As pointed out in Badiou’s Metapolitics, “All resistance is a rupture with what is. And every rupture begins, for those engaged in it, through a rupture with oneself” (7). It can certainly be argued that Coleman’s fight with the department over the “spooks” incident—the other event which changed the course of his life—began with his fight against himself, his resistance against, or avoidance of the problems in early to mid-twentieth century America with respect to the race he was born into. This rupture wasn’t just over fighting against being born black, it was fighting to be free of such labels of race at all. That he chose to live the lie of a white (Jewish) man was due to the outside world’s insistence on such labels. He had to have one, so he picked the one that allowed him to live more freely than had his previous label; the label that alleviated some of the oppression he felt by being a member of a small group by no choice of his own.
In effect, by the end of his life, Coleman Silk’s identity is hardly able to be broken down to one simple, direct answer. Rather, much like in Badiou’s “ontology of pure multiplicity,” he is not a one, Coleman Silk is instead a multiple “radically without oneness, in that [he himself] comprises multiples alone. What there is exposes itself to the thinkable in terms of multiples of multiples… in other words, there are only multiples of multiples” (Theoretical Writings 47-48). He remains a Classics professor to some, a Jewish man to others, an ex-lightweight boxer undefeated in the gyms of Newark to those who knew him in high school, a racist to two perhaps misguided students, a black man who turned his back on both his family and race, a father who was making a fool of himself with a younger woman, a man who could never get over the grave injustice done to him by the university, and so on and so on.
Can there be one singular, consistent identity for such a man? Or, as it seems, should the critic trying to make sense of it all relent and give up on trying to establish a singular identity? In the ontology of pure multiplicity, Badiou states, “We will not concede the necessity of reintroducing the one. We will say it is a multiple of nothing. And just as with every other multiple, this nothing will remain entirely devoid of consistency” (48). Coleman Silk’s identity, then, becomes that of a chimera—a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-experiential being conflated into a multiple of nothing. Or, in other words, a human being.
No one is just identified as a Caucasian or an African American or a Jew. We, however, are multi-dimensional and multi-experiential in the sense that it is impossible to characterize a person (Coleman included) as belonging solely to one particular construct. With identity being at the core of the novel, Roth decides to make use of a plethora of trademarks to identify and define his primary character. We don’t see Coleman engaging in just “one form” of identity, but rather with various forms of it that are primarily geared towards becoming a part of the raw “I” and not the “we” or “they.” Whether it works or not is a different story. In one sense we see Coleman’s struggle to become this radical individualist as Coleman’s identity is defined by his choice to discount his back race and adopt a new life as a white Jew. While in another sense, his identity is just a mere “performance” that displays humanlike characteristics of constant change. This change deals with perfecting his social status and class, language, hidden secrets, betrayal, irrationality, sexuality, living the American dream, etc. This performance is more realistic and identifiable with most of humanity as Coleman shows that he also much more than a sum of his parts—a human being.
ReplyDeleteKathryn Martin
ReplyDeleteAs a young man Coleman decides to take control of his life. Coleman Silk chooses his race, something that most people cannot do, or never think to do. It is his attempt to choose his identity, to choose how others see him. It works, to an extent. However, a person’s identity is comprised of more than his race, and it is not the only factor by which people are judged. A person’s identity is determined by his words and actions, that which he can control as well as that which he cannot control. A person has only one identity, with many facets. Coleman is a wronged professor, a father, a lover to a younger woman, a former boxer, and many other things. They are not different identities, rather, they are all parts of him which compose a single identity. Coleman Silk changes after he resigns from the university, but his new traits are simply new facets of his identity. In many ways he is the same, he is still educated and passionate, but he channels those qualities into different activities. He is no longer an educator, but he is still a father. He is no longer a husband, but he is now a lover.
Identity is one of the most fundamental features that form our conscious, I believe formed even before we can put it in to words. First we are our parent’s children. We are loved and we live to be mirrors of them and reciprocate the affection that we have been shown. The second comes from our peers and builds on one first. I agree with Badiou. Our role as son, brother and friend are most essential to what forms our identity. There are however other factors, mostly race, financial class or access to education, that have the potential to hinder how we perform these roles but they can never disrupt who we fundamentally are if one is aware of themselves as an individual.
