Racial Barriers to Self-Reliance: Invisible Man and the American Struggle for Individualism

Not only does he audaciously absolve himself from being charged for a criminal offense against a white man, but he insists on holding their racial group accountable for marginalizing him based on race. Thus, Ellison affords us a glimpse of what African Americans’ ideal toward personal responsibility can resemble. He imagines their individualism, progressing beyond its fashioning by white supremacist ideology, will foster their self-consciousness, empower them to resist culpability imposed by whiteness, and enable them to blame white individuals for engendering anti-Blackness.

​

Invisible Man’s first chapter illustrates the essence of personal responsibility that white Americans imposed upon Black society from the start of the post-emancipation period. The narrative exemplifies how white communities’ efforts to maintain social stratification were inextricably tied to evoking a sense of duty and self-sufficiency among African Americans. Therefore, we witness Ellison’s earliest example of personal responsibility tied to anti-Blackness, which is convolutedly connected to the socioeconomic stability of Black communities. The narrator explains the contradiction embodied in their independence: “About eighty-five years ago [the slaves] were told that they were free, united with others of our country in everything pertaining to the common good, and, in everything social, separate like fingers of the hand. And they believed it. The exulted in it. They stayed in their place, worked hard, and brought my father up to do the same.” (Ellison 16) We can recall Hartman’s Scenes of Subjection highlights how white Americans exploited their obligation to “stay in their place” and molded their concept of self-reliance through the lens of valuing indebtedness to white society. However, the narrator describes African Americans contentment to accept servile positions, suggesting “they exulted in it,” which complicates their perception of discharging their duties. Ellison establishes crucial conditions of freed African Americans’ cooperation, one being their unconsciousness toward unfreedom and consent to subordination to ultimately persevere through socioeconomic hardship. These conditions reinforce Black individuals’ adoption of personal responsibility shaped by white supremacist ideology. Furthermore, for African Americans to assume white society’s image of personal responsibility, they’re expected to tolerate racial segregation. The narrative sheds light on segregation becoming a staple attached to personal responsibility, laying the foundation for both cultures to embrace segregationist perspectives in their distinctive approaches to racial conflict. This is a major factor in African Americans’ favor for racial division, as illustrated within Black nationalist ideals, that Ellison identifies with the impact of anti-Blackness. In an episode where the narrator’s grandfather gives him advice on his deathbed, the text disrupts the idea that complying with white society’s expectations and bearing the responsibility for their disenfranchisement serves as an effective strategy for self-reliance. Instead, Invisible Man stresses how the alignment of racial assimilation with personal responsibility, constructed by white supremacist ideology, only dissuades Black communities from striving for social progress and helps white Americans maintain higher status.

​

“Son, after I’m gone I want you to keep up the good fight. I never told you, but our life is a war and I have been a traitor all my born days, a spy in the enemy’s country ever since I give up my gun back in the Reconstruction. Live with your head in the lion’s mouth. I want you to overcome ’me with grins, agree ’elm to death and destruction, let ’am swoller you till they vomit or bust wide open.” (Ellison 16)

 

His grandfather’s awakening demonstrates his conformity to white values and standards throughout his life for the purpose of retaining socioeconomic stability. However, his choice left him unable to stand in solidarity with his community and participate in their collective struggle against racial oppression. Thus, his advice to “keep up the good fight” unveils his vision of personal responsibility for his grandson; he suggests the narrator should capitalize on white society’s expectation that he’ll treat them with servility and subservience. His guidance represents a racial attitude that postulates how Black individuals can utilize their knowledge that white communities anticipate their racial group will express inferiority toward them. Although his final words show awareness that racial assimilation led to his alienation from Black culture and submission to whiteness, he still proposes the narrator should perform subordination toward white Americans, even though he ought to do so inauthentically.

​

Additionally, this approach to personal responsibility can heighten racial segregation, from within or outside of Black communities. If Black individuals adopt his grandfather’s advice, it’s possible they might be perceived as subservient to white people and risk detachment from their community, given their reputation as disloyal or treacherous to their racial group. On the other hand, their decision to manipulate white society’s sense of entitlement to their servility lends to friction between their racial communities and assists segregation. Ellison leverages the grandfather’s regret to assess the stakes of conforming to white principles as a means of achieving upward mobility. We must also consider how his grandfather’s compliance with white codes afforded him financial and social security. The novel connects African Americans’ reliance on white assimilation to ensuring their socioeconomic stability, contributing to their misrecognition toward personal responsibility overall. Therefore, Ellison employs this moment to engage a larger question explored throughout the novel: How can Black communities strive toward individualism without yielding to white assimilation, especially when their conformity to whiteness may result in attaining higher status? As the narrative progresses, Ellison exposes another flaw in his grandfather’s perspective in that his guidance solely focuses on uplifting the Black individual. We can interpret how “[living] with [his] head in the lion’s mouth” serves as a strategy toward the narrator’s individual success but it’s unclear how his approach transmits to supporting Black communities. We’re given insight into Ellison criticism of exercising personal responsibility from the perspective of solely advancing one’s social position; instead, Invisible Man unfolds his opinion that African Americans should embody self-reliance with aim of empowering themselves and their community. Ellison alludes to the drawbacks of his grandfather’s wisdom as the narrator reflects on it:

