Tirol PalmerMegan Holt

ENGL 1010 – 0922/04/2015

The Foul Reign of ‘Self-Reliance’

Society has adopted a tribal nature; opinions are becoming homogenous, providing no

need for discourse. Anastas read “Self-Reliance” and sees a call for each person to be concerned

with their own self and not be concerned with others. At least, he claims this is how Americans

interpreted it and has in turn become the American pursuit of self-interest and self-centeredness.

Like Heinrich’s chapter, this essay stresses ethos and “defines the issues” within society.

Before we had a self-expressionists playground, or high school, literature and poetry was

someone’s only channel for self-indulgence. Anastas makes it clear that the way humans focus

on themselves is a destructive thing and it's not as valuable as Emerson makes it out to be. We

should be worried about how we can interact with each other and behave as a collective rather

than how to optimize the way we interact with ourselves. This crosses with Heinrich’s analysis

of Aristotle’s ideal of virtue - “You can’t pull people towards your opinion until walk right in the

middle of their beliefs. And if that fails, you have to change your goals – promote an opinion that

lies a little farther into their territory, or suggest an action that’s not such a big step. In other

words, you have to be virtuous.”

However, I believe that Emerson’s true point is not to advocate selfish people, but to

advocate non-conformity. Emerson wanted people to rely on their inner self. No two people are

identical. We were created that way on purpose. If all we do is follow others, then there is no free

will. We simply conform to the pack mentality. Does this mean that we should be selfish? No it

doesn’t. Emerson believes that our true inner voice is not selfish. If we rely on our inner moral

code then we work for the betterment of all mankind.

Heinrich stresses that the Tribal mindset has destroyed faith in deliberative argument.

People rely on professionals and listen to them. Morals cannot be the sole subject of a

deliberative argument. Values have fostered occasional breakdowns in political debate.