After finishing our first major project of Invisible Man and looking back at all the major quotes I expounded on, one of the themes that really caught my attention (and interest) was this connection between man and machine. Like everything in the book, this relationship isn't directly explained or explicitly mentioned, but there's always a proximity between the two subjects when the narrator mentions one or the other. I was puzzling over this comparison when, in Psychology, reminded me of this idea.
The unit was Social Psychology.
After studying numerous experiments and understanding multiple terms to explain social phenomena, the narrator's constant switch between man and machine suddenly became clearer. There is the act of man himself, physically and mentally unique in an individual setting (man), and then there's the attitude and behavior of a whole group of people acting as one entity (machine). It dehumanizes, it is not unique. It is a nonliving blob that does what the leader switch, or maker wants it to do. It's such a weird paradox, to know that human beings can be two different things.
In Invisible Man, the narrator relates himself as an individual, even though those around him--such as the vet during the bus ride to New York--see him as a machine. Even when the narrator is part of the Brotherhood and conversing with an editor of a magazine who calls him a new leader, the narrator simply replies with "I'm just a cog in a machine." When the narrator is pushing himself to be independent, to stand out from his peers at school, he is a man. When he is part of a movement fighting for a cause, he is a machine (though this can be argued because his passion, which makes him act out, makes him more human than the other members of the Brotherhood). Does identity play a part in this?
In psychology, people who are part of a group go through a phase of non-identity; it is a peculiar type of detachment that cognitively places the individual as part of a group, but not an individual person. This explains why, in group settings, many people are more prone to do inappropriate things or actions. For example, you never hear people enthuse, "Let's have a riot at 3:00!" It always starts as a calmer parade or protest march. Only then does it escalate into a riot, and this riot consists of average citizens who aren't known for being violent up until that point. The deindividuation power of a crowd makes this all possible for people to act out, even though it isn't intentional.
Similarly, the narrator gets caught up in all the Brotherhood plans, and this causes him to lose his own identity and values. Like he mentions towards the end of the novel, he realizes that he accepts all other people's opinions without having the time or chance to create his own. He gets eaten up by the ideas of others and, therefore, acts mechanically under Brother Jack's power for his larger cause, like a robot. What is peculiar about the narrator, however, is that in time he comes to realize that he is the one cog that doesn't fit correctly within the Brotherhood's very mechanical ways; the narrator's outbursts of passion and emotion in his speeches doesn't go over lightly with the Brotherhood, but that's what gets the crowd rallied up and energized. Without realizing it, the narrator acts out from the Brotherhood crowd, and his expression--only a window into his true identity--is constantly shut down by the others in order to promote unity.
Which is better? I honestly don't know. Choosing identity over harmony, individualism over unity, isn't cut-and-dry because one isn't better than the other. This makes the narrator's struggle relatable to our own struggles of fitting in or standing out, doing what they tell you to do or doing what you feel is right.
No comments:
Post a Comment