​

Grandfather had been a quiet old man who never made any trouble, yet on his deathbed he had called himself a traitor and a spy, and he had spoken of his meekness as a dangerous activity...And whenever things went well for me I remembered my grandfather and felt guilty and uncomfortable. It was as though I was carrying out his advice in spite of myself. And to make it worse, everyone loved me for it. I was praised by the most lily-white men in town. (Ellison 16)

 

His meditation on adhering to his grandfather’s counsel symbolizes the text’s warning to Black subjects against submitting to white principles as a method to practice personal responsibility. Despite receiving praise from white men and avoiding trouble, he is tormented by the feeling of guilt and discomfort that he might become a “traitor” to his racial community like his grandfather. Not only does Ellison frame white assimilation as an infeasible scheme for Black subjects to exercise self-reliance but he stresses the importance of partaking in intracommunal solidarity to understand its meaning. In other words, the novel recognizes a link between adopting individualism and contributing to collective racial progress. The narrator’s unease after following his advice reinforces his misapprehension of personal responsibility, since his aim prioritizes pleasing white society and stems from white supremacist ideology.

​

Lastly, the scene underscores how white individuals hold limited perspectives surrounding their cultural standards for Black identity. Similar to his reaction to assaulting a white man, the narrator alludes to white society’s misapprehension of the expectations that they impose onto Black communities.

​

When I was praised for my conduct I felt a guilt that in some way I was doing something that was really against the wishes of the white folks, that if they had understood they would have desired me to act just the opposite, that I should have been sulky and mean, and that that really would have been what they wanted, even though they were fooled and thought they wanted me to act as I did. (Ellison 17)

 

His insight signifies how white communities demand African Americans adhere to social and systemic precepts of which they’re unaware of their meaning. As this example represents the historico-racial schema, we’re reminded how white supremacist ideology has historically constructed the white gaze and obscures their awareness of what they demand from Black identity. Ellison continues to reveal white society’s perspective on how Black communities should practice personal responsibility is shaped by white supremacist ideology. As a result, the text emphasizes how important it is for Black individuals to determine the essence of self-reliance apart from the white perspective. Invisible Man’s illustration of his grandfather’s final words provides new insight into Ellison’s view of the ideal state of personal responsibility for Black individuals. Practicing personal responsibility, detached from white supremacist ideology, means African Americans should resist white assimilation as well as refuse to perform subordination for others. The novel suggests they should assume the responsibility of cultivating their individuality whilst uplifting their racial community. We understand that fostering individualism should stem from their capacity to develop selfdom and contribute to collective racial progress. However, Ellison warns Black communities against segregationist perspectives and prompts them to recognize that white individuals possess restricted outlooks surrounding their requirements of Black identity. The text persists in examining how Black subjects can stand in solidarity with their community in addition to favoring integration. Thus, his grandfather’s episode illuminates how white supremacist ideology lends to the groups’ misperception of personal responsibility and poses how Black subjects can adopt individualism apart from internalizing anti-Blackness.

​

Evidently, Invisible Man focuses on Black and white individuals’ varying degrees of consciousness surrounding the racial imaginary. The narrative structure weaves through sequences presenting African Americans’ limited awareness of their individuality, their community, and the white community. In the same vein, we’re shown how the white gaze, a sociohistorical construction, distorts white subjects’ self-consciousness and perception of Black identity. Furthermore, the novel expands upon its exploration of incognizance among each racial group by contemplating how it affects their potential to express individualism. By the ending, the narrator understands the contradiction that both racial communities promote individualism for African Americans in distinct ways but overlook fostering their individuality. For instance, white Americans shared the popular belief that Black individuals could achieve self-reliance by valuing humility and embracing servile positions to upper classes, a stance that regards the Black masses as a lower racial caste and overlooks their self-identity. Comparably, Black nationalists encourage their community to support their own political and economic institutions, express racial pride, and aim to establish a sovereign nation. Their activism demonstrates that they conceptualize Black individuals as collective members of their racial group, a process that risks suppressing self-identity as well. As mentioned earlier, Invisible Man received literary criticism for featuring race consciousness as an issue confronting Black and white communities above emphasizing how African Americans utilize agency and engage in political action. However, when we analyze Ellison’s attention to circumstances in which race is pronounced above one’s individuality, we gain deeper insight into the author’s choice to highlight each racial group’s restricted awareness. Through Invisible Man, he unpacks the question: How can Black communities express their individuality amid raising awareness about the problem of anti-Blackness, an issue they endure as a racial group altogether? Ellison’s work seemingly responds to this question by indicating Black and white subjects alike must develop a deeper understanding of how race is used to maintain social stratification. A central theme of Invisible Man implies African Americans must be recognized for their individuality to develop self-consciousness as well as assist their communities in achieving racial progress. Moreover, the author finds both racial communities complicit in repressing Black subjects’ individuality, which serves as a principal obstacle to their potential for self-reliance. We’re given a glimmer of hope in the end since the narrator’s journey symbolizes African Americans can progress toward individualism by refusing to comply with others’ beliefs or obligations. He becomes the agent of his destiny; he’s keenly aware of others aiming to exploit his racial identity and prioritizes living on his own terms, factors that contribute to his autonomy.

