Blind?
Invisible? Indecipherable?
Is society blind, are individuals
invisible, or are both true? Are there individuals to be invisible
anymore, or is it just one big indecipherable society? These questions
came to mind when I was reading Invisible
Man. Two major viewpoints are conspicuous and permeate through the story: society is blind or individuals are invisible. While the novel doesn't say that individuals are invisible, it states that African-Americans, or minorities overall, are. This idea, however, can be applied to the common man. Honestly, is the "common man" remembered by society? The answer is no, only the "Greats" and famous are remembered by society as a whole (even though the "common man" is remembered by those he/she interacts with), and as such, the invisibility motif can be applied to everyone in the world who isn't one of those aforementioned memory-hogs. So stand my previous questions: is society blind or are people truly invisible?
The title of the novel would have you believe that the individual is invisible, while the tone and mood of the novel would have you believe that society is a deaf and blind (though not dumb, as society has proven to speak its mind, no matter how irrelevant and repugnant its opinion is). The narrator labels himself "invisible" yet despises society because, even though he didn't come out and explicitly state it, it is blind to him and his plight; the search for his identity. Critics and readers all have their own opinions about which is what Ellison was truly going for, but it can be assumed that Ellison wanted the reader to understand what happened to African-Americans in the mid-1900s at the very least. Ellison may have intended his narrator to be a representation of African-Americans, but he is also a symbol of the individual. He searches for himself the entire novel, and he breaks away from society in order to do so, making himself even more individualistic. Individuals have a goal of separating themselves from society, but this is at the cost of becoming invisible. Actors and other famous people aspire to entertain society, so they work for others, not for themselves, and aren't individuals and aren't invisible. On the flip-side, the common man works for him/herself and possibly a family, but is invisible because society doesn't acknowledge this person, and is blind to
this person. Following this train of thought, as I have, both seem true,
and there is no way to disprove either, as Invisible
Man even can't differentiate the two; if one is present, so is the
other.
Here's the kicker though: what if neither are true? The way society is, it is one giant block, and people can't just single out others from this society. True, I could name famous people or groups in society, but they don't really show individuality, but a form of societal vision and just bend to societal pressure. What if individuality is gone and there is just one lump of indecipherable garbage left? If that is true, then there is no invisibility or blindness, because what is there to be blind or invisible about? The way media is, it "inspires" people or makes them act a certain way. This conformation is taking away individuality and replacing it with a general, singular pool of collectivism. Society could get so indecipherable that it, in itself, could become an individual, instead of the people themselves. Fads are especially a form of this collectivism. Even though they aren't harmful, per se, they do make people conform and group together.
I, for one, am not a fan of overbearing
collectivism, though I don't think there should be all individual, selfish
people, either. There is a happy medium, where you help out people in a collective fashion,
yet still remain yourself and retain an individual identity.
I find it to be a scary thing to be solely together and not be the person
someone could be, or rather the individual someone could be. One thing I
found interesting was the difference between "persons" and
"people". Technically, "persons" is the plural of
"people", though modernly it is also "people". I did
some research and found this: "the plural of person is persons when a
specific, countable number of individuals is meant, but that people should
be used when the number is large or indefinite." (http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/people.htm).
The fact that in modern times, "people" is used and
"persons" isn't shows how collective this society has become.
According to this diction, any amount and instance (except in official
documentation) of persons is people, and I believe that this
is due to the fact that society has grown to accept a collective view on
humankind.
