For my Essay 2, I am focusing on Alain Locke’s "New Negro". In the article, “Alain Locke and Community”, Leonard
Harris argues that “ Locke’s ethical and conceptual paradox is resolved by
considering the relationship between instincts and particular social groups as
asymmetrical”(239). Conversely, in his article, “Alain Locke: Ambivalence and
Hope”, Mark Helbling argues “Locke seeks to locate at the root of individual
perception and evaluation elemental states of feelings common to mankind. Thus
is the subjective universe of human meaning seen to have an underlying
coherence and order”(295). Helbling and Harris have opposing views. According
to the OED, the word asymmetrical means, “Not symmetrical, out of proportion,
with the parts not arranged correspondingly.” He argues that social groups and
their instincts don’t match, and therefore there cannot be a sense of “coherence
and order” like Helbling argues. According to the OED, the word coherence means
“The action or fact of cleaving or sticking together; cohesion.” He argues that
Locke writes about a cohesive mankind, while Harris advocates for an unmatched
society and instincts.
Hi Natalia,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting essay idea and I admire your intellectual courage for tackling Alain Locke. When you re-read and reassess "The New Negro" I think that you'll find that a lot of his confusions and ambiguities predict the major tensions in a novel like Invisible Man.
Your readings of Harris's and Helbling's meanings seem spot on to me. My primary question is what is at stake in their assessments as far as your argument goes.
So -- Locke's New Negro, according to Harris, was caught up in a paradox that is best understood as an "asymmetrical" relationship between their personal instincts (which are individual(?) -- definitely not universally human, but is race one of these "particular social groups"?) Does Harris think that Locke situates individuals against all kinds of different groupings in which they don't fit or does race form any kind of solidarity? Another way to put this might be: do the "New Negro" and the old negro mesh together or are their aims different? Is, then, race (as it has been conventionally understood) an old social grouping that no longer applies?
For Locke, New Negroes are people that cannot be accounted for by then current methods of sociology, understandings of philanthropy or charity, or even by race-leaders -- so if even the leaders of a race are not able to fully comprehend the concept, then the New Negro is an individual, not even a member of a race (if being a member means sharing a common understanding). This seems like evidence for Harris's "asymmetrical" claim.
Indeed, it seems more that Locke hopes for Helbling's thesis -- he anticipates a "multitude" (962) of people "shedding the old chrysalis of the Negro problem" and "achieving something like a spiritual emancipation" that does not merely change individuals but "the life of the Negro community." Perhaps if we look deep enough at sociological phenomena like the Great Migration (see 963), there is a real impetus. A desire to escape from prejudice and oppression could perhaps be seen as a one of Helbling's "elemental states of feelings common to mankind." But Locke goes further than this:
"This tide of Negro migration, northward and city-ward, is not to be fully explained as a blind flood started by the demands of war industry coupled with the shutting off of foreign migration, or by the pressure of poor crops coupled with increased social terrorism in certain sections of the South and Southwest...The wash and rush of this human tide on the beach line of the northern city cetners is to be explained primarily in terms of a new vision of opportunity, of social and economic freedom, of a spirit to seize, even in the face of an extortionate and heavy toll, a chance for the improvement of conditions" (963).
Locke claims that "In the very process of being transplanted, the Negro is being transformed" as Ireland and Prague have been transformed before (964) -- a claim that is quite universal.
My primary concerns/interests about this topic would be:
- Ensuring that your own voice carries the paper and that you don't allow a back and forth between Harris and Helbling to take over.
- Considering the position of race in this scheme -- is the concept of race incompatible with a view of Locke's argument that emphasizes social asymmetricality? Is it compatible? How about with a view of Locke's argument that emphasizes human commonality -- shared features of humanity? I have a feeling that your argumentative thesis would emerge from considerations along these lines.
- What is at stake in viewing things one way or the other? Is this scheme still relevant? I think that it certainly is, especially with regard to claims that race doesn't matter when people still continue to emphasize asymmetricality under certain circumstances.