Zora Neale Hurston's Inconvenient Individualism
The author of Their Eyes Were Watching God defies easy political categorization.

In 1937 the left-wing magazine New Masses ran a negative review of Zora Neale Hurston's masterpiece, Their Eyes Were Watching God. "Miss Hurston can write," allowed Richard Wright, whose own landmark novel, Native Son, would appear three years later. But her writing, he said, wallowed "in that facile sensuality that has dogged Negro expression." Hurston's novel "is not addressed to the Negro," Wright asserted, "but to a white audience whose chauvinistic tastes she knows how to satisfy." In effect, Wright accused Hurston of selling out the race by pandering to whites.
Wright could not have been more wrong. Hurston, a former student of the famed Columbia University anthropologist Franz Boas, had conducted extensive fieldwork throughout the American South, carefully noting (and delighting in) the various black cultures and dialects she encountered. That real-world language permeates her remarkable novel, nestled alongside sundry elements drawn from her own compelling life story, including her Southern upbringing, failed marriages, and searing love affair with a younger man. By attacking Their Eyes Were Watching God, Wright had actually disparaged the authentic, individualistic black voices that Hurston worked so hard to amplify.
Some of Hurston's critics are still missing the point. The novelist Maya Angelou once complained that Hurston's 1942 autobiography, Dust Tracks on a Road, "does not mention even one unpleasant racial incident," even though "the southern air around her most assuredly crackled with the flames of Ku Klux Klan raiders." Yet Dust Tracks does contain a passage in which Hurston recalled her father fretting that "the tendency I had to stand and give battle" might prove fatal in the Jim Crow era. "He predicted dire things for me," Hurston wrote. "The white folks were not going to stand for it….Posses with ropes and guns were going to drag me out sooner or later on account of that stiff neck I toted." Hurston did not always emphasize the racist crackling in the air, but it is discernible if you listen for it.
Then there is the subject that has confounded her critics the most: Hurston's politics. On the one hand, she could sound as militant as any activist, once writing that "this poor body of mine is not so precious that I would not be willing to give it up for a good cause….A hundred Negroes killed in the streets of Washington right now could wipe out Jim Crow in the nation so far as the law is concerned." She favored "complete repeal of All Jim Crow Laws in the United States once and for all, and right now."
Yet Hurston also wrote that "Race Pride and Race Consciousness seem to me to be not only fallacious, but a thing to be abhorred." She had little patience for groupthink, racial or otherwise. "The white race did not go into a laboratory and invent incandescent light. That was Edison," she wrote. "If you are under the impression that every white man is an Edison, just look around a bit." She held "my people" to the same standard. "If you have the idea that every Negro is a [George Washington] Carver," Hurston wrote, "you had better take off plenty of time to do your searching."
Statements like that have led many of Hurston's otherwise admiring critics to shake their heads in disbelief and dismay. Hurston's politics were "ill conceived" and "even reactionary," objected the Yale University literary scholar Larry Neal in a 1971 introduction to Dust Tracks on a Road, especially when viewed "in terms of the ongoing struggle for Black liberation." Putting a more positive gloss on the same subject in a 2009 City Journal essay, Columbia linguist John McWhorter dubbed Hurston "America's favorite black conservative," arguing that she "held a fiercely asserted black conservative politics akin to Clarence Thomas's."
Meanwhile, one of Hurston's most influential exponents, novelist and essayist Alice Walker, famously argued that readers should probably just ignore any unwelcome right-of-center themes in Hurston's work entirely. "I think we are better off," Walker wrote, "if we think of Zora Neale Hurston as an artist, period—rather than as the artist/politician most black writers have been required to be."
But would we really be better off if we did that? Not if we want to appreciate Hurston's life and work in full. That is because the same individualist spirit that motivated her fiction also motivated her politics.
'The Race Problem'
Zora Neale Hurston had a tendency to lie about her age. She was born on January 7, 1891, yet sometimes she would give the year of her birth as 1900, or 1901, or even 1910. Even in middle age she apparently had little trouble passing as a much younger woman.
