Disillusionment

So I just have a few confusions with Invisible Man and how the author sets up the characters. For example, if Emerson is so symbolic of individuality and being self-reliant, why does the author also name another character, affiliated with Mr. Bledsoe, as Mr. Emerson.  So perhaps the name Emerson is a symbol of self-reliance when Mr. Norton first alludes to him; however, when the narrator goes up North, the other character named Mr. Emerson (that the narrator never actually gets to meet, though he does meet his son) seems more like an oppressive force than an inspirational symbol of self-reliance; so I'm not sure why the author named the character Emerson- perhaps because he symbolizes the narrator's first beginnings of his (albeit long) journey to find his independence and learn to think for himself? But then again this realization doesn't truly happen until the very end, after Clifton's death, his experience as "Rinehart," and the committee decides to sacrifice his people in the Harlem district for the "collective" good of the Brotherhood, when he realizes what his grandfather meant in his dying message and he learns to embrace his past rather than constantly avoiding it. Or I guess it could be because the young Emerson (Mr. Emerson's son) tries to warn the narrator about Mr. Bledsoe's deceptive letter and by showing him that, change his illusion of only being able to achieve success in life by blindly following and constantly being subservient to whites without ever truly thinking for himself (being self-reliant).  Unfortunately, as Ms. Marcy said in class, the narrator is a bit "thick" and when the young Emerson tries to present himself as a friend to the narrator by alluding to Jim and Huckleberry Finn's relationship (in which Huckleberry comes to regard Jim sincerely as a friend despite the fact that Jim is a runaway slave) the narrator does not understand and even wonders to himself why the young Emerson keeps talking to him about "that kid's story?" (188). The fact that the narrator still thinks this and retains his irritated attitude throughout the young Emerson’s sincere attempt to help him shows that the narrator really can’t comprehend the true meaning of the novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and the significance of the fact that Huck becomes friends with Jim in the end by recognizing him as an individual rather than simply a runaway slave to be looked down at with disdain- we especially see this significant change in his attitude towards Jim when he internally struggles about whether or not to turn in Jim when they reach different towns (because the society of white superiority and dominance had not taught him how to act any different- thus he kept worrying that he was going against God and doing something evil by hiding Jim simply because society had always taught him it was right to turn in a runaway slave- that they’re the property of white men and can’t be trusted).  In the end, I suppose their “escape” from society (hiding on the boats on the rivers all the time) was really what allowed Huck to develop a trusting relationship with Jim (because he was away from society’s influences and interferences) and eventually decide not to turn in Jim.  So in a way, the young Emerson’s reference to Huckleberry Finn is a bit ironic in that someone as young as Huck is able to see the relationship between whites and blacks as friends as equals, while the narrator in Invisible Man keeps insisting on believing the illusion that white men are some sort of gods that he must please at all costs.  But then again, I suppose the narrator could be that way because he’s older, and thus less malleable (already more inculcated by society?) and Huck did have that time to escape from society and discover Jim the individual rather than just the slave.