Poetry is arguably the most democratized form of art. It is written by the common man, for the common man. As a result, it becomes an effective means of expressing nationalist sentiments which reside in the deep consciousness of the common man, but which are not directly expressed. Identifying with a piece of poetry that is nationalistic in nature brings these feelings to the forefront and has the capacity to create a gushing wave of heightened awareness and national awareness. Such ideas can be reflected in A Nation's Strength, written by Ralph Waldo Emerson. To better understand the strength of a nation and how it allows the poetic voice to unify with a national consciousness, it is essential to understand Emerson's journey, as many nuances of his ideologies insidiously make their presence felt in the poem. Emerson was educated at the famous Harvard College in Boston and enjoyed a long association with the Church, which continued until the death of his beloved wife, Ellen. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay After his death, he could no longer have faith without doubt. This seed of doubt sown in his mind preceded his role in the creation of the Transcendentalist movement. Coming to Transcendentalism, it is a movement that began in the 1830s, by a group of people inspired by the more instinctive and intuitive approach of Romanticism, as opposed to hard-core rationalism. The period of religious rationalism in the early 19th century logically answered many important questions people had about why the world is the way it is, but left people wondering: What now? What more? They believed that when humans had been blessed with the power of intuition and imagination, why waste them on considering only rationalism as the right lens to view the world? The basic principles on which transcendentalism is based include promoting a relationship with God and with nature, as well as ensuring human dignity; their belief in human dignity led many transcendentalists to become involved in social reform movements and to fight for the rights of women and slaves. Emerson has several works that reflect his ideas as a transcendentalist, including "Nature". These basic principles of transcendentalism fit into the foundations on which the poem was built, and these ideas also unknowingly enter the reader's consciousness. The poem is strategically titled “The Strength of a Nation” and this symbolism can be decoded by looking at the word Nation. . In any form of colloquial speech outside of academic contexts, the words country, nation and state are used somewhat interchangeably. In reality, there are worlds of difference between the implications of each of these words and the elements each inherently emphasizes. The terms Country and State find their basis in largely politicized contexts. Country has always been used to refer to land and has evolved over time to imply a distinct region united under the governance of a given political entity. This definition of country can also be used without problem to define the term State. The state is used to describe government in many contexts. Nation, however, stands out among these three seemingly identical terms. Etymologically, it is derived from the Latin term "nation" which can be loosely translated as people, tribe or kinship. The Latin term hasgave birth to the French “nacion” which means birth, place or origin. From French, the word has crept into the English vocabulary and settled comfortably into the niche carved out for the nation and country, although there are some fundamental differences. In the modern context, we use the term nation to describe a distinct group of people united by a group of factors: namely a common ancestry, culture or language, and who generally tend to inhabit a particular area of ​​territory. Therefore, the term uses the similarities between people as a central idea and builds on that to move into the more political realm of these people with similarities coming together on a piece of land to form a group. The implication is political, but the ideology is not really, and has its roots in the more organic relationships between human beings living in similar circumstances. The narrative that Emerson weaves throughout the poem is political, but he deliberately titled his work "The Strength of a Nation" when he could just as easily have used State or Country; the first case would also have led to pleasant alliterations. However, his use of Nation acts as a prelude to the central message he attempts to convey through his writings, namely that the people themselves are the only and most reliable source of strength in a nation, because only those who make up a nation can make it great. The poem has six stanzas and is written in the relatively simple abab form. Literary devices were kept to a minimum to let the power of the message shine through. The very first line is a question: “What makes the pillars of a nation tall?” » The next line asks a similar question: what makes the “strong foundations” of a nation? The analogy to a building is interesting, considering that Emerson goes on to describe how material conditions cannot make a nation strong. The building itself could be a simple device symbolizing the construction of a structure, and not the end result itself. The next two lines talk about what makes the nation powerful enough to defeat its enemies. Connecting the first stanza together, we can infer that the poet is perhaps trying to create an image of a strong and isolated structure of a nation that cannot be violated by enemies, thus instilling in the reader a sense of pride and duty towards the construction of a structure. The next three stanzas provide a building crescendo to the heart of the poem. They describe everything that does not make a nation great, and each stanza addresses a particular element that most consider very important or the most important factor in building a country. prosperous nation. Flashes of Emerson's own ideologies appear, with Transcendentalism's views on nature and human dignity making their presence felt. The second stanza opens with a proclamation that “It is not gold,” for it is the strength of the nation. The importance of gold can be debated here. On the surface, gold represents luxury, the ultimate status symbol. When considering status, gold could be a reference to monarchies of old where kings reigned supreme, enjoyed lavish lifestyles and unquestionable authority. In such a context, it is a blatant critique of the social structure that has glorified and shone the spotlight on a few, while the majority of the population has remained hidden from view. The sentence mentioned "the great kingdom" and this supports the theory according to which this stanza could very well be a criticism of the old system ofhighly undistributed development fueled by