ReplyDeleteColeman Silk let the world think they knew he was, but he was in touch with his own identity enough to play along with it. Identity is so complex. I would say it is something like an onion. What was so important to the Coleman/ Faunia affair was that they embraced each others cores. Something that no one else could see in the world, until they each pealed away the others damages and bruises. Here they were able to see the others beautiful selves, their fundamental identities, loving son and loving mother.
Professor Rick Blackwood would argue that Coleman Silk isn’t a human being; rather none of us are human beings he would say. We are all humans becoming. One moment can be argued to never be the same as the last, and who is to create the scale on which we judge time? A moment can be made from a day-to-day change, or perhaps a split second. If the moment is never the same how can we ever be the same as we were in that moment? We are no longer being, but rather evolving into the character we will be in the future moment. Just any one label does not define Coleman Silk and neither are we since we have the power to be different in the very next second, so allowing some one to create a reflection of who we are is preposterous, because just as we look into that mirror we blink and become something new. By accepting this we can create many identities and achieve more. When you get rid of goals and allow your self to avoid a mold but rather take shape you your environment you allow yourself to experience more. Coleman Silk is able to be a human becoming, because for each scenario that he allows his life to exist in he can morph into what fits for him. For example, maybe at times he is what society sees as a white man, perhaps there is a definition and at times he fills it, and perhaps allowing himself to play that role he fills a void in a cast that otherwise would lack his strong presence. Who would have been so rigorous with the university when it needed it if not Coleman Silk? My point is that perhaps with in all of our different characteristics and changes that we make all the time, perhaps we are allowing ourselves to compliment a situation that needs complimenting.
ReplyDeleteVictoria C. Doskey
Ryan Trull
ReplyDeleteThrough out life, many different circumstances cause people to take on multiple roles. People try to chose their own roles, however, as Roth touches on throughout The Human Stain, lives are often more defined by the identities others give than personal identities. Coleman chooses many identities, but it is arguable that the ones chosen for him, "the racist" or "the negro," often effect his life more poignantly.
The fact that he was black and was ostracized due to being black caused him to attempt to use manipulate race perceptions to be as free as possible. This is a core value for Silk and lays the ground for all the following events. Him being black also causes the indecent when he's thrown out of the hostel while in the Navy, something he personally says was a bleak misfortune.
The racist persona that he is slapped with caused his decent to madness and possibly his wife's death, major life altering events. This is notable because it is an identity assigned to him that is not only untrue, but also rather ironic. This identity directly clashes with the true identity that he tries to hide, that of a black male, however it is an identity that is assigned to him none the less. This shows how an identity seen effects far more than an identity that is cloaked.
Leah Bourgeois
ReplyDeleteI believe that with Coleman being such a complex man, there cannot be one singular, consistent identity. But I also believe that the problem with trying to come to a singular identity for Coleman is coming from the fact that Coleman himself doesn’t know who he is. I don’t believe Coleman changed the way he acted, how he felt, or what he believed when he was around different people, but I do know that if someone called him Caucasian or Jewish, he would not object because that was easier. To me Coleman was obviously a man who hated conflict, he much rather the easy route. He did everything he could to avoid being judged for his race including lying about his race when entering the navy or not correcting people who assumed he was Jewish. Like Coleman said, he didn’t reject his race to offend anyone, he did it because it was easier for him, and I believe this is when he lost himself. Some people are brave enough to say “yes I am an African American” but for those people like Coleman, he didn’t have to and didn’t want to. When you lose yourself, it’s hard for other people to understand who you are because you can’t make up your mind on who you want to be, but that is what makes us human, that is what makes Coleman human.
I disagree with the fact that it says, “he picked the one that allowed him to live more freely than had his previous label”. Overall I think Coleman just wanted to be free. With any race that he would’ve chosen, there would be some sort of racism against it. I think that he chose to pass as being Jewish, more because it was an easy identity for him to choose. He grew up with Jewish kids, then went to NYU where people automatically assumed he was Jewish.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that with his multi identities he was pursuing the American dream. I think that it’s hopeless to establish a singular identity. An individual can classify themselves as themselves being a race they were brought up as. Someone else can see this person walking down the street and judge them for something else. Coleman is a human being, and what he does with his identity is how he portrays himself so others can view him that way.
