After reading Henry David Thoreau's hallmark transcendentalist work, "On Civil Disobedience," perform a rhetorical analysis.
Henry David Thoreau, a renowned Transcendentalist writer who had been jailed for peaceful opposition to the government and a refusal to pay taxes, strives to convince the American citizenry of the value of ‘Civil Disobedience’ against what he perceives to be an unjust government It is expressed by Thoreau, as he adopts a rebellious tone, that the government, when ruled by the majority, is not always just or right, particularly in its conduct towards the minority. Having already experienced injustice firsthand, Thoreau feels justified in discussing the corrupt nature inherent in the state. By elaborating upon this idea and through usage of rhetorical appeals to logic (reasoning over the proper role of government), emotion (the plight of American soldiers in the Mexican-American War), and his credibility (his own experiences), Thoreau not only addresses the need for the citizenry to take up the cause of nonviolent disobedience, , but tacitly addresses the government and its lawmakers in hopes of appealing to their consciences to reform the corruption of the state. Thoreau strongly asserts his belief in the power of individualism and individual conscience over collective tolerance of injustice, and he meets with success in inspiring others to accept his message.
Thoreau begins his essay with the quote, “That government is best which governs least,” (1) thereby opening the text with an attention-grabbing allusion to the political dissidence of yore. This serves to entice the reader and lead into his contrarian statement that the best government “...governs not at all.” (1) Thus begun is an appeal both to reason and emotion. “The government itself… is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.” (1) Such a declaration appeals to emotion by communicating the corruption of the state through language that holds negative connotation--for example, “abused” and “perverted.” Further contributing to the strength of this appeal is the following sentence: “Witness the present Mexican War, the work of comparatively few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure…” (1). By employing the use of metaphor (“...government as their tool…”) and using such words as “war” and “consent,” as well as juxtaposing those few in power with the people, his audience, who are implied to be separate, Thoreau adopts a rebellious tone in hopes of appealing to emotion in order to convince the audience of the state’s corruption. These tools amplify Thoreau’s message that the government has been “abused and perverted” by conveying the idea that it has been misused as a tool by individuals who do not respect popular will or consent. Having grabbed the attention of the reader, Thoreau sets the tone for the rest of his essay as defiant, critical, and explanatory; following this, Thoreau constructs a reasoned argument in subsequent paragraphs.
The body of Thoreau’s essay is littered with allusions, metaphors, and rhetorical questions. Between lines 83 and 113, those strategies are employed to great effect .For example, “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavour to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded or shall we transgress them at once?” (4) This opening line from the fourth paragraph of Thoreau’s essay is one of many rhetorical questions; it is, of course, proffered in an insubordinate tone, appealing to the emotional response of the audience and to their reason. By employing such rhetorical questions, Thoreau offers implicit answers intended to instigate outrage at the state and agreement with Thoreau's message. A series of these questions are employed after he establishes the pattern of behavior of the state: “Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt?” (4) He continues on, tacitly implying that the cause for the poor behavior is an intense corruption unassailed by an inactive, cowed populace. Most effective is the following query: “Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?” (4) Several allusions to historical events are made here, appealing to religious conscience, to reason and science, and to American nationalism; further, the government is compared to the unreasonable tyrants of old. Again, such appeals work in favor of Thoreau’s defiant tone and his intent to convince Americans to be more active in protesting unjust government. Metaphor is once again used, comparing an article of some sort or another to tools; in this case, injustice is described as having “...a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank…,” (4) to set up another metaphor: “Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine.” (4) Thoreau thereby establishes government as a potentially evil, vile machination to be opposed by American people, to whom he has appealed to emotion and reason through the employment of aforementioned strategies.
The conclusion of the text brings together Thoreau’s thoughts and makes a final effort to convince the audience of his platform, continuing with a rebellious tone (now more overt) and appeals to emotion and reason, as well as expressing Thoreau’s own character and credibility. “I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest,” (8) Thoreau contends, displaying his strong-willed and disobedient nature. Offering himself as an example of successful ‘Civil Disobedience,’ Thoreau employs an appeal to ethos to assure the audience of his credibility as an author and the credibility of the platform he writes upon. There is an appeal to emotion, and metaphors are once again employed: “I do not hear of men being forced to live this way or that by masses of men… when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can….” (8) Thoreau’s use of these strategies, to again, convince the audience to adopt his refractory platform by appealing to their emotion are effective because of the use of understandable language and metaphor. Thoreau ends the essay with another metaphor: “If a plan cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so a man.” (8) By ending on such a strong, philosophical note, the reader is left by Thoreau to think upon and consider the nature of Civil Disobedience as it relates to the proper living of man.
“Civil Disobedience” is one of Thoreau’s greatest works, appealing to the American citizenry to protest injustice through peaceful means by articulating a defiant, rebellious argument derived from Thoreau’s own experiences of protest. Appealing to emotion, reason, and his own credibility while simultaneously employing strategies of metaphor, Socratic questioning, and figurative language, Thoreau meets with success in his endeavour.