Self-Resilience & Self-Reliance: A Literary Review

Through the ages, much has been discussed and considered regarding what defines self-resilience and self-reliance. Society has been one of the primary manifestations and epicenters of this analysis but the literary world has been a focal point as well. The works of Emerson, Whitman and Dickinson, among many others, all focus on self-reliance and/or self-resilience either in an implied way or an explicit way. The perspectives and viewpoints offered, however, from author to author vary greatly with the common refrain often being that self-reliance and self-resilience is just as much a societal and social battle as it is a personal battle and the personal consequences of driving towards self-reliance and self-resilience can be self-consuming or even fatal. While many modern pundits and theorists ascribe only personal attributes and habits to how personal outcomes play out, both Ginsberg and Whitman diverged from the narrative in different ways.

Contextualization

Many people in society, both scholars and non-scholars, try to paint a black and white tapestry as it relates to how self-reliance and self-resilience is defined only by the self-sustained efforts of each person in society with little to no mind paid to the societal, cultural and historical implications and conditions that can make being self-reliant and self-resilient difficult to impossible. A commonly cited example offered by detractors to such a simplistic viewpoint to the fact that minorities, African-Americans in particular, are generations behind the societal curve due to their prior (and sometimes current) inability to afford themselves of the same opportunities and resources as their non-minority counterparts including quality education (especially at the secondary level), housing, family support structures and so on. Another example cited, and one that affects people of all colors and creeds is the condition of the chasm between the rich and the poor getting wider and wider. While most will concede that the ability to ascend up and down through income quintiles is not completely neutered, it is greatly complicated and can be close to impossible for people of disadvantaged status economically and or minorities in general face a nearly insurmountable task ahead of them.

Long before the modern contexts and manifestations of this argument came to pass, Walt Whitman and Allen Ginsberg toiled over this topic and in two very distinctly different ways. Whitman had a rather utopian and idealistic view of society and how everything should work. He was very much a collectivist and egalitarian and held the view that people should (and did) work in harmony with each other. Juxtapose this against this shifting views on abolition and the ideas that even free blacks should not have been voting and his rather grandiose (if not delusional) view of himself and his poetry, and it is not hard to see why Allen Ginsberg rather transparently bristled against those viewpoints in his own works. While Whitman did at times espouse the idea of individualism, he was surely against if it bucked or otherwise roiled against the larger community. Whitman referred more to surviving and existing with the community rather than truly forging one’s own path intellectually, socially and so on.

Allen Ginsberg clearly disagreed with and otherwise diverged from Whitman’s viewpoint in several noticeable ways. It is not at all surprising that the words and actions of Ginsberg set the tone for the counter-culture movement of the Beat Generation that would some coalesce within the United States in the ensuing decades. Howl, in particular, was singled out and persecuted as “obscenity” to the point that there was even a trial about it in the late 1950s. The judge in that case eventually ruled that the depictions of heterosexual and homosexual sex (the latter being illegal in every state) but Ginsberg was not to be deterred regardless of that case’s outcome. A good example of his unapologetic nature was his joining of the club known as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). He stated he did so in support of free speech and that the club was only for discussing “youthful sex” and was nothing beyond that. However, that club has and still is a pariah in all corners of society so this affiliation earned him many condemnations.

As for how in particular Ginsberg disagreed with Whitman’s view of society and how people should work within it, Ginsberg believed in a vertical-based society rather than the horizontal/egalitarian one portrayed by Whitman. He noted that society’s “machines” and control system actively punish and hurt people that dare rebel or even just act differently than the wider society and what they demand. A real-world example of this would obviously be Ginsberg’s widely known homosexual behavior in a time where the sex act alone was a crime in all corners of the United States at the time. Ginsberg equated self-reliance to being self-resilient. He asserted that this was necessary because one had to be resolute and committed to maintaining one’s individuality and this was especially if one’s mindset and choices were clearly against the systemic and morality-based frameworks that the United States demanded during the 1950’s era.

Definitions of Self-Reliance & Self-Resilience

To put a fine point on what the two definitions relevant to this paper are, it should be firmly stated in a vacuum what self-reliance meant to Ginsberg and what that is meant to Whitman. Whitman stated that people need to keep their individual flair and exercise good habits but always within the framework and patterns demanded and expressed by society rather than working against it or otherwise acting out of place. Whitman’s arguments about self-reliance were basically devoid of the realities of how black people were treated and the other traps and pitfalls that many people experienced during his life-span in the 1800s. Society has changed greatly since the 1800s and the abolition of slavery. However, challenges and societal problems remain. Ginsberg knew this and his definition of self-reliance was quickly and inextricably coupled with self-resilience in the form of forging one’s own path even if it flies in the face of the social and cultural machines that punish those that are different or otherwise resistant to the norms and outcomes enforced or even demanded by society and the people in it.