She was still a toddler when her parents made the move that would shape the course of her life. The family relocated from Notasulga, Alabama, to Eatonville, Florida, one of the first incorporated black townships in the United States and the future inspiration for some of Hurston's greatest writing. Her father, a traveling preacher and carpenter named John Hurston, served four terms as mayor and wrote a number of town bylaws that remain on the books. "In Eatonville," observed Valerie Boyd, author of Wrapped in Rainbows: The Life of Zora Neale Hurston, "Zora was never indoctrinated in inferiority, and she could see the evidence of black achievement all around her."
By 1925 Hurston had made her way to New York City, enrolling as an undergraduate at Barnard College, Columbia University. It was there that she became one of Franz Boas' star students. By the time she graduated in 1928 she had been invited to join the American Ethnological Society and the American Anthropological Society. "Booker T. Washington said once that you must not judge a man by the heights to which he has risen," Hurston later wrote of those days, "but by the depths from which he came. So to me these honors meant something, insignificant as they might appear to the world." Her fieldwork soon produced a pair of groundbreaking anthropological studies, Mules and Men (1935), about black American folklore, and Tell My Horse: Voodoo and Life in Haiti and Jamaica (1938), both of which remain fascinating and readable today.
At the same time, she became an active participant in the Harlem Renaissance, publishing short stories, attending various salons and soirees, and collaborating with the famous poet Langston Hughes. By the late 1920s she was itching to write a novel, based loosely on the strivings and shortcomings of her father. But "what I wanted to tell was a story about a man, and from what I had read and heard, Negroes were supposed to write about the Race Problem." Because "my interest lies in what makes a man or a woman do such-and-so, regardless of his color," Hurston later explained, she put the project on the backburner for several years. That debut novel, Jonah's Gourd Vine, finally appeared in 1934. It was offered as a selection by the Book of the Month Club, a sign of its contemporary reach and success.
Her true breakthrough came in 1937 with Their Eyes Were Watching God, a gripping semi-autobiographical portrait of a woman's odyssey in search of romantic and personal freedom. It is now justly recognized as one of the greatest American novels of the 20th century.
Hurston published seven books during her lifetime, not to mention dozens of penetrating short stories, articles, and essays. Yet she would be virtually forgotten by the literary world in the final decade of her life. By the late 1950s, her publishing deals were long gone, her books were out of print, and she was forced to find work as a maid. When she died in 1960, she was living in the St. Lucie County Welfare Home in Fort Pierce, Florida. Hurston, one of the greatest writers of her time, was buried in an unmarked grave.
What happened?
'The Richer Gift of Individualism'
What happened was at least partially due to politics. In the words of the Harvard University literary scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr., the editor of a superb new collection of Hurston's nonfiction, You Don't Know Us Negroes and Other Essays (HarperCollins), "the dark obscurity into which her career then lapsed reflects her staunchly independent political stances rather than any deficiency of craft or vision."
Some of Hurston's contemporaries, such as Richard Wright, made their names by writing about race and racial injustice with a left-wing bent, an approach that is still plenty fashionable today. Hurston did not. In fact, Hurston denounced Communism's demeaning influence on writers like Wright. (Wright was a member of the American Communist Party for several years before breaking with his old comrades and becoming a prominent left-wing anti-Communist.) "Mr. Wright's author's solution," Hurston scoffed in a 1938 review of Wright's short-story collection, Uncle Tom's Children, "is the solution of the [Communist] Party—state responsibility for everything and individual responsibility for nothing, not even feeding one's self."
Her dissents from mainstream progressivism could be equally caustic. "Throughout the New Deal era," Hurston wrote in 1951, "the relief program was the biggest weapon ever placed in the hands of those who sought power and votes." More to her taste was the approach of Republican Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio, a libertarian-leaning conservative whose credo, as Hurston favorably summarized it, was "the people and the individual retain true liberty." Thanks to views like that, Hurston found herself increasingly out of step in elite literary and publishing circles.
