Invisible Man Post

I have had a hard time thinking about how this book relates to my big question, so I am just going to make this a sort of stream on conscience sort of writing. I guess this quote could relate. “Life is to be lived, not controlled; and humanity is won by continuing to play in face of certain defeat.” This argument could be taking to mean that the laws of nature control us, or interferes with the making of the person we want to be. Another interpretation could be the exact opposite, that we create societies within societies which require conformity, whether good or bad, to succeed, and this does not let us be true to ourselves. Ellison seems to take the opinion of the later argument. He shows that as the narrator becomes a part of different social structures, he becomes invisible. He understands that all of those people who have been accepted into those social structures are blind. This brings out an interesting observation about nature vs. humanity. That animals are not social at all like humans. Animals are social to help get more food, water, land, etc. Humans are willing to sacrifice a lot to become more social or acceptable. Although Ellison seems to think that uniting humanity with nature would be beneficial, I tend to disagree. Society as a whole knows better than individuals what is worth doing, and what will bring happiness (although I feel like I have been becoming less trusting of society as of late.) So perhaps this need for relationships and connection that is not seen in animals is what separates us from them.