For the reasons I provide below, and MORE...I wish I would have read it 10 years ago!
The most significant novel of the twentieth century is unequivocally Ralph Ellison’s The Invisible Man. Ellison, in an honest and intelligent manner, discusses the traditionally difficult conversation concerning the nexus of race, power, and liberty in this country. Though W.E.B. DuBois (1903) makes the declaration early in the 20th century that the race question will be America’s most critical challenge, Ellison builds a novel that rises to that challenge. He builds a novel that simultaneously demands the reader ask themselves the tough questions without repelling those who are consistently timid on topics of race, power, and freedom. I will discuss the significance of this novel through the concept of the dialectic. “Dialectic,” in this essay, will refer to the rhetorical term which aims to describe the antonymic tension that exists between two separate entities. Dialectical tensions can be found between Night and Day, Rich and Poor, Black and White, Democrat and Republican; the possibilities are, of course, limitless. I argue in this piece, Ellison’s Invisible Man is the most significant book of the 20th century based on how he utilizes the “dialectic” to gain access to a core human sensibility that grabs reader-attention and contributes to ‘reader-enlightenment.’
Dialectic is present within the very first paragraph of the Prologue. He suggests, “I am an invisible man. No, I am not a spook like those who haunted Edgar Allan Poe; nor am I one of your Hollywood-movie ectoplasms” (Ellison, 1952, p. 7). Through the use of language alone, in our initial introduction to Ellison, that the reader is made aware of the direct, unabashed approach to the author’s proposition. He is short with his first sentence; it contains a mere five words. It is a simple declaration. Indeed, the statement is concise on a linguistic level. But, this is just the beginning of the dialectical construction. Ellison (1952) goes on to say, “I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids—and I might even be said to possess a mind” (p. 7). Though most persons charge with making a case for “invisibility” would not offer reasons of substance, flesh, bone, fiber, and liquids, this is exactly what Ellison does. His mention of these empirical tangibles [flesh, bone, fiber, and liquid] is the sentence immediately after his bold declaration of “invisibility.” These two sentences are drastically opposite but immediately adjacent. This quixotic approach to introducing the text is surprisingly attractive and lures the reader into the novel by attempting to understand the nature of this seeming (in)visible contradiction. Though Ellison continues to utilize language on a pragmatic level to reinforce the presence of the “dialectic,” he also uses dialectical tensions to provide his over-arching social commentary.
The novel, the journey of a young man coming “into his own,” is based on a series of moves of which the narrator seems to have little control. (This, in itself, speaks to his “invisibility” issues.) It is of extreme importance to note, however, that the concept of “dialectic” is present in the conditions and constraints that are the catalyst that spark the narrator’s “journey of discovery.” His initial problem with Mr. Norton, the rich-white-university trustee, is couched in the complexity of the “dialectic.” The narrator struggles to find a place to take Mr. Norton. He doesn’t know why he should be concerned about taking Mr. Norton anywhere he would desire; after all, he is the powerful white trustee. But, he also knows that he should not show him where all the black people live. Though subconscious and unfounded, he knows that he should avoid showing him the unattractive parts of the area; the poverty of the slave cabins. As he grapples with this decision, he confesses, “I didn’t understand in those pre-invisible days that their hate, and mine too, was charged with fear” (Ellison, 1952, p. 47). This sentence illustrates his most clear articulation of the discomfort he feels during his afternoon of chauffeuring the trustee. These moments, and the decisions made throughout this period, are concepts for which the remainder of the novel is based. The novel is predicated on one person’s aim to navigate through a world based upon powerful “dialectic” tension. The narrator aims to survive these tensions the entire course of the novel; and the process comes to the realization that he is invisible. As a result, one of the declarations of the prologue seems accurate by the novel’s end. He states, “I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me” (Ellison, 1952, p. 7).
As a result, he introduces his infatuation with the “dialectic” early aren’t the forensic proofs most people would provide to construct an argument for “invisibility.” If anything, these empirical materials suggest “visibility” and things that are quite “tangible.” The lies, the deceit, the ill-kept promises, the struggle, the perserverance of a narrator who is determined to meet the challenges that he has met. It is a story that not only held true to scores upon scores of African-Americans during this time period, but it holds true to the contemporary African-American narrative. Ellison (1952) does not tell this story with a revolutionary tone, and he does not scare his potential audiences with overt mention of race and racism. Ellison (1952) merely reports his experiences and consequently, provides an accurate representation of inter-racial exchanges and intra-racial social exchanges through the “dialectic.”
