Guilty Innocence in Richard Wright’s Underground
The police see a man walking near the scene of a murder. They arrest him, charge him with homicide, and beat him until he gives a false confession. Days later, the police get a call to investigate a robbery. They see a watchman on duty, and without further investigation, assume his guilt. The possibility for the watchman’s innocence also does not matter, for in this landscape, “guilt” and “innocence” are perspectival, and therefore, unstable.
Indeed, throughout Richard Wright’s “The Man Who Lived Underground,” the terms “guilt” and “innocence” remain “at play.” As Lois Tyson explains, “every signifier [printed word, sound, or gesture] consists of and produces more signifiers in a never-ending deferral, or postponement, of meaning” (Tyson 239). This deferral results in a language made from “traces” of meaning based on “differences,” creating a “play” of signifiers for readers to decipher in a given text (239). When analyzing Fred’s encounters with the church, one notices traces of “guilt” compromising the integrity of “innocence.” This sign or term can indicate morality in the aboveground, but “innocence” operates as passivity and ignorance. Similarly, “guilt” conveys self-reproach, which functions in the text as both restraint and freedom. The resulting undecidability disrupts the traditional innocent/guilty binary, for the wisdom found in Fred’s “guilt” outweighs the ignorance seen in “innocence.”
Likewise, the congregation’s devotion bears a conventional form of “innocence” that denotes passivity. When Fred spies on the church, he hears parishioners singing, “Jesus, take me to your home above / And fold me in the bosom of Thy love” (Wright 24). As they worship, their righteousness and morality reflect their inherent “innocence.” Nevertheless, like a flock of sheep, the congregation believes good behavior ensures them a place in “[Jesus’s] …home above” or heaven. This belief renders their current lives meaningless in comparison. Life is merely a test of will, so one should embrace the struggle. As such, the promise of heaven ensures the congregation’s conformity to the unfair socio-economic system in this landscape. These lambs could take progressive action towards change and equality, pushing against the unjust systems and institutions governing their lives. Instead, they choose to leave their fate in the hands of “Jesus” and wait for compensation in the afterlife, a passive approach that leaves the ruling class in a position of power. In turn, the steadfast belief in heavenly rewards makes the “innocent” congregation “guilty” of inaction, as their simple devotion fails to disrupt the inequitable system at play.
Accordingly, Fred’s new perception of the church’s empty mission destabilizes his worldview, triggering existential self-reproach. Upon observing the singers, he feels the sudden urge to laugh, “[crushing him] with a sense of guilt” (Wright 24). Fred wonders if his laugh would disrespect the church, for part of him once revered the ideology. After all, he knows “most of the churches in this area” (24), betraying his former connection to the faith. Considering he never used a weapon before his descent underground (55), Fred also likely led a peaceful, moral Christian life. In turn, Fred experiences self-reproach as “crushing guilt” when his natural inclination is to “laugh” or mock the church. This reaction clashes with his initial excitement at hearing the music (24), disrupting his reality. The narrator elaborates, “a deeper pain, induced by the sight of those black people groveling and begging for something they could never get, churned in him” (25). The signs “groveling” and “begging” have shameful undertones, suggesting devotees naively forfeit their self-respect. They do not protest injustice like the police brutality that sent Fred underground. The congregation prays for “Jesus” to take them to heaven, directing their energy towards a wish instead of a tangible goal to benefit their lives. As an objective observer underground, Fred now recognizes the congregation’s misguided endeavor and feels existential “guilt” or self-reproach. He laments his former value system depended upon an empty structure, something the congregation aboveground does not understand.
In fact, self-reproach binds the congregation to the church, rendering “guilt” an oppressive weapon of the aboveground. Never able to achieve relief on Earth, these parishioners continue to pray out of “guilt,” trying to subdue an inherent feeling of “having committed some terrible offense they could not remember or understand” (Wright 60). This “offense” alludes to the concept of original sin, which assumes everyone is born inherently culpable of transgressions against God. It stands as the cornerstone of Christian ideology and demands followers seek redemption or risk eternal suffering. In turn, the church degenerates its parishioners by using “guilt” to trap them to their orthodoxy, which also binds them to the socio-economic systems at play. As Fred muses, “It seemed that when one felt this guilt, one was retracing in one’s feelings a faint pattern designed long before” (60.) For centuries, this institution has infiltrated the core value system aboveground. Like sheep, believers want to understand the reason for their suffering, which church leaders attribute to the congregation’s sins. Leaders encourage prayer, repentance, and alms. However, these lambs only suffer more over time without experiencing any reprieve from misery. As such, “guilt” or self-reproach works as a repressive force. It binds parishioners to an institution with values that forces their compliance to an unjust socio-economic system.
However, while self-reproach has negative connotations, one must also appreciate the wisdom behind Fred’s feelings. After all, happy “innocence” depends upon naivety and ignorance. When Fred traverses the underground as an autonomous self, he realizes, “If the world as men had made it was right, then anything else was right, any act a man took to satisfy himself” (Wright 56). The sign “anything” dismembers the institutions at play, allowing for interpretation and manipulation. The church’s moral code represents one perspective, but the doctrine could reverse to favor any ruling party. In the underground, Fred is the supreme leader- the ultimate creator. There, he can form his own rules, for he wields power to manipulate the concepts of money, religion, and even time. This liberation suggests Fred’s rejection of his society’s indoctrinated norms and mores, for he can appreciate their superficiality from his unique vantage point. In response, Fred reimagines aboveground concepts and symbols as he desires: money becomes wallpaper (53), watches hang as decorations (54), and religion serves as Karl Marx’s “opiate of the masses” (Tyson 57). Since “anything … was right,” Fred’s underground could become “anything” he desires. As such, while the congregation’s “innocence” stifles them, the wisdom behind Fred’s existential “guilt” leaves him in a position of freedom and power.
Overall, this play of signifiers in Wright’s “Underground” creates undecidability in the text that undermines the church’s privileged “innocence.” After all, this institution monopolizes on their flock’s willful ignorance and deploys “guilt” via self-reproach to keep their followers bound to them, converting “innocence” into a destructive force. The congregation Fred observes is “guilty” of blindly conforming to a repressive system, which, in effect, propagates their own injustice. The existential “guilt” Fred experiences watching the parishioners derives from his understanding of the hypocrisy of this manmade institution. Much like time and money, religion does not have any stable definition or value in the underground. He can freely interpret and manipulate institutions in this landscape, subverting their concrete significance and rendering Fred an architect of a new world. While “innocence” stifles the congregation, Fred’s self-reproach from wisdom transforms his “guilt” into a creative, liberating force. In this way, the innocence/guilty binary flips, destabilizing the traditional hierarchy by showing an individual’s intellectual prowess over the institutions aboveground.
Works Cited
Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide, 3rd ed., London: Routledge, 2015. Print.
Wright, Richard. “The Man Who Lived Underground.” Eight Men. New York, NY: HarperPerennial Modern Classics, 2008. Print.
