The American Scholar Summary & Analysis

Emerson delivers this speech at Harvard in 1837. He immediately calls attention to the lack of real academic or physical achievements to celebrate, which is meant to grab the attention of the audience. However, Emerson turns it around by praising them for their continued “love of letters,” which is the first indication that Emerson believes that one day they will come together to celebrate some kind of shared literary achievement.

Emerson continues to challenge the pride of his audience by referring to America’s “sluggard intellect.” This incites his audience to prove him wrong, possibly by producing the kind of literature he believes will help kickstart a “new age in America.” He also refers to America’s continued “dependence” as a way to motivate his audience to listen to what he has to say so they will know how to really set the country apart as its own independent nation.

One of the most important points Emerson wants to convey is that is that individual men and women are all united by metaphysical ties, each contributing something that benefits the whole of society. Therefore, the scholar that achieves something truly meaningful through literature is not just earning respect for themselves, but is actually winning respect for, and benefitting, the entire country.

Emerson explains how society has become so divided: individuals stick to those who have similar functions in society. This means they isolate themselves from other groups (or social classes) and they lose sight of all that unites them to one another. Instead, he advocates that individuals should be open to a variety of skills and occupations to make for a more well-rounded, harmonious society in which everyone’s role is appreciated.

According to Emerson, when a person does not understand the true value of their function in society, they are never able to live up to their full potential. Because the individual parts of society are not achieving their full potential, the whole society is not functioning as well as it could if it was more united.

“Man Thinking” is the ideal that Emerson argues all scholars should strive to embody. As Man Thinking, they actively seek truth, develop their own ideas, and share those with other people in their society. Furthermore, they understand that what they do is for the good of all because of the deep connection between all individuals in society.

Not only are all individual men and women in society connected to one another, but they also have a deep connection with nature. In America, at the time Emerson was delivering this speech, much of the natural landscape of the country had not been explored and was therefore widely misunderstood. Likewise, Emerson believes the true spirit of all Americans is largely unexplored and misunderstood.

A “young mind” might refer to a child’s mind, but it also refers to an inexperienced mind, one which is just beginning to think for itself. It focuses on the obvious: differences. As it matures, however, Emerson believes that observing the interconnectedness of nature is how people begin to explore beneath the surface and discover the connections between seemingly unconnected things. Furthermore, all of these things perform individual functions that benefits the whole, hearkening back to Emerson’s assertion that all members of a society play an important role in its functioning.

Emerson believes that the mind of a scholar will quickly make the connection between the individual and nature, and that studying nature will help them understand themselves starting from when they are a child. This is when they begin to develop not just as a “scholar,” but as a “creator” who will be capable of making art and literature that reflects the discoveries about themselves and all of humanity they found through observing nature. In the context of Emerson’s call for a unique body of American art and literature, this means that studying nature and recognizing the world’s underlying connections is the key to scholars becoming competent writers and thinkers.

Emerson believes that only great minds can create great and meaningful books. Their ideas remain relevant through the generations because they speak to truths that people from all levels of society can understand and relate to, highlighting Emerson’s emphasis on the importance of recognizing the common threads that connect all people. Books help introduce scholars to ideas and thoughts that continue to guide the society they live in, which can be invaluable to the scholar when they begin working on their own books that will contribute to America’s literary canon.

Each individual is a product of their time and are liable to entertain some of the same biases and quirks unique to the time and place in which they exist. Because of this, Emerson acknowledges that not all books will be relevant in all ages or places even though he believes everyone is universally connected. This shows that, although Emerson believes in the unity of all people, he also places high value on the individual. Each generation must create something new to continue to pass down its unique ideas and beliefs.

Books, as Emerson knows, are liable to over-influence their readers. This can be particularly dangerous for developing scholars who have been taught to accept the writings and beliefs of a select few. Instead of creating books for the next generation, those who rely too heavily on past minds stifle their individuality, thus limiting themselves to writing about ideas that are not as applicable in the current age as when they were originally written.

A scholar must learn how to read books “well” if they want to protect themselves against becoming a “satellite” and simply following an idea just because it is the product of a great mind from the past. They do this by cultivating an “active soul” and teaching themselves to think critically and independently so they can create something new for the society they live in. By doing so, the American scholar can help define the country’s unique identity through their work, rather than merely echoing the long-standing European tradition.

It is important for individual scholars to turn inwards and try to discover their own unique thoughts on different topics, and “periods of solitude” allow them to do this away from outside influences that might make it more difficult for the scholar to understand their own mind. This, again, shows that Emerson values individual minds apart from the connections among them. Additionally, though, Emerson encourages engaging with the ideas of other writers since reading other people’s work can help a scholar who is struggling with their work find a more coherent way to share their thoughts.

Emerson emphasizes that the unity between individual men and women—and human beings and nature—transcends time, as shown by humanity’s continued connection with literature from the past. Emerson believes there are thoughts, feelings, and beliefs that remain fundamentally unchanged, and discovering these in books that were published long ago increases a person’s awareness of the connection they have with everyone else around them, and, perhaps more importantly, their potential to influence future generations.

