"For, like almost everyone else in our country, I started out with my share of optimism. I believed in hard work and progress and action, but now, after first being 'for' society and then 'against' it, I assign myself no rank or any limit, and such an attitude is very much against the trend of the times." -- The Invisible Man
Throughout Ralph Ellison's The Invisible Man, the nameless narrator struggles with the moral merits of following the "rules" set forth by the powerful entities within a society. He starts out his life with a mission to be the "successful" black man in 1950s America. He follows the rules and stays in his place in order to succeed within the channels that have been set up for him.
He struggles with why he must follow these rules, to submit to more powerful men. In a sense, it was only "moral" for the narrator to be who others expected him to be: Southern, submissive, and post-slavery black. The world does not reward this cultural morality, however, when the narrator is chewed up and spit out for circumstances beyond his control.
The narrator finds a new sense of morality, one that reflects the revolutionaries at the time: to rebel is to stand up for the morally right. This sentiment becomes a problem when he realizes that he was not following his own moral code, but the code of the revolutionary agenda.
This story brings some important answers to whether morality is derived from society, or whether it is innate. In one sense, the morals as defined for black men did come directly from the powers that be, or in a broader sense, from society. Certain expectations were imposed upon these men and women not because some fundamental sense of morality compelled them to do so, but because others simply came to expect such actions. However, in another sense, the narrator does find a moral code within himself, when he finally becomes invisible, assigning himself "no rank or limit" except those he deemed necessary.
The moral code set out by the imposition of society was easily laid out and followed; the narrator's own moral code was not quite as straightforward. Morality is not an easy question, and internal morality can at times be more murky than external morality. Perhaps this is why we tend to opt for the latter. Internal morality requires constant reevaluation and testing, whereas external morality is straightforward and consistent throughout groups.
It is up to the individual to determine how much of his morality he will acquire through osmosis, and how much he can generate within himself. This keen insight I will carry with me as I read in future books. I have yet to determine what factors cause individuals to choose their balance between the two.
