Szakmeister 1

Joel Szakmeister

Professor Ludwig

English 101H

18 September 2017

Walden: A Complicated Advocation for Simplicity

Born in Massachusetts, educated at Harvard, and mentored by Ralph Waldo Emerson,

Henry David Thoreau was one of the most influential authors both of his time and in American

history. Thoreau influenced civil rights legends like Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. with his

essay Civil Disobedience, spoke out often against slavery, and put his money where his mouth

was by refusing to pay his taxes in protest of slavery and the Mexican-American War, finding

himself thrown in jail for his efforts. Thoreaus signature work, however, was his book Walden,

a tale of his year living and working in the woods surrounding Walden Pond. Although Walden,

at its core, is a cry for mankind to return to its roots of simplicity, give up technology, the

division of labor, and radically alter the education system to instead live as one with nature,

doing so would result in the immediate demise of civilization, which would be a terrible thing no

matter what Thoreau claims.

Walden begins with Thoreau borrowing an axe and venturing out into the woods around

Walden Pond, where he promptly begins chopping down trees to build a cottage. He builds his

foundation and floor, then purchases and demolishes another mans house so that he may use its

parts to build his own. As he completes it, he ponders the merits of building ones own house and

the division of labor in society as a whole. He then goes on to lament the cost of rent for

students, and states that they would be much better off if they built homes for themselves,

insisting that they would learn more and save money. He further presses the issue, saying that
 Szakmeister 2

students should learn by doing instead of merely studying. Next, he airs his grievances with

technology, specifically the telegraph and railroad, believing them to be pointless. He continues

to criticise elements of society after this, speaking harshly about the post office and the news.

Finally, he ends with an impassioned plea for people to acknowledge and respect only what he

believes to be the true realities in life, and throw out all the rest.

The most deeply rooted institution Thoreau attacks is the division of labor, which had

existed since ancient Mesopotamia, thousands of years before Christ. As Thoreau puts it, Where

does this division of labor end? And what object does it finally serve? No doubt another may also

think for me; but it is not therefore desirable that he should do so to the exclusion of my thinking

for myself (Thoreau 13). Thoreau sees the division of labor as a construct that deprives people

of experiences that would suit them well, like building their own houses. This deprivation is so

severe in Thoreaus mind, he likens it to literally depriving someone of the ability to think and

making all of their decisions for them. This is obviously very extreme, and the answer to

Thoreaus question regarding where the division of labor ends is long before then. In reality, the

division of labor is what allows mankind to progress at all. Before the division of labor came

about, mankind were roaming savages attempting to survive day by day and not succeeding for

very long. By dividing up tasks like hunting, making shelter, and raising children, ancient

humans were able to focus their efforts better, leading to surpluses, population growth, and

eventually the birth of civilization. This practice stuck with humanity as it progressed, although

the occupations may have transformed over time from hunters and gatherers in ancient times to

architects and tailors in the time of Thoreau, to accountants and pilots today. Because of this,

productivity has grown and allowed mankind to continue to progress technologically, which may

actually be the reason Thoreau dislikes it so.

 Szakmeister 3

Thoreau criticizes technology even more harshly, specifically the railroad and telegraph,

two of the biggest inventions of his time. Although widely heralded both then and now as

revolutionary, Thoreau sees them as needless wastes of time, saying Our inventions are wont to

be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are improved means to an

unimproved end, an end which it was already but too easy to arrive at and We are in great

haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be,

have nothing important to communicate (Thoreau 18). To Thoreau, the only true realities are

ones of a simple life, and everything else in the world clouds that. In reality, however,

technological advancement is one of the greatest things mankind should strive for. Thoreaus

push against progress is one echoed throughout society every time progress is made. Every

groundbreaking innovation is seen by some as one step too far along the road of discovery, and

every time those people have been proven wrong. In Thoreaus case, his banes are the railroad

and telegraph, both of which have proven to be extremely beneficial to mankind. The Civil War,

which led to the abolition of slavery which Thoreau had so long advocated for, was won in no

small part due to the Unions advanced railroads allowing their troops to be better supplied. The

telegraph also played a role, keeping Union leadership informed of battlefield movements and

allowing them to make adjustments to their plans much faster. In addition, through technology

things that extend and improve the quality of human life like running water or, say, the cure for

tuberculosis have come into the world and made it a better place. Granted, Thoreau never claims

that all technology is bad, but it appears that he fails to see the big picture as the telegraph and

later the telephone and internet allow scientists to work together and cure diseases faster than

ever before, and the railroad and other more advanced forms of transportation allow those cures

to reach infected people in time to save them. It is true some inventions are bigger or better than
 Szakmeister 4

others, but they are all included under the umbrella of progress, and it is impossible to know

which ones will have the biggest and best impacts until after they are invented, so technology

must push on.

Thoreau also heavily criticises the education system of the time, insisting that [students]

should not play life, or study it merely, while the community supports them at this expensive

game, but earnestly live it from beginning to end (Thoreau 17). Thoreau does have a point here,

as students do too often merely study life instead of living it, causing them to perform poorly

after they graduate due to lack of preparation. The education system should be amended to

remedy this, and in some cases hands on learning like the kind suggested by Thoreau where

students studying construction actually build things is a good idea, but higher education covers

such a broad range of topics that this will not work in nearly every case. For example, if political

science students were given control of the government so that they may live life instead of

playing or studying it, the country and possibly the world would be reduced to shambles. It is

important first to know what to do before attempting to do it, and that is why studying life is

important. Nobody is suggesting that that should be all students ever do, but it is important to

start with a good foundation of knowledge before progressing to actually doing things.

Overall, what Thoreau is advocating for is simplicity. Living as one with nature, free of

the growing complexity of society, doing whatever work one wants done with ones own two

hands, that is Thoreaus dream. In theory it is a beautiful, romantic world filled with music and

poetry as Thoreau envisioned, but in practice it just does not work. Eliminating technology, and

the division of labor from society would take mankind back to the stone age, resulting in anarchy

and the average human life expectancy dropping back down into the 20s. True, it may be that

some find satisfaction through simple work, a simple life, and husbandry with nature. However,
 Szakmeister 5

it is foolish to recommend this lifestyle for everybody. It is reasonable to expect that many

people would not like this at all, and it would ultimately cause the collapse of civilization.

Ironically, Thoreau uses an extremely complex and wordy argument to try and argue that

simplicity is best. If he were correct, would it not be better to teach this in a simpler, more

straightforward text? Or, even further, to not teach people at all but drag them into the woods to

learn or die for themselves? The holes in Thoreaus argument are numerous.

Thoreau ultimately wants society to return to this set of realities and cut out trivial things

like technology and specialized labor, to do everything with ones own hands as simply as

possible, and he believes that everyone would be better off that way. While a noble theory, in

reality it would cause a drastic drop in the quality and length of life for mankind and erase all the

progress mankind has made towards true enlightenment. One is not most wise the day he is born,

but in fact on the day he dies when all his experiences and lessons have taken place and they can

see the big picture and hopefully pass this knowledge on to other people, furthering progress

even more. It may be true that time is but a stream, and one may choose to merely fish in it, but

the way to do the most good is to dive in and swim along, driving mankind forward through

invention and innovation, creating a better world for those swimming along with.

Works Cited

Thoreau, Henry David. From Walden. American Earth: Environmental Writing Since Thoreau,

Ed. Bill McKibben, The Library of America, 2008, pp. 9-25.