Invisible Man

I enjoyed our conversation about The Invisible Man, but I felt like we never came to a final conclusion. Was joining the Brotherhood a good thing for the narrator or bad? I personally think it was necessary because throughout the novel, the narrator is trying to figure out his identity. I don't think he ever really knew who he was and had always done what his superiors had told him to do. From Mr. Norton, to Bledsoe, to Brother Jack, the narrator just goes with the flow. I didn't really understand the ending, but from what it sounds like, he finally has a grasp on who he would like to be. I was a little disappointed by the ending because it was unclear what he was going to do from then on, but I liked the idea of the book as a whole.

Now onto a tangent subject....

It's almost halloween!! I am trying to convince the other girls to be Fanta girls with me. I tried to be a Fanta girl one year and made costumes with my friends for weeks, but then on the day of Halloween I got sick and couldn't go trick or treating! I'm going home this weekend (which I'm so excited about) and hopefully I will get some more costume ideas. We should definitely have a floor halloween party or something!

Economics...what??

I am not sure if it was the lack of coffee or lack of sleep, but when Mary Hansen came to speak to our class, all I wanted to do was fall asleep. Not only did she tell us what we already knew, but she turned our class into an economics class. I don't really want to hear that "we need to try different things to figure out what we want to do" or "you won't necessarily do what you thought you were going to do", etc. I don't really want to hear what is okay or expected of us, I want to know exactly what steps I will need to take in order to pursue a possible major.

This is the shortest blog I've ever written, but there wasn't much to reflect on this week. All I know is I'm kind of sick of these speeches because they are starting to blend together and I can't remember who said what.

The Planning Paradox

From the moment we could communicate, we have been receiving conflicting messages. In one ear we hear "act like an adult," "consider you future," and "you better start planning now;" while in the other ear we hear things like "enjoy your childhood" and "live in the moment." This is the paradox of growing up: enjoying the moment in which we reside while, at the same time, planning continuously for our future. I have always been a fan of living in the moment, and Ms. Hansen's low profile lecture to our class made me feel a lot better about that viewpoint.

Ms. Hansen is not the first of our speakers to admit that her job came to her by chance, but she is one of the few who advocates wide-ranging experimentation over narrow planning for a college game plan. Many of our previous speakers have advocated narrow and tedious planning for the future, yet they themselves found their own careers out of the blue. I felt that Ms. Hansen's approach was more realistic for many different reasons: first, the majority of the jobs we will be applying for do not even exist yet, and second, the liberal arts approach to education, though useful for jobs, does not necessarily help you to know what you are passionate about.

Now, I must acknowledge that Ms. Hansen was speaking outside her area of expertise (which she only tangentially touched on), but in her case you can argue that she has not been blinded by the forced ideologies of the machine and is simply talking about her experience. We have seen that her experience of find a career by chance is by no means unique, so therefore we should regard her words as equally valid to those of a speaker from an education research program, career center, or what have you.

Reflection: I noticed a trend between our speakers

So all of these guest speakers we've had come to class all seem to have the same story as to how they found their dream job: Chance.

Chance? Really? There are a lot of unlucky people in the world...Who's to say we won't be a part of them? I don't particularly enjoy the idea of not having any control over such a huge part of my future. I knew it wouldn't be a clear cut formula where you input problem-solving over here and add it to liberal arts and then subtract stupidity and get the ideal job. But still, there is no way I can go through college without a heading. I want to experiment but I don't want to just be blowing in the wind.

I'm also not a fan of the philosophy that nothing is a waste of time because you learned what you're not good at. I am a perfectionist. I don't do failure and I don't enjoy being bad at things. There's no way I would possibly reflect upon a failed class and say "Oh well, it was worth it. At least now I know I'm no good at it!" What a waste of my time and money. Maybe my way of thinking is naive, but I just can't call a semester of classes and money and time and work worth it if it was all torture.

Decisions

Deciding what you want to do with your life is always difficult. I have always had an interest in so many different areas that it was hard choosing a major to study. After high school, I took a year off from school which worked out pretty well for me. It gave me time to think about my future and what I would really like to pursue. I ended up teaching at a primary level school and I loved it! This is the main reason why I chose psychology as my major. However, I am still thinking of attaching a minor or even a double major to that because of my wide range of interests.

Mary Hansen pointed out to us that we should try out a variety of courses. She said that realising our dislike in a particular area of study is just as important as discovering a passion for something. I really liked this statement and I totally agree with it. However, the main problem most of us saw with it was the lack of time for testing out different courses. I feel like I do enjoy my psychology classes but I also enjoy others which sometimes makes me wonder if I should be majoring or minoring in some of them.

I hope that soon I will be able to declare my major, whether it includes a minor or an additional major, and be satisfied with my choice. I guess I just need some time to try out different courses like Mary Hansen suggested before I am able to make this choice.

Question 7: Invisibility

I do not think that invisibility is specific to race or ethnic background. The theme of race and what it means to be "black" during this time is apparent throughout The Invisible Man, but I don't think that it is the sole reason for the narrator's feeling of invisibility. Invisibility can mean a number of things. One could feel invisible because they don't have a voice or they may feel insignificant within a large number people. An example I gave in class was when I made the transition from high school to college. In high school, I felt that I could at least recognize everyone and for the most part they could recognize me. Here, in college, it is a totally different experience. There are now 6,000 undergrads and I feel invisible at times when I walk around campus and I don't even recognize someone's face.

As for The Invisible Man, there are numerous examples of the narrator feeling invisible. I think he is going through a bit of an identity struggle. In college he had no control over anything and had to put on a front in order to remain in school (a reason for his expulsion). When he joins the Brotherhood, he finally has a place to feel less invisible. They "value" his opinion and encourage him to speak out and become known. However, when they turn against him, he says, "Up to now, I had felt a wholeness about my work and direction such as I'd never known; not even in my mistaken college day. Brotherhood was something to which men could give themselves completely...and it was this sense of wholeness that guaranteed that it would change the course of history" (406). Here, it is evident that the narrator is struggling with a sense of abandonment and rejection. He is back to square one again: invisibility.

Question 7

Being invisible during the narrator's time was probably mostly due to his race, which automatically limited his opportunities to stand out, or to pursue his true interests. Such things such as Dr. Blesdoe's letter, which the narrator thought was in good faith and was actually a ploy to deny him work, is an example of these times in which he lived. Part of the narrator's problem is his inability to formulate his own thoughts. Even as he gave his speeches, he only fed off of the audience's desires. He either directly or indirectly told was what to say and do--and that is what makes him invisible. This expectation of following orders was assumed during his time for most blacks by whites, but for the narrator I think it is particularly notable how he doesn't think for himself.

And how else can someone be defined than by their actions and thoughts? I think it's for this reason that the narrator is so invible. He has no identity, and nothing that makes him stand out or make him different from just another bump in the road.