by Jonis Ghedi Alasow
Frantz
Fanon’s 1952 book, Black Skin, White
Masks, is one of the most interesting and insightful books I have ever
read. Fanon sets out his discussion with the intention of showing the “various
attitudes the Negro adopts in contact with white civilisation” (Fanon, 1952:
5). He labours through a particularly personal and reflective discussion to
ultimately provide a “progressive infrastructure, in which it will be possible
to discern the Negro on the road to disalienation” (1952: 142). Thus Fanon is
fundamentally concerned with describing the place that is held by black people
in the mid-20th century. He aims to illustrate the problems with the
place of the black people and to point the reader towards an emancipatory
future. Black Skin, White Masks is
most certainly a ground breaking book and it would be possible to write a
review of it that is as long as the book itself. Here I will only focus on a
few major themes in an attempt to convey the importance of Black Skin, White Masks in understanding not only the world of
1952, but also the world of 2014.
The
first thing worth considering is the very idea of a “Negro”. Where does this
idea come from and what is the purpose of sustaining such an idea? Fanon is
clear in attributing the notion of blackness to the European (1952: 83). W.E.B.
Du Bois argued that black people only know that they are black by seeing
themselves through the eyes of white people. Similarly, Jean-Paul Sartre
attributed the existence of the Jew to the imagination of the Anti-Semite
(Sartre, 1948: 7). Fanon follows on from these thinkers and argues that the
black person only comes to realise his/her blackness when told by the European
that he/she is not white. It is for this reason that people, like Fanon, who
leave the Antilles to go to Europe are forced to confront their blackness
(Fanon, 1952: 84).
Now
that the origins of blackness have been discussed it is time to consider the
significance thereof. Why is the distinction between the ‘Negro’ and the
‘European’ necessary? More specifically, I would like to explore the roots of
racism as perceived by Fanon in Black
Skin, White Masks. Fanon in fact dedicates an entire chapter to explaining
how language is used to distinguish between a more valuable European culture
and a less valuable culture of the Antilles (1952: 8). Emphasis is placed on
‘speaking properly’ by both the European and the person of the Antilles in an
attempt to get black people to assimilate European culture. Fanon is careful to
link language and culture together. Thus by assimilating the language of the
coloniser, the black person is also assimilating the culture of the coloniser.
By adopting this new culture, the colonised can be “elevated above his jungle
status” [sic] (1952: 9).
This
perpetual striving towards assimilating the culture of the European seems to
indicate a desire to be like the European or, if possible, to be the European. Many have argued that this
quest for assimilation is rooted in an inferiority complex. Fanon is not
impartial to this idea, but disagrees with M. Mannoni’s notion that the
inferiority complex is always present in the black man or woman and that it is
only made explicit in the colonial moment (1952: 62). For Fanon the inferiority
complex that black people suffer from is entirely socialised. It is brought
into existence through the interaction with Europeans and reinforced by the
colonised.
For
Fanon, the notion of black inferiority is inherent in the structure of modern
society. He is for instance dismissive of the idea that racism is the result of
economic factors. The root cause of racism is not competition between black and
white people for the same resources where race is subsequently used to elevate
one group’s right to the resources over the rights of others. (Fanon, 1952:
64). For Fanon notions of white superiority and black inferiority would exist
even in the absence of economic differences between the groups. For him this
complex is deeply rooted in the psychology of the black being. In explaining
the creation of the inferior black man/woman, Fanon draws on the work of
Jean-Paul Sartre’s Anti-Semite and Jew.
Fanon argues that in the same way that the Anti-Semite creates the Jew, “it is the racist who creates his inferior”[1] (1952: 69). In this
creation of the inferior by the one who wishes to deem himself or herself as
superior, there is a tendency to associate the ‘inferior’ with evil. Therefore
both the black person and the Jew are considered as epitomes of evil (Fanon,
1952: 139).Thus inferiority is created by the coloniser and it is inherent in
the institutions and structures that govern society.
