Though our discussion of
the "white liberal" phenomenon has mostly occurred during the Native
Son section of this class, I feel that Invisible Man offers
an even more thought-provoking and nuanced spin on the archetype. Mary and Jan
might have SOME good intentions, but are crippled by their ignorance of racial
barriers with the oppressed, fearful Bigger Thomas, and their general
self-indulgent attitudes for acting all buddy-buddy with a black person. In Invisible
Man, the narrator mostly explores the dynamic while working with white
people, whether it be chauffeuring Mr, Norton, his discussion with Mr. Emerson,
or the passive-aggressive revisionist racism of the Brotherhood. The
Brotherhood especially goes to show what happens when the tenets of white
liberalism are formed into a constructed ideology, which has a sound concluding
vision but very poor methods of interracial interaction that result in racist
erasure.
Norton's ignorance is
from the upper-class educator perspective; he is shielded from the realities of
the black world around his campus and is utterly shocked to find the
surrounding areas of his campus different from what he promotes inside. Like
the others, he thinks himself a friend of the "black people", yet
comes across with more of a savior complex than a true ally towards the civil
rights of another race. "I felt even as a young man that your people were
somehow closely connected with my destiny" he explains to the narrator, on
the topic of his educational interest (41). Lines like "Yes, you are my
fate, young man" are utterly patronizing and pressuring for the timid
narrator, who simply wants to get this interaction over with before anything
goes wrong (which is unsuccessful of course) (42). If Norton were a true
believer in racial justice that had a good picture of what the African-American
community needed, he would not refer to an uneducated black man as a
"defective cog" (45), nor would he react so strongly and
inappropriately to Trueblood's story. Norton is initially disgusted and
appalled, not believing that a member of the race he tries to help could do
something so "monstrous" (49). After he speaks with Trueblood and
hears in grave detail what exactly went down, his action of giving him a hundred-dollar
bill seems much less a gesture of help rather than an exchange for a tabloid
commodity: compensation for a good shock. Perhaps his intentions are somewhat
justified—after all, what would one do in that situation—yet his incredulity
that something like this can happen shows just how unseeing Norton is of the
big picture compared to his elevated self-worth for his “activism” in the black
community.
Emerson’s white liberalism
is a bit less obvious and harmful to the narrator than the other two, but
nonetheless definitely exists. Though at first Emerson seems to be speaking
conversationally with the narrator, he feels the need to name drop the “Club
Calamus”, a trendy Harlem rendezvous that Emerson clearly prides himself in
going to, especially in front of a black guy. Like Stefon from SNL with self-congratulating
racist undertones (“Harlem’s hottest club is…”). Later on, he also mentions his
“friends are jazz musicians” and that he “knows the conditions” under which the
narrator lives, which harken some serious Jan and Mary flashbacks about knowing
the plight of the black man and what not (188). The true kicker of the conversation
is when Emerson asks the narrator to “speak with utter frankness” towards him,
in a fairly unnecessary and discomfiting tangent:
What I mean is, do you believe it possible for
us, the two of us, to throw off the mask of custom and manners that insulate
man from man, and converse in naked honesty and frankness?
Though Emerson wants to
speak with the narrator on normal terms, the way to do so is not to make so
painfully obvious your racial differences, but to keep speaking like a normal
person. I found this to be one of the most cringe-worthy scenes in the whole
book, because the narrator clearly wants to figure out this important message
and move on, but Emerson hinders him with babble about being equals and forgetting
race when it doesn’t need to be an issue at all! The message eventually gets
through to the narrator, but not without some frustration with Emerson’s white
liberal self-indulgence and pandering.
And of course, one
cannot talk about uncomfortable race relations without referring to the
Brotherhood at some point. The narrator’s time with the Brotherhood is so
expansive that it’s hard to even pick which incidents to talk about. Their
motives are initially hazy when the narrator is grabbed after his eviction
speech for the seeming wrong reasons. The first scene in Brother Jack’s lair is
loaded with aggressive white liberalism, such as the strong reaction to the
narrator being asked to sing a spiritual. Without him getting a word in
edgewise, Brother Jack goes nuclear on the drunkard for even suggesting that
the narrator would sing a spiritual, and removes him from the premises. This
ridiculous reaction to a fairly innocuous bit of racism and generalization
shows Jack’s motives are not listening to the black community and incorporating
them into his Brotherhood vision, but instead making blatantly obvious what he thinks is best for the race. Jack
relentlessly tries to make members of the Brotherhood forget their differences,
and having a black man sing a spiritual is out of that vision. The lady that
approaches him afterwards relishes in resisting the temptation to hear him
sing. “I would never ask one of our
colored brothers to sing, even though I love to hear them. That would be a very
backward thing.” (314). The narrator is completely puzzled by this, because
after all, what is exactly wrong with asking a black person to sing? Sure, the
guy that asked him was obviously out of line and thought of black people as
jukeboxes, but her and Jack’s reactions are so uncalled for and demonstrate
just how blind the white liberal ideology can be. The problem is the guy, not
the fact that the narrator was asked to sing! However, the most harmful
instances of the Brotherhood in this sense are with Brother Tarp’s leg chain
and the death of Tod Clifton. Brother Wrestrum completely meddles with the
narrator’s standing in the Brotherhood for receiving Brother Tarp’s leg chain. “I
don’t think we ought to dramatize our differences” Wrestrum reasons for his
outrage (392). Though it is clear that the narrator wants to keep it as a
symbol for himself and the oppression he’s fighting against, Wrestrum exposes
the true colors of the Brotherhood: racist revisionism and hiding the truth of
history instead of utilizing it for social change. Wrestrum’s testament to the
Brotherhood totally jeopardizes the narrator’s position, over such a completely
petty circumstance. Finally, their treatment of Clifton’s death is nothing
short of sickening. They call their youth organizer a “traitorous merchant of vile
instruments of anti-Negro, anti-minority racist bigotry” for selling these
stupid Sambo dolls for some cash, when he was gunned down by the police for not
having a license (466)! Their real concern is dissociating themselves from
anything that could hurt their organization, rather than tackling issues that
matter (such as murder by racist police). This is white liberalism taken to its
most harmful extent, trying to erase the race card from all given situations and
project a different false reality, no matter how contradictory it may be to
their original message.
The narrator ends up
realizing this on his own later in the novel, and sums up this racist treatment
he’s been facing from these white figures:
And now I looked around a corner of my mind and
saw Jack and Norton and Emerson merge into one single white figure. They were
very much the same, each attempting to force his picture of reality upon me and
neither giving a hoot in hell for how things looked to me. I was simply a
material, a natural resource to be used. I had switched from the arrogant
absurdity of Norton and Emerson to that of Jack and the Brotherhood, and it all
came out the same—except now I recognize my invisibility. (508)