Examine the relationship between the individual and the state in Thoreau’s Civil
Disobedience.
In “Civil Disobedience”, Thoreau (1849) suggests an ideal State whose foundation is
the individual's conscience and freedom. ‘Individual’ refers to any human being, irrespective
of age, gender, race or ethnicity. Thoreau suggests the stepping stone towards acquiring
this ideal State is “Civil Disobedience”, that is, passive, non-violent resistance. In this essay,
I argue that the relationship between the individual and the State in Thoreau’s “Civil
Disobedience” is one that may be most functional if it operates on the basis of the Gandhian
principle of “swaraj” (Gandhi, 1909). “Swaraj”, which many critics argue has been inspired by
Thoreau's words (Murti, 1968), is a dichotomous term that refers to both self-governance of
the State and self-rule of the individual (Gandhi, 1909).
In “Civil Disobedience”, Thoreau suggests a paradoxical relationship between the
individual and the State which may, nevertheless, be feasible if it functions on the basis of
‘swaraj’. Instead of the State ruling over individuals, he advocates for a democratic State
which is ruled by the freedom of the individual (Thoreau, 1849. p. 29) as well as the
“conscience” of the individual (Thoreau, 1849. p. 7). There is a discrepancy between
“conscience”-which implies self-control- and freedom. The concept of 'individual' adds
another layer of complexity to his vision. What is considered moral, ethical and acceptable
by an individual's conscience is not necessarily the case for his neighbour, who is another
individual. As Cavell (cited in Turner, 2009. p. 3) puts forth, “Conscience has no permanent
identifiable content . . . and subjectivity, not universalizability, is its chief recommendation”.
In “Civil Disobedience”, Thoreau (1849. p. 7) foregrounds the individual’s freedom to act on
the principles of his/her own conscience: “The only obligation which I have a right to assume
is to do at any time what I think right”. Therefore, the questions that arise are: What are the
limits of freedom of an individual? How shall an individual define conscience? On what basic
principles does an individual discern what's moral and immoral if conscience is relatively
subjective? As Jaffa puts forth(1969, cited in Turner, 2009, p. 6), “although Thoreau insisted
that “action from principle” separates “the diabolical from the divine,” Thoreau failed to ask
the crucial question: “Does the separation of the diabolical from the divine send the
diabolical or the divine forth to rule the world?” Thoreau's suggestion of a State ruled by the
individual's conscience and freedom elicits more questions than it can answer and hence,
seems impractical. I believe that Gandhi's (1909) concept of “swaraj” responds to these
questions and demonstrates how Thoreau's vision of the individual, a “higher and
Disobedience.
In “Civil Disobedience”, Thoreau (1849) suggests an ideal State whose foundation is
the individual's conscience and freedom. ‘Individual’ refers to any human being, irrespective
of age, gender, race or ethnicity. Thoreau suggests the stepping stone towards acquiring
this ideal State is “Civil Disobedience”, that is, passive, non-violent resistance. In this essay,
I argue that the relationship between the individual and the State in Thoreau’s “Civil
Disobedience” is one that may be most functional if it operates on the basis of the Gandhian
principle of “swaraj” (Gandhi, 1909). “Swaraj”, which many critics argue has been inspired by
Thoreau's words (Murti, 1968), is a dichotomous term that refers to both self-governance of
the State and self-rule of the individual (Gandhi, 1909).
In “Civil Disobedience”, Thoreau suggests a paradoxical relationship between the
individual and the State which may, nevertheless, be feasible if it functions on the basis of
‘swaraj’. Instead of the State ruling over individuals, he advocates for a democratic State
which is ruled by the freedom of the individual (Thoreau, 1849. p. 29) as well as the
“conscience” of the individual (Thoreau, 1849. p. 7). There is a discrepancy between
“conscience”-which implies self-control- and freedom. The concept of 'individual' adds
another layer of complexity to his vision. What is considered moral, ethical and acceptable
by an individual's conscience is not necessarily the case for his neighbour, who is another
individual. As Cavell (cited in Turner, 2009. p. 3) puts forth, “Conscience has no permanent
identifiable content . . . and subjectivity, not universalizability, is its chief recommendation”.
In “Civil Disobedience”, Thoreau (1849. p. 7) foregrounds the individual’s freedom to act on
the principles of his/her own conscience: “The only obligation which I have a right to assume
is to do at any time what I think right”. Therefore, the questions that arise are: What are the
limits of freedom of an individual? How shall an individual define conscience? On what basic
principles does an individual discern what's moral and immoral if conscience is relatively
subjective? As Jaffa puts forth(1969, cited in Turner, 2009, p. 6), “although Thoreau insisted
that “action from principle” separates “the diabolical from the divine,” Thoreau failed to ask
the crucial question: “Does the separation of the diabolical from the divine send the
diabolical or the divine forth to rule the world?” Thoreau's suggestion of a State ruled by the
individual's conscience and freedom elicits more questions than it can answer and hence,
seems impractical. I believe that Gandhi's (1909) concept of “swaraj” responds to these
questions and demonstrates how Thoreau's vision of the individual, a “higher and
