Samantha Call
Seminar in CompositionDr. Adam Johns
September 17, 2014
Society
and Self-Hatred
In the literal sense, Abbey has valid reasons to hate
humans. As a park ranger and self-proclaimed
advocate for nature, Abbey is distraught by the destruction of wildlife and
much of this emotion is directed toward those who are planning on destroying
it. His trip down the river is, at
several times, plagued by the thoughts that his surrounding will soon be
humanized. His disappointment is
iterated when he writes, “We pass too many of these marvelous side canyons, to
my everlasting regret, for most of them will never again be wholly accessible
to human eyes or feet” (164, Abbey).
Abbey loves nature and who he is when he is in nature so much that the
idea of taking it all away disappoints him greatly. In his opinion, disturbing man’s natural
habitat “is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of
civilization itself” (169, Abbey). Other
people will not be able to experience the wonders of pure, raw nature, and
Abbey resents society for that deprivation.
Other than depriving humans living in cities from becoming closer to
nature, Abbey is angry with developers for hindering the ability of native
Navajo Native Americans from living their lives in the way they always have,
close to nature. Being ripped away from
their relationship with nature by tourism, the Navajos are being forced to rely
on white institutions and ideas to survive.
Abbey describes it as a “mutilation of their basic humanity” (106,
Abbey). Humans are evil, in Abbey’s
mind, for keeping individuals, himself included, from becoming enlightened or
at peace with themselves in nature.
Another explanation of Abbey’s anger toward humanity is that
he is, in reality, more disappointed with himself for being just the opposite
of what he is advocating. If Abbey is
truly fed up with all of humanity, why does he choose to take his trip down the
river with Ralph? Abbey even enjoys the “companionship
and ease of conversation” (154, Abbey), which suggests that he is actually fed
up with himself, not society. He is
frustrated with his own destruction of nature and of his inability to release
himself from the rules that have always surrounded him. His shortcomings are his own fault.
When Abbey argues that nature should be preserved in case
rebels of the future need to use it in their struggle to liberate themselves
from oppressive regimes, he is actually expressing his own desire to be
liberated from society. Early in Desert
Soliataire, Abbey conveys that he is in the wild “to evade for a while the
clamor and filth and confusion of the cultural apparatus” (6, Abbey). Even on his trip down the river, Abbey is
unable to completely separate himself from human culture, thinking of not his
own connection with nature, but of the connections other groups, such as the
Mormons, have had with nature. He also
fails in his dreams by constantly pondering upon the existence of God and of
His control over nature. Society’s
desire to expel unjust rulers is a metaphor for Abbey’s desire to expel human
constraints from his mind. His inability
to do so fosters anger within himself which he projects onto society, even
though it is his own failure that keeps him from separating from society. This is also displayed when Abbey reveals the
reason for his trip down the river. He
and Ralph said they wanted “to renew our affection for ourselves” (155,
Abbey). This suggests that Abbey had
developed a hatred for himself, which stemmed from his failure to achieve his
goal of connecting with nature in a nonhuman way. He wanted to partake in this adventure to
attempt to make that connection and ensure himself that he wasn’t a complete
failure.
Abbey’s misanthropy is an expression of both his
discontent with society and himself.
This hatred of humankind is, in reality, an embodiment of Abbey’s doubt
in himself. He is unsure if he is able
to accomplish what he has set out to do; see nature in its most bare and simple
form, without human influence. If Abbey
were to ever achieve his goal, it is likely that his misanthropy would
disappear and he would be content with everything in the world, including
himself.
I really like how this paper is written however I disagree with the argument. My biggest question is how you interpret the quote on page 155. To me it means Abbey wants to renew his love for humanity. Also I don't think he wants to reconnect with nature on a nonhuman way, but instead with no preconceived notions or in another term with non of societies views. I do agree in Abbey's own self-hatred through hatred of humanity however use other examples to show it. Meaning take out the statement involving abbey taking a trip down the river with ralph and possibly replace it with sections from cowboys and Indians which I think will translate better in your piece. The message is a strong idea but focus the detailing and argument out more clearly and accurately.
ReplyDeleteI'm not going to add much to what I said in class, but I'll try to focus my commentary a little. Your idea is quite good, and your knowledge of the text is also good, but you struggle with applying that knowledge to the exact argument you're trying to make.
ReplyDeleteTake this line: "He also fails in his dreams by constantly pondering upon the existence of God and of His control over nature. Society’s desire to expel unjust rulers is a metaphor for Abbey’s desire to expel human constraints from his mind. His inability to do so fosters anger within himself which he projects onto society, even though it is his own failure that keeps him from separating from society. " The claim that Abbey's concern with tyranny is only metaphorical is startling, counterintuitive, and interesting. But it reads here as speculation, because you aren't actually demonstrating this interesting, unintuitive claim with relevant details. Why do you read him this way? If you simply demonstrated this one point - that social tyranny is really a metaphor for the tyranny of his own self - you'd be a long way toward making your argument convincing. Instead you spend too much effort on obvious points and on tangents, rather than directly focusing on your own argument.