need for any student--male or female--to grow beyond the teacher and think for herself or himself (140).
The issue of class finds more frequent mention, but once again the point is not class conflict but conflict between the individualist and the conformist. For example, he writes of his aversion to philanthropists, to giving to the poor whom he does not even know: "Are they my poor? I tell thee, thou foolish philanthropist, that I grudge the dollar . . . I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong" (124). Emerson here seems to be espousing a most conservative sociopolitical philosophy, declaring that it is up to the individual and his or her family to take care of themselves. He shows no compassion for the needy, and hates the fact that he still finds himself giving to charities against his will.
The approach of Emerson's self-reliance certainly reflects the basic tenets of conservative Republicanism. He argues that each individual should take care of himself or herself, and if one finds himself or herself in trouble, he or she should not go to the charity or the government, but to members of his or her family or circle of friends. Still, Emerson seems to be averse to helping strangers not out of political ideology but out of a physical disgust with himself for continuing to do what others say he should do (i.e., give money to charity).
With respect to the more blatant forms of class, such as those based on "Kingdom and lordship, power and estate" (130), Emerson clearly has no tolerance. He argues that those with wealth and power, political or economic, are no better than the working man "in a small house and [doing a] common day's work" (130). Even if such powerful and wealthy men are good, they should not be uniquely honored for their virtue: "Suppose they were virtuous; did they wear out virtue?" (130). In other words, Emerson is saying that any individual is as good as any other individual,...