Alone & Loving It

Emerson's transcendental companions would be open to his reflections in this passage. An interest in or desire to commune with nature would lend itself philosophically to a group who chose to live communally. Intellectuals who chose to toil in the fields would have to enjoy a focus on the idea of getting back to basics and being in touch with the earth. Some other of his contemporaries, namely Hawthorne and Melville, might not see things in exactly the same light. Certainly Hawthorne's tenure at BrookFarm, not to mention his financial investment there, was not the success that he anticipated. Shoveling manure was not Hawthorne's idea of a good time.

Communal living seems a viable alternative lifestyle for Emerson and many of his associates. Such a social structure never enjoyed wide appeal. Even in the 1960's, such experiments were met with only moderate success. A social system closely tied to nature, literally living off the land, and enjoying great personal freedom has numerous drawbacks. Complete freedom of thought, ideas, and action, a true "feel good" mentally does not lend itself to a solid social structure which exists for the good of the whole. It seems Emerson and his comrades might have found their society too narrow and confining to accommodate their ideas. But could society thrive with attitudes like Emerson's prevailing? At what point do personal freedoms impinge on others? Where is that line? Successful societies have always followed prescribed laws and morals. Certainly, Hawthorne nods to this concept. Although he often chastises the Puritans in his work, he also seems to acknowledge that their stringent rules provided a framework for their fledgling community to survive. With so many great talents living in close proximity in New England, - Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Fuller, Melville - life, however it was lived, must have been very exciting.