Which brings us back to Alice Walker's argument that Hurston should be remembered as an "artist, period" rather than as an "artist/politician." In fact, Hurston's art and politics are not so easy to separate. The same "richer gift of individualism," as Hurston called it, that led her to reject race consciousness also fueled her literary craft in Jonah's Gourd Vine. "The story is about Negroes but it could be about anybody," Hurston explained about her debut novel. "It is the first time that a Negro story has been offered without special pleading. The characters in the story are seen in relation to themselves and not in relation to the whites as had been the rule." Hurston would say much the same thing about her own point of view. "I am so put together that I do not have much of a herd instinct," she declared. "Or if I must be connected with the flock, let me be the shepherd my ownself."
What Hurston wanted, in both life and literature, was for everyone, of every race, for better or worse, to be viewed as an individual first.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"What Hurston wanted, in both life and literature, was for everyone, of every race, for better or worse, to be viewed as an individual first."
..and yet here we are in 2022 where this is still a dream.
It may be a dream, but it is no longer the goal.
Not a dream, an anti-racist post-modern nightmare.
And clearly, social and economic conditions are worse for POCs in America now than in the 1940s.
She was the first black white supremacist if you go by today's metrics.
I thought that was Clarence Thomas?
The author is much older.
Probably Booker T. Washington:
“I have begun everything with the idea that I could succeed, and I never had much patience with the multitudes of people who are always ready to explain why one cannot succeed.”
Sunday, and somehow we still don't know who won that republican primary in Pennsylvania.
I can feel tin my bones those lefty 2,000 mules descending upon the state to dump their boxfuls of ballots, with every ballot in them remarkably in favor of the most liberal, pro-establishment guy.
It's called Fortifying Democracy, you racist.
Lying piece of shit
Showcasing your stupidity and faggotry again?
Good one, homophobe!
I’m not afraid of gays, but you indeed are the epitome of a faggot. You’re also a horrific bigot.
Kill yourself.
Not all gays are faggots, and not all faggots are gay, but that sockpuppet is pure faggotry.
Whatever you say, homophobe.
Unlike the Mormons, I believe people can say whatever they want.
However I don’t use slurs like that because I don’t want to insult others needlessly.
Empathy. I recommend it.
You fear Mormons. I expect you got turned out and spitroasted by some. Which would explain your descent into faggotry. Perhaps Tony can assist you in that area.
Better yet, go drink some Drano.
Until you can cite a comment of mine that is antisemitic please stop calling me an antisemite.
"Kill All Rednecks
May.30.2021 at 2:27 pm
I hate Kikes more than Mormons and Catholics even. The Jews are taking over the world, Hitler was right! Praise Himmler! International Jewry is Zionism! Israel must be destroyed! Jews use gentile children's blood in their matzos!"
Oh wow. I knew he was a racist, but fuck me that's awful.
That’s fake.
Very real. You’re a democrat. Democrats are racists, and hate Jews. You also like to fuck children.
He’s a terrible person, but also very dumb.
Please post a link to the page that comments on.
My offer to ML aspie incel or anyone is I will stop posting if you can cite me being antisemitic.
*comment is on
Kill All Rednecks
Dec.25.2021 at 3:27 pm
I hate Jews! Can't stand them! Hate them more even than blacks, chinks and Mormons. I wish I had an oven to bake a Kike!
You’re anti humanity. The only difference between you and Misek is that he appears to slightly less stupid.
Wait your telling me a leftist accused a black person of being a "race traitor" because she didn't act black and wanted to be concidered a person first and not just a black?
Say what you want about the progtards, at least they are consistent.
Skin color is the most important thing
Skin color and ideological conformity. That's how you diversity.
Hurston was conscious of race (how could she avoid it living in the South?), but Leftist politics did not automatically follow.
(2) The Pacific War (1941-45) between the USA and Japan started out as a race war on both sides. Hurston sent an article to her publisher expressing sympathy for the racists who had not insulted her recently. Her publisher refused to print it, not because he resented an articulate Black woman getting "out of her lane," but rather because he did not want her to blow up her career.
