niftyfifties

[niftyfifties]

plato’s rear window and takeaways from the 1950s lit & film course

Artist Statement

For our Rear Window, we recreated what we thought Plato’s room would look like in “Rebel Without a Cause”. During our brainstorming stage, we decided that Plato’s room would be scarily empty, to reflect the emptiness he feels throughout the film and his mysterious and almost unsettling personality. We also wanted to include how he reveres significant male presences in his life and decided to create a wall/shrine in his room dedicated to them (”them” being Jim and Allen Ladd). We put a picture of Allen Ladd since his locker was only decorated with two things, a mirror which he uses to spy on Jim and a picture of Ladd. Since we couldn’t find one character that we felt embodies Plato in the modern-day, we decided to include characters in 21st-century television that also use the “bury your gays” trope and “being an orphan” as a plot device. Some examples that we chose were Root from Person of Interest, Poussey from Orange Is The New Black, Harry Potter, and the twins from a Series of Unfortunate Events. Lastly, for decorations, we put a pride flag on the wall since both Sal Maneo and the director have admitted Plato was written to be in love with Jim. For quotes, we included some about Plato’s admiration for Jim, complicated relationship with/interpretation of his parents, his lack of remorse after he killed puppies, and when he thinks the end of the world will come. 

Main Takeaways from the Course

Looking back at the course texts and films, I believe that the most important thing the 1950s can teach us about today is acceptance. In both Invisible Man and Rebel Without a Cause, the stories tell a message of how life fails to accept everyone, the isolating and debilitating effects it can have on a person. In Invisible Man, the narrator wasn’t accepted because of his race and his failure to conform to the box people wanted to put him in. In Rebel Without A Cause, Jim’s story shows how society treats their youth terribly, making them feel isolated and lost, looking to rebellion to deal with the lack of acceptance from their older counterparts. It is through the study of the 1950s, which set a precedent for anger and fight for acceptance in the 60s, that we can learn that people should be able to explore their identity freely and be comfortable in them. The course has only reaffirmed my belief that everyone should fight to create a space where people can come together and feel comfortable in their identity, and that people shouldn’t have to conform to the boxes/stereotypes people try to put them in. 

[niftyfifties]

I am big. It's the pictures that are small

Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard

[niftyfifties]

what did the invisible man do to be so black and blue? -- let’s take one last look from armstrong’s perspective

This is a look into how the song Ellison referenced in the prelude, Armstrong’s “Black and Blue”, relates to the message and progression of the story in Invisible Man.

Cold empty bed, springs hard as lead

Feel like Old Ned, wish I was dead

All my life through, I’ve been so black and blue.

Like in the beginning of the song, we first see our narrator, in a hole, or as he calls it, his home:

“The point now is I found a home--or a hole in the ground as you will...My hole is warm and full of light...And I lovelight...Light confirms my reality, gives birth to my form. A beautiful girl once told me of a recurring nightmare in which she lay in the center of a large dark room and felt her face expand until it filled the whole room...Without light, I am not only invisible, but formless as well, and to be unaware of one’s form is to live a death. I myself, after existing some 20 years, did not become alive until I discovered my invisibility” (Ellison 6-7). 

The narrator doesn’t wish he’s dead right now, but he is living in a place most people would find pretty uncomfortable: a hole which seems like a world of “cold empty bed[s] [with] springs hard as lead”. However he doesn’t want death. He is afraid of it. He calls darkness “a nightmare” because it makes people “unaware” of themselves and “live a death”. 

Like the song, all his life and he has been so “black and blue”, or as he calls it “dead”, and only just now did he become alive.

Even the mouse ran from my house

They laugh at you, and scorn you too

What did I do to be so black and blue? 

As I’ve said in previous posts, the black experience for the narrator in the book, as well as during the 1950s as a whole, was greatly influenced by his invisibility and conformity. Armstrong’s song embodies this same idea, feeling as though he’s “laughed” and “scorned” at by his communities. In “Invisible Man”, the narrator is laughed at by both his black and white counterparts throughout the story:

“Nor was I unappreciative of the hilarious inversion of what is usually a racially restricted social mobility that took me on daily journeys from a Negro neighborhood, wherein strangers questioned my moral character on nothing more substantial than our common color and my vague deviation from accepted norms, to find sanctuary in a predominantly white environment wherin that same color and vagueness of role rendered me anonymous, and hence beyond public concern” (Ellison xi). 

