Skip to main content

The Brotherhood and the CPUSA

    Ralph Ellison and Richard Wright were both part of the Communist Party of the United States of America, and they both eventually fell out with the communist party. This is reflected in their books, Native Son and Invisible Man, where the communist party is depicted in some form or another. In Native Son, the communist party is explicitly mentioned and is shown in a somewhat negative light. In a similar vein, connections can be drawn between the Brotherhood in Invisible Man and the communist party of real life.
    However, before the connection can be made between the Brotherhood and the CPUSA, it is important to remember Ellison's history with the party. Both Ellison and Wright had a falling out with the party and started to disassociate themselves with them near or around the time they wrote their books. The negative attitude they hold towards the party, especially Ellison, helps form connections between the Brotherhood and the party. For instance, throughout the book, the Brotherhood is constantly displayed as being almost cultlike in their behavior. When they are first introduced, a man shouts out saying that, "'We believe in brotherhood'," and the idea of brothers and sisters is constantly spread out in the book. In their meetings, they constantly refer to each other as brothers. In fact, even the members are called "Brother Jack" or "Brother Tarp." This exemplifies the hivemind-like nature of the Brotherhood.
    Another example of this is their ideology. The Brotherhood promotes unity to an absurd degree, to the point that they attempt to silence the narrator by forcing him to discuss "The Woman Question," something that he has no knowledge of. This ensures that he would have to use the pamphlets that Brother Jack writes, and thus he cannot deviate from the message they wish to give. And speaking of the message they give, their doctrine is constantly about the idea of "dispossession," which seems to be an empty point with no real meaning. This might have been Ellison's way of taking a jab at the communist party and what he perceived to be their useless ideals and messages. Additionally, dispossession has a connection with ideas of property, and Ellison might be indirectly using that to connect the Brotherhood with the communist party.
    Overall, I believe that Ellison is using the Brotherhood in Invisible Man to display the frustrations he had with the CPUSA and the flaws he believed they had. To some extent, it could be interpreted that he added the Brotherhood for the purpose of depicting his own journey of self-discovery, and is using the narrator as a vessel. But that is a discussion for another time.

Comments

  1. Ellison's frustrations seem a lot more evident in his novel than Wright's are in his: we can debate the issue of Wright having Max "speak for" Bigger in court, but he still does represent the actual communist critique of institutional racism on more or less its own terms, and the communist argument looks a lot more humane than the status quo represented by Buckley the state's attorney. Jan comes off as politically and culturally naive in his initial interactions with Bigger, but he also grows as a character and comes to apologize for his own role in making Bigger so uncomfortable.

    With Ellison, I think Howe has a point when he says that his "communists" are so cartoonishly inept, manipulative, and evil that the criticism might actually be weakened--no one who sympathizes with the communist argument will see themselves reflected in this cult-like organization, and maybe the novel could have featured more in the way of solid ideology in order to wield a more specific or effective critique. It's like he goes so far in the direction of caricature that the reader might not even recognize the CPUSA in the Brotherhood.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mumbo Jumbo: History, Fiction, or Mythology?

 In class, we discussed whether the alternate history presented in Mumbo Jumbo  was historical, fictional, or mythological in nature. I personally think that it existed in between all three of these categories. The usage of Egyptian mythology and historical/religious settings and characters makes it so that placing Chapter 52 and Chapter 52 in a definitive category difficult. Some people may say that it is easy to say that it is not historical because none of these events have been documented or have any basis in reality as far as we know. However, under a postmodernist interpretation - specifically either Maza or Doctorow - one can argue that these chapters represent their own view of history. Maza would say that the lack of evidence does not disprove it, but rather makes this as a valid alternative account of historical events. On the other hand, Doctorow would say that the "fictional" nature of the characters and events does not make it less real, pointing towards the fund...

The Significance of Dana's Arm

At the beginning of Kindred , we are thrust into a confusing situation with Dana explaining that she lost her arm on her last trip. Obviously, this does not make sense at first, but by the end of the book we see the events leading up to the loss of her arm. But the question remains of why she lost her arm, both from a narrative perspective and from a story perspective. In class, we talked about how Butler herself said that she had Dana lose her arm because she couldn't come back whole from an experience in that time period. It needed to have some sort of permanent mark on her character, and she decided to represent this by her losing a limb. However, I believe that there is another interpretation. Her losing the part of her arm that was grabbed by Rufus represents her cutting off part of her past/bloodline. Throughout the entire story, she has had a kinder view of Rufus because he is her ancestor and because she has seen him grow up. But when she decides to kill him, she is putting...

What Really is Invisibility?

The idea of "invisibility" is key to the novel Invisible Man , which comes as no shock to anyone who actually read the book (or read the title). However, we are never presented with a concrete definition of what "invisibility" truly means. We know that certain characters are described to have it, such as the narrator, Dr. Bledso, Brockway, and Rinehart to list a few. While we get somewhat of a description of the invisibility of each of these characters, I believe that the Rinehart sequence gives us the most insight into what invisibility really means. The narrator describes himself as invisible in the prologue and gives quite a lot of information on the foundation of invisibility. He says that, "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. I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids -- and I might even be said to possess a mind. I am invisible, understand, ...