Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Essay: ‘Self-Reliance’

Emerson’s essay lauded man’s excellence, and lamented his mediocrity. At about 10,000 words, it’s groundbreaking in ambition and sweep.
Emerson argues that once man has grounded himself in God (he uses the word “God” nearly two dozen times) his conscience, not those of others, is his compass. Self-discovery and self-reliance build competence, confidence, resilience, and originality; this happens only if founded on integrity and humility, not on false pride and hypocrisy. Conforming to what others think is the antithesis of self-reliance, and akin to a game of “blindman’s-buff.”
Be yourself, Emerson concedes, but not as an excuse to never contradict yourself or others. This is especially true if good sense requires new a belief or behavior, or if reality demands it. Being yourself isn’t license to stay yourself, but to find yourself anew each day, by dying to old, destructive habits, and being born to new, redemptive ones.
Truth is ultimately its own defense. Emerson likens slavish submission to societal expectations to aping one’s shadow. So what if you’re misunderstood? All great men are. At one level, a blind, conforming consistency stifles conviction. This can, and should, change, based on life’s lessons.
At another level, consistency—the “cumulative” force of character—is what matters. The author compares this to a ship’s direction which defines its trajectory, not its “zigzag” path along the water. Emerson denounces performative tokenism that sacrifices private conviction at the altar of public opinion. He characterizes it as “My life is for itself and not for a spectacle.”
This is the inverse of a coddling victimhood that rewards and punishes one race or sex for centuries-old sins of individuals. Individuals must be accountable, but for themselves, not on behalf of others. Corralling masses into oppressed and oppressor to serve tidy social justice reparations is lazy. It’s also wrong.
On victimhood, Emerson’s on fire; a “sturdy lad from New Hampshire” shaping his destiny is better than pampered “city dolls” who excuse their own failures.
If an innovator doesn’t listen, the Patent Office will tell him when what he’s filed as “new” is actually adaptation, not invention, because someone invented it before he did. Or he’d think his ideas are revolutionary, not recycled.
The tradition of the family is the most articulate rebuttal to Emerson’s summons for man to live off, with, and for himself; family requires man to rise above himself. If everyone followed only instinct, self-preservation would rule. But there are those whose wills are ordered to goodness, routinely defy instinct, and even die for those they love.
Sweepingly, Emerson spurns “bards and sages.” Yes, man must follow his compass, but a compass needs context; it must respect the poles. Earth’s magnetic field doesn’t unfailingly match its north-south axis, but it’s close enough. Wise folk may not have a prerogative over absolute truth, but they point to it. Not all knowledge needs to be first-hand. If it flows from truth, there’s no shame in accepting derived knowledge.
Age and youth are bound to question each other’s certainties.  If they question wisely, the old and young see, hear, and understand anew, not just differently.