에머슨의 정치성 논란

The Controversy on Emerson’s Politics: With a Focus on an Analysis of “The Fugitive Slave Law”

It is not easy to understand precisely where Emerson's politics stands. The major reason for such ambiguity in the thinker's political stance lies in his use of an abstract and universal language in expounding his philosophy. The best way to understand his specific political position would therefore be to analyze what result was produced when his abstract language was directly faced with one of the historical events of his time. The present paper thus examines how Emerson responded to the most pressing issue of the era－i.e., slavery－by analyzing one of his apparently political addresses, “The Fugitive Slave Law.” The process of this analysis reveals the fact that Emerson, as an ardent philosopher, answered the critical moral crisis of his nation, which slavery was dangerously splitting into the sections, by radically refining his transcendental individualism. In order to deter the aggressive extension of slavery not only to new territories but also to the existing North, which seemed possible after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law, this individualist philosopher argued that every individual, including himself, should be morally sensitive enough to distinguish what was universally good and what was universally bad, regardless of any positive law such as the Constitution and the Union, both of which were based on a corrupt compromise over slavery. Moreover, in this address, Emerson exhaustively examined and remarkably redressed morally wrong premises originally lying in his philosophy of individualism. Through this drastic process of examination and readjustment of his philosophy, his individualism was reborn into a transcendental moral principle by which each individual could keenly sense universal or moral truths and immediately put them into action at any cost. Granted, Emerson revealed his premodern limitations in this process: his elitist historical view that saw the abominable law as brought about only by Daniel Webster's personal influence and the ignorant masses’ reckless obedience to the hero. In addition, even though he successfully cooperated with radical abolitionists through the transformation of his philosophy into a more morally active individualism, his specific suggestions for the resolution of the slavery issue turned out to be not settled but still conservative, as revealed in his suggestion of compensated emancipation for the sake of slaveholders and national safety. However, in spite of all Emerson's political limitations as a Whig elitist and conservative, it would be more appropriate to assess together the drastic dialogical process of his thought and action, through which he became a committed abolitionist and overcame his corrupt philosophical premises. Only after considering both his political limitations and his vigorous and arduous philosophical progress toward a morally and practically improved version of individualism can we properly understand the significance of Emerson's politics －i.e., how this conservative and elitist individualist could become not only an abolitionist, which he originally had detested to be, but also one of the most influential philosophers who laid the philosophical foundation of American democracy.