He is unaccepted by both communities he surrounds himself with because of his “vague deviation from accepted norms” makes him “anonymous”. 

I’m white--inside--but that don’t help my case

Cause I can’t hide what is in my face

Here, Armstrong pleads with his audience. He tries so hard to live up to white standards on the “inside”, but he never truly gains respect because he “can’t hide what is in [his] face”: his race. 

Similarly, during the narrator’s journey, he constantly encounters the “good slave” theory to gain social equality and white acceptance/approval. He wants to be like Bledsoe, “the example of everything [the narrator] hoped to be: influential with wealthy men all over the country; consulted in matters concerning the race, a leader of his people...What was more, while black and blad and everything white folks poked fun at, he had achieved authority...They could laugh at him but they couldn’t ignore him” (Ellison 101). 

However the novel shows us that even though this “good slave” theory is supposed to bring black people authority, power and respect, it doesn’t “help [their] case”. Even in this dynamic, black people are still disrespected no matter how hard they prove they’re “white on the inside” and are discriminated because of the color of their skin. 

How would it end? Ain’t got a friend

My only sin is my skin

What did I do to be so black and blue?

Like Armstrong, the narrator “ain’t got a friend” in the end. From what he shows, the narrator’s journey ends in a hole, alone. He’s defeated by the trouble’s race and the “sin” of his skin has brought him and retreats in his hole--his home--full of warm light to recover, and ponder his biggest question: what did he do to be so black and blue?

[niftyfifties]

takes me back :)

[niftyfifties]

mla works cited

Ellison, Ralph. “Invisible Man”. New York: Vintage International, 1995. Print.

Kostelanetz, Richard. “The Politics of Ellison’s Booker: ‘Invisible Man’. Chicago Review, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1967), p.5-26. Chicago Review. 1967.

Wingfield, Adia Harvey. “Why Color-Blindness Is Counterproductive”. The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group. 13 September 2015

Bates, Karen Grisby. “A Look Back At Trayvon Martin’s Death, and The Movement It Inspired”. NPR. npr. 31 July 2018.

[niftyfifties]

how the media handles difficult topics (the 50s vs. now)

“The New Kid in Town”: Teenage Life and What it Means to Be Adult 

The 1950s: Rebel Without a Cause

Rebel Without A Cause, the 1955 film starring James Dean, talks about being new in town and coping with this new change through rebellion. Jim, played by James Dean, is a highschool junior who’s new in town and obessed with maintaining his masculinity and honor. As I’ve said in previous posts, his toxic obsession with honor stems from his relationship with his father and is the reason why he hates being called chicken. Throughout the film, Jim’s new environment constantly questions honorable he truly is. After a knife fight in the planetarium parking lot, Buzz challenges Jim to a chickie run in the name of honor. Jim accepts the challenge, still concerned for his safety. At the chickie run, Buzz isn’t able to jump out of the car in time, and his car falls off the cliff and into the ocean. Shortly after, Jim goes home and tells his parents what happened and that he wants to go the police. However, they beg him not to. This moment is obviously portrays the parents as morally flawed, and to do the right thing, Jim tries to run to the police station to tell them, for honor. The film illustrates teenage years as a time of self-discovery and growth from a kid to an adult. In this moment, Jim is showing us that being adult is about being honorable by doing the right thing and taking responsibility for your actions, especially when the world around you is telling you not to. 

The 2000s: Mean Girls 

Mean Girls, a 2004 cult classic about the “fetch” Cady Heron, also addresses what it’s like to be the new kid in school, and what it means to be in adult. In contrast to Jim in Rebel Without A Cause, Cady copes by trying to conform to fit in with others at her new school, rather than rebel. After hatching a plan with Janis and Damian to mess with Regina, Cady becomes obsessed with becoming a part of the “girl world”. Being accepted by the Plastics was her top prioirty, even if it meant talking behind people’s backs and compromising her integrity. Through the Burn Book plot and Cady’s inability to fess up to her actions at the all junior girl meeting in the auditorium, Mean Girls also shows the importance of taking responsibility for your actions. Cady ultimatley learns the importance of being selfless, responsible, and kind to others when she admits to making the Burn Book. When Cady confesses, she doesn’t mention Gretchen, Regina, and Karen’s involvement in it. While it may seem like she’s protecting them, the film portrays this moment as a milestone for Cady. She is taking full responsibility for her actions, and refusing to put others down for her success. In the context of the movie, lifting others up and taking responsibility for others is what being an adult should be all about.

