Jonathon Thomas
Blog: Notes of a Native Son
After reading James Baldwin’s notes of a
Native Son, I realized that Baldwin seemed very controversial as he touched
upon several different topics and parts of the novel. Baldwin first began with
the logic and history of the term "Negro" to basically lay down the path for
discussing and explain his points of view on key parts of the book. As I read
further throughout the essay, I noticed Baldwin utilizes the term “we” as in
society and “they” as in the Field or House Negro. One thing I admire of the
notes by Baldwin is that they are extremely logical and raw at the same time,
but I feel that this may be one of his downfalls, because though his rhetoric
is superb, it may be difficult for specific audiences to understand where he is
coming from. For example, it would be easier for some African Americans to understand
his rhetoric simply because they can relate from their ethnic history or past
experiences of their culture, as for someone of a complete different ethnic
background it is harder because they are unaware of the relation or point that
he is trying to come across (ex. an inside joke or rhetoric that a specific
group of people understand, but others don’t because their personal experiences prevent them
from doing so). Further along in the
read, Baldwin talks several times about the typical “Negro” and the novel being
trapped in the “social arena”. I believe that when he discusses this particular
topic he is speaking of how the common Negro is automatically judged and
predetermined before any of his/her actions can be displayed and evaluated.
Since this is true, every single action that the Negro performs from there on
after is severely scoped and under surveillance. If “we”, America, approve of
the action, then the "Negro" receives a pass. However, if the Negro's action is
vile in America’s eyes, then they shall nearly forever be scorned and outcast
from society. I feel that Baldwin was trying to touch on the basis that America
has its rules and regulations to where if you are not of “their” standards,
then you and your persona, culture, character, and identity must be erased and
transformed to how “they” want “you” to be. In this sense and point I am
referring to “you” as the Negro or Bigger of that time period. Bigger appeared
to be a raged chaos to society, but maybe there is an actual meaning underneath
the behavior and mentality. If there was a meaningful message that Bigger had
within himself, maybe America and even Bigger’s own ethnic alleys would have
been able to understand if he could have been capable of portraying it
correctly.
Jonathon,
ReplyDeleteFascinating post! There are a few points I would like to briefly address here.
I think that your description of the tone of "Many Thousands Gone" as "extremely logical and raw" is spot on, and at the same time, as you suggest, the essay touches on a number of themes and subjects with long and convoluted cultural histories and racially charged undertones. Your points on surveillance in the social arena are terrific - the general concept of the Panopticon (an theoretical idea explained best by the French theorist Michel Foucault) applies in a rather different manner when race is involved.
For Foucault the Panopticon was basically a police state bearing some resemblance to a reality show. People are led to believe they are being constantly watched - usually they are - but there are still (very few) times when they are actually not being filmed or watched. During these unwatched times, Foucault argues that individuals still "watch" themselves -- they are aware that others are almost always watching their actions and so they always act as though they were being observed.
You rightly point out here within the social arena, individuals of different races are "watched" differently by viewers who have a whole range of racially determined preconceptions or stereotypes. Some have more, some have less. At the beginning of _Native Son_ Bigger is trapped within his own perspective.
The funny thing is that Bigger (the individual) usually ISN'T being watched, but Bigger (the stereotype, the statistic) is ALWAYS watched. After Bigger experiences a complete shift in his state of mind, he realizes that all of the people around him in his family and neighborhood are all worn down by the battle between their real selves and others' stereotypes. Baldwin has a real problem with this - in fact it ruins the novel for him. Wright encourages readers to identify with Bigger but then dooms the character and all around him to a statistical fate.
Bigger is suddenly thrust into the limelight and he realizes that the "real him" was never being watched. The "real him" was, as Ralph Ellison so eloquently puts it - invisible. Others watched him only in order to see him conform to their expectations...and he does.
So, in short, your comments on depth and character and surveillance are really apt. Thanks for contributing these points to our discussion.