​

The text sheds light on the underlying issue concerning how Black and white communities’ beliefs regarding the racial conflict leads to forced conformity and deindividuation for Black individuals. A core message in the novel is its proposal that Black subjects must be acknowledged for their humanity above their racial identity by each community to advance their struggle for liberation. Additionally, we find that their process of self-discovery can foster their apprehension of personal responsibility and amplify their call to political action. In other words, they will likely develop self-reliance and strengthen solidarity with their racial community, especially given that support will be predicated on nonconformity. Inbar K. Ghosh elaborates on the setbacks of the narrator’s assimilation as well as details the significance of reclaiming his self-identity. 

​

The narrator is disillusioned because he has lived by the commandments of his social group and cannot, therefore, see through the hypocrisy that is an inherent part of the social structure under the framework of which he is made to operate...the narrator assumes the identities that have been thrust upon him by others. He has accepted the “accepted attitudes” and that has made life simple. (Ghosh 24)

 

Ghosh highlights the narrator’s subjection to a symbiotic process that requires the repression of his self-identity so he can embody “the identities that have been thrust upon him by others.” Furthermore, like his grandfather, he’s encouraged to personify these identities because his act “has made life simple.” The narrator’s resistance to adopting others’ attitudes characterizes his new sense of personal responsibility. He shoulders the burden of awareness surrounding how his various social groups exemplify hypocrisy. Expanding upon that, he implies disseminating his knowledge amongst others will serve as part of his social responsibility in the end. Perhaps the most audacious argument presented in Ellison’s work is that white supremacist ideology has deeply shaped the social structure that Black and white communities must navigate. As a result, both racial groups misconceive the meaning of personal responsibility; they possess limited perspectives toward how race molds their social status. This process further complicates their potential to express individualism.

​

Although the novel culminates with the narrator’s success in taking ownership over his individuality and accountability, his position from the basement remains alienated from Black and white societies alike and raises more questions about his socioeconomic standing. Therefore, we’re shown how his self-discovery and new insight surrounding anti-Blackness does not yield social integration or economic security. Not only does Ellison represent his path of individualism as socioeconomically uncertain but he reinforces how others’ perspective of self-reliance afford them better social conditions. Unfortunately, their notion of self-reliance, which develops from white supremacist ideology, maintains the status quo and serves as the dependable route to ensuring one’s welfare. Since their outlooks reinforce the social structure built upon anti-Blackness, Black and white individuals can also take comfort in the common affirmations or beliefs among their respective racial communities. Ghosh alludes to these benefits when describing how affirming the social structure “made life simple” for the narrator. Only when he challenges attitudes represented within both groups, we find he experiences social exclusion. Thus, he faces the uphill battle of informing racial identities about how anti-Blackness continues to impact their ideas of personal responsibility and conformity plays a crucial role in heightening racial tension. Ghosh argues the narrator’s transformation acts as a symbol of his political resistance, revealing his confidence in the power of his awakening.

​

...The narrator succeeds in persuading one and all to make a distinction between his self-identity and his social identity. ...He is an individual with his own personality, with his own standards, his own ideals, and his own hopes and aspirations. He rejects, thereby, the definitions imposed on him by his social environment. The narrator’s stance, therefore, is not indicative of a politics of retreat but of the politics of affirming, perhaps as a spokesman, the identity which he comes to be increasingly aware of during his long voyage of self-discovery. And it is in this awareness of his identity that one can see the visible impressions of the power of his protest. (Ghosh 26)

 

While the narrator’s refusal to accept the identities imposed upon him by others can be interpreted as a political act, it’s difficult to grasp how that act transmits to uplifting his racial community. Instead, his engagement with “the politics of affirming” serves as an example of personal protest and revolutionizes the state of his consciousness. The implication that his self-awareness causes him to assume social responsibility is far-fetched. In fact, beyond describing his awakened sense of individualism, he seldom mentions his intentions to uplift the Black community. Ellison first hints that he’s motivated to uphold his social responsibility in the prologue: “...I believe in nothing if not in action...A hibernation is a covert preparation for more action.” (Ellison 13) Then, again in the epilogue: “...There’s a possibility that even an invisible man has a socially responsible role to play.” (Ellison 581) Despite his determination to share his acquired knowledge about the racial conflict with others, the novel prioritizes examining how white supremacist ideology impacts Black and white communities’ perception of self-reliance. In other words, Ellison centralizes the issue of how anti-Blackness is deeply ingrained in the fabric of values and traditions of American institutions that racial communities must navigate. He recognizes that white supremacist ideology persists in shaping the nation’s systemic and social structures, which shapes Black and white individuals’ beliefs and agency. Significantly, their compliance with the American social hierarchy also ties to their individual opportunities for upward mobility. A key argument the text unpacks is how African Americans adopt a false idea of individualism because they’re inclined to accept societal principles built upon white superiority, which molds their cultural framework as well. More specifically, their chances of attaining higher status from within American institutions hinges on their cooperation with their power structure. These factors signify crucial barriers that Black communities face toward adopting the narrator’s perspective of self-reliance in the end.