Being the Only POC in the Room: Race and Social Equality

The 1950s: No Way Out

During the early 1950s and 1960s, American filmmakers solely created two roles for black actors: the villain and the misfit.  In 1950, Sidney Poitier landed his first role in a movie as Dr. Brooks in “No Way Out”- a racially progressive film about a hospital’s only black doctor dealing with Ray Biddle, the racist brother of one of his patients. This movie challenged racial stereotypes, paved a way for more black voices in American film, and showed that African-Americans are more than the boxes society tries to put them in. In a scene where Dr. Brook treats Ray’s brother (Johnny), Poitier’s character challenges racial stereotypes of an irrationally violent and dangerous black villain by remaining calm despite Ray’s verbal and physical abuse. While trying to inspect Ray’s wound, Biddle blows smoke from his cigarette into Dr. Brooks face. However, Dr. Brook ignores Ray’s instigating actions and continues on with his work. Ray clearly expects a negative reaction based on Dr. Brook’s race. Despite this, Dr. Brook refuses to embody the vicious character that Ray expects, only giving him a stern glare in return. Later while Dr. Brooks inspects Johnny’s eyes, Ray hits him. Rather than responding to violence with violence or raising his voice, Dr. Brooks employs the handcuffs on Ray’s bed to keep Ray from disturbing Dr. Brooks during his work, continuing to challenge Ray’s and the audiences’ perspective of Dr. Brooks and black men being irrational and inhuman. Poitier’s portrayal of a black doctor who is a rational, level-headed person was practically unseen before this movie and challenged the racist image of the black villain.

The 2010s: Dear White People

Dear White People is a Netflix original that shows the lives and interactions between black and white communities in college. When it came out, it was extremely controversial, since it was describing nuanced issues in a very blunt and frankly dividing way. However, people have praised the show for its ability to show different and valid perspectives on multiple issues regarding racism (both through micro-aggressions and violence) and social justice. The main character, Sam White, hosts her own radio show and continously attacks Pastiche, a white fraternity on campus for being racist and creating a school unwelcoming to people of color. The plot of the first season focuses on Pastiche hosting a party where everyone showed in blackface and black arrest on campus. Even though many of Sam’s opinions on the show are valid, many of her black and white peers state that she can’t properly understand black issues because she’s mixed and has a white boyfriend, and her lighter skin automatically gives her an advantage. Throughout the season, as she and her friends fight back against the racism on campus, she discovers/shows the rest of the campus that others can’t make assumption about her identity nor try to define it for her just because she is mixed. 

Both No Way Out and Dear White People do a fantastic job in showing that being black means something different to everyone, and it is unfair for other people to judge someone’s black identity or try to define it.

The Beat of a Generation: Mental Health, Identity, and Navigating the World

The 1950s: On the Road

On the Road is a direct reflection of the beaten community of his generation, the lowest of the low who are looked down upon and beaten down by society. This is the generation that came to the conclusion that society sucked, and On the Road continues to show just how meaningless American life can be. After spending his time with Dean, who he admired because he mistook his craziness for orginiality, finally realizes he is insane after going to Mexico with him and having a dream about how destructive. It is in this moment that Sal Paradise realizes that he can’t spend life running and having sex forever, but should learn how to be comfortable in himself and his identity.