Regardless
of the roots of this inferiority complex, it is still a very real part of the
life of the black person. Hegel’s dialectic between the master and the slave is
often invoked to explain the relationship between the black person and the
European. Hegel argued that the slave needs to resist the master in order to be
recognised (Fanon, 1952: 171). This dialectic relationship is often applied to
the relationship between black and white people. Fanon however disagrees with
this. Not only because it is not in fact recognition as an essentially separate
entity that black people seek from white people, but rather they wish to enter
humanity. Furthermore, the resistance that is required by Hegel’s dialectic has
not yet manifested itself in the black-white dynamic. The recognition/freedom was
handed to the ‘Negro’ by the Europeans. Thus black people have moved from one
subordinate state to another. They have not entered into a totally different
ontological position (Fanon, 1952: 171). Thus Fanon recognises the fact that
black people consider themselves as inferior to white people whilst white
people are content in accepting the notion that they are superior. Though Fanon
regards adherence to this inferiority complex, by both black and white people,
as completely irrational he does recognise the material existence of this
complex.
Closely
linked to this idea of inferiority are the ontological assumptions made by the
coloniser. Inherent in the racist structure I mentioned earlier is the
assumption that there are different degrees of humanity where Europeans occupy
the highest rank. Fanon indicates a Manichaeism where whiteness is synonymous
with being human, whilst black is synonymous with being, at best, significantly
less human than the Europeans (1952: 106). Thus the black person can only claim
ownership of his/her humanity by embracing European norms around what it means
to be human. Rather than recognising within everyone the capacity of good or
evil, different races are essentialised to embody either good in its entirety
or evil in its entirety (Fanon, 1952: 150). Fanon is principally against this
essentialising. For him it is problematic that blackness becomes the
“scapegoat” (1952: 150) of all that is evil, even the evil within whiteness.
It has
so far become clear that racism is the result of blackness being essentialised
as inherently evil and in the very least as inherently inferior to whiteness.
This notion has been internalised by everyone. From the black woman who is
repulsed by the notion of a black man to the black man who is seen by the white
woman as no more than an embodiment of sexuality. Both black and white have
internalised the notion of inherent and ontological inferiority of the black
person. Before concluding I will briefly discuss some of the ways that one
might, according to Fanon, transcend the contemporary[2] status quo of racism.
Of
fundamental importance in creating the new order that will end racism is the
recognition of black humanity on its own terms. The black person should be able
to be recognised as a full human without a necessary dependence on whiteness.
At the moment the idea of a black being on its own terms is as unthinkable as
the Haitian Revolution was in 1791 (Trouillot, 1995: 73). Just as the
revolution could only be understood through the lens of white agency, the only
understanding of black ontology is through the lens of white ontology. As long
as black existence is only seen from the point of view of the white person,
there can be no true existence of black people.
In
order to create this black ontology, Fanon endorses the notions of Negritude
(1952: 106). For Fanon, Negritude allows for a common black history and a
common future. This is vital in the rewriting of the black ontology. He does
however recognise that Negritude is a means to an end and that the
essentialising that it requires will at some point have to give way to a
universal humanity. It is Fanon’s hope that the creation of a black existence
that is not framed by white existence will eventuality give rise to a humanity
in the most literal sense of the word. He dreams of a world that will recognise
with him “the open door of every consciousness” (Fanon, 1952: 181).
Black Skin, White Masks is
certainly an amazing engagement with the fate of the black individual in
society. The book deals with various questions and dilemmas faced by all
humans. Its power lies in the fact that it remains surprisingly optimistic in
spite of its serious subject matter. Fanon recognises the problems faced by the
former colonised and is quite aware of the psychologically draining position
that he/she occupies. Yet, he focuses his attention on the debunking of
whiteness as the epitome of being. He seeks to “work out new concepts” (Fanon,
1961, 255) and remains optimistic that this can indeed be done.
Works Cited:
·
Fanon, F. 1961, The Wretched of the Earth, Penguin
Books: London.
·
Fanon, F. 1952, Black Skin, White Masks, Pluto Press:
London.
·
Sartre, J-P, Anti-Semite and Jew, Schocken books: New
York.
·
Trouillot, M-R. 1995, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production
of History, Beacon Press: Massachusetts.
[2] “Contemporary” here
refers to both the time in which Fanon was writing and the world we are in
today. In spite of the fact that official domination by states has largely come
to an end, there is still the idea of black inferiority. The symbol of beauty
and intelligence is still captured in the white body. Why else is it seen as
important to have ‘white hair’, or ‘fair skin’ or to ‘speak properly’? What was
true for the young Fanon in 1952 in France is true for the black South African
in 2014.