Emily Avery
ReplyDeleteA person's identity is essentially what they "identify" themselves as. Though many people are forced to identify themselves as black or white, Coleman was unique in that he had a choice. Although he technically is black, he chose to be identified as white. This doesn't mean that his identity changed, however, but rather he added a new identity to his already existing one. It is with this that I say that he cannot have a single identity. Although he chooses to live as a white, Jewish professor of classics, Coleman maintains his previous identity of a black ex-boxer who chose to leave it all behind for a new life. It is of course ironic that he is identified as a racist on top of all this but. This is where those multiple identities start to stack up.
I would also say that a singular identity would be far-fetched to try and establish for someone, as a person, like Coleman Silk, can have multiple layers to his identity, other than the one he presents.
Jordan Bloodsworth
ReplyDeleteI do not think the identity of Silk can be narrowed down to one thing. The way he lived his life and let any identity encompass him puts him in the idea of “multiples of multiples.” If you were to think of him, there is no one term that relates to all of his “people.” How I see it, he is in his own way mixing schizophrenia and compulsive lying. No, he does not generally make things up, but his actions and how he lets everyone come to their own conclusions on his identity is not honest. As Silk continues this, he falls into his own mid set and is surrounded by all of his own, but different people. He is what I would describe today as a fake. A poser. He is of “multi-“ everything. He goes with whatever it takes for him to just get by.
The quote by Badiou, “We will not concede the necessity of reintroducing the one. We will say it is a multiple of nothing. And just as with every other multiple, this nothing will remain entirely devoid of consistency” sums up his character well. The combination of “a multiple of nothing” and paralleling it to “a human being” really triggers my brain. Are we all in fact multiples of nothing? Do so some of us live life like Coleman Silk?
Adam Mier
ReplyDeleteI feel as if there cannot be a single consistent identity for this kind of person. Coleman Silk, being aware of the characteristics related to social acceptance, if you will, decided to take advantage of his light skin and make himself known as a white Jewish man, rather than a black man. However, in the novel, Coleman Silk is only known as a Classics professor to some people, while he is known as a Jewish man to another group of people, and as a lightweight boxing champion to another whole separate group. The major point here is that he is a black man to some, while he is a white man to others. This major discretion is what makes Coleman incapable of having a single identity. Although he becomes known for many separate things, such as being an ex-lightweight boxing champion, being the Classics professor who lost his job for calling students “spooks”, or even being that really old retired teacher who is having a (mostly) secret affair with a woman who is half his age and happens to work at the school that he used to work at. Coleman basically does have only one identity, although it is really only an act of sorts, being that his more known identity is that of a white Jew. His other is just much less known, and had he not been faking his race for all of his life, it would probably be completely different.
Coleman Silk was brought into the world as a black man from a black family. Throughout his adolescent life, he was confused as a Jew. This then gave him the idea that he could hide his true identity, and that he could be free from the shackles of racism and be able to lead a life of freedom. Coleman was self conscious of his race because he was thrown out of a brothel by a whore. He must feel embarrassed because not even a lady of the night will accept him. He instead choses to conceal his true colors and instead, pretends to be a white Jewish professor. Though Coleman choses to go by the identity as a white Jewish professor, his mind is still the black boxer. He is constantly thinking of ways to take down his opponent (life's harshness) by using different boxing movements. The funny thing is that, his two identities are complete opposites. His first one, a black man, is a rough-n-tough kind of guy. He boxes, or in other words is violent. His other identity, the white man, is a professor. Teachers or professors are not seen as as rough fighters; they are seen as intellectual. The only similarity the two identities have is that they both feel that they are smarter or brighter than all others. His two identities, though appear to be 100% different, share one simple similarity, intellectuality.
ReplyDeleteSeth Pottle
ReplyDeleteNo one human being will ever have a singular identity, not even the most uninteresting, boring person in the world. We all fit under numerous categories that make each of unique and special. So to think that Coleman Silk can be reduced to a single identity is just ridiculous. While he does, in fact, try to relate to different groups in order to solidify one identity rather than another, he cannot seem to find security in his new skin, forcing him to move on to something new. In doing this, he not only blinds himself, but those around him who believe that he is what he claims to be, even when he is something completely different. As Badiou states, “Just as every other multiple, this nothing will remain entirely devoid of consistency,” meaning Silk will never relate to a single group. Instead, he will constantly change hands and identify himself with a new group when he feels the switch is necessary. He is nothing more than a shape-shifter to his peers, transforming into whatever they want him to be. As far as clichés go, I can end this with a Breakfast Club ending; Coleman Silk is whatever you want him to be: an ex-lightweight boxer, a college professor, a confused “white man,” and a father.