Emerson has already warned the scholar against losing their individual perspectives by relying too heavily on books, but now he emphasizes the additional importance of not getting hung up on superficial details or authorial biases. Instead, the scholar must use their judgment and feelings to identify what parts of a book are “authentic” and reflect truths about the human experience. These “authentic” passages, according to Emerson, should inspire the scholar and help them further develop their own original ideas.

Although Emerson warned of the dangers of formal education—namely, that many students are not taught to think critically and independently—he reaffirms to his audience that this type of schooling is also necessary for factual information. A responsible college is one that teaches students “elements” (facts) that will give them the language and inspiration to make something new instead of simply telling students how to think. 

“Practical men” are those who work for tangible results, but “speculative men” deal in ideas, which cannot be touched and which are not always immediately useful. However, Emerson advises his audience full of “speculative men” to work side by side with “practical men” in order to observe and understand them better. Emerson believes that there are deep connections between all human beings, but the key to discovering these connections is by going out of what might be the scholar’s comfort zone to engage in “practical” work (like farming or engineering). This not only provides the scholar with new experiences to think about, but it helps them better understand the needs and perspectives of their fellow American men and women.

Emerson believes that a scholar who has spent all their life in a library studying old books and writing about them will not speak with the same kind of emotional intelligence that one who has experienced real life will. This ties in with Emerson’s earlier observation about “meek young men” who limit their studies to a college library. By solely reading the works of others, a scholar risks losing their individuality to the ideas of past thinkers. However, when a scholar goes out into the world and takes an active role in society, they expose themselves to new and unique experiences that provide them with ample opportunity to make observations that lead to new thoughts that might inspire their next work.

Emerson believes that for a scholar to be successful, they have to understand that they cannot be very objective about an experience while it is happening. Objectivity, to the scholar, means honest exploration of their experiences and the thoughts they inspire without allowing emotion to obscure the truth too heavily. Time allows a person to look back with far more objectivity than they have in the moment, allowing them the benefit of hindsight and perhaps a better understanding of themselves and what these experiences meant to them. 

“Merchantable stock” to the scholar are feelings, experiences, and the thoughts these things inspire. They are unique to the scholar, but will still contain truths that speak to readers from every part of society. However, to find something meaningful in an experience, the scholar has to make themselves open to it and not allow any of their preconceived notions or biases limit their openness to the new perspectives and ideas they will inevitably encounter.

One of the aims of the scholar is to reach as many people as possible, so it is important for them to be able to write in a language that is easy for individuals from every social class and region to understand. As Emerson aptly points out, language has a way of working its way up from the bottom, and the slang of the “field and the work-yard” often becomes so popular in all different social classes and environments that it eventually finds its way into the respectable academic books found in college libraries. Therefore, going out and learning the language used in contemporary “field[s] and […] work-yard[s]” actually makes the scholar more relatable to both their immediate audience and to future college students who will be encountering this language in their classrooms.

The scholar’s work is to observe and write about the human experience, but, as Emerson argued earlier, they begin this work by studying nature, and the laws of nature reflect the laws of the human mind and spirit. The scholar’s mind, according to Emerson, naturally gravitates towards observations of human behavior, which they can only really make by taking an active role in society. However, the scholar becomes isolated from activity while they read and write, and Emerson urges them to return to action when this isolation hinders their work. In this, the life of a successful scholar is similar to the “ebb and flow of the sea.” The scholar should, in Emerson’s opinion, recede into themselves while they work, and then routinely returning to society and communal action for more “merchantable stock.” By focusing on their intellectual development as an individual, then, the scholar can more effectively connect with

The less an individual is restrained by social etiquette, according to Emerson, the more natural their thoughts and behaviors will be. Through primitive work like farming, the scholar can reconnect with their own “unhandselled savage nature” because it involves working directly with nature in a way that doesn’t require social etiquette. Thus, it allows the scholar—and those the scholar may be working alongside—to behave and think more naturally themselves.

Once again, Emerson emphasizes that much of society prefers the “practical man” whose career yields immediate results that one can use for themselves over the “speculative man” who deals with intangible ideas and emotions. Emerson further warns that, because of the scholar’s possible unpopularity in much of society, they may never achieve fame or even recognition in their lifetime.

According to Emerson’s concept of unity in society, not only does the work of one individual help the entire society, but the abilities of one individual reflects the abilities of all. Therefore, the scholar’s accomplishments and abilities reflect all that humanity is capable of. Furthermore, the products of the scholar’s intellectual labors will pave the way for future scholars because, as Emerson stated before, books are written for the benefit of the next generation.

This passage echoes Emerson’s past warnings about the isolation due to a lack of interest in the “popular arts” that scholars typically experience. This isolation, however, helps the scholar maintain independence of thought, which in turn enables them to see “something truly,” such as the underlying truths about humanity the “popular arts” or current social movements actually reflect. This point, then, shows that Emerson does not believe that individual thought and unity among people are mutually exclusive.