The 2010s: Bojack Horseman

Bojack Horseman is an edgy comedy about a self-loathing and problematic horse famous for starring in a 90s sitcom called “Horsin’ Around”. The show follows Bojack as he tries to regain his dignity and rebrand himself as a serious actor while reflecting on his damaging childhood, abandonment issues, commitment issues, depression, anxiety, and more importantly: himself. Bojack Horseman shows that anyone beaten down by society can be from anywhere. Through Bojack’s long and problematic journey to going to rehab and getting therapy, the show demonstrates that anyone can have issues of trauma, and it is important to get help. I’m not saying Bojack Horseman is necessarily a good person, but his journey to rehab shows how people who have experienced trauma can have trouble rediscovering their identity/navigating the world outside of it. On the Road also talks about what people need to do to find their identity, but the book and show make very different conclusions as to what these actions might be. In On the Road, it’s more spritual, and becoming comfortable with yourself means becoming comfortable outside of society. In Bojack Horseman, becoming comfortable in your identity and happy with yourself means taking concrete steps to get help, and leaning on your family and friends for support. Furthermore, Bojack Horseman says that everyones trauma and issues are real, while On the Road criticizes the issues of the elites.

[niftyfifties]

looking at what has(n’t) changed: racially charged violence in america and invisible man

Clifton’s Death in “Invisible Man”

Throughout “Invisible Man”, Ellison brings us multiple emotional insights into the black experience of the 1950s, including the devastating death of Tod Clifton (one of the narrator’s closest friends in the Brotherhood). After the narrator returns to Harlem after being fighting for women’s rights, he finds the Brotherhood in shambles and Brother Clifton nowhere to be found. He is even more confused to find Brother Clifton selling obscene dolls portraying racist and bigoted images of black people. After yelling at him to stop, feeling betrayed by his actions, the police step in, shooting Clifton on the spot with no hesitation. The narrator is devastated, to say the least. Brother Clifton was one of his closest friends at the Brotherhood, one of the only people he trusted, and in an instant, all of that was taking away from him. From the narrator’s introspection, it is clear that Ellison intended Clifton’s death to be emblematic of everything wrong with American society and the system.

After the shooting, the narrator hosts a public funeral and asks himself what he did wrong, and trying not to blame himself for Clifton’s death:

“Why didn’t you hit him? I asked myself...Why didn't you hurt him and save him? You might have started a fight and both of you would have been arrested with no shooting...The incident was political...The political equivalent of such entertainment is death. But that‘s too broad a definition. Its economic meaning? That the life of a man is worth the sale of a two-bit paper doll...but that didn't kill the idea that my anger helped speed him on to death” (Ellison 447).

Ther’s a lot to unpack here. First, we see him continuously asks himself why he didn’t intervene which demonstrates the narrator’s mourning and how difficult it is to intervene in situations like those. Furthermore, he elucidates that this event was no mere coincidence, it was “political and economic”. It is through these implications that Ellison demonstrates the extent of American society’s dehumanization of the African American community, showing that it has gotten to the point where “the life of a man”, a black man, has become “worth the sale of a two-bit paper doll”, and disposable. Through this introspection, Ellison illustrates the large issue with American society and the system: that black lives don’t matter to them. Through the use of “anger” at this moment, Ellison is saying that his realization is something that should spark outrage among everyone. 

Ellison portrays the political nature of the event and issues through the narrator's observations during Clifton’s public funeral. Seeing all the people who attend Clifton’s funeral, the narrator wonders “Why [they were there]? Why had they found [them]? Because they knew Clifton? Or for the occasion, his death gave them to express their protestations, a time and place to come together, to stand touching and sweating and breathing, and looking in a common direction?... Did it signify love or politicalized hate? And could politics ever be an expression of love?” (Ellison 452). I personally found this introspection as a beautiful way of describing the ups and downs of politicizing a death like this. The narrator states that the funeral gave people a chance “to express their protestations, “to come together”, and to look in “a common direction”. Through his description of the political side of Clifton’s funeral, it is clear that this moment is integral moving towards social equality and demonstrating what’s wrong with race in America.

Ellison also asks a critical question about whether turning this death into a politicized event is appropriate, wondering if it the gathering of all these people represented “hate” or “love”. The narrator makes a clear distinction between the two but also wonders if they can be one and the same, wondering if the hate against the police is an expression of love for Clifton. It’s a question that many ask themselves about shootings now, and I will talk about the politics of events like these in the following section. 

