The Importance Of Historical Criticism Of Invisible Man

2.1. Acknowledging the Criticism

Ever since poststructuralism led us to deconstruct history's “myth of objectivity,” it is widely accepted that there is no such thing as one true history (White 52). Instead, scholars across all disciplines have embraced the term historical narrative to express critical distance to claims made by official historiography. The term coined by historian Hayden White redefines history as a set of such historical narratives: “verbal fictions, the contents of which are as much invented as found” (82). It concedes that any histori­cal representation is fabricated and always depends on the historian's perspective, their available data and, most importantly, discursive powers1 that shape history to suit domi­nant elites while repressing other voices (269). From this awareness a growing sensibili­ty for the importance of critically confronting historical narratives has emerged, includ­ing doing so in and through literature. Most historical criticism of Invisible Man comes from a place of dedication to such critical historical inquiry, Foley's being no exception. Why this

For Foley, challenging historiography necessitates challenging its anticommunist bias. She views Ellison's dissociation from his leftist past as a bow to political pressure and as missed opportunity to resist the then newly spun anticommunist narrative. Judged by her criteria, Invisible Man does not sufficiently challenge historiography. Nonetheless, even if we acknowledge the importance of ad­dressing anticommunist bias in history, there is reason to argue that Foley's criteria are not applicable to Ellison's philosophy on challenging historiography through