Language, Power, and Identity in Ellison and Bukowski

Introduction: Language, Discourse, and Social Power

Language and discourse are at the root of all human societies. No human world can exist without communication, and this communication occurs on many levels and frequencies. In addition to the everyday language used to convey ideas and decisions, such ideas and decisions can be taken to a further level — one on which power is depicted. Power is often a collective, sociological construct in which the power of the collective is greater than the power of the individual. Indeed, individuals tend to submit to the power of the greater whole: the power of society as a collective entity. In many ways such power is necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of society. However, it is inevitable that, even in a democratic society, some individuals will suffer while others benefit from the power structures designed not only to ensure society's smooth operation, but also to compel individuals to conform to certain modes of conduct and being.

This type of collective power is depicted in novels such as Charles Bukowski's Ham on Rye and Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man. Both protagonists serve as anti-heroes who are at first oppressed by the power structures — or indeed by the perceived power structures — of their respective societies. Ultimately, both use language not only to communicate their sense of repression, but also to break the power that imposes that repression upon them. In the language of both novels, various constructs of communication serve as important themes, including the concepts of truth and power as perceived on both the individual and social levels.

In order to examine the various constructs of social and individual use of discourse and power in Bukowski's and Ellison's respective novels, concepts from the works of Mikhail Bakhtin and Linda Hutcheon will be used. In addition, the idea of power and discourse will be considered from the wider viewpoints presented by works such as those by Kafka and Plato. Bakhtin calls for a recognition that language connects individuals and society: "Form and content in discourse are one, once we understand that verbal discourse is a social phenomenon — social throughout its entire range and in each and every one of its factors…" (Bakhtin 259). If this is not recognized, Bakhtin holds that the language will be "flat and abstract" (259). In Ellison's Invisible Man, language plays precisely the important role of connecting the individual protagonist with his society — and in doing so, that society exercises power over him.

Identity, Naming, and Oppression in the Novels

According to Valerie Smith (in O'Meally 27), the protagonist's various encounters with individuals in power — such as Norton, Bledsoe, and the Brotherhood — are precisely what maintains his oppression: they "impose false names or unsuitable identities upon him. His experiences teach him that the act of naming is linked inextricably to issues of power and control." The issue of identity is vitally connected with discourse throughout the novel. Up to the end, the Invisible Man remains nameless. Despite their attempts and minor successes, the powerful individuals and entities, as well as society as a whole, never manage to impose their concept of identity upon the protagonist. This is something that only he can do — and he does it by means of seclusion and narrative. When he realizes that there is no way to truly be himself while at the mercy of those around him, he secludes himself to write his own narrative, which only he controls.

In Bukowski's work, language and identity also play an important role. In Chapter 22, the narrator describes his encounter with a boy named Eli LaCrosse, who attempts to hide his true nature behind language: "He used a cuss word in almost every sentence, at least one cuss word, but it was all fake, he wasn't tough, he was scared. I wasn't scared but I was confused so maybe we were a good pair." Eli uses language he perceives as tough in order to conceal his true reactions to a world and society he finds decidedly hostile. Symbolically, Eli serves as a springboard for the narrator's own feelings regarding his place in society: he does not fit well with its requirements and does not enjoy his interactions with the world around him for a variety of reasons. In addition to self-destructive behaviors such as drinking and violence, the narrator connects with outcasts such as Eli far more readily than with the "normal" children at his school — despite professing that he does not particularly like Eli. He identifies with Eli's status as an outcast and social reject, and so he cannot bring himself to join the rest of society in rejecting the boy.

In both novels, Bakhtin's (261) description of the novel as "a phenomenon multiform in style and variform in speech and voice" is clearly illustrated. The social worlds in which the protagonists move, live, and attempt to find their identities employ a different linguistic mode than the protagonists themselves. In Invisible Man, for example, those who hold power are the ones who know their place in the world and know how to use language to secure it. Even the Invisible Man's grandfather has maintained his own subtle power, in his own view, through a pretense of submission. He tells his grandson to "…overcome 'em with yeses, undermine 'em with grins, agree 'em to death and destruction…" (Ellison 16).

Democracy, Deception, and the Invisible Man

It is this pretense of power that the protagonist attempts to impose and maintain, but ultimately finds inadequate for his purposes. The Invisible Man has two fundamental character flaws that separate him from the power he seeks: his tendency to trust people, and his fundamental inability to be untruthful or insincere. His grandfather advises him to pretend humility, and for a time the protagonist succeeds in doing so, but eventually he finds himself overwhelmed, attempting to play a role that conflicts with his sincere convictions. In reaction, he needs to separate himself from a society that would require such insincerity of him in order to take responsibility for the narration of his own life. Only in this way can he make his own meaning (Smith in O'Meally 47).

This, according to Danielle Allen (in Morel 38), is the fundamental problem with the democratic social system within which the Invisible Man attempts to operate: "Democracy puts its citizens under a strange form of psychological pressure by building them up as sovereigns, and then regularly undermining any individual citizen's experience of sovereignty." The Invisible Man cannot secure his individual sovereignty in a society which, although claiming to be democratic, does not acknowledge his right as a sovereign. All those exercising power over him make decisions regarding his identity and the actions he must take to secure his own well-being. Ironically, this very attempt is what most harms him, both physically and psychologically.

Symbolic of such harm is the destruction the Invisible Man suffers after the accident at Liberty Paints. According to William R. Nash (in Morel 108), it is not difficult to infer the meaning of the "white" world in which the injured narrator finds himself: "…the clinical discussion is a loose acknowledgment of the history of racial oppression melded with speculation about how best to handle this particular case." The doctors treat him as truly invisible — acknowledging no individuality or personality beyond the fact that he is not white like them or like his surroundings. The episode sets him clearly and painfully apart from the world in which he has tried to make his own way by feigning humility. Yet those in powerful, privileged positions believe themselves to be democratic and oriented toward the well-being of all citizens (Allen in Morel 38) — a belief that proves more deceptive than any mild pretense the Invisible Man himself attempts. Not being deceptive by nature, the protagonist initially takes others at their word when they appear to offer help. As a result, he is betrayed time and again, until he learns that the only way to find his true self — in a manner not untruthful to himself — is to separate himself both physically and mentally from a society where deception is the sole path to power.

Conclusion: Personal Power Through Narrative

In conclusion, both narrators find a sense of personal power by becoming aware of the paradigms of social power. In contrast to Kafka's naive man from the country, Henry and the Invisible Man make every effort to gain power in the worlds that surround them. At first, their means of seeking power are inadequate — they only further victimize the protagonists until each finds his own powerful narrative to overcome that victimization. In this process, both characters come to a deeper understanding of the world and of the societies in which they operate. They overcome their obstacles by building personal power through language. The Invisible Man begins to attain a sense of this once he realizes that seclusion is the only path toward sufficient power for his eventual reentry into society. Both novels therefore serve as a powerful depiction of a postmodern world in which the individual gains personal power only through effort and often via isolation.