Hawthorne's and Emerson's Differing Perspectives on Political Violence

Abstract

At points, both Ralph Waldo Emerson and Nathaniel Hawthorne rejected violence as a means for solving problems, particularly political ones, but as they aged Emerson began to accept violence as an available problem-solving tool while Hawthorne continually searched for alternatives to enact change in the present and the future—no matter how necessary that change might be needed. Emerson's and Hawthorne's viewpoints on this matter were complex, and each man's progression of thinking is equally thorny and, at times, may even appear paradoxical. These two men struggled with their beliefs and how to represent those viewpoints, or not, through their actions, both public and private. While Emerson had begun viewing violence as an occurrence in humanity's collective past, and something he felt was no longer necessary, he slowly began to accept the possibility of future violence by intellectually connecting it to the past and specific historical occurrences. Alternatively, Hawthorne viewed human violence as a continual presence in contemporary and future time, not only a part of what had made people who they were but a part, also, of what would continue to shape humanity. Yet, Hawthorne's recognition of this facet never constituted an acceptance of violence as a necessary means to an end, even through an intellectual equivocation such as Emerson's. The different ways that the two men saw violence in the world allowed them to move in separate directions, as the nineteenth century wore on, when it came to the issue of political violence.