The Futility of Passive Resistance American civil rights activist Cesar Chavez once said, “There is no such thing as defeat in non-violence.” Those who advocate for passive resistance, a form of peaceful protest against established standards, often echo this sentiment. Additionally, a wholehearted belief in the ultimate effectiveness of this method reflects the optimism of transcendentalist philosophers such as Henry David Thoreau. His mid-nineteenth-century work Resistance to Civil Government expresses profound trust in the power of the individual and his or her ability, through focused peaceful protest, to positively affect the government and its values. However, such sanguine convictions about human nature often lose their credibility
…show more content…
Bartleby, who works as a legal scribe for the tale’s narrator, is a strange, pale man with an eerie indifference to the world around him. By calmly refusing to do anything that is asked of him, he takes part in his own form of passive resistance against the demands of his employer, which eventually proves to accomplish nothing. The ultimate futility of Bartleby’s protest disputes Thoreau’s faith in the individual’s ability to achieve positive change through passive resistance. Bartleby’s failure to have a lasting effect on the operation of his workplace contrasts Thoreau’s belief that one man’s actions can accomplish permanent change. In sharing his ideologies, Thoreau claims, “If one honest man...ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this copartnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: What is once well done is done forever” (Thoreau 214). He believes that if even one person expresses their opposition to something through peaceful demonstration, for example by refusing to own slaves, this will effectively destroy the institution with which they …show more content…
In defense of people’s rights, Thoreau says, “There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly” (Thoreau 216). He believes that a government is dependent on the influence of its people, and therefore must value each individual as paramount to its successful operation. If this is achieved, Thoreau reasons, the government and its people will thrive. However, the narrator of Melville’s tale does not attain such a favorable outcome when he attempts to put stock in Bartleby’s assumed authority. Although the scrivener’s refusal to follow orders is causing his boss a great deal of strife, the narrator decides to accept Bartleby and his ways, embracing a philosophy like Thoreau’s. He reasons, “These troubles of mine touching the scrivener had been all predestined from eternity, and Bartleby was billeted upon me for some mysterious purpose of an all-wise Providence, which it was not for a mere mortal like me to fathom” (Melville 34). The narrator decides that he must put faith in Bartleby and embraces his mysterious behavior as a gift from God. He, like Thoreau, believes that viewing Bartleby as an individual with innate power will benefit him
Bartleby, who works as a legal scribe for the tale’s narrator, is a strange, pale man with an eerie indifference to the world around him. By calmly refusing to do anything that is asked of him, he takes part in his own form of passive resistance against the demands of his employer, which eventually proves to accomplish nothing. The ultimate futility of Bartleby’s protest disputes Thoreau’s faith in the individual’s ability to achieve positive change through passive resistance. Bartleby’s failure to have a lasting effect on the operation of his workplace contrasts Thoreau’s belief that one man’s actions can accomplish permanent change. In sharing his ideologies, Thoreau claims, “If one honest man...ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this copartnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America. For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: What is once well done is done forever” (Thoreau 214). He believes that if even one person expresses their opposition to something through peaceful demonstration, for example by refusing to own slaves, this will effectively destroy the institution with which they …show more content…
In defense of people’s rights, Thoreau says, “There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly” (Thoreau 216). He believes that a government is dependent on the influence of its people, and therefore must value each individual as paramount to its successful operation. If this is achieved, Thoreau reasons, the government and its people will thrive. However, the narrator of Melville’s tale does not attain such a favorable outcome when he attempts to put stock in Bartleby’s assumed authority. Although the scrivener’s refusal to follow orders is causing his boss a great deal of strife, the narrator decides to accept Bartleby and his ways, embracing a philosophy like Thoreau’s. He reasons, “These troubles of mine touching the scrivener had been all predestined from eternity, and Bartleby was billeted upon me for some mysterious purpose of an all-wise Providence, which it was not for a mere mortal like me to fathom” (Melville 34). The narrator decides that he must put faith in Bartleby and embraces his mysterious behavior as a gift from God. He, like Thoreau, believes that viewing Bartleby as an individual with innate power will benefit him