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

The Morality of Sethe's Actions

 In Beloved, we see Sethe make an impossibly difficult decision between killing her kids and letting them go back to slavery. Throughout the book, we see the impact of this event not just on Sethe and her family, but also strangers who learn about it - understandably so, of course. The idea of a mother killing her child is horrendous, and since they don't have the context we the readers do, it is understandable that they would find her actions repulsive. However, even with knowing what we do about Sethe and the terrible situation she was in, did she do the right thing? Outside of the story, this would come down to a multitude of factors. For one, which is more desirable, death or slavery? Another point would be does anyone have the right to choose that for you? Of course, this leads to messy ethics debates, so I will leave that up to your individual moral compasses to decide. What is more interesting is what the story says about Sethe's decision. Beloved, which has been pretty ...

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...

Coalhouse Walker

 Coalhouse is an extremely interesting character in Ragtime . He is a fictional character, yet is portrayed as being more real than some of the historical figures depicted in the book. The narrator speaks of his past as if it is something you could find in an encyclopedia despite his fictional status. But arguably the most interesting part of his character is the morality behind his actions. He starts an entire revolution due to the events that occurred after his encounter with the firemen. While many people say that the main motive behind his actions wasn't just his car, it can't be denied that his car does seem rather pivotal to his motives. Part of his demands has consistently been to turn over Conklin to him for his own personal justice, and the second is to have his car back in pristine condition. As a result, I feel like this affects the morality of his actions to some extent. But let's assume first that the car wasn't a motive at all. Even in that case, I would s...