Argument

To truly bring some relevance and understanding to the arguments made between Whitman and Ginsberg, a few guiding points and historical facts should be explained. First, Ginsberg and Whitman lived in very different times. Whitman lived in the times of 1800 both before and after the abolition of slavery and not long after the United States was formed in the late 1700s. Also, he was alive during the rise of the Industrial Revolution which marked a seismic shift in global societal influences from the agrarian-only economy that massively fed the demand for slaves in the South. By contrast, Ginsberg was born just after the end of World War I and just before the Great Depression. The decades that followed would include World War II, the “Stepford” era of the 1950s, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the economic malaise of the 1970s. He actually lived a full life until passing in 1997. His partner, Peter Orlovsky, outlived him until 2010.

That quick historical review is important because it adds some importance and relevance to what the two men believed. It is clear that Whitman believed that self-reliance was encapsulated by operating within societal norms and rules but still at the same time maintaining an individual personality. However, he asserted that this individualism should work with society and the other people in it rather than against them. Ginsberg did not completely diverge from that but he clearly believed that self-reliance had to include self-resilience and this was especially true when one’s personality and traits were against the norms and nature of the wider society. For example, being something other than Christian in the United States would be viewed as odd and against society, or at least foreign. Similarly, blacks seeking the same rights and opportunities, especially prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and even more so before the end of the Civil War in 1865) would be a normal course of action for Ginsberg but it clearly was an annoyance to Whitman even after he swayed towards supporting abolition. In short, Whitman was only really in favor of individuality and individual rights if it did not annoy the government and/or the norms of society (even if he really did not say that explicitly in his work) but Ginsberg asserted that society had no place making or enforcing such rules but they did/do so all of the time. Indeed, he noted that being self-reliant also meant being self-resilient and this included if it incurred the derision and/or wrath of the country’s government or its people. Ginsberg certainly practiced what he preached given the obscenity trial he face and the litany of positions he held.

Analysis

Before focusing anymore on Ginsberg or Whitman, there are some secondary sources that should be mentioned because they are extremely relevant to the Whitman vs. Ginsberg paradigm. Perhaps one of the more poignant other examples that can and should be cited was Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller. 1 The play came out in the late 1940s and is set during that same time period. It is clear that Willy is trying to force on his sons Biff and Happy the same ideal and life pattern that he has laid for himself. However, Willy’s wife Linda, as well as Biff and Happy, have seen how that has driven Willy into near madness and even though Willy and Happy try to appease their father, it is clear that Biff knows that Willy’s path is not his lot in life and that he is destined only for an ordinary life rather than a spectacular one. However, Willy is so driven to help Biff realize Willy’s perception of how Biff will become a businessman, he kills himself so that the life insurance money will fund Biff’s life as a businessman. Biff decides to stick to his belief that he will be just an ordinary man while Happy seemingly starts the cycle started by Willy all over again. This pattern is realized a lot in a modern context with blood siblings forging entirely different paths. It is true that people can be too unmotivated and disengaged from being self-reliant, but there are others that are on the other end of the spectrum and go so in a way that is destructive to their family lives, their career arc in general and so on. Death of a Salesman was clearly an extreme example of how the drive to succeed can manifest but it is most certainly an important one. It is important to know what one is capable of, what they are not capable of and how this all jells and interfaces with the demands and requirements of keeping relationships and families alive while at the same time paying the bills.

Another secondary source, that being One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey, is a sterling example of the punitive and assertive controls used by society and how people tend to work against them 2. McMurphy using an insanity ploy to skip a prison sentence ultimately climaxing with his brutal (but he would say deserved) assault on Nurse Ratched after the suicide by Billy that was included by the scare tactics used by Ratched and eventual lobotomy by staff show a system that was initially being gamed by McMurphy but was victimizing McMurphy and the legitimately sick inmates and residents alike. Then there is On The Road by Jack Kerouac, which focused on the “beat” and counterculture movements that were pioneered and supported by Allen Ginsberg. The book was a cover-to-cover condemnation of the rigidity and inequity of how American society enforced and demanded social norms and how this was a punishing and improper way to treat the American people who did not happen to fit neatly into the gender, religious and other social roles that were followed by most of society. Both Kerouac and Kesey were both clearly lambasting the institutional structures and frameworks of the United States. Kesey’s point of analysis was much finer (mental hospital) but the overall point being made was much the same.