(3) US leaders eventually realized that race war could only drag out in stalemate. Partly prompted by old Asia missionary families like the Sydenstrickers and the Reischauers, our people were encouraged to start treating our Asian allies (notably Chinese and Filipinos) decently. By the time Japan surrendered in 1945, we were ready to start treating them decently as well.
...consistently insane.
The only way to be sure an individual is black is to check their voting record. If they didn't vote for Joe Biden they ain't black.
Next to be shunted aside may be MLK,Jr. You'll know it when cities and towns start renaming all the MLK Boulevards, etc.
Yep, remove those statues of King and throw them in the pit with statues of that other racist, Lincoln.
Like it will matter what some author thinks when we're all dead from monkeypox or climate change.
Back when it was a momentary rage in the news healines in the early to mid Double-Aughts (or is that Uh-Ohs?) WBT' talk-show host Keith Larson sang:
"Here's a little song that I wrote.
You might want to sing it note for note.
Don't worry, think 'Momkeypox!'"
You just smile and say it! 🙂
Good times!
A Progressive is a person who is worried that sometime, somehow, somewhere, someone might just be ready to get on with his or her life and stop worrying.
'Some of Hurston's critics are still missing the point. The novelist Maya Angelou once complained that Hurston's 1942 autobiography, Dust Tracks on a Road, "does not mention even one unpleasant racial incident," even though "the southern air around her most assuredly crackled with the flames of Ku Klux Klan raiders."'
Yes, because any deviation from the current delusional fetish with endemic institutional racism and oppression is a traitorous denial of social "justice", cultural Marxism, and utopian progressivism.
She is being denied her lived experience.
No talk about a great Individualist like Zora Neale Hurston would he complete without a scene from a movie that Zora would probably have giggled her ass off watching:
Life Of Brian - "You are all individuals"
https://youtu.be/KHbzSif78qQ
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/buffalo-shooters-manifesto-a-confused
In his world, whites are ‘his team’ and non-whites are ‘the enemy’. Perhaps if he hadn’t been 100% introverted he could have actually talked to some real people and understood that many (and probably most) white people find his views abhorrent. Perhaps he could have talked to people belonging to minority groups and found common ground with them (something OTHER than hating Jews, please!)
Fear and hatred of the unknown rarely outlives real meaningful contact. I’m old enough to remember when people feared and/or hated gay people. That lasted exactly as long it it took for most people to personally know somebody who was gay — because almost always our lived experience with that person overrode the fear/hatred.
Suddenly the unknown is personal, and we’re forced to look at one of the ‘out-group’ as an individual. It is that ability to see people as individuals and not simply part of their ‘collective’ that obliterates the hatred that people like Gendron would like to foment. After all, it’s hard to want to stone the gays when that includes your best friend.
By attacking Their Eyes Were Watching God, Wright had actually disparaged the authentic, individualistic black voices
I was with you up until this moment. Could you define for me, in clear terms to help me separate and categorize the "authentic black" from the "inauthentic black"?
inauthentic black is a fictional character created for "a white audience whose chauvinistic tastes [Hurston] knows how to satisfy."
That was the charge leveled at her, and her novel, by another author (Wright). Root is merely pointing out that, contrary to that charge, she used characters from her own life, and travels through the south in her book, so they are actual authentic voices.
Thanks for your sharing! The information your share is very useful to me and many people are looking for them just like me! Also visit here for vitamins for childrens
Hurston also expressed skepticism on integration, as she feared blacks would lose their identity if they assimilated to white culture.
Their eyes were watching God is a very black book. I'd almost say she's the Mark Twain of the black literary world, in the way she portrayed dialect and community dynamics. The best thing about having to take black literature courses (to meet fine arts requirement) was reading Their eyes were watching God and Black No More by George Schuyler. I'm surprised there hasn't been leftist blacklash on Schuyler yet, he was against socialism, civil rights activism AND organized religion.
H.L. Mencken bought and published some of Zora's articles in The American Mercury. This was the guy Ayn Rand sent gushing fan letters to as her guru of individualism. Rightly, it turns out.
I'm convinced that the leftist black literati who worship Hurston have never read this letter: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-the-orlando-sentinel/