Blueprint for Negro Writing

Wright, Richard. "Blueprint for Negro Writing." The Portable Harlem Renaissance Reader. Ed. David L. Lewis. New York: Viking Penguin, 1994. 194-205. Print.

I’m not sure how to understand Wright’s position. On one hand he is arguing for a reduced focus on the black world seen through the eyes of the Harlem bourgeoisie, yet on the other he is urging the writers of Harlem to unite under a common culture. Wright does not really understand (or at least does not articulate) what this culture should be, other than an overarching generalization of the “magical wonder” Negro life has (according to Wright, anyway). I agree with Wright’s bottom line: unification of all blacks in order to gain credibility in the eyes of white society, but I do not believe that Wright really thought through his argument before having it published. Do the literati change their writing, or should they disband? Do they disband or unite? What exactly are they writing about, and who is to judge what is or is not a generalization (Wright throws this term into his essay in an ironic generalization of the generalization of black literature)?

I also am unable to reconcile Wright’s views on Black Nationalism. He seems to suggest that blacks should assimilate as Americans under one nationalistic pride, yet to me this entails the necessity of accepting white culture – since, in the 20s, American culture and white culture were synonymous. I believe that Wright was trying to get at a culture revolution where blacks across the country unite and alter the worldwide conception of Americanism to include black culture. But if this is true, then, again, who is going to decide what cultural norms are American and which are ethnocentric? Or are all cultural norms ethnocentric, even within the term “American”? I do not think that Wright addresses or even understands these questions, which is why his hopeful essay is a load of hot air. The effect is actually somewhat in tune with Marcus Garvey, who I can’t help but continue to reference. Although Garvey pushed for nationalism based on African traditions and for the relocation of blacks to Africa, his way of creating nationalistic pride at least make more sense than Wright’s idea of combining white and black tradition into one American culture (of course I’m speaking in the time of his writing, not as the world is today).

One further point that I want to make is that Wright does not understand economics. He urges the black literati to forgo writing their generalized versions of blacks as well as their pleas to be taken seriously in lieu of writing more to the unification of blacks under one umbrella culture. Yet, at the same time, he notes that black writers relied on white publishers to be heard. So how is it, then, that these same black writers are supposed to discontinue their expected writings and begin writing about something that white culture does not want to read? It simply cannot be done, and, as Du Bois pointed out in the previous essay we read, white publishers would just not have it. The black literati may have been selfish and generic, but, given the bad situation of blacks, they at least were able to live comfortable lives. I would not put it past many of them, too, to be conscious of the little good they did to better black condition. After all, you have to look out for yourself before you can look out for others.

I feel bad destroying Wright’s ideas and arguments like this; they are hopeful and, in a way, very beautiful. However, they are simplistic and naïve, and, I suppose, naivety, despite its warm friendliness and the subsequent desire to give it some credence, will get you nowhere.