​

To better grasp how American institutions embody white supremacist principles in the novel, we can analyze Invisible Man’s representation of the narrator’s lecture from his college administrator, Dr. Bledsoe. Ellison’s illustration of Dr. Bledsoe’s doctrine reveals how Black individuals are susceptible to espousing a distorted notion of self-reliance that forms through the lens of their role. Upon examining Dr. Bledsoe’s beliefs on what personal responsibility should signify for African Americans, we develop a clearer understanding as to how anti-Blackness permeates within the social structure and leaves their racial community with a disillusioned perception of individualism. Chapter six opens the scene with the narrator awaiting his punishment for chauffeuring Mr. Norton, a white trustee of the college, away from campus and into the impoverished countryside upon his request. Along their journey, they encounter Mr. Trueblood, a poor Black farmer who admits to committing incest with his daughter, and visit a local brothel frequented by veterans who reside in the psychiatric hospital nearby. Later, once Dr. Bledsoe demands the narrator’s reasoning for his transgressions in his office, he argues for his helplessness since Mr. Norton commanded him to take the detours. He responds by refuting his rationale: “He ordered you. Dammit, white folk are always giving orders, it’s a habit with them. Why didn’t you make an excuse? ...My god, boy! You’re black and living in the South-did you forget how to lie? ...Why, the dumbest black bastard knows the only way to please a white man is to tell him a lie! What kind of education are you getting around here?” (Ellison 139) Invisible Man presents a parallel between Dr. Bledsoe’s outrage and the grandfather’s advice. Both characters imply Black individuals should deceptively perform submissiveness toward white men to benefit themselves or their community. Their approach proves counterproductive to elevating African Americans’ status since it reinforces their subordination and empowers white subjects, upholding the racial hierarchy. Thus, Dr. Bledsoe’s outlook on Black identity’s personal responsibility links to racialized performance. However, we recognize his belief isn’t simply representative of his personal values but the college as well. He’s entrusted to oversee the African American college in part because his leadership reinforces the white power structure and encourages young Black intellectuals to practice subservience in their pursuit of self-reliance. His prominence within the institution, which garners him influence over his students’ ideals and the support of white patrons, affirms the alignment of his principles with those of the college.

​

Ellison draws upon this connection to posit that anti-Blackness penetrates the framework of American institutions. The narrative further describes the benefits that Dr. Bledsoe reaps from his role, providing us insight into how his racial attitude supports his high-ranking position overall.

​

“...Negroes don’t control this school or much of anything else-haven’t you learned even that? No sir, they don’t control this school, no white folk either. True they support it, but I control it. I’s big and black and I say ‘Yes, such’ as loudly as any burred when it’s convenient, I’m still the king down here...Power doesn’t have to show off. Power is confident, self-assuring, self-starting and self-stopping, self-warming and self-justifying ....Let the negroes snicker and the crackers laugh! ...The only ones I pretend to please are big white folk, and even those I control more than they control me...When you buck against me, you buck against power, rich white folk’s power, the nation’s power-which means government power!” (Ellison 142)

 

Ascending to the elevated status of his senior role exceeds granting him control over the school. His speech reveals that assuming the role of the humble and servile Black figure toward white elites has vested him with authority over the majority of Black and white individuals. More importantly, he believes that he possesses the power of the white ruling class. As he details the advantages of his position, it becomes clear that his concept of personal responsibility is self-serving. He prioritizes maintaining his dominion and influence over empowering the aspiring minds of Black students, linking his take on self-reliance to putting his own interests first. On the other hand, Ellison suggests his attitude develops from the issue of social stratification fostered by American institutions. The passage draws attention to how Dr. Bledsoe managed to gain autonomy despite the odds being against his racial identity: “...Negroes don’t control this school or much of anything else-haven’t you learned even that? No sir, they don’t control this school, no white folk either. True they support it, but I control it.” Then, Ellison juxtaposes his anomalous triumph with his implication that Black individuals can determine their own fate: “Power is confident, self-assuring, self-starting and self-stopping, self-warming and self-justifying.” The episode threads a fine line between the college’s standards that Dr. Bledsoe must adhere to and how he expresses his autonomy. Although he feigns an inferiority complex to white society which degrades himself and his racial community, he achieves self-sufficiency and individual freedom which reflects his triumph over adversity. The text places a greater emphasis on how the institution perpetuates racist ideologies that lend to rewarding Black leaders like Dr. Bledsoe for their instrumental role in upholding the social hierarchy. Since the college idealizes whiteness and thereby employs Black leaders to promote self-abasement and indebtedness among its students, we discover the institution’s adherence to principles shaped by anti-Blackness. These ideals also serve to obscure Black subjects’ perception of individualism. Therefore, Ellison sheds light on the institutional problem enabling him to choose between improving his socioeconomic standing and helping his community achieve racial progress. Dr. Bledsoe’s lecture marks Invisible Man’s exploration of the role American institutions play in skewing Black perspectives of self-reliance.

​

The episode proceeds to unpack how African Americans’ struggle against disenfranchisement and socioeconomic precarity can lead to their disconnection from self-identity as well as their racial group. The remainder of the scene acts as a commentary on the impact social stratification has on Black identity’s self-construction and motivation to mobilize their community. Dr. Bledsoe’s outlook crucially reveals how he defines his identity by his position relative to white society, which further affects his perception of personal responsibility. Invisible Man allows the narrative’s elaboration on Dr. Bledsoe’s authority to highlight the consequences of white society’s dominance over racial hierarchy.

