Emerson:

In class, we discussed Emerson’s 1837 lecture “The American Scholar.” Much of our discussion focused on whether his prescription for the creation of Man Thinking is evident in the design of the contemporary university. We discussed evidence supporting and denying the present-day existence of this model. Reflect on our discussion and recall that we considered the existence of Liberal Arts curricula and “distribution requirements” as evidence of a tendency, on the part of university administrations, to believe in some necessary education of many parts of a student’s mind. However, some of you believe that today, more than ever before, university studies are compartmentalized, specialized, and disinclined to educate students beyond their chosen course of study.

Let’s recall the tripartite structure of Emerson’s Man Thinking. In the interest of producing scholars who demonstrate more than “mechanical skill,” a student must be educated in the areas of 1) the study of nature, 2) the study of the past, and 3) action. Let’s review his descriptions of each aspect of Man Thinking.

1) The Study of Nature:
To paraphrase Emerson, the spirit of nature resembles the spirit of the scholar: “nature then becomes to him the measure of all attainments.”

2) The Study of the Past:
In this discussion, Emerson points out the distinction between “Man Thinking” and the “bookworm.” What is the difference? Emerson insists that colleges “must not drill,” but rather they must “create.” We discussed the following quote and its (possible) applicability to the modern university: “Gowns, and pecuniary foundations, though towns of gold, can never countervail the least sentence or syllable of wit” (518). Thus, money, donations, and diplomas are no match for true “wit.” What does Emerson mean by this?

3) Action:
In essence, Emerson’s scholar should be active: “The true scholar grudges every opportunity of action past by, as a loss of power” (519). Life, Emerson says, is the dictionary of the scholar.

To these three necessary aspects of the American Scholar, Emerson adds that this scholar must not continue to “listen” long to the “courtly masses of Europe.” This American Scholar will contribute, in fact spearhead, the creation of an American Literature. What will this truly American literature be like, in effect, if the scholar who aids in its creation is the Man Thinking described above? Is this the literature we have today, that we call American Literature?