Even the phrase “black noir” has a double meaning. “Noir” describes both the moral and physical essence of the mostly-white characters that occupy the exigencies of society in noir. Yet “black” is used to describe the ideological implications of the duplicitous lives led by black Americans in response to social injustices. This signifies that the sign and signifier do not always equate each other. In The Expendable Man, Dorothy Hughes utilizes this slippage of language to shed light on the evils of racism, not that of racial ambiguity.
Class and race play integral roles in the way in which the characters navigate the crumbling social structure of the 1960s in the United States. While Bob becomes paranoid in response to the unrealized racial anxiety of If He Hollers Let Him Go, Hugh has a security of self that reflects a specific identification of the catalyst for his anxiety: racism. Hugh feels a sense of innocent guilt–an important slippage of language–after being freed from any charges of wrongdoing; he had played only a minor role in Bonnie Lee’s ultimate demise, yet he realizes that his inaction was also a choice. As a doctor, his innocent guilt derives from the realization that he could have performed a safe abortion.
As a female writer of the 1960s, Hughes leads the reader to believe that the root cause of all evil is abortion; yet it becomes clear through this slippage of language that the root cause of evil is instead motherlessness and broken families. Noir employs the age-old fear of a black man sleeping with a white woman. Black noir transforms this concept into the fear of a black man killing a white woman’s baby. Bonnie Lee was a motherless child who slept with a supposedly-married man; even though she was white, she was also poor. She had few chances to advance in her social station and was not guided in her decisions by a responsible, loving parent. Even the title of this novel indicates that a lack of structure and care during childhood permanently injure the growth of people; these “others” are viewed as expendable. They live in the shadows of society and are used for others’ benefit. They are not necessary to save.
I like how you noted that all of the others are the expendable ones. I wonder why Hughes would’ve then chosen to call this book the expendable man as opposed to something that would broaden this scope. Also, I like your discussion on the “slippage” of language, though I am not sure that I totally understand or agree with this argument. Is this a “slippage” of language, or rather, an evolution of language, catalyzed by the prejudices of the people at the time?