Another work, that being Walden by Henry David Thoreau, meshes more with Ginsberg than Whitman. 3 Walden stands in contrast to Whitman in that he clearly states that the need for human interaction and companionship is overstated and over-exaggerated at many times and that self-reliance and self-resilience can be as much (if not more) personal and looking inward as it is economic and social. He was with Ginsberg when he stated that the state is infused with corruption and avarice. To put it succinctly, Thoreau was all about simplicity and ease of life rather than the trappings of power and economic achievement that the wider society seems to demand and expect. Ralph Waldo Emerson made much the same point in his essay The Poet. 4 In much the same way as Thoreau, Emerson derides the patterns and demands place on the people of the American society and asserts ideas and platitudes of individualistic but simple self-reliance. While both Emerson and Thoreau were notably different than both Whitman and Ginsberg in many ways, they quite obviously saw eye-to-eye on the troubles of institutions and how self-resilience and resolve are necessary to truly forge a righteous and individual path.

Emily Dickinson also sided with Ginsberg in terms of content and the points she made. Dickinson clearly condemned the black and white/absolutist nature of some people. Such a condition can easily be inferred from the poem Much Madness is Divinest Sense. 5 In that poem, she clearly makes the point that the facts and beliefs of many are not the views of all and that disagreeing with those points and rules may be madness and insanity to some but can be divine and undeniable truth to others. This theme of Dickson continued in The Soul Selects Her Own Society. 6 The “soul” as mentioned by Dickinson was clearly a reference to one’s true inner self and not necessarily a presence and personality that fits neatly into what society requires or demands of a person. The third poem by Dickinson, that being I’m Nobody! Who Are You? completes a neat triad of poems that all address roughly the same subject. 7 The latter of the three is clearly aligned more closely with the anti-authority sentiment of Ginsberg with its reference to “somebody” and clearly speaks to someone who is outside the normal scope and culture of society.

Coming back to the two main authors focused upon within this report, there is a litany of quotes from the authors themselves in real life and their work in particular that greatly illuminate and illustrate their motives and ideals. As far as Ginsberg goes, he makes it clear that the urges and pushing to become compliant with society come from no other than his parents as he grew up. In Kaddish, for example, there are clear references to getting married (to a female, presumably) and to not do drugs. 8 He even derided democracy in Subliminal 9 and openly called out Walt Whitman in the opening stanza of A Supermarket in California. 10 The words that follow are an obvious broadside to the utopian viewpoints of society and family life as espoused and advanced by Whitman when he makes reference to husbands, wives, and children. He even takes a thinly veiled shot at Whitman’s sexuality, it would seem, when he insinuates that Whitman would be peering at the “grocery boys” and calling him a “lonely old grubber”.

While the above citations are informative, the ultimate full-frontal assault by Allen Ginsberg on the feelings and thoughts of Walt Whitman really has to be Howl. 11 The use of the term “Moloch” is a clear reference to the systems and machines of society. However, while Ginsberg was a little demure when using that reference, he was not being the least bit vague or delicate when he makes reference to the “dreams, adorations and religions” of America being “bullshit”. He also railed against “demonic industries”, “monstrous bombs” and “invisible suburbs”. The opening stanza was a clear attack on the religions and other pursuits of society “the best minds of my generation”.

The blunt honesty and even snarky nature of Ginsberg are clearly contradicted by the words of Walt Whitman that occurred a century or so before. In I Hear America Singing, Whitman makes reference to mechanics, carpenters and masons ostensibly being joyous as they work. 12 However, even with Ginsberg’s criticism, Whitman did have some condemnations about some of the things he saw. Such occurred in I Sit and Look Out when he said “I sit and look out upon all the sorrows of the world, and upon all oppression and shame”. 13 It is unclear from that isolated passage if he was including America in a statement. Given slavery and the deplorable work conditions of the day in the days preceding the social safety net and work condition improvement in the early 20th century, he should have been referring to American in addition to any other country. His words about the United States, when named specifically, were generally quite positive. Such was evident in Leaves of Grass when he said “(t)he United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem”. This is not to say that he felt that America was all sunshine and roses, but it’s a rather positive statement rather than a mixed one as he clearly singled out America for a reason.

