The Animal in the Room with You is You
By: Joseph Riviera
Flight, Book two of Native Son by Richard Wright, has many shocking issues detailed within its descriptive narrative. Specifically, Bigger’s attitude towards his crime and his actions thereafter were severe and shocking. They impressed a certain realization about humanity and our relationship to the world and one another. This realization is that we all are truly animals, regardless of race and creed, with destructive tendencies.
The realization in reference may be commonly known to some, but for me this was a concept which was created by observation of current events and the analysis of the mind of a criminal. In this case the criminal was Bigger, the murderer. But, I beg to ask, Is he a murderer or did he only act in self-preservation?
As the title suggests this analysis of Bigger is based on him being primarily an animal and having the instincts of jackal. This realization is based on the common diagnoses of humans, as being extremely destructive. Combining these destructive tendencies with the instincts and capability of a self-preserving animal create this murderer. Bigger, like the jackal, is seemingly a scavenger, wanting only to provide for himself and wanting to do just enough work to get the necessities of life. Until threatened with annihilation, both Bigger and the jackal act as animals performing their roles within the contexts of their environment. However, upon receiving a threat both act out of impulse and destroy the provokers. In Bigger’s case, this was Mary.
Bigger is not a murderer in the beginning. However, as his human and animal elements merge, an increasing need for both greed and gloat consume him and the blood thirst of a carnivorous beast grows within him. But still, is Bigger a murderer? The conditions which molded his mind were out of instinct and the human aspect of his psychology was acquired through culture and social stimuli. Bigger’s psychological persona had been shaped around his life growing up in poverty. Victims of poverty have their own culture and many feel forced to commit illicit activities to get by in life. Furthermore, Bigger may feel guarded against attacks on personal safety. This guard then leads him to act prematurely, without having a second thought. The combination leaves Bigger with the distinct choice to commit a crime as self-defense. It may be observed, that he was predisposed to the illness of thrill and bloodlust due to previous violent fantasies and his sociological/cultural conditions. Finally, the adrenaline released after/during a strenuous act, such as a killing, may be addicting to the extent he wants to kill again.
The realization which occurred is also that the trust of other human beings should be very limited. Not in the sense of communication, sensuality, and passion, but in the sense of personal safety. Trust is more or less easily given for such things, but for safety and the sanctity of life an overlook usually occurs. Agreeably the violation of trust within communication, sensuality, and love can lead to a person’s demise, but typically the demise is social not physical. In the case of Bigger, he was entrusted to drive and care for Mary. Both individuals had a variant of innocence and were socially “trust worthy.” However, the overlook in the trust of personal safety on both the part of Bigger and Mary lead them across the River Styx.
Bigger did commit murder and to some he may be considered a murderer or even just unlucky. But, the inferences of trust issues within Native Son beg me to ask: can you blame animals in the clothing of men for committing acts of impulse for a psychological need to survive and if the animals in the room with us are us, can we trust ourselves to not act on instinct when faced with similar danger?
By: Joseph Riviera
Flight, Book two of Native Son by Richard Wright, has many shocking issues detailed within its descriptive narrative. Specifically, Bigger’s attitude towards his crime and his actions thereafter were severe and shocking. They impressed a certain realization about humanity and our relationship to the world and one another. This realization is that we all are truly animals, regardless of race and creed, with destructive tendencies.
The realization in reference may be commonly known to some, but for me this was a concept which was created by observation of current events and the analysis of the mind of a criminal. In this case the criminal was Bigger, the murderer. But, I beg to ask, Is he a murderer or did he only act in self-preservation?
As the title suggests this analysis of Bigger is based on him being primarily an animal and having the instincts of jackal. This realization is based on the common diagnoses of humans, as being extremely destructive. Combining these destructive tendencies with the instincts and capability of a self-preserving animal create this murderer. Bigger, like the jackal, is seemingly a scavenger, wanting only to provide for himself and wanting to do just enough work to get the necessities of life. Until threatened with annihilation, both Bigger and the jackal act as animals performing their roles within the contexts of their environment. However, upon receiving a threat both act out of impulse and destroy the provokers. In Bigger’s case, this was Mary.
Bigger is not a murderer in the beginning. However, as his human and animal elements merge, an increasing need for both greed and gloat consume him and the blood thirst of a carnivorous beast grows within him. But still, is Bigger a murderer? The conditions which molded his mind were out of instinct and the human aspect of his psychology was acquired through culture and social stimuli. Bigger’s psychological persona had been shaped around his life growing up in poverty. Victims of poverty have their own culture and many feel forced to commit illicit activities to get by in life. Furthermore, Bigger may feel guarded against attacks on personal safety. This guard then leads him to act prematurely, without having a second thought. The combination leaves Bigger with the distinct choice to commit a crime as self-defense. It may be observed, that he was predisposed to the illness of thrill and bloodlust due to previous violent fantasies and his sociological/cultural conditions. Finally, the adrenaline released after/during a strenuous act, such as a killing, may be addicting to the extent he wants to kill again.
The realization which occurred is also that the trust of other human beings should be very limited. Not in the sense of communication, sensuality, and passion, but in the sense of personal safety. Trust is more or less easily given for such things, but for safety and the sanctity of life an overlook usually occurs. Agreeably the violation of trust within communication, sensuality, and love can lead to a person’s demise, but typically the demise is social not physical. In the case of Bigger, he was entrusted to drive and care for Mary. Both individuals had a variant of innocence and were socially “trust worthy.” However, the overlook in the trust of personal safety on both the part of Bigger and Mary lead them across the River Styx.
Bigger did commit murder and to some he may be considered a murderer or even just unlucky. But, the inferences of trust issues within Native Son beg me to ask: can you blame animals in the clothing of men for committing acts of impulse for a psychological need to survive and if the animals in the room with us are us, can we trust ourselves to not act on instinct when faced with similar danger?