Rants

Jesse Allen
1 August 2005

Undeserving and Unloved

A recurring problem in society is that, in an attempt to please everybody, we neglect the individual. While many people insist that the greater good holds more value than an individual in society, Richard Wright reinforces the value of the individual. In the novel Native Son, Richard Wright paints a picture of a society where the individual is ignored by the people with selfish desires, the apathetic political movements, and the unhealthy church.

The key to understanding how Bigger is valued or not valued is in understanding how he is loved. Love and affection can be divided into three basic categories: earned love, circumstantial love, and totally unmerited love. Bessie’s love for Bigger is an earned love; Bigger earns Bessie’s love by getting her drunk. Wright writes, He knew why she liked him; he gave her money for drinks(Wright 132). Their relationship, like any relationship based on an earned love or affection, is superficial. Bessie does not care for Bigger any more than Bigger cares for Bessie. Their relationship was simple and shallow, She wanted liquor and he wanted her. So he would give her liquor and she would give him herself(132). The moment Bigger stops supplying the liquor, it is clear that Bessie will abandon Bigger. The same is true of Bigger’s affection for Bessie. This kind of love is self serving, and does not contribute to the self worth of an individual. If anything, it masks the individual behind a materialistic facade. Bessie loves drink, not Bigger. Her love is fickle and untrue.

The type of love that Bigger experiences most however is the circumstantial. As beautiful as a mother-child relationship can be, and as deep as it can become, it is a circumstantial love. Bigger’s mother loves him because she is his mother. Now, while there is absolutely nothing wrong with the kind of love that a mother has for a child, it does not typically contribute significantly to a person’s self worth if it is only based on the maternal instinct. For Bigger, His family was part of him, not only in blood, but in spirit(Wright 277). While the affection that his family shows for him is real and valuable, it is because of circumstance. The familial love is based on common blood and instinct. This love, although it is not fickle like earned love, still masks the individual behind their blood.

A love based on blood is much better though than a love based on pity and skin color. When Bigger takes a job as a chauffeur for Mr Dalton, a progressive businessman he hates the Daltons despite their apparent affection. No, not despite their affection, but because of it. When the Daltons are nice to him it is because of his skin and nothing else. Mr. Dalton even states explicitly that he is hiring Bigger because he is himself a supporter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (Wright 54). The Daltons love Bigger’s skin, not Bigger. This misplaced affection only serves to remind Bigger of his skin, and to remind him of the hate that so many other people have for him because of it. It makes him feel a dumb, cold, and inarticulate hate(68). Like the liquor and the blood, Bigger’s skin is yet another mask, obstructing the view of Bigger himself. Bigger is a young man who wants a chance, but his skin stands between him and much of the world. He even says, I could fly a plane if I had a chance(20). But he does not have a chance because of his black skin. The Daltons’ love is because of Bigger’s skin. Such love is empty and fruitless.

The kind of "love" shown to Bigger by the Daltons is brought to its even more apathetic extreme in the Communists. Jan's first encounter with Bigger gives us the transition from the affection for Bigger because of his skin to an affection only for his skin. Jan and Mary refer only toyour people and them, not to Bigger. They want to know these people (Wright 70), not Bigger. They have completely removed the person from the skin in a failed attempt to remove the skin from the person. Even the acts of compassion which the communists alone perform are not for Bigger, but for some greater cause. Max defends Bigger in court after Bigger is caught for his murderous adventure. But Max says to the State's Attorney, If you had not dragged the name of the Communist Party into this murder, I'd not be here (271). Max cares nothing for Bigger other than that he represents the black race and consequently all oppressed people. Max, and all of the other political movements use Bigger as if he were a stepping stone, just an inanimate object there to further their own journey. This placement of the “greater good” over the individual is characteristic of political movements, especially radical ones. Bigger becomes some sort of sacrifice, a sort of unknowing martyr. At least the politicians show some compassion and love in a practical way by providing for Bigger’s immediate need for legal representation.

Wright shows us a Church that forgets about individuals and forgets to love as they neglect this life in focusing on the afterlife. In order to understand how unhealthy this Church is, it is important to look at how Wrights portrayal of the Church holds to the ideal. The Reverend Hammond says to Bigger, as he is awaiting trial, Take yo’ mind off ever’thing but eternal life(Wright 263). All the Reverend seems to be concerned about is getting Bigger “saved,” but perhaps not even that. The Reverend is only preaching at Bigger; his words are probably the same for every person he wishes to “save.” There doesn’t appear to be any real compassion or desire to meet Bigger’s immediate needs. This is not consistent with what the Bible says Christians ought to do. James wrote Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? (New International Version, James 2:15-16). The Reverend did nothing to provide for Bigger’s needs. All he did was preach, and words without action are empty.

