the state by putting the efficacy of voting and moral philosophy at odds with each other . He likens voting to gambling or playing a game : “ All voting is a sort of gaming , like chequers or backgammon , with a slight moral tinge to it […]” ( p . 956 ). The simile makes it appear childish and largely useless to society ; for example , gambling is cyclical . It sets an expectation to win back what you put in , only to lose everything in the end : just like the institutionalism Thoreau condemns . Thoreau ’ s essay therefore reflects a need to move away from what he believes to be more passive acts of democracy .
Luke Philip Plotica asserts that Thoreau criticised the act based on its roots in being a “ virtual representation of principles , deferral to the compromises and expedient judgements of politicians , rather than their actual enactment .” 10 The word ‘ virtual ’ is significant : Thoreau holds the view that principle must be deliberately enforced , rather than just being illusionary of change . However , the argument in this essay refutes Thoreau ’ s dismissiveness of the vote . Voting is a way a democracy can operate their moral and political agency to induce change and represent democracy . It is a peaceful act that can hugely change the direction of the future . Thoreau ’ s rapid dismissal of voting seems to be a prioritisation of his own genius , instead than of a social , universal conscience . It questions how much Thoreau expects the average citizen to live a life of principle when they may not have the means to go beyond exercising their vote .
His extensive use of metaphor and imagery shows his reader that without deliberate and thoughtful action , the system will dehumanise them . Thoreau writes that , “ the mass of men serves the state thus , not as men mainly , but as machines , with their bodies … [ putting ] themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones ” ( p . 954 ). According to Thoreau , society is akin to non-living materials because they are not actively exercising their moral intuition or free will . They are simply tools for the government to exploit . He expands on this when asking the question : “ Must the citizen ever for a moment , or in the least degree , resign his conscience to the legislator ?” ( p . 954 ). For Thoreau and the transcendentalists , conscience and morality were more tangible , more necessary and of more consequence , than laws any human could make . Yet , Thoreau must recognise that exercising moral intuition is not an honour held by every citizen , nor is everybody ’ s intuition identical . The confines of societal structures , such as class , and the ability to make ends meet , act as prohibitors for people to actively participate in changing the direction of the nation . There is a pervading element of privilege in how his ideas are executed , that inevitably reduce the feasibility of his argument .
This forceful aspiration to impose his own ‘ genius ’ is intolerant and belligerent . In Walden , a similar aggression is found in how Thoreau describes the village in Chapter 8 ( pp . 1057- 1060 ). Whilst Thoreau initially maintains a congenial relationship with social life and the village , occasioning to visit “ to hear some of the gossip which is incessantly going on there ” ( p . 1057 ), he asserts that social life becomes dangerous if the visitor loses touch with their natural good sense . His language becomes more aggressive , indicating onslaught and danger ; for instance , Thoreau describes the houses as being arranged as if in battle formation : “[…] the houses were so arranged as to make the most of mankind , in lanes and fronting one another , so that every traveller had to run the gantlet , and every man , woman , and child might get a lick at him ” ( p . 1060 ). In addressing the dangers of village life , Thoreau is implicitly taunting the villagers ’ belief that nature is antagonistic and threatening ; he has never been “ distressed in any weather ” unlike the townspeople who lose their way at night and stray away from the village
HANNAH DEVINE
108