Daily Archives: March 30, 2010

Thoreau on delegating our work to others

Posted on by

Lest you think from my previous posts that I find little of value in Thoreau, I present this passage that struck me today:

There is some of the same fitness in a man’s building his own house that there is in a bird’s building its own nest. Who knows but if men constructed their dwellings with their own hands, and provided food for themselves and families simply and honestly enough, the poetic faculty would be universally developed, as birds universally sing when they are so engaged? But Alas! we do like cowbirds and cuckoos, which lay their eggs in nests which other birds have built, and cheer no traveler with their chattering and unmusical notes. Shall we forever resign the pleasure of construction to the carpenter? (From “Walden”, Economy)

I have not built my own house. I, like the cuckoo, live in a “nest” that has been thrice inhabited. But I have built a backyard shed and a playhouse with my own hands and, with some temporary exceptions, found the process invigorating and enjoyable. I certainly have a better appreciate of the work that went into my own house (and, in some cases, better recognize the cheap corner-cutting that went into some parts of it).

I do not advocate throwing off our responsibilities and learning to do everything ourselves. But I do think we are benefited when we develop at least some cursory skills in various other “trades”, such as construction. The joy of honest labor and the satisfaction of a job well done (or at least completed) are potent emotions.

And simply knowing how to do something should you ever need to is always a solid investment. Whether drying your own fruit or jerky, sealing and freezing produce from your garden, or changing the oil on a car, those who know how have more options than those who do not. Waiting for periods of need to prepare yourselves is a recipe for failure, as we’ve been told by Aesop’s “The Ant and the Grasshopper” since the cradle.

It is an interesting note on the period Thoreau lived in that he, an intellectual, still knew at least rudimentary carpentry and root-crop storage. How many of us could pick up and move into the forest with any hope of survival? While I would never advocate it, I suspect we may someday be required to endure at least somewhat significant changes to our way of life that we would do well to be prepared for. Intellectual and philosopher or not, if that day comes, I’d want Thoreau around.

What self-reliance is not

Posted on by

Though I am still researching what I believe self-reliance to include, there is one thing I am certain it is not: complete independence of all other human beings. I will never advocate that anyone become a hermit or a nomad. That would be missing the point. Self-reliance is not to live so that you need nothing from anyone else.

One of the great human developments has been specialization. The ability for a person to increase their skill in one area at the expense of many other potential skills raised productivity considerably. The become completely independent of anyone else would be a step backward, both productively and socially.

Indeed, Thoreau’s experiment in simple living came at a cost. He had no one out there living with him on Walden Pond, no one dependent on him for survival. He had no wife, no children. As a husband and a father I have to declare that if “enlightenment” depends on remaining single and childless, then I don’t particularly care for any, thank you. In fact, I would argue that one cannot become completely enlightened and miss out on the opportunity to share one’s life with another human being at the level of intimacy a family affords.

That a family could still live the Walden lifestyle and be both healthy and happy I do not dispute. But Thoreau would have had to devote much more time to sustaining life than he had to when it was just him. He would have had much less time to devote to mediation and philosophizing. Yet I think he would still have found wisdom and enlightenment in the selfless endeavor of sacrificing for one’s family.

But my point is this: self-reliance is to be able to minimize the degree to which you must intrude on others for support. It is not to never need anyone else. If a person becomes sufficiently skilled in a trade or craft to be able to provide himself and his family the essentials of life, even if he must sell or trade his labor to another in order to do so, he is self-sufficient in that area. He need not know how, on top of everything else, to birth a calf so long as he has a skill that he can market to a rancher or farmer in exchange for meat.

A person need not be so emotionally independent that he never need take a problem to a friend. Rather they just need to have the emotional maturity to recognize good advice from a friend and know how to take it to heart. No one need be some socially self-reliant that their own company is all they ever need. They just need to know how to get along well with others to the point that they never lack for companionship and interaction when they need it.

It if fortunate for all of us that true self-reliance does not require that we go put ourselves to the test by living by ourselves from the solitary industry of our own hands for several years. For most of us, that would either put self-reliance out of reach, or require us to seriously damage the relationships that sustain us while we push others out of our life for a period of time.

No, true self-reliance is much more connected–and hence rewarding. It is being an active, engaged member of a larger world while at the same time asking no more of it than is fair and reasonable. No Walden Ponds required.