​

“You’re nobody, son. You don’t exist-can’t you see that? The white folk tell everybody what to think-except men like me. I tell them; that’s my life, telling white folk how to think about things I know about...It’s a nasty deal and I don’t always like it myself. But you listen to me: I didn’t make it, and I know that I can’t change it. But I’ve made my place in it and I’ll have every Negro in the country hanging on tree limbs by morning if it means staying where I am.” (Ellison 143)

 

He exposes the strong link between his desire to retain power and the identity he assumes to appease white society. The depth of his loyalty to the white race is such that he’d be willing to betray and murder the Black community to maintain his status. Ellison implies how his position at the college produces his attitude. Not only does he suggest that Black individuals don’t exist without power afforded to them by white society, but he considers his purpose through the lens of sustaining preeminence. Thus, Dr. Bledsoe’s role symbolizes how the American institution compels African Americans to decide between complying with white principles and beliefs in exchange for social mobility or jeopardize it by embracing their cultural identity and loyalty to their community. This juxtaposition, rooted in anti-Blackness, further hinders Black subjects from gaining a clearer sense of individualism. As a result, Ellison refocuses our attention to the issue that social hierarchies, constructed by American institutions, both coerce Black individuals into assuming identities to benefit the white power structure and foster division within their society. Ghosh explores how Ellison addresses this problem by suggesting the narrator’s path to self-discovery promotes the idea that Black subjects must perceive their existence apart from the white gaze. In other words, they must comprehend their self-identity outside their social standing relative to whiteness.

​

Ellison’s message is clear: the black man must...learn to convince himself that his existence is real, instead of living with the sensation that he does not exist in the real world at all...In order to come to terms with the reality of his own existence, the Negro must awaken into the dawn of consciousness and apprehend things from his own standpoint. Neither meek submission nor violent retaliation can help the Negro assert his identity...Only after the black man becomes conscious of his own individuality can he begin to persuade the white man to acknowledge his existence. The blacks and the whites need not merge into a single entity. What was required of the whites was to see the Negro people not in terms of stereotypes and clichés but really as Americans who share American characteristics and American history. (Ghosh 28)

 

Despite the novel’s core argument that Black subjects should develop a sense of their own individuality and existence apart from white America’s racial imaginary, it’s inclusion of Dr. Bledsoe’s speech symbolizes how American institutions offer them social and financial capital amid suppressing their individuality. Their social hierarchies play a key role in enabling Black individuals to possess segregationist perspectives within their community as well. Although Ghosh’s observation that “blacks and whites need not merge into a single entity,” it remains unclear what long-term consequences will derive from our national establishments’ involvement in facilitating social fragmentation within the Black community. These elements present major barriers that prevent them from asserting their identity as Ellison suggests. Perhaps the novel’s most impactful point is it holds American institutions accountable for reinforcing racial difference and thereby forcing Black individuals to navigate their white power structure. Dr. Bledsoe confirms his subjugation that granted him elevation: “I had to be strong and purposeful to get where I am. I had to wait and plan and lick around...Yes, I had to act the nigger! ...I don’t even insist that it was worth it, but now I’m here and I mean to stay-after you win the game, you take the prize and you keep it, protect it.” (Ellison 143) Ellison refrains from showing us a clear path that will lead African Americans to become conscious of their own individuality and perceive their existence beyond the constraints of racist ideology. He also leaves the issue of how they might overcome white assimilation in their attempts to achieve social progress unresolved. Still, the narrative conveys his belief that the nation’s systems are founded on anti-Blackness which consequently contributes to African Americans’ misconception of individualism.

​

Ellison’s episodic text shifts between representing American institutions that acknowledge and exploit race with others that choose not to centralize it. Leaders of the college, for example, centralize racial difference by promoting white imitation and submission as institutional values passed on to their students. On the contrary, the Brotherhood members dismiss racial disparities as part of their cause, enabling them to perpetuate colorblind racism while executing their political strategies. Both approaches developed within our national institutions, in this case the college and the political organization, are proven to reinforce white supremacy and drive racial division. Invisible Man reminds us that it is paramount for Americans to acknowledge and confront our nation’s history founded on anti-Blackness in order to take steps to overcome it. Alexandra Hartmann echoes “In order to transcend race in the way the narrator does, it is mandatory to acknowledge its importance.” (Hartmann 64) In spite of the novel’s central message, we’re cautioned to gain heightened awareness toward how American systems emphasize the relevance of race to maintain social stratification. According to Ellison, in order to participate in undoing white supremacist ideology, we have to strengthen our grasp of the role race plays in determining Black and white communities’ social conditions. Furthermore, his vision for societal growth encompasses our awareness that segregationist attitudes restrict the advancement of the racial groups. They contribute to fostering separatism and heightening tension both inside and outside of the Black community. In the epilogue, Ellison shifts our attention to recognizing the significance of interracial unity and caste systems as the narrator addresses readers.

​

Whence all this passion toward conformity anyway? – diversity is the word. Let man keep his many parts and you’ll have no tyrant states. Why, if they follow this conformity business they’ll end up forcing me, an invisible man, to become white, which is not a color but a lack of one. Must I strive toward colorlessness? ...America is woven of many strands; I would recognize them and let it so remain. It’s ‘winner take nothing’ that is the great truth of our country of any country. Life is to be lived, not controlled...Our fate is to become one, and yet many – This is not prophecy, but description. (Ellison 577)

 

He appeals to the audience to observe cultural diversity as an asset rather than liability and beyond that, he affirms the interconnectedness between racial communities. The ending expresses it is vital that our nation acknowledges Black and white individuals’ shared fate as American citizens. More importantly, their collective undertaking in personal responsibility depends on their commitment to strengthening interracial cooperation. His phrasing “this is not prophecy, but description,” reminds us that their cultural destinies are already interwoven. As Ellison proposes, we have a societal obligation to partake in white supremacist ideology’s undoing.