To summarize and encapsulate everything discussed before, there are a few observations that ware worthy of mention and analysis. First, Whitman and Ginsberg lived a century apart and Whitman did not have the ability to responds in kind to Ginsberg. It would have been interesting to see what the response would have been and whether Whitman would have changed his tune about American when given the ability to see what would happen in America after his passing. Even so, it is clear that Whitman had an idealistic view of self-reliance while Ginsberg was much more cynical and with the viewpoint that the American “machine” was corrupting and destroying. In the modern times of today whereby both Whitman and Ginsberg are gone forever, it is clear that there is much to be conceded and acknowledged from both viewpoints, although Ginsberg's words and viewpoints rang truer than Whitman in the grand scheme of things.

Even with the challenges and problems that the United States has, it has been and remains one of the freest and prosperous nations in all of the world’s existence. For the most part, people can make their lives what they want and that does not mean that one has to be rich, famous and powerful. This last statement segues into the words of Emerson and Thoreau whereby people can forge an existence that is not necessarily against that of the society while at the same time keeping things simple and easy-going. The points made by Arthur Miller in Death of a Salesman echo here as well. On the opposite end of the spectrum from Whitman is the blunt honesty and cynicism of Allen Ginsberg who clearly blasted and rejected the creation and enforcement of social norms and religious values due to the oppression and mocking that are forced upon people that stray from the commonly accepted narratives and themes of the broader society.

While the utopian viewpoints of Whitman should be taken with a huge grain of salt, the idea of opening attacking the broader society just for the sake of doing so or just because the majority is not in line with the views of the minority should be done with caution. For example, it makes sense that public buildings and venues should not have religious displays but when atheists (the stark minority in the United States) are openly disparaging and degrading religious people by putting skeletons on crosses and defacing displays on private lands, then that is the same sort of denigration and oppression that counter-culture people are ostensibly rebelling against. They are using the same tactics (if not worse) that are used against them. In a similar fashion, a resident of a town in the United States was slipped an anonymous note that not everyone in the neighborhood was Christian, a clear response to the Christian-themed decorations on the resident’s lawn. While personal freedom to exercise one’s own life path and religion should be sacrosanct for all groups in the United States, it should apply to the minority just as much as it does to the minority. Ginsberg kept his derision verbal and through his poetry, more often than not, and it would behoove counterculture people to follow the same pattern so that they push-back on their alternative viewpoints and lifestyles is not as robust and protract as it could be. The recent hullabaloo about a reality show Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson and his quotes about blacks during the Jim Crow days and gay behavior/lifestyles are seen by many as an affront to free speech and political correctness run amok. By others, it is seen as a small sliver of the United States being the thought police for a much larger swath of the United States. Even if Mr. Robertson’s viewpoints are reprehensible (and many do feel this way), there are a lot of people that agree with Mr. Robertson and a culture war in which any large part of the United States is aggrieved will ultimately help no one. In the end, more of a “live and let live” approach would be the most beneficial to all. Whitman seemed to gloss over that and Ginsberg openly assaulted the fact that the United States, in large part, has not ever behaved that way. However, Robertson has actually received some support from unlikely corners of society including form lesbian activist Camille Paglia. 15

One more point of analysis that sort of undermines Ginsberg’s viewpoint is that many people that say that they are or want to be self-reliant are actively engaged in behavior and discourse that hurts their cause, whether or not they care. There are a great many people that are not self-reliant people and are a bit ambivalent and/or ignorant about what it takes to be self-reliant and, as needed, self-resilient. There seems to be a coarsening of what people believe they are entitled to, what society owes them and what a utopian society should really look like. Not unlike the culture wars mentioned before that are actively encouraged and stoked by Ginsberg, there is a clear divide between the “makers” and the “takers” of the United States and the concept of self-reliance seems to be dying off as the educational frameworks and patterns of society degrade as well. The wise words and viewpoints of Whitman, Ginsberg, Dickinson, and Miller are giving way to lowest common denominator fodder and rhetoric that is devoid of logic and compassion. Even those that portend themselves to be for the poor and disadvantage are quite obviously pandering and otherwise misrepresenting their true motives, which seem to be not much more than enriching themselves and getting re-elected.