Tracing it Back to Color Blindness, Trayvon Martin, and the Black Lives Matter Movement in the 21st Century

Color Blindness in Invisible Man: To Ellison, color blindness means being blind to individual experiences. Invisible Man discusses color blindness best when the narrator has to hide from the Ras the Exhorter, and pretends to be someone named “Rinehart”. After having time to reflect in this new unfamiliar identity, the narrator finally realizes why the Brotherhood doesn’t understand him. He realized that “[his seperate experiences] were [him]; they defined [him]...and no blind men, no matter how powerful they became, even if they conquered the world, could tke that, or change on single itch, taunt, laugh, cry, scar, ache, rage, or pain of it. They were blind, bat blind, moving only by the echoed sounds of their own voices. And because they were blind they would destroy themselves...Here [he] had thought [the Brotherhood] accepted [him] because they felt that color made no difference, when in reality it made no difference because they didn’t see either color or men” (Ellison 508). The narrator also describes the Brothers as “very much the same, each attempting to force [their] picture of reality upon [him] and neither giving a hoot in hell for how things looked to [him]” (Ellison 508). 

By describing these experiences as a defining part of the narrator’s identity, the narrator is saying that they shouldn’t be ignored, and show the important “pain” and “scars” of his past. Ellison also describes the Brotherhood has “destroying themselves” by ignoring race, which demonstrates how color blindness is moving away from the Brotherhood’s goal of social equality and black rights and representation. It is through this momeent that  Ellison here shows that being blind to color and race ignores the “experiences that define people” and forces an incomplete picture of the world upon others without asking how they feel. It ignores the individual, and continues to make generalizations about/ignores the experiences of people of color that are integral to them and their lives and ignores discrimination. 

Color Blindness in Culture Today: Today, people often state that they “don’t see race” or “color”, assuming that this ideology is positive and necessary to move forward from America’s racist past. However, this ideology actually does the exact opposite. I feel like this quote from Wingfield’s article in The Atlantic says it all: 

“Everyone wants to be treated as an individual and recognized for their personal traits and characteristics. But the colorblindness that sociologists critique doesn’t allow for this. Instead, it encourages those who endorse this perspective to ignore the ongoing processes that maintain racial stratification in schools, neighborhoods, health care, and other social institutions” (Wingfield).

Again, we see here that color blindness ignores the “individual” experience, and ignores processes that stlll promote racism in society, just as it is describe in “Invisible Man”. Rather than moving forward, it ignores the expriences of black individulas and the racism they experience, which is an integral part of one’s identity and life. And if we continue to ignore racism in it’s past, we move farther away from minimizing racism in society. 

Trayvon Martin and the Black Lives Matter Movement: The unfortunate death of Trayvon Martin in Februrary 26th, 2012, was turning point in the course of race relations in America. After the verdict of the trial against George Zimmerman, the officer who shot Travyon Martin, people were outraged and the event sparked protests across the nation, and in turn, the Black Lives Matter Movement against violence and racism towards black people in America. 

Some people have criticized the movement’s title, stating that it as racially polarizing as the use of “White Lives Matter”. Many people counter this, stating that the title is doing the exact opposite. Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s mother, says it best: 

The movement is “not taking away from anybody else's life, it's just putting emphasis on black lives because black lives seem so ... disposable” (Bates). 

This feeling of black lives being disposable is far too pervasive in America and has clearly been around for a long time. Ellison wrote about this feeling of black lives being “disposable” in the 1950s, and unfortunately we are still seeing this today, almost 70 years later. 

[niftyfifties]

sexism, misogyny, and absentee parents really razz my berries: traditional 1950s nuclear families as seen in tv and film

Leave it to Beaver (1957)

“Leave it to Beaver”, the 1957 sitcom about Theodore “The Beaver” Cleaver growing up in his suburban neighborhood, is a classic portrayal of what it means to be a “perfect family” in the 1950s. 

The Perfect Sons: Beaver, a curios yet naive kid, is everything American wants in a son. In a scene from the first episode, he constantly cracks jokes and is even asked to be the fire marshal in the school parade, winning both the approval of his fellow students and the teacher. The show portrays him as confident, funny, charming, and as someone who always tries to avoid getting in trouble (and who always apologizes if he does). Beaver also has an older brother, Wally Cleaver, who emulates these same idealistic goals in a son. His main personality trait outside of this is to help Beaver in his antics and have some witty repartee with him. In the same episode, the only thing Wally does is write a fake letter for Beaver to give to his teacher and also help him pretend to take a bath when he doesn’t feel like it. 

