took place between the pre-modern and modern West, and
with it came a new understanding of the individual person, including the
capacity for individuality. As an empirical phenomenon, individuality
is typically characterized as the condition an individual attains through
self-directed activities of personal development or self-cultivation (E.g.,
Humboldt 1792/1993, Chap. II; Channing 1838/1969; Emerson
1983, 259–82; Mill 1989, 56–74). The condition thereby achieved is
unique to each individual insofar as it is the collected outcome of that
person’s experiences, choices, and actions, a composite that shall ineluc-
tably differ in non-trivial ways from the condition enjoyed by any other
individual. As a normative ideal, individuality counsels the individual to
deliberately pursue self-development after one’s own distinctive desires,
ideas, and capacities. Rather than merely conforming to the customs
of one’s society or the expectations of others, one should intentionally
1 INTRODUCTION—A NATION OF INDIVIDUALS AND MARKETS 7
[t]he market economy “happened” when the economic system became “dis-
embedded” from the political, cultural, and social systems constraining it,
becoming itself a homeostatic system and an autonomous agent of change.
In penetrating local markets, the market economy became a vehicle, carry-
ing what might be called the culture of capitalism deep into all but the most
stagnant layers of a social structure hitherto resistant to it (1992, 242).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
detract from their justly earned fame or the full rewards of their
patriotism.
10. We are opposed to all further grants of lands to railroads or
other corporations. The public domain should be held sacred to
actual settlers.
11. We hold that it is the duty of the government, in its intercourse
with foreign nations, to cultivate the friendships of peace, by treating
with all on fair and equal terms, regarding it alike dishonorable
either to demand what is not right or submit to what is wrong.
12. For the promotion and success of these vital principles and the
support of the candidates nominated by this convention, we invite
and cordially welcome the co-operation of all patriotic citizens,
without regard to previous political affiliations.
1872.—Democratic Platform.
Baltimore, July 9.
We, the Democratic electors of the United States, in convention
assembled, do present the following principles, already adopted at
Cincinnati, as essential to just government:
[Here followed the “Liberal Republican Platform;” which see
above.]
1872.—Republican Platform,
Philadelphia, June 5.
The Republican party of the United States, assembled in national
convention in the city of Philadelphia, on the 5th and 6th days of
June, 1872, again declares its faith, appeals to its history, and
announces its position upon the questions before the country;
1. During eleven years of supremacy it has accepted, with grand
courage, the solemn duties of the time. It suppressed a gigantic
rebellion, emancipated four millions of slaves, decreed the equal
citizenship of all, and established universal suffrage. Exhibiting
unparalleled magnanimity, it criminally punished no man for
political offenses, and warmly welcomed all who proved their loyalty
by obeying the laws and dealing justly with their neighbors. It has
steadily decreased, with firm hand, the resultant disorders of a great
war, and initiated a wise and humane policy toward the Indians. The
Pacific railroad and similar vast enterprises have been generously
aided and successfully conducted, the public lands freely given to
actual settlers, immigration protected and encouraged, and a full
acknowledgment of the naturalized citizen’s rights secured from
European powers. A uniform national currency has been provided,
repudiation frowned down, the national credit sustained under the
most extraordinary burdens, and new bonds negotiated at lower
rates. The revenues have been carefully collected and honestly
applied. Despite annual large reductions of the rates of taxation, the
public debt has been reduced during General Grant’s presidency at
the rate of a hundred millions a year, great financial crises have been
avoided, and peace and plenty prevail throughout the land.
Menacing foreign difficulties have been peacefully and honorably
compromised, and the honor and power of the nation kept in high
respect throughout the world. This glorious record of the past is the
party’s best pledge for the future. We believe the people will not
intrust the government to any party or combination of men
composed chiefly of those who have resisted every step of this
beneficent progress.
2. The recent amendments to the national constitution should be
cordially sustained because they are right, not merely tolerated
because they are law, and should be carried out according to their
spirit by appropriate legislation, the enforcement of which can safely
be intrusted only to the party that secured those amendments.
3. Complete liberty and exact equality in the enjoyment of all civil,
political, and public rights should be established and effectually
maintained throughout the Union by efficient and appropriate state
and federal legislation. Neither the law nor its administration should
admit any discrimination in respect to citizens by reason of race,
creed, color, or previous condition of servitude.
