There are multiple varying philosophies that argue whether or not society influences individuality in either a constructive or deconstructive manner. People who have dared to take a stand on this highly debatable issue have made effective claims so arguable that it forces people to take a minute and contemplate these scholar's ideas. Ralph Waldo Emerson declares his perspective on the matter in his essay "Self-Reliance" by strictly stating that society kills individuality. Another man who decided to evaluate individuality and society was Cornel West in his essay "The Moral Obligations of living in a Democratic Society." These two pieces describe how society is the antagonist toward individuality but interpret it in different ways. Does understanding "Self-Reliance" allow the reader to obtain a better grasp on accepting the individualism and uniqueness Cornel West illustrates in his piece focusing on the discrimination of black people in a democratic society?

Emerson claims that "society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members" (Emerson 439). What he means is that society kills individuality. He explicitly states that society demands that members conform to societal rules which as a transcendentalist seems absolutely absurd. When society limits our thoughts or actions in order to make us conform to its ideals, then it denies us our individuality. Emerson says "that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion" (Emerson 440). What Emerson is implying is that one has to be themselves. Transcendentalists like Emerson believe that people have to obey their own consciences rather than listening to what society tells them to do. He is saying that it is ignorant to want to be like other people, to envy them.  He is saying that trying to imitate other people is like killing oneself and that one must to be content with who they are. 

Emerson says that because of tradition or a fear of change, society insists upon "a foolish consistency," which is what prohibits individual thought or action. Society kills creativity because it feels threatened by anything new. In his essay, Emerson makes a persuasive argument for non-conformity and self-sufficiency. Emerson actualizes his message when he explains that someone who reacts to their initial intuition will become someone great. The overall theme in this essay is that only "real" men are "non-conformists." 

Cornel West takes a similar yet different approach on whether or not society is deconstructive towards individualism. Cornel West describes how misunderstood black people were at that time when he says "perhaps no one understood the existential dimension of being human and African in America" (West 457). He explains how difficult it was to be different even in a democratic society and how being different posed a problem towards tradition. West shares with his audience that "it is rare in human history, of course, that the notion of individuality and the civic are coupled so that a democratic project is generated" (West 457). What he means by this is that  democratic society is only achieved when individualism is celebrated and accepted. One cannot call themselves a society that expresses equality amongst differences if one does not express it. He states how crucial it is for a democracy to be culturally accepting. West highlights the importance of individualism in a democratic society by saying "democracy is also about giving each person a dignified voice in the decision-making process in those institutions that guide and regulate their lives" (West 459). This shows that everyone should have the right to their own individual thoughts and actions. West also talks about non market values  like solidarity and fidelity, care and service, and simply just kindness. These values are given off by a society who doesn't expect anything in return, a society who accepts diversity and nonconformity. West concludes his piece by making a powerful statement: "empathy is not simply a matter of trying to imagine what others are going through, but having the will to muster enough courage to do something about it" (West 460). Without bravery and going against the popular opinion, change would have never come about for black people in America. If everyone simply put up with and accepted all societal rules, black people would have never dared to make a difference and change the world.

These two essays exemplify two different perspectives on individuality and nonconformity. Emerson talks about individuality as a god given right and how it is our obligation to be nonconformists in order for mankind to prosper and that society is the enemy. On the other hand, West focuses more on how society desperately needs more understanding and acceptance of individuals and their dissimilarities. Emerson says that "to be great is to be misunderstood" (Emerson 440). Meaning that all great men followed their own intuition in spite of criticism or misunderstanding from society. It is proven that West and Emerson feel the same way about this when both of them commemorate some of the greatest influential men that would have never accomplished anything if all they did was succumb to societal rules. This shows that one must trust themselves and not others to dictate their beliefs.  

"Self-Reliance" helps clarify  "The Moral Obligations of Living in a Democratic Society" by demonstrating how necessary individuality and nonconformity is and how without it some of the greatest developments in history would have never taken effect if it weren't for courage and independence. West describes the struggles black people dealt with throughout history and how they threatened tradition by posing problems because of their different appearance. Society is terrified of individuality since it is the sole characteristic that can defeat conformity. Society has members who would even agree to abandon their individualism for the safety of conformity. 

Emerson and West both want to celebrate nonconformity and creativity and spread awareness that true greatness can only be accomplished through individuality. After all, they conclude, only by being non-conformists can people be fully human. These two pieces were different yet still related and supported one another to better understand the reasoning behind progression and activism in the 1960s. "Self-Reliance" greatly enhances the knowledge needed to comprehend what West, along with the rest of the black community, was feeling. This essay assists West to address a broader audience since everyone can relate to the desire to spread individualism but not everyone can relate to how the black community was being treated back then.