The Role of Each Parent: the Homemaker and the Breadwinner: His picture-perfect mother, June Cleaver, is the only true source of discipline in the house. In the same episode, June always makes sure the kids are doing what they are supposed to, and goes to meet Beaver’s teacher (without the father). The “man of the household”, Ward Cleaver, is barely around and merely serves a looming paternal presence that reminds those who forget it with a few inappropriate jokes and “mmmhmms”. He receives flowers from the teacher, after Beaver lied about his father being severely burned, and jokes about June’s brief suspicion that he’s cheating on her. Meanwhile, June cleans, goes to these parent meetings, takes care of the kids, and gives them a talking to, all without a single hair out of place or makeup smudged. She takes care of her household, and Ward takes care of her financially. June is the perfect American woman: beautiful, eloquent, charming, and emotional only when she needs to be. 

The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)

“The Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, the 1956 film about an alien invasion in Santa Mira, demonstrates the traditional gender roles of the time. We have Dr. Miles Bennel, a handsome, tough, doctor who also happens to have a loveable-sensitive side all while being the hero. Becky (his formal girlfriend) comes to visit him and fall in love and finds herself in apocalyptic mayhem. 

Becky: The Girl Next Door: Miles and Becky’s dynamic on-screen is exactly what America expects of a typical mand and woman. Becky is beautiful, sweet, and idolizes Dr. Bennel as her hero. She never speaks up against him or her father, and always listens to what they tell her to do. Every time Becky is scared, she looks to Miles for help. Just like June Cleaver, she’s charming but never angry.

Dr. Bennel: The film perpetuates also perpetuates traditional gender roles to the max. The man is the breadwinning hero, and the woman is the beautiful and subservient sidekick there for him at every turn. He always saves the day and saves her from the aliens and herself. In the scene where Dr. Bennel and Becky run towards the highway, Dr. Bennel continuously has to drag Becky across the plains and make sure she doesn’t sleep. He’s her caretaker and her hero, and even by the end of it he is able to save the day and gets to a local police station to tell them what happened. 

Rebel Without A Cause (1955)

Rebel Without A Cause, the 1955 movie that changed the course of American film, shows how straying traditional family values can cause chaos, and even death. Jim, played by James Dean, is a highschool junior who’s new in town and is arrested for getting into a fight with someone who called him “chicken”. 

Masculinity and Honor: His toxic masculinity and obsession with honor stems from his relationship with his father and is the reason why he hates being called chicken. His father, Frank Stark, is anything but masculine or honorable by 1950s standards. He is scared of his wife. In a scene where he cooks dinner for his sleeping wife, he wears a feminine apron and struggles to clean up when his plate full of food falls on the floor. Jim is disgusted when he sees this, embarrassed that his father would ever emasculate himself by doing such a thing. His father also listens to everything his wife says. Even when they do have a back and forth, he ends up agreeing with her by the end of it, and like the classic male stereotype, takes it as if it was his own. By seeing his father this way, Jim, in turn, craves honor and will do anything to prove it to anyone who challenges it. So when Buzz calls Jim a chicken, he gets pissed. 

Getting Angry isn’t Feminine: We also see traditional female roles being enforced through the character of Judy and Jim’s mother, Carol. This is shown in a bad light because her dysfunction is portrayed as the reason for Jim’s dysfunction. Carol and Judy both get mad, and aren’t afraid of what other people think and who sees it. Contrast to Carol, Judy craves attention from her family, her father and particular. In a scene after school, Judy asks her father for a kiss. After refusing multiple times, Judy kisses him on the cheek anyway, causing her father to slap her for acting like a child. She storms off angrily and heads off to the chicken fight between Jim and Buzz. Judy loves attention which is why she wears lipstick, because that’s the only time her father on the people around her pay attention to her and what she has to say. No one seems to really listen to her, except maybe Jim, when she gets angry or emotional. Through this, the film shows that getting angry isn’t feminine, which is a similar expectation that we have seen in other forms 1950s media like Leave it to Beaver. 