​

The process of undoing white supremacist ideology, from Ellison’s perspective, does not suggest that a time might come when the societal relevance of racial difference is obsolete or the traces of separatism between communities are eradicated. In fact, Invisible Man acknowledges that white subjects are inclined to perceive Black identity through an ethnocentric perspective due to their possession of the white gaze; their prejudiced outlook stems from a harmful and inescapable legacy of perpetuating the racial hierarchy for centuries. The text assumes a realistic approach to the idea that race shapes perception, making it difficult to entirely cognize its meaning or evade its consequences. However, Ellison primarily interrogates the nuance of white racism as a problem to further consider the distinctive roles Black and white communities can play to unravel it. Dismantling the American race conflict requires each of their communities to acquire deepened insight of their unique complicity in augmenting racial segregation. Ellison mediates between representing the power of collective solidarity and social action and warning us of its capacity to suppress individualism. While he recognizes the significance of political camaraderie among African Americans to effectively challenge anti-Black racism, he acknowledges that joint social action remains inefficacious so long as Black individuals are inhibited from expressing their authentic selves, especially regarding their support for the movement. The impact of white supremacist ideology results in both racial identities’ limited ability to perceive one another’s humanity, which is a crucial element in their misguided approach to exercising self-reliance. Invisible Man’s includes a key sequence in which a Black veteran relays to the narrator and Mr. Norton how they mutually benefit from their racial register of the other; his assertion helps epitomize the novel’s viewpoint as to how race is employed to improve their social standing and thereby diminishes their potential for individualism.

​

“...You both fail to understand what it happening to you. You cannot see or hear or smell the truth of what you see-and you, looking for destiny! ...And the boy, this automation, he was made of the very mud of the region and he sees far less than you. Poor stumblers, neither of you can see the other. To you he is a mark on the scorecard of your achievement, a thing and not a man; a child, or even less-a black amorphous thing. And you, for all your power, are not a man to him, but a God, a force-...He believes in you as he believes in the beat of his heart. He believes in that great false wisdom taught slaves and pragmatists alike, that white is right. I can tell you his destiny. He’ll do your bidding, and for that his blindness is his chief asset. He’s your man, friend. Your man and your destiny.’” (Ellison 95)

 

The veteran’s speech insinuates that white Americans dehumanize and exploit Blackness to serve their mutable and mysterious psychological desires. To their society, Black subjects are “[things] and not [men],” which signifies their subjection to embodying fungibility for white society’s individualized pleasure. Paralleling this idea, Ellison contends in Shadow and Act that, beyond their political and economic motives for degrading the Black population to the lowest racial caste in America, their psychological and ethical reasons for framing “the Negro problem” was “actually a guilt problem charged with pain.” (Ellison 99) Expanding upon that, he highlights their hypocrisy in affirming a national commitment to democratic values when in reality their actions hegemonize the Black condition and uphold racial inequalities. White Americans’ internal conflict, split between reflecting national principles built on egalitarianism and entrenching racial stratification, lends to experiencing a crisis of conscience that convolutes their expectations of Black identity.  

​

The unwillingness to resolve the conflict in keeping with his democratic ideals has compelled the white American, figuratively, to force the Negro down into the deeper level of his consciousness, into the inner world, where reason and madness mingle with hope and memory and endlessly give birth to nightmare and to dream; down into the province of the psychiatrist and the artist, from whence spring the lunatic’s fancy and the work of art. (Ellison 100)

 

Invisible Man emerges as a metaphorical mirror for white readership to contemplate their part in necessitating that Black subjects submit to the unreliable and absurd biddings that stem from “the deeper level of [their] consciousness.” Not only does Ellison pose this rumination as an essential facet of their personal responsibility but he suggests their ethical conflict limits their potential to embody self-reliance. On the other hand, the narrative warns African Americans against perceiving white subjects as “a God [and] a force]” and giving credence to their propagation of white supremacist ideology. The veteran’s phrasing, “He believes in you as he believes in the beat of his heart,” emphasizes the narrator’s deep faith in nurturing friendly relations with white communities acts as a fundamental aspect of his social ascent; he places greater weight on deriving benefit from the white man’s status and wisdom than defining his true identity and embracing self-affirmation. By understanding how others exploit his racial identity to serve their own interests and disallowing them to seal his fate for him, the narrator’s actions exemplify the possibilities for African Americans to being undoing the effects of white supremacist ideology. Therefore, Ellison illustrates their call to personal responsibility requires them to question when race is being employed to inferiorize them and resist accepting the will of others, especially as it contradicts their individual beliefs and values.

​

Their resistance to conformity, however, signifies an uphill battle; Invisible Man consistently reminds us that when Black individuals accept their subordinate position and comply with the demands from others, they often benefit from gaining social alliances with white society, higher status, and personal safety. Ellison warns Americans of the consequences to their enlightenment: “It is only when the individual, whether white or black, rejects the pattern that he awakens to the nightmare of his life...For the penalty of wakefulness is to encounter ever more violence and horror than the sensibilities can sustain unless translated into some form of social action.” (Ellison 92) To commit to fostering a culture rooted in true democratic principles and the renunciation of white supremacist ideology, he suggests they resist the status quo, knowing this will force them to confront America’s disturbing history that has shaped their national identity. In other words, their devotion to meaningful social action must surpass their individualistic desires for ease, pride, and power; the road to driving social progress is paved with facing the harsh realities of white racism among both racial groups.  