They also really need to be a redefining of what cultural and religious oppression is and what it is not. The aforementioned neighbor chastising the neighbor for their Christmas display was clearly an overreaction. The atheist trying to urge and force a Christian from having a religious display on their own private land seems to be a clear example of being over-sensitive and the complaining homeowner is certainly free to do a non-religious display or nothing at all if they’d like. American has always been a Christian-dominated country and the mere presence of those people and their acts and deeds alone is not demonstrative of an oppressive religion or country. On the other hand, the establishment of a state religion and/or punishment for people that are not of the dominating religion would be an entirely different story.

In short, Ginsberg made some valid points but Whitman’s higher view of America is, at the very least, a dream of what America could or should be and our country is clearly advanced past much of the world. We certainly lag in terms of culture and benefits in some ways and people outside the mainstream certainly get mistreated at times, but personal privacy and the realization of any given person’s dream are generally well within reach. The key is to establish what success is when being of a different mindset or culture than the mainstream. If the goal is to be an annoyance or a problem child for the larger society, then that is largely fruitless and is really just being incendiary and vitriolic. On the other hand, people of minority religions and cultures like Sikhs, homosexuals, Muslims and so forth can be very tough and the concepts and conditions of America, even if tolerant, are a huge culture shock to people that are not used to it and have not grown up within it. Many people in such a situation vulcanize themselves and insulate themselves from the wider society. This is sometimes met with sneers but is usually not directly interfered with unless something in the culture in question is clearly illegal or immoral on a level that requires the interceding of the ruling authority. Examples of where this would happen would be honor killings, female circumcision, child labor abuses, and domestic violence.

As a closing verdict, both Whitman and Ginsberg made valid points but neither had it completely right in terms of summarizing the totality of society and its facets in an honest and complete fashion. Viewing things in a utopian and ignorant manner is not positive but neither is being contradictory and confronting just for the sake of being a pest. Things should be called what they are when and as they occur but society and the country at large should not be denigrated without giving credit for the things it does well and does right. For example, Will and Happy both made their choice in Death of a Salesman and they were entitled to it but so was Biff in eschewing the life of his father and the life chosen by Happy. Life in the business sector and high amounts of travel is not conducive to good family life and is not for everyone but no one should be forced away from what they want in life, even if their reasons for choosing a given trade or job are perhaps faulty. We all have to go our own way.

Conclusion

The problem with the dominant culture of a society is that they often make poor choices and are often unfair and punitive to the minorities. However, regardless of society’s general path, the decisions and pathways made are generally positive. There are always people that abuse and unfairly wield the power of society and there are also people in the minority that just like to enrage and confuse the majority. Whitman was too soft in his views of America and Ginsberg was entirely too harsh. Whitman didn’t condemn slavery as he should have and Ginsberg defended people with at least thinking about being pederasts. Both are extremes and neither is an example of the way a normal person should think as both perspectives are incomplete and at least in part misguided.

Bibliography

1. Miller, Arthur. Death of a salesman; certain private conversations in two acts and a requiem. New York: Viking Press, 1949.

2. Kesey, Ken. One flew over the cuckoo's nest, a novel. New York: Viking Press, 1962.

3. Thoreau, Henry David. Walden or life in the woods. Raleigh, N.C.: Alex Catalogue, 1993.

4. Emerson, Ralph Waldo. The Poet. New York: Everyman's Library, 2004.

5. Dickinson, Emily. Madness is Divinest Sense. Decorated ed. New York: Avenel Books: 1978.

6. Dickinson, Emily. The Soul selects her own Society. Hopewell, N.J.: Ecco Press, 1996.

7. Dickinson, Emily. I'm nobody! Who are you?: poems by Emily Dickinson. New York: Scholastic Inc., 2002.

8. Ginsberg, Allen. Kaddish and other poems, 1958-1960. 16. print. ed. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1978.

9. Ginsberg, Allen. Subliminal. Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press, 2008.

10. Ginsberg, Allen. A Supermarket in California. New York: Random House, 2004.

11. Ginsberg, Allen. Howl, and other poems. San Francisco: City Lights Pocket Bookshop, 1956.

12. Whitman, Walt. I hear America singing. New York: Philomel Books, 1991.

13. Whitman, Walt. I sit and look out; editorials from the Brooklyn daily times,. New York: Columbia university press, 1932.

14. Whitman, Walt. Leaves of grass. Champaign, Ill.: Project Gutenberg, 1993

15. Kumar, Anugrah. "CP entertainment." Christian Post. http://www.christianpost.com/news/lesbian-activist-blasts-ae-for-suspending-duck-dynasty-patriarch-phil-robertson-111311/ (accessed December 22, 2013).