In his interview with Robert Penn Warren on April 27, 1964, James Baldwin discusses the state of the racial divide in the United States. Throughout his dialogue, Baldwin consolidates core ideas to advocate for the recognition of the intricacies of Black beauty—a recognition he says is impossible within the construct of the United States as it was and is. James Baldwin’s interview with Robert Penn Warren reveals central themes of his work, which, when compared chronologically, unearth his revolution toward a more radical revolutionism.
Baldwin obviously relies on the comparison between the state of the racial divides in the North and the South in his discussions of the United States. In the interview, which occurred in 1964, Baldwin says “It seems to me that the South is ruled, very largely so, by an oligarchy which rules for its own benefit, and not only oppresses Negroes and murders them, but really imprisons and victimizes the bulk of the white population” (Baldwin). This point is reminiscent of points that he had made previously in his essay “Nobody Knows My Name: A Letter from the South” (1961), in which he examined the racial divide in Southern cities and reflected on their severity as a Black man in the North. However, in the interview, he goes further than observation to propose that “the difference between the North and the South were really when the chips were down that they had different techniques of castrating you then than they had in the North, but the fact of the castration remained exactly the same, and that was the intention in both places” (Baldwin). He equalizes the North and the South as he had not in “Nobody Knows my Name”, and the connection causes the complete emasculation and destruction of the Black man in the United States. A year after the interview, in the year 1965, Baldwin explicitly depicts this universal and grotesque castration in his short story titled “Going to Meet the Man.” The comparison between the North and the South is obviously a topic that Baldwin deems necessary to pay attention to, but the comparison between those attentions he pays exposes Baldwin’s growing radicalism.
Baldwin’s points in the interview regarding the struggle with Black masculine identity are also reminiscent of his fiction and nonfiction work. In the interview, Baldwin explains, “It was very hard for me to accept Western European values because they didn’t accept me… any Negro born in this country spends a great deal of time trying to be accepted, trying to find a way to operate within the culture and to – not to be made to suffer so much by it but nothing you do works. No matter how many showers you take, no matter what you do, these Western values simply absolutely resist and reject you” (Baldwin). While this echoes the Bildungsroman struggles of John in his novel Go Tell It on the Mountain (1953), it almost repeats points that he had made in his essay “The Fire Next Time”: “Every Negro boy—in my situation during those years, at least—who reaches this point realizes, at once, profoundly, because he wants to live, that he stands in great peril and must find, with speed, a “thing”, a gimmick, to lift him out, to start him on his way” (“The Fire Next Time”). The exploration of the implications of approaching Black masculine identity grounds Baldwin’s work. However, the specificity that comes in his later essay and interview are more founded explanations of the struggle he had only danced around in his earlier fiction.
While the themes discussed in this blog post so far reveal concepts that are universal, though increasingly developed, in Baldwin’s work, the revolutionism in the interview and his later essays is nowhere to be found in Baldwin’s earliest fiction and nonfiction work. In the interview he explains to Robert Penn Warren, “…is impossible to be separate but equal. If one is equal, why should he be separate? And it’s that- it’s the history of that doctrine which created almost all the Negro’s despair and also the country’s despair. So, I think that the instinct to destroy the doctrine is quite sound” (Baldwin). Violent vocabulary like “destroy” is quite contrary to Baldwin’s earlier points, such as that in “Notes of a Native Son” from 1955, in which he professes his love for the United States which is “more than any country in this world” (“Notes of a Native Son”). Just as violent, though, are later thoughts in his essays. From “To Be Baptized” (1972): “A person does not lightly elect to oppose his society. One would much rather be at home among one’s compatriots than be mocked and detested by them. And there is a level on which the mockery of the people, even in their hatred, is moving because it is so blind: it is terrible to watch people cling to their captivity and insist on their own destruction. I think black people have always felt this about America, and Americans, and have always seen, spinning above the thoughtless American head, the shape of the wrath to come” (To Be Baptized”).
James Baldwin’s interview with Robert Penn Warren highlights central themes to Baldwin’s ideology, but upon examination also holds the map to see how Baldwin had grown as a man, scholar, and revolutionary. One can only imagine the impact he would have in the era of Black Lives Matter.
4 thoughts on “James Baldwin’s Interview with Robert Penn Warren”
Jess, thank you for this insightful article, outlining Baldwin’s evolving ideologies. You dwell on his use of language to illustrate them; how his cosmopolitanism evolve into “radical revolutionism;” I wonder what the latter looks like for him, especially with the word “destroy” that he used; and how come did his thoughts evolve in this way; does the form of his fiction or non-fiction change how we understand these thoughts? Moreover, you used the word “universal” twice to describe toxic ideology of/around Black masculinity and the violence against it; the word might seem obvious to denote a pervasive attitude, but it’s worth explicating it further and contextualize changing forms and theirs specific implications? Good start and best of luck!
Jess, this is a very well thought out look at Baldwin’s interview with Robert Penn Warren. I am impressed how many of his other works you brought into this blog post! It reminded me about how we’ve discussed in class that Baldwin was considered “the white man’s black man” although as his career went on he placed things less and less safe. I like your point about Baldwin’s violent vocabulary (specifically: destroy) as when I think of his work I think of his deliberateness in incorporating many animalistic and brutal adjectives to describe people.
Such a great blog post, you can really tell that you’ve put in the work and done a lot of research. I’m really interested in the dichotomy that you discuss between this oppression and violence and Baldwin’s love for the U.S., as it appears in some of his works. I wouldn’t think that it would be possible for a person to have a strong love for a country that oppresses them. Is he finding beauty among all the hardships and discrimination? Or does Baldwin speak about America in the sense that he sees the grand potential we possess, but currently fall short of?
This was a thrilling read. James Baldwin is a true representation of when passions and responsibility mix. It seems that there is no limits to what man can achieve. I am really interested in his shift from loving America to then being forced to detest it. I wonder if he felt his anger seep into his work and drive his passion to continue to write on the challenges that faced our country. Also, despite his hatred towards America, it is clear that his voice only worked to make it a better place.
Comments are closed.