The more liberal white Christians, like the Daltons, were also overlooking the immediate needs of Bigger, his family, and every individual in South Chicago. Like what Max said in response to Mr. Dalton’s donation of ping-pong tables to the South Side Boy’s Club, My God , man! Will ping-pong keep men from murdering(Wright 273)? Here we have a man who owns most of the homes on the South Side, complete with the extortionate rates and discriminatory rental, but he justifies himself by donating ping-pong tables to the South Side Boys Club. Ping-pong does not put food on the table or a roof over people’s heads. The problem on the South Side is not of people having too much free time on their hands, forcing them into a life of crime. The problem is that families can barely afford to eat. People are forced to live in places that are falling apart. The Daltons forget the immediate needs of the less fortunate, and focus instead on the very general idea of charity as some abstract concept involving giving away money. This is the same problem the Reverend has. The Daltons overlook the immediate needs of individuals living in their real estate while being vaguely generous. They seem to think of charity as a sacrifice. They measure their worth based on their giving. Jesus, the one they claim to worship, says this in Mark 12, in response to the offerings of the wealthy and a poor widow, I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she gave out of her poverty, put in everything – all she had to live on(New International Version, Mark 12:43b-44). The Daltons giving did not force them to place all of their financial affairs in God’s hands. Instead, it appeared to be more for their own benefit than the people who were receiving the gift. The Daltons tend to represent the typical white church of the times. But, the Church’s problems don’t stop there.

The fundamental problem with the Church in Wright’s world is that it is impersonal. Luckily, there were other authors at Wright’s time who were addressing this very issue from a different perspective. The British professor CS Lewis wrote a science fiction trilogy in the early 1940's that addresses some of the same issues. In response to the impersonal mentality of the Church, Lewis wrote of the Passion in his novel Perelandra, When He died in the Wounded World He died not for men, but for each man. If each man had been the only man made, He would have done no less(Lewis 217). In this passage, Lewis demonstrates the value God has for the individual, and he reinforces the concept of a personal God. This demonstration of the very personal ideal exposes the flawed Church’s stray from the ideal. Now, while Lewis’ and Wright’s motives and purposes are different, perhaps even contrary, the message is still the same. In society, there is a lack of personal love. Nobody cares for Biggers. The Biggers are the mean, nasty, angry, depressed, unloved people that are forgotten. They are forgotten by the world. They are the ones who slip through the cracks, the ones who we only know about when they interfere with our own agenda. The Biggers are the people that others don’t even think deserve love.

Though Wright shows no presence of an unmerited favor or love, the omission of such love and the hopelessness of Bigger’s entire life seem to point to the infinite importance that unmerited love holds. In the end, Bigger is left alone, abandoned and unloved. Even Max, one of the only people that ever helped Bigger out, leaves him when it is no longer in the interest of the communist party to be involved. Again in Perelandra, CS Lewis shows us what it was that Wright purposefully omitted. Writing of God, He has no need at all of anything that is made(Lewis 217). According to Lewis, God is not obligated in any way to love man. Man cannot earn the love of God, nor is the love based on circumstance. Instead, Lewis points to the idea that God’s love is totally unmerited. But, we see in Wright’s portrayal of life that the Church does not reflect this unmerited love. Despite the heavy presence of the Church in Native Son, unmerited love does not exist.

By the very nature of love, the only truly personal affection which values the individual is unmerited favor. Wright’s omission of such love becomes an important statement about how society views individuals and how we can begin to change things. Wright’s realistic portrayal of society and its flaws points to the need for individuals to be valued. However, in order for individuals to become truly valued, society must begin to have selfless desires, to choose the individual over the greater good, to act with compassion for those who do not deserve it. If people in society can begin to do these things, more Biggers can be prevented. Instead of turning to violence, drugs, alcohol, lustful habits, and all sorts of self destructive behaviors, lonely people might just find acceptance and become productive citizens. A society is a collection of individuals, and individuals are valuable not for their assets, not for their place in life, not because somebody else says they are or they aren’t. Individuals, people, are valuable period.

Works Cited