{ } (Invisibility)

To answer the question directly, yes, anyone can be invisible regardless of race. Invisibility within the context of the book refers to race, but in a wider context, invisibility refers to those viewed as inferior. Like the "Invisible Children" (child soldiers), whom the world, for the most part, overlook. Anyone considered so low down that they're not even worth noticing. Not just races, anyone, of any race, who is deemed worthless. These people normally get lost in whatever majority they "should" be a part of.

It reminds me of the part in Invisible Man when the black drop disappear into the white mass of paint. It symbolized, to my thinking, the disappearance of black identity into white society. In the case of Invisible Man, this is a very specific occurrence because it refers to black people, but it could be applied to other cases of invisibility. It is very easy to lose an identity when you are under great pressure to conform to the identity of the majority. In the case of Dr. Bledsoe, he perfectly represents the tiny black drop consumed by the white. He has lost most of his black identity in favor of a more popular white persona. In class today, we discussed whether or not he had shifted his personality, and I don't believe his white identity was just a front, I think it consumed him.

My Invisible Post

In discussing the Invisible Man and the feeling of invisibility of the narrator I have selected this passage:

"I felt that even when they (white people) were polite they hardly saw me, that they would have begged the pardon of Jack the Bear, never glancing his way if the bear happened to be walking along minding his business. It was confusing. I did not know if it was desirable or undesirable," (Ralph Ellison 168).

In this passage, Ellison defines what invisibility means in the context of the novel. The invisible man is invisible for two reasons: one being that the white people in society tend to think less of blacks at this time and disregard his presence as being in the way, for he causes them to run into him, and two being that the narrator is invisible because he is not doing anything important to draw attention or recognition to himself, by the blacks and whites alike at this point in the novel. The narrator is torn between wondering if this is a good or bad thing, and this is the beginning of his struggle with himself in figuring out what he wants. The passage comes from when the narrator is faced with unresponsiveness in finding a job from all of the trustees, but he still places hope in Mr. Emerson.

Therefore, I believe that the narrator's invisibility is equally due to his race and to his experiences, so I guess the latter can constitute the "generally applicable" section of the question. But, this is where I fall into confusion because I argue that the narrator's experiences are so distinct to himself because of his race. The narrator would not have been kicked out of college for showing a white man the immoral and impoverished situation of True Blood unless he was black because True Blood's existence conveys the true state of many Southern blacks at the time, but this was supposed to stay unknown to the white, rich trustees-- to Mr. Norton.

So maybe I have changed my mind, maybe the narrator's invisibility is solely due to his race. He cannot have his initial purpose in life fulfilled because of the constraints placed on blacks to act a certain way, which forces him into a position of invisibility in society because he does not feel as though (at least at this point in the book) that he knows what to do with his life.

Anyways, another part of the prompt was about if anyone else can be invisible as well, or must they be of a group that is subordinate. I think that, yes, invisibility will always stem from someone feeling subordinate or even inferior to others. I have even felt invisible before. I have felt invisible this week... but I don't really want to make this an entry in a personal diary so I will not disclose anything further. The point I am trying to make though is that invisibility can occur when someone feels unaccepted for who one is, and one is repressed by those that are in control, leaving one to feel inferior and confused about one's purpose and position in society. And this is exactly why the invisible man feels invisible: because he has basically been brainwashed to act a certain way in college, and he still believes in the goodness of whites, but upon coming North and realizing that he cannot find a job, he feels overlooked and useless in society-- he feels invisible.

Ellision, Ralph. The Invisible Man. New York: 1947.

Catholicism and Racism

I definitely think that changing the genre of Augustine's and Ellison's respective books would change not only the perception that these books received by their audiences, but also their significance. Ellison is writing at a time where I do not think a personal account of his encounters with racism and his problems with society would be appropriate. As fiction, Ellison is able to convey a theme and a story that many people will learn from whereas a true, personal history would seem very critical and be not as acceptable, though it would relay the same message, to the audience. Though Ellison integrates his personal experiences in The Invisible Man, it is not the same as a personal- history, and it also would not be as effective for the time in which he is writing. The Civil Rights Movement is just about to begin at this time, and it is important to remember that even though blacks were legally given the right to vote, they still faced grandfather clauses that limited the amount of blacks that actually voted. If Ellison were to have written a deeply personal account on racism in American society, I think that it would not have been as widely received as his novel due to the fact that many were unwilling to realize the amount of discriminatory practices and unjust acts that were still occurring against African Americans in the North and South at the time. However, since Ellison used fiction as a tool to gain the attention of many, and in doing so he was successful by winning the National Book Award, I think that he revealed many of the difficulties that the African Americans faced to a wide audience that did not only consist African Americans, but also of many whites, too.

Now on to Augustine. I think that Augustine's book would have been A LOT easier to read if it was fiction. But, that is only because I have only read philosophy once in tenth grade. Regardless, it would have also been different in other respects. For instance, a fictional account of Augustine's life would not have seemed legitimate as a way to convert more people to Catholicism and to convey to the higher level Catholic clergy that Augustine really was a devout Catholic who had a revelation from God. Augustine's main point about receiving divine intervention would have seemed fake if he had structured his book as fiction, and his struggles with temptation would have just been as a way to move the plot along. However, since Augustine used a book to convey personal confessions and his view on Catholicism it was seen as more credible and able to influence more people since it was him being brutally honest to his readers.

Therefore, as is the same case with Ellison, due to the purpose and the period that these authors are writing it was important for them to select the perfect genre in order to a) appeal to their respective audiences, b) attain some form of success from writing their books and c) convey an important message to society about their experiences and in doing so calling for some type of change. In Augustine's book he was calling for change in the sense that he wished for more people to change their religious views and take on Catholicism, and in Ellison's view he is calling for America to stop its discriminatory practices towards blacks in order for equality to ensue.


ps: check out this excerpt from the PBS version of Invisible Man, I had heard that it was really good, and I, too, think that it is. a good depiction of the first chapter.