the monarchy. Another way to look at gold could be material wealth and the accumulation of possessions. Material progress: the construction of taller, more opulent structures and a more advanced consumer culture reflect development at a superficial level. They may seem shiny, golden, and perfect, but all it takes is one “battle shock” for that carefully constructed aura of greatness to shatter. The penultimate line of the stanza speaks of the wells of these ornate guild kingdoms, their wells being set on "flowing sand" as opposed to "permanent rock." The difference in the qualities of these materials relates to a very powerful multidimensional point. The sand cannot contain any solid structure of value, as its nature is neither smooth nor stable, and the possibility of the structure sinking and being enveloped by the sand, leaving it in a state of nothingness is rather high. Rock, on the other hand, is reliable and weather-resistant no matter what conditions it faces. The poet uses the term “respectful” to reflect this quality. In short, “gold,” in all its dazzling, high-ranking glory, is a mere sham when it comes to true greatness, for the very foundations on which it seeks to thrive are not not solid. The first nuance of transcendentalism appears here, with nature being used as a reference point for a solid foundation. Emerson believed that man's relationship with nature was of crucial importance; his book “Nature” bears witness to this. Dependence on nature for a foundation means that ultimately the foundation of a successful system must be organic in origin and not come from the material conditions we create. Here the poet begins to incorporate a hidden commentary related to national consciousness. He begins to tell the common man that all the factors he believes are linked to the greatness of a nation are in reality mere shams. In doing so, he instills in them hope that the greatness of a nation can be defined by them, and not by factors beyond their control. In this particular stanza, some of the greatest conceptions of national greatness: material wealth and monarchical power are shattered. The central element of the third stanza is “the sword”. The sword as a symbol is rather obvious, it represents violence and bloodshed, and the power seized by these means. The expression “red dust” has an important meaning here and undoubtedly constitutes the backbone of the entire stanza. The poet describes how blood turned stones to rust and “glory to decay.” The stones mentioned could be the stones on which the edifice called the nation was built. As the bloodstained stones rust over the ages, red dust begins to accumulate. The red of blood in the dust is the only sign that the empire ever existed. The term “dust” is powerful. Dust doesn't matter, it's irritating and it's quickly removed. It collects on old objects that are no longer maintained or are no longer worth anything. There could still be a reference to nature here. All the violence people inflict on each other, all the careful planning and strategy to win battle after battle, is for nothing. The stanza does not refer to a simple kingdom, but an empire, meaning that its rulers clearly had considerable success with their tyrannical approach and were able to conquer many lands by shedding more and more blood with each passing year. fight. But, in the end, their empire "disappeared" and it was defeated in thebattle of life itself. All that remained in the end were traces of blood in the dust that had accumulated on the long-gone empire. The false glory that we waste our time trying to achieve is of no use, because empires eventually turn to mere dust. Selecting dust to represent that something so inconsequential when designing and forming an empire may be the only thing that conquers what's left of it. Dust is a natural element, so the message here is that nature will eventually take back whatever is claimed by violent means, and that nothing can be done to stop this. The poet continues the underlying commentary of telling the general population what does not make an empire great when, until now, he has been wordlessly telling them that they can. Many empires have been formed through violence throughout history. There is not a single one that has lasted to this day. Ancient empires, like the Mongol Empire and even burgeoning modern empires, always had their expiration date set. By giving food for thought to the people by making them understand that even if they are subjected to violence and atrocities at the hands of a tyrant or a leader, he is seriously mistaken and will ultimately fall. The second seed of doubt regarding the traditional notion of greatness is sown in the minds of readers. The fourth stanza is the last of the trio that explains what cannot make a nation great. The poet chooses not to deal with tangible things like gold or a tangible symbol that has devastating effects in its use like the sword, but chooses something intangible. Ironically, the selected intangible object may seem rather small and unimportant compared to gold and swords, but upon closer examination, they are the ideas in the mind that are not expressed physically but are at the same time. origin of all other bad acts. These ideas poison the mind and tell it that to be great as a nation, the only way to achieve it is to progress materially and kill all its enemies. The idea here is pride. Pride is the “luminous crown” which seduces nations so great and so “gentle”; but ultimately God will bring down the shine of the crown of pride, and it will lie “in ashes at his feet.” This stanza is a blow to what people around the world have been saying for centuries. Those in power hide behind the veil of pride when they tell their subjects to wage war and exploit nature for resources. Pride is a powerful drug, and when you convince a group of people that having a nation that they are proud to be a part of is the best chance. The most important thing is that you have a generation of addicts. Pride has been called a crown for several reasons, both of which are independent. First, the shining crown that seemed so attractive to the nations could literally be a crown and represent the monarchy. Monarchies were built by convincing people that having a king or queen to represent them would guarantee the building of a nation to which they would be proud to belong. This journey towards building a nation that everyone is proud of could be as violent or exploitative as possible, but in the name of preserving or building one's pride, all has been forgiven. Second, the crown could mean that this particular virtue of pride takes precedence over both gold and the sword. That it is truly the crowning achievement of what does not make a nation great. Ultimately, God strikes and the empire built on pride takes its place at the feet of God under.