 

Invisible Man represents the journey of an African American protagonist who achieves individuation and manages to reject others’ efforts to define what renders him human. In witnessing his character transformation we’re shown how racial formation is indelible to the American experience and becomes instrumentalized by Black and white individuals to ascend the social hierarchy. As a result, their communities possess limited awareness toward how white supremacist ideology has contributed to their biased racial attitudes. More than that, white-dominated American institutions are complicit in nurturing their segregationist perspectives, which reinforces the cultural paradigm of exploiting race to ensure practicing individualism is a privilege reserved for the white elite. Their foundation on anti-Black principles serves to constrain African Americans to a lower position, from which they must constantly struggle for stability and freedom, and endure alienation from within their community in their striving toward whiteness. Ellison concentrates on reflecting how white racism has harmfully fashioned their perspectives of humanity in distinct ways within Black and white consciousness. Instead of fixating on how the American race conflict manifests for its readers, the narrative attends more to examining how it generates Black and white subjects’ individuality and agency and further stifles their willingness to engage in social action and develop interracial relations. Furthermore, Invisible Man poses that Americans will attain greater insight into why the racial communities struggle to achieve self-reliance in different ways if they contemplate why a tradition of dehumanization has long been woven into the fabric of our nation. Shadow and Act elaborates on the problem of white society’s tendency to define Black identity.

​

Too many books by Negro writers are addressed to a white audience. By doing this the authors run the risk of limiting themselves to the audience’s presumptions of what a Negro is or should be; the tendency is to become involved in polemics, to plead the Negro’s humanity. You know, many white people question that humanity but I don’t think that Negroes can afford to indulge in such a false issue. For us the question should be, What are the specific forms of humanity, and what in our background is worth preserving or abandoning. (Ellison 170)

 

We’re encouraged to consider the problematic duality between white Americans defining the societal perception of “what a Negro is and should be” and the pressure Black intellectuals undergo to reclaim an authentic representation of their racial identity and depict their characters’ humanity. From Ellison’s mention of this dichotomy, we can gather that he envisions Black and white subjects’ advancement toward individualism will signify they’ve surpassed possessing a racialized notion of humanity. They will recognize the range of human qualities that each individual embodies and identify which deep-rooted ideologies born from our nation’s painful history should be left in the past.

​

Meanwhile, Invisible Man highlights their societies were a long way from adopting this progressive outlook on humanity in the period of midcentury America; due to white supremacist ideology emerging into a cornerstone of our national identity, they’re forced to reckon with the prevailing racial imaginary, which further prompts their communities to practice mutual recrimination. Luke Sayers elaborates on Invisible Man’s aim to reflect this habitual behavior between racial groups and disrupt their tendency to how each other accountable for the nation’s sociological issues.

​

[The novel presents] a world in which violence is ubiquitous and none of the characters make it to the end unscathed. The world of Invisible Man contains repeated scapegoating: community turns against community in the perpetuation of villainy and victimage. Ellison does not present a world with a single scapegoat. Rather, the reader is invited to observe the repetition of the cycle of violence as the Invisible Man is exiled from community after community. In this sense, insofar as the Invisible Man is a victim, his final question, ‘Who knows but that, on the lower frequencies, I speak for you?’ invites the reader to identify with victims in an effort to stop the cycle. (Sayers 356)

 

The narrative consistently illustrates moments in which Black and white subjects are accountable for the perpetuation of villainy and victimage in different ways. As that process leads to intensifying racial division and amplifying violence throughout the novel, it’s evident that Ellison identifies their shared proclivity for scapegoating as an effect of anti-Blackness. He inclines us to sympathize with the narrator’s familiar experiences of exclusion, irresponsibility, and blame-shifting that represent the human condition as opposed to the racial. Furthermore, we can connect Invisible Man’s caution against segregationist thinking to Ellison’s opposition to the Black nationalist perspective. Supporters of the Black nationalist movement deem white Americans as collectively responsible for enforcing racial terrorism and assimilation and advocate that Black communities’ only hope of attaining political, economic, and social freedom rests on favoring separatism from their society. In other words, their intracommunal solidarity lends to placing all the blame on white individuals for causing racial injustice. However, Ellison views their segregationist beliefs as a symptom of white supremacist ideology that promotes scapegoating and, more importantly, sustaining the dehumanization of the white individual. The text reminds us that each individual attains a fluid sense of responsibility and irresponsibility; recognizing one’s humanity requires the perceiver to consider their subjectivity that affects their better judgement. The narrator himself embodies this internal duality, which helps humanize his character.

​

But Invisible Man is complicated, and the reader, after seeing the scapegoat mechanism perpetuated so easily, is also required to remain skeptical of the Invisible Man’s question, recognizing that he, too, has perpetuated violence in his own way as he oscillates between passing blame on the one hand (‘Irresponsibility is part of my invisibility’) and speaking for victims on the other (‘[A]n invisible man has a socially responsible role to play.’) (Sayers 356)

 

Scapegoating, an essential component to fostering division among Black and white communities alike, requires their mutual participation in dehumanizing the other as a means of villainizing their racial identity. As a result, we ought to consider how racial attitudes based on separatism assist in obscuring their perception of the other’s humanity. Invisible Man draws its multiracial audience’s attention to evaluating the psychological and structural consequences of white supremacist ideology, which succeed in dividing their communities, to encourage their contemplation as to what can be done to dismantle its repercussions as a unified nation. Ellison maintains that once the racial groups accept their shared identity as Americans and comprehend the nuances of interdependence between their cultures, they will come closer to exercising individualism detached from anti-Blackness. Reconciling with their fate as a racially integrated nation is key to Black and white subjects’ longing for personal autonomy and is dependent on their capacity to relate on a human level.