Thoughts that are “spontaneous” reflect the true nature of an individual, and so, according to Emerson’s belief in the interconnectedness of humanity, these thoughts are also the ones that other men and women will find easiest to relate to and understand because they speak to the inner natures of all men and women. This reaffirms Emerson’s earlier point that many of the best ideas and cultures emerge from “savage nature” rather than from limiting oneself to studying someone else’s thoughts and works.

According to Emerson, the scholar must be able to look past the superficial and transitory, both in society (its “pretension”) and within themselves (fear). Beneath each of these things, however, is the opportunity for the scholar to expand their understanding of the human mind. Furthermore, it is part of a scholar’s job to not only face and see past these things for themselves, but to help guide others through them, as well. 

Emerson’s criticisms here are similar to his past argument that each generation should be writing for the next, implying that there always is something that is not only passed down but built upon. A successful scholar will have helped their society understand that the world never was “finished” and, therefore, the scholar’s work never was, nor will be, unimportant.

This echoes Emerson’s earlier assertion that humanity has become too divided, which, unfortunately, is something it has done to itself. Individual men and women have convinced themselves that they have a particular place in society and that they have no choice but to limit themselves to that role. They have become content to “live in” their heroes because that is all they think they can do. Emerson believes that the scholar can help their audience realize that everyone has the ability to achieve greatness regardless of their place in the prevailing social hierarchy.

The “domestication of the idea of Culture” means that art and literature will primarily focus on domestic issues, which are more relatable and have the greater capacity to convey truth than improbable romances or lofty poetry written in language only the highly educated can understand. According to Emerson, money and power are secondary to the ability to understand one another. Through understanding, the scholar can achieve something far more lasting and beneficial: uniting a divided society.

The old ideas found in the books scholars typically read no longer yield the same amount of inspiration because they have been used too heavily. They need to be built upon, adapted, or even refuted by each and every generation if the cycle of learning, understanding, and creating is going to continue. Emerson is saying, then, that only those scholars who are capable of critical thought and maintaining intellectual independence will be able to keep the “central fire” alive from one generation to the next.

According to Emerson, humanity’s primitive explorations of human thought and emotions found in Classical literature gave way to the understanding of humanity’s oneness with nature found in Romantic literature, which, Emerson argues, has given way to the introspection found in the current Reflective age. The individual’s understanding of human nature develops in the same pattern, starting with childhood (Classic) and ending with adulthood (Reflective). This demonstrates the cyclical nature of knowledge, both on a societal and a personal level, and reinforces Emerson’s emphasis on passing down wisdom to the next generation

Emerson is once again emphasizing his belief in the inevitability of an American artistic revolution. After the Revolutionary War, American society had been been successful in establishing a working government and even making meaningful contributions to the world’s understanding of science and the natural world. However, Americans lacked a literary voice that could define what it was to be American and help American society find its footing to move forward.

America was founded upon the idea that all men and women were created equal, and none were inherently better than the rest. Literature that focuses solely on the few who live with immense wealth and privilege does not accurately speak to the human experience because it excludes so much of humanity. Emerson applauds literature that appeals to “the near, the low, the common” because it speaks the most truth to the most people, which will do more to unite the nation than literature about “the remote” rich.

Emerson further emphasizes the importance of literature which portrays “things near” rather than “things remote” because it has the greater capacity to unify. The “genius” of the writers Emerson lists is that they famously used the language of the middle and lower classes rather than that which could only truly be understood by the educated upper classes. They created poetry and books that were easier for all members of society to relate to and understand, and by following their example the American scholar could produce literature that would help unify their American audience.

Swedenborg, like Emerson, believed that there was an actual relationship between human beings, nature, and the divine. This oneness meant studying natural sciences could help humanity better understand itself and promote spiritual growth.

Earlier in the speech, Emerson acknowledges that people tend to work for power or money because these things help them move up the social ladder. While the desire for the comforts of wealth and the respect that comes with power are natural, Emerson believes the American scholar will help society realize that working for the advancement of society is more important than working for the “world” (i.e. reputation, money, or social standing).

Emerson returns to some of the sentiments he shared in the first paragraphs of his speech. By listening too much to Europe’s “courtly muses,” the American Scholar had been complicit in holding America back from achieving true cultural independence. America had achieved something great by winning political independence from England, but without cultural independence, the country would never earn the respect of other world powers.

Emerson believes that American society has placed too much importance on industrialization and innovation, and not enough on intellectual development. This reflects Emerson’s earlier comment that the “practical” people of the world look down on the “speculative” ones for seemingly not contributing to society. America’s “mind” is essentially atrophying because it has grown complacent and is willing to accept the ideas and traditions of other nations rather than challenging itself to aim higher and create something new and unique. However, should one scholar make a breakthrough, them others would surely follow.

As a new country, Emerson believed that America had the potential to become the first truly united nation. The European countries that so many Americans had chosen to leave were characterized by strong and insurmountable social divisions, primarily through their adherence to the concepts of nobility and primogeniture that prevented members of the lower classes from advancing to the upper. Emerson believes that it won’t be through scientific discovery or new inventions that America achieves greatness, but through literature and art. The American Scholar will bridge social divisions by proving that no human being is inherently superior to another just because they were born into a “noble” family, but that all human beings are made equal by a “Divine Soul” that is common to all.