4. The national government should seek to maintain honorable
peace with all nations, protecting its citizens everywhere, and
sympathizing with all peoples who strive for greater liberty.
5. Any system of civil service under which the subordinate
positions of the government are considered rewards for mere party
zeal is fatally demoralizing; and we, therefore, favor a reform of the
system, by laws which shall abolish the evils of patronage, and make
honesty, efficiency, and fidelity the essential qualifications for public
positions, without practically creating a life tenure of office.
6. We are opposed to further grants of the public lands to
corporations and monopolies, and demand that the national domain
be set apart for free homes for the people.
7. The annual revenue, after paying current expenditures,
pensions, and the interest on the public debt, should furnish a
moderate balance for the reduction of the principal; and that
revenue, except so much as may be derived from a tax upon tobacco
and liquors, should be raised by duties upon importations, the
details of which should be so adjusted as to aid in securing
remunerative wages to labor, and promote the industries, prosperity,
and growth of the whole country.
8. We hold in undying honor the soldiers and sailors whose valor
saved the Union. Their pensions are a sacred debt of the nation, and
the widows and orphans of those who died for their country are
entitled to the care of a generous and grateful people. We favor such
additional legislation as will extend the bounty of the government to
all our soldiers and sailors who were honorably discharged, and who
in the line of duty became disabled, without regard to the length of
service or the cause of such discharge.
9. The doctrine of Great Britain and other European powers
concerning allegiance—“once a subject always a subject”—having at
last, through the efforts of the Republican party, been abandoned,
and the American idea of the individual’s right to transfer allegiance
having been accepted by European nations, it is the duty of our
government to guard with jealous care the rights of adopted citizens
against the assumption of unauthorized claims by their former
governments, and we urge continued careful encouragement and
protection of voluntary immigration.
10. The franking privilege ought to be abolished, and a way
prepared for a speedy reduction in the rates of postage.
11. Among the questions which press for attention is that which
concerns the relations of capital and labor; and the Republican party
recognizes the duty of so shaping legislation as to secure full
protection and the amplest field for capital, and for labor, the creator
of capital, the largest opportunities and a just share of the mutual
profits of these two great servants of civilization.
12. We hold that Congress and the President have only fulfilled an
imperative duty in their measures for the suppression of violence and
treasonable organizations in certain lately rebellious regions, and for
the protection of the ballot-box; and, therefore, they are entitled to
the thanks of the nation.
13. We denounce repudiation of the public debt, in any form or
disguise, as a national crime. We witness with pride the reduction of
the principal of the debt, and of the rates of interest upon the
balance, and confidently expect that our excellent national currency
will be perfected by a speedy resumption of specie payment.
14. The Republican party is mindful of its obligations to the loyal
women of America for their noble devotion to the cause of freedom.
Their admission to wider fields of usefulness is viewed with
satisfaction; and the honest demand of any class of citizens for
additional rights should be treated with respectful consideration.
15. We heartily approve the action of Congress in extending
amnesty to those lately in rebellion, and rejoice in the growth of
peace and fraternal feeling throughout the land.
16. The Republican party proposes to respect the rights reserved
by the people to themselves as carefully as the powers delegated by
them to the states and to the federal government. It disapproves of
the resort to unconstitutional laws for the purpose of removing evils,
by interference with rights not surrendered by the people to either
the state or national government.
17. It is the duty of the general government to adopt such measures
as may tend to encourage and restore American commerce and
shipbuilding.
18. We believe that the modest patriotism, the earnest purpose, the
sound judgment, the practical wisdom, the incorruptible integrity,
and the illustrious services of Ulysses S. Grant have commended him
to the heart of the American people; and with him at our head, we
start to-day upon a new march to victory.
19. Henry Wilson, nominated for the Vice-Presidency, known to
the whole land from the early days of the great struggle for liberty as
an indefatigable laborer in all campaigns, an incorruptible legislator
and representative man of American institutions, is worthy to
associate with our great leader and share the honors which we pledge
our best efforts to bestow upon them.
1876.—Republican Platform,
1876.—Democratic Platform.
1878.—National Platform.