​

One of the ways that Invisible Man prompts criticism is in its refusal to offer us Ellison’s roadmap to deconstructing white supremacy to uplift the social condition of African Americans. The novel can be said to shift between exposing flaws in existing racial politics, interrogating the harmful legacy of white supremacist ideology as a sociohistorical phenomenon, and imagining the possibilities for our nation’s future to transcend the exploitation of race to aim toward valuing humanism and individualism. However, we’re left to ponder the author’s views on what social actions Black and white subjects should undertake to challenge the social and structural effects of anti-Black racism. For instance, he doesn’t presume to have all the answers pertaining to how the racial groups can demolish each string tied to white supremacist ideology that American institutions were founded on or outline strategies to help them overcome their possession of cognitive racial biases and observe one’s individuality instead. On the contrary, Invisible Man implies that our society will always have to confront the realities of racial formation. Still, Ellison warns his readership against subscribing to segregationist beliefs as a practical approach to addressing the race problem. Additionally, he forces us to acknowledge the problem of African Americans’ subjection to unstable conditions which are upheld by American institutions’ commitment to enhancing social stratification. Their authority over restricting Black opportunities for upward mobility requires them to constantly adjust between experiencing inclusivity and marginalization. Their subjugation to this unsettled state is a byproduct of racialization, according to Sean O’Brien. “...The narrator’s alternating experiences of social integration and abjection constitute distinct historical moments of racialization and, as I will argue, track a movement by which racial blackness shifts for the narrator between an affirmative category of identification and an ‘external constraint’ to be overcome.” (O’Brien 82) For American society to advance toward creating spaces that allow African Americans to experience social integration indefinitely, Invisible Man teaches us to remember white supremacist ideology reinforces reflexive and habitual practices performed by white subjects. It’s essential for our nation to examine how it’s been deeply ingrained into the fabric of our structures and further determine its role in embedding social abjection into the Black experience. Additionally, building a strong sense of community both outside and within their racial groups, rooted in their shared identity as Americans and humans, is an essential component of Ellison’s vision for developing social progress. Although we’re unable to look to Invisible Man for a detailed illustration as to what forms of political action are necessary, we’re provided a window into Ellison’s outlook on the crisis of individuation for Black identity and reminded how favoring separatism can reinforce anti-Blackness overall. Furthermore, Hartmann helps us tie Ellison’s emphasis on strengthening supportive relations amongst communities to his message on self-reliance.

​

In Ellison’s humanistic worldview, self-reliance does not preclude community. Instead, it is a prerequisite for healthy (co)existence. Invisible Man entails many examples of community ‘gone wrong,’ whether in the shape of the Brotherhood, the college, or the protagonist’s encounters with multiple individuals. They have all failed the narrator in different ways. Nonetheless, his suggestion for a better future is not greater isolation or a retreat into despair. On the contrary, individuals can only truly prosper in a community. Furthermore, the novel suggests that community is best created in responsible action. Action can be transformative in two ways: it can influence a person’s self-image and it can put others’ lived bodies in a productive crisis by challenging their (perceptual) habits... (Hartmann 80-81)

 

Her claims act as a powerful response to the novel’s critics who argue Ellison overemphasized the cruciality of the narrator’s alienation from both racial communities as the only viable path to fulfilling his social responsibility. Without taking advantage of isolation in the end, it’s difficult to imagine how Ellison would expose the misguided principles exemplified among both racial groups and thereby convey the need for their shared role in fostering community cohesion. We’re inclined to ponder what contribution white supremacist ideology makes to increasing dissonance between Black and white societies. Progressive communities empower the individuality of its members’ and, in return, their greater sense of individuality assists their call to social action.

​

References

Du Bois, W.E.B. Black Reconstruction. 1 ed., The Free Press, 1998.
Ellison, Ralph. Invisible Man. 2nd ed., Vintage International, 1995.
Ellison, Ralph. Shadow and Act. 1 ed., Vintage International, 1995. 
Fanon, Franz. Black Skin, White Masks. 1 ed., Grove Press, 2008.
Garvey, Marcus. Message to the People. Dover Publications, 2020.
Ghosh, Nibir K. “Democracy and Dilemma: Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man.” ICFAI Journal of     English Studies, vol. 14, no. 2, 2019, pp. 21–31.
Hartman, Saidiya. Scenes of Subjection. 1 ed., W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2022.
Hartmann, Alexandra. “Self-Reliance Towards Deep Democracy: Theorizing Racial Embodiment     in Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man.” Studies in Humanism and Atheism, Springer     International Publishing AG, 2023, pp. 55–90.
O’Brien, Sean. “Blacking Out: Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man and the Historicity of     Antiblackness.” Cultural Critique, vol. 105, no. 1, 2019, pp. 80–105.
Sayers, Luke. “The Politics of the Poison Pen: Communism, Caricature, and Scapegoats in Ralph     Ellison’s Invisible Man.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language, vol. 63, no. 4, 2021,     pp. 341–58