As the narrator discusses his perceptions from the point of view of Rinehart, he states that, " 'For now we see as through a glass darkly but then--but then--' I couldn't remember the rest" (491). I was reading English just after reading Philosophy, and what struck me as odd was that Socrates used the same image in one of his arguments. Socrates explained that we experience the truth of life, the world, and knowledge as through a "reflection of light" in a "dark glass." He argues that we must try to approach the essence of truth knowing that we see the world in this way, because looking straight at the essence of truth while in bodily form would have effects akin to being blinded by a bright light. Thus, our perceptions of the world are necessarily partially defined by our physical experiences, all of which can mislead us and distract us from the pursuit of true ideas and knowledge, so that we are forced to understand truth while in our physical form only as if we are seeing through a glass darkly.
This language echo really piqued my interest, especially when I considered that Ellison also echoes some of this Socratic thinking. Perhaps the narrator has found truth by blinding himself with light bulbs to remove any possible shadows....but then like Socrates, he seems to know that no one can never quite be sure what how the world works or how they actually fit into it while they are contained within their own bodies. They must transcend their bodies, their physical selves, in order to transcend societal expectations, ideas, and masks that are untrue because they are inherently derived from the human body. It seems that Ellison might be hinting at a similar message. This is the reason I think that the novel is pessimistic about the human condition: while we are all stuck within our bodies, we cannot be freed from ideas or social constructions, because both us and our ideas are tied to this physical world. Ellison's invisible man grapples long and hard with this issue, whether he realizes it or not.
I began to wonder if Ellison was or was not consciously influenced by Socrates. According to his biographical video, he was extremely well-educated and even more well-read. However, neither he, nor any critic, mentions Socrates or Socratic thought patterns in their essays. Regardless, as I continue to consider this book with Socratic philosophy in mind, I continue to notice enlightening parallels.
Another interesting Socratic echo is in the Epilogue. First is the discussion of how "none of us seems to know who he is or where he's going" because whites are busy escaping blackness (but are meanwhile becoming more black) and the blacks are striving toward whiteness (577). The conclusion is that this idea of becoming "one, and yet many" is "one of the greatest jokes in the world" (577). To the average human, this is by no means an obvious conclusion, because we typically take for granted that it is possible to be one and many at the same time, as evidenced by our self-determined definition of our country and culture. The narrator, on the other hand, uses Socratic argues that this assumption is ridiculous for purely logical reasons similar to the way Socrates did. There can be no mixing of true opposites, otherwise each will become the other and no longer be themselves. Furthermore, something that is composed of many parts (or "compounded") cannot be also uncompounded at the same time; these are opposite. It is as if the narrator has read and totally adopted Socratic thinking in order to take an assumption inherent in our society and see its logical fallacies.
The Socratic influence is ultimately also apparent when the reader considers the narrator's habits of civil disobedience, mirroring those that Socrates argues good, dedicated citizens should follow. We know the narrator is a good, dedicated citizen because he willingly becomes part of the state during college. Socrates argues that when this happens (and some other criteria are met), the citizen enters into a contract with the state: to accept all punishments given by the state (even if they are unjust. The power to punish is the only real power the state has, since it is the only power it can actually enforce.) in return for reaping the states' benefits for the citizen and being civilly disobedient if the state fails to do something correctly. We can see the narrator's whole life from this perspective. He is always supportive of the United States, but is also civilly disobedient in the Brotherhood by protesting as he is able, within the state's guidelines. However, when society punishes him by forcing him into a hole, he accepts the punishment. And yet, he wishes to leave, but only because he has decided it is a "social crime" for him to "overstay [his] hibernation" (581). Perhaps, he is afraid that by dropping out of society and writing a book critiquing and explaining society as he sees it, he has exited his contract with society, which he never intended to do. Good citizens are people who love their state and are civilly disobedient, but do not drop out of society. But how can he show that he loves his state when he disagrees with the rightness of so many aspects of the society he lives in, and will thus be civilly disobedient in some way to nearly all aspects of society? This is the dilemma, and why it is unclear what the invisible man will do once he reemerges out of hibernation.
No comments:
Post a Comment