[niftyfifties]

invisibility, conformity and the black experience during the 1950s

Invisibility: One of the best ways to talk about invisibility and the black experience during the 1950s is through Ralph Ellison’s novel “Invisible Man”. In the “Invisible Man”, the narrator struggles with his black identity as he encounters different environments in a “white man's world”. The novel focuses on his struggle between embracing his black identity and seeking white approval, a metaphor for the debate between fighting back against white oppression and Booker T. Washington’s ideology (Kostelanetz). As he moves from an all-black college to becoming the face of a movement towards social equality, the narrator encounters one fundamental truth for himself: if he didn’t fit in, he was invisible. Many can argue that Ellison’s novel is a direct criticism of Booker T. Washington’s ideology of being a “good slave”. Ellison describes fitting in the white community as being a “good slave”: someone who seeks white approval while avoiding to challenge their fundamental beliefs regarding black communities. Throughout the story, Ellison argues that this ideology that was originally meant to help liberate black people in America, is actually oppressing them.

Let’s take a look at a scene between the narrator and Brockaway (the engineer at the paint factory in New York). After accidentally attending a labor union meeting and returning to the basement fo the factory, Brockaway is furious, threatening to kill the narrator. As Brockaway lunges towards him, the narrator reminds himself of how he should react:

“You were trained to accept the foolishness of such old men as this, even when you thought them clowns and fools; you were trained to pretend that you respected them and acknowledged in them the same quality of authority and power in your world as the whites before whom they bowed and scraped and feared and loved and imitated, and you were even trained to accept it when, angered or spiteful, or drunk with power, they came at you with a stick or strap or cane and you made no effort to strike back, but only to escape unmarked” (Ellison 225). 

Despite the fact that he’s been “trained to accept [this] foolishness”, he gets mad and talks back to him anyway. By associating this blind “love’ and “intimidation” of white “power and authority” with “foolishness” and “clowns”, he’s directly calling Booker T. Washington’s ideology foolish. Furthermore, he states that this ideology means that you can’t make an effort to strike back, and your only goal is “to escape unmarked”. It is evident that Ellison finds his ideas as a way to survive, rather than a way to live. Booker T. Washington’s old ways force black people to ignore everything about their black identity and redefine themselves to conform to white standards and approval. This usually means that they are still stripped of their rights to freedom of expression. By showing that the narrator chooses to strike back instead, and showing that this is the only way he could’ve survived Brockaway’s outburst, Ellison shows that this ideology is useless, and is actually dangerous. 

Ellison continues to portray this way of life as harmful because it makes black individuals often feel invisible. Most black characters out of the narrator's line of work aren’t accepted by white people because they haven’t conformed to white standards. And the narrator is unaccepted by his own black community because they feel betrayed because he chose to conform to white standards and Booker T. Washington’s ideas. 

Conformity: As I touched on in the last section, conformity played a great role in invisibility and the overall black experience during the 1950s. Black success was based on the approval of white people, and how well black individuals can conform to their standards. The black experience was all about conformity, and the struggle between to conforming for the black community or the white one. In Invisible Man, the narrator wants to conform to white standards in the beginning, wanting to be just like Mr. Bledsoe who has gained respect from all of his white counterparts and is someone who was “influential with wealthy men; consulted in matter concerning the race...they could laugh at him but they couldn’t ignore him” (Ellison 101). However, Ellison criticizes this conformity and shows living outside of it can make people feel liberated through the scene after the narrator gets shock therapy. After the therapy, he feels “that [he] had been talking beyond [himself], [and he] had used words and expressed attitudes not [his own]...Or was it, [he thought]...that [he] was no longer afraid?...Not of important men, not of trustees and such; for knowing that there was nothing which [he] could expect from them, there was no reason to be afraid” (Ellison 249). He’s not “intimidated” by “trustees”  or “white people”, he is no longer afraid, and he finally feels like he’s “expressing” his own “words” and “attitudes”. He doesn’t have to conform, he feels free, and he no longer feels invisible. Unfortunately, as the novel progresses, the narrator encounters another group that forces him to conform: the Brotherhood. Emma, the woman who works there, often criticizes his hesitance to sing in a choir, asking whether or not he even is black. In this instance, the narrator needs to conform to black standards and is unable to on the first try, making him feel out of place, and invisible.