America had political independence but did it have
cultural independence?
Politically the 18th century left a heritage of optimism about
man's possibilities and perfectability. The lofty ideals of democracy
asserted the value of individuals, regardless of class, and education. Of course,
these values primarily applied to white males. In fact, tensions were
building which cried out for creative release. Inequality, not equality was
the rule for many, especially women and slaves. The clash of these realities
with the idealistic rhetoric led writers to take extremes, championing
individualism yet also seeing the darker sides of a fragmenting society. Economically, America had never been wealthier, but the rising
materialism and focus on business at the cost of the mind and the spirit was
spawning reform movements all over America. Over 150 intentional
communities--from the Shakers to Oneida to Brook Farm--were formed by people
disillusioned by the materialistic values and inequities of American society.
Yet there was enough affluence for people to develop and appreciate writing
and reading, and a growing leisure class with cultural pretensions. There was
one period of crisis--the Panic of 1837--but that only increased the drive
toward material values. Religion, always a basic concern for Americans, was also
ready for romanticism and its kind of pantheistic religion. The stern dogmas
of Calvinism had been replaced by rationalistic Unitarianism and Deism.
However, they were so rational and so determined to avoid the emotional
excesses of the Great Awakening that they seemed dry and cold, unable to
satisfy deep spiritual yearnings. People, especially Emerson, were looking
for new spiritual roots, personally involving and meaningful, but not
traditional. Connected to this was the rise and professionalization
of science, which seemed to many to conflict with religion. Many felt
a psychic dislocation, that the bottom had dropped out of their world since
traditional values and conventional reality were just not enough for them.
They tried to impose meaning individually, for institutions and dogmas seemed
to possess little truth. Philosophically, they reacted against the
materialistic educational theories of Locke and rationalism. They found Truth
more a matter of intuition and imagination than logic and reason. They
rejected the mechanistic view of the universe so dear to Franklin and Deists
and opted for a more organic view, seeing the world more as dynamic and
living.
F.O Matthiessen set the canon of The
American Renaissance writers: Poe, Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville,
and Whitman. Indeed, for years any other works lived in their imposing
shadows. Yet this was a fairly tight group. Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, and
Melville all knew each other well, were even friends and neighbors, as was
Margaret Fuller. Whitman claimed that Emerson brought him "simmering,
simmering, simmering" to a creative boil. Dickinson was devoted to
Emerson's works, though she rarely agreed. It is hard to understand any
writer in this period without seeing numerous ties and influences, although
they would each, except for Whitman, assert their own individual vision and
art and deny the most obvious influences. In recent years, the value of lesser-known
writers has been recognized as well as the mass of popular writers (many were
women) that they were responding and reacting to. David S. Reynolds tells
that story well in Beneath the American Renaissance. However, we have
only one semester to study this period. Our focus must necessarily be on
those "masterworks," with glancing attention to other works. We
cannot recreate the historical/social/economic/political context to which
these writers responded and reacted as they explored the tensions and
contradictions of their time and place, especially as they were enacted in
themselves. But we must constantly be aware that they did not write in a
vacuum, by any means. They especially wrote in response and reaction to each
other. Our base is necessarily Emerson, the
literary giant of his time in America, for better or worse. Though his
writing is often difficult to read, it was, in fact, the match that lit all
of the creative fires of his time. He put his pen on all of the sensitive
spots in the American creative psyche; Whitman was not the only one to
"boil." Thanks to Ann Woodlief for this
introduction.
|