Social Cognitive Distance In Invisible Man

In this essay, I will attempt to argue that the emergence of social cognitive distance in contemporary American politics reinforces racial economic and religious divides. To do this I will first argue that fragmentation created by social distance allows for overly simplistic views of the “other.” These views are inherently problematic because they limit empathy that humans have for those who are different. Second, I will argue that the void created by America’s loosely bounded culture allows for the imposition of the dominant patriotic will onto the subdominant group. This in turn fosters a pervasive sense of political apathy to the plight of the marginalized. Third, I will argue that the emergence of the television and social media only exacerbates

While groundbreaking in many ways, the story is particularly profound in its discussion of what is means to be the “other”. It is quite clear that in writing “Invisible Man”, Ellison gives great thought to why when we think of others, we leap to the most simplistic forms of analysis. Throughout the novel, the narrator notices that many people have selective visibility that makes them oblivious to the plight of others. This lack of acknowledgment of personhood is particularly present when the invisible narrator first encounters the outside world and is bumped into, as if his existence didn’t matter. This powerlessness is also shown when the boys are fighting in blindfolds, symbolizing their inability to recognize their exploitation caused by whites. Ellison’s novel aptly argues that cognitive distance makes it translucent instead of transparent in seeing differences. The result is that social distance can lead to denial of personhood; even if we can escape unjust laws we cannot escape the ideas that define us. While Ellison nicely demonstrates how social distance can lead to denial of personhood, Neibuhr makes this same argument in a more theoretical way. Essentially, Neibuhr focuses much more on the group dynamic, arguing in “Moral Man Immoral Society” that large groups can act in unruly and cruel ways that individuals would not. This concept, is the same as the “mob or mass” mentality that the framers were so afraid of and is still prevalent to this day at sporting events. Therefore, the argument Niebuhr makes is opposed to the idea that compassion and rationality can check the self-interest of groups. When taken into the larger context of the fragmentation of the American community and binding of more insular communities, around increasing economic, political, racial