Of Men and Rivers

"But Rivers alter their course, sometimes beating against the one side, and sometimes the other, and some times quietly keeping the channel." 

I love this. It reflects the spectrum of the human experience. It reflects an aspect of the Renaissance themes from class, this idea of a river being capable of altering its own course. The interesting thing to me is how accustomed we are to this idea. We are so oversaturated with experiences from our culture that affirm our human potential. Everyone loves hearing a good miracle story – the boy or girl who pushes past respective circumstances to reach out to something greater.

I wonder then, if we have found ourselves in the category of ‘quietly keeping the channel’. I also am curious at the implication, as well as the connotation, of this phrase. First, I’d like to treat the connotation of this idea. It is difficult, even within the context of the text, to find Montaigne’s true intent; I’d like to believe that it is not a negative connotation. It seems quite ambivalent: a statement of perceived truth.

That being said, how do we connote it ourselves? I think it’s a somewhat negative thing in our culture today. ‘Quietly keeping the channel’ can easily be interpreted as a sort of crowd-following blindness. There doesn’t appear to be anything exciting about it, and if everyone always kept that channel, we wouldn’t have any sort of progression as a race. So, it becomes an interesting implication: Is humanity defined by the potential to truly alter a respective course, beating against the sides of our channel?

In the face of this question, I’d like to assert that there is a purpose for Montaigne’s ambivalence. I think there is a true sense of nobility in ‘quietly keeping the channel’. I think of the honor code. We live a set of rules that govern our lives, and it is this channel that directs us. So where does this leave us, in regards to the previous question. Is humanity defined by the potential to alter a respective course, or by the principles of quietly keeping the channel? I think Montaigne’s ambivalence points us to the answer. It is defined by the balance of both.