by Jonis Ghedi Alasow
On his
deathbed in 1961, Frantz Fanon dictated one of the most revolutionary texts of
the twentieth century. The Wretched of
the Earth is his most famous work and although it was published in 1961,
the text has remained a quintessential text for understanding the postcolonial
situation. It is important to note that the text does not take the form of a
systematic argument that is leading towards proving/disproving some hypothesis.
Les Damnés de la Terre is rather more
of a soliloquy of Fanon’s thoughts and impressions. These thoughts and
impressions can largely be categorised into three groups. Les Damnés de la Terre firstly offers an engagement with
colonialism. Secondly, it offers Fanon’s thoughts and impressions on the
process of decolonisation and lastly it lays down his thoughts and impressions
on the post-colony.
Before I continue with this response, there
are a few things that need to be pointed out. Firstly, I will be referring to
the book by its original title of Les
Damnés de la Terre. This is due to the misleading implications in the
English translation of the title. The second and final disclaimer I need to make
is the fact that this is by no means a comprehensive engagement with Fanon’s
text. I have simply commented on a few interesting ideas in Les Damnés de la Terre. I am
particularly interested in demonstrating why it is that I consider this text a
‘quintessential text for understanding the postcolonial situation’.
Fanon sets
the book out with a discussion of violence. This is arguably the most
misunderstood chapter Fanon has ever written and it is often interpreted as
propaganda for violence. This chapter is in my view misunderstood due to the
fact that readers fail to recognise the abovementioned three concerns in Les Damnés de la Terre. This book is not
simply a manual for decolonisation which is prepared to endorse violence. It is
simultaneously a description of colonialism, decolonisation and the
post-colony. It must therefore be recognised that the violence Fanon speaks of,
and at times condones, is complex. It is firstly both physical and
psychological and it is secondly concerned with all three stages mentioned
earlier[1].
Fanon
introduces his chapter on violence by describing the Manichaeism that is
created between the coloniser and the colonised (Fanon, 1961: 32). The violent
binary that is created here extends to all aspects of life in the colony. On a
moral level, the coloniser is good whilst the colonised is evil; on an
ontological level, the coloniser is human and the colonised is not; even in
terms of living space, the coloniser lives in the clean, spacious cities,
whilst the colonised lives in the dirty cramped outskirts. This Manichaeism
which is created and maintained by the colonisers is a form of psychological
violence in the colony. On top of this psychological violence, the colony is
subject to physical violence. The very existence of the colony is rooted in
physical violence. Land was forcefully taken from those who are now colonised.
This
violence of the oppressive system of colonialism dominates the colonised. The
colonised is unable to vent his/her anger against the oppressor and thus the
anger is turned towards other colonised people (Fanon, 1961: 41). In my view
Fanon’s claim can be applied to South Africa in two instances. The first is the
often unrecorded violence amongst black South Africans during apartheid. These
men and women were frustrated with the status quo to the extent that they
vented this anger against their fellow men and women. The prevalence of youth
gangs throughout South Africa’s history serves as proof of this. The second
instance where I think one could apply this is in contemporary South Africa.
Though we are not strictly speaking being colonised, we do live under a system
where a small group oppresses the majority. In South Africa this constitutes a
form of neo-colonialism. We have not managed to decolonise completely and have
thus not escaped the colonial situation. Violent crime is particularly high
amongst marginalised groups in South Africa. We are therefore currently in the
midst of the initial stage of violence among those who are oppressed. Fanon is
careful to point out that this is however only the initial stage. Before long
this violence turns towards the oppressor. The frustration with the status quo
causes anger which is vented against the coloniser. The colonised begins to
realise that the coloniser understands only force[2]
(Fanon, 1961: 66). In light of this it is useful to consider the trajectory
that South Africa might take in future. We have seen the phase where violence
and anger remain amongst the subaltern groups in society. How long before this
anger is turned against the oppressors?
From the
above trajectory follows a violent period of decolonisation. Here the coloniser
is prepared to use whatever means are necessary to maintain the status quo,
whilst the colonised is prepared to do whatever is necessary to ensure
emancipation. This inevitably leads to a violent confrontation considering that
each side proposes a system that is completely incompatible with the one
proposed by the other. Fanon’s argument that violence from both sides is
inevitable, has been critiqued by many readers of Les Damnés de la Terre. These people often argue that the process
of decolonisation can be peaceful if both parties are prepared to negotiate.[3]
Fanon is however sceptical of the prospects of negotiations (Fanon, 1961: 48).
These imply a compromise between the two parties. This is out of the question
for Fanon. Compromises imply that the violence of colonialism is allowed to
continue, at least partially. Fanon asks for true emancipation. Not a shift
from colonialism to neo-colonialism (Fanon, 1961: 51). The problem of partial
decolonisation due to compromises and negotiations manifests itself here in
South Africa where the material conditions for the average South African have
not changed significantly since the end of apartheid. Leaders in the liberation
movement were prepared to make concessions in the name of peace; but South
Africans have paid the heavy price of continued neo-colonial violence which is
still prevalent today.
Once
independence is achieved the violence however does not necessarily end. If the
process of decolonisation does not bring about true emancipation[4],
then violence continues to manifests itself. The people who Fanon calls the
“native bourgeoisie” simply replace the colonisers (1961: 47). One might argue
that this is also what happened in South Africa where the system of oppression
did not really come to an end. Rather, the face of oppression has changed since
1994.
According to
Fanon this violence which is inherent in colonialism, decolonisation and the
post-colony can only come to an end in the form of a socialist state (Fanon,
1961: 78). Neither capitalists nor elites[5]
should have the power in Fanon’s socialist/decolonised future. Only once the
masses are truly allowed to express their agency and subsequent political power
is a colony emancipated and thus free of violence (Fanon, 1961: 81). Only once
the masses govern themselves can one be decolonised.
In addition
to the above, (Fanon, 1961: 81) makes interesting claims regarding the actual
liberation movement. Fanon pays close attention to the workings of the
liberation movement. He notes how the leaders of such a movement are often
educated in the mother country and have adopted the values and ideas that
originate from there (Fanon, 1961: 86). Even in their political work, they were
members of worker unions and socialist parties in Europe where the urban
working class is the group ‘with nothing to lose and everything to gain’ from a
revolution (Fanon, 1961: 86). In the colony[6]
this is not true. The working class is able to benefit, at least partially,
from the colonial system. They are therefore not the ones who have nothing to
lose. Rather they are the ones with everything to lose. The rural peasantry in
the colony occupies the same position as the urban proletariat in the metropole
(Fanon, 1961: 89). As a result, the urban workers’ movement formed by these returning
intellectuals is in fact not a mass movement, but rather represents the
interests of a small elite. The peasantry is in fact the group whose situation
makes resistance to colonialism the only viable option. They are therefore the
most potent force in the anti-colonial movement. Unfortunately, the fact that
the liberation movement tends to represent the elites/urban working class,
opposes them to the peasantry. The masses who are resisting the colonial
project therefore are at times not members of the liberation movements. The
liberation movements often are concerned with changing the face of the system,
and not the actual system. The lumpen-proletariat is on the other hand
interested in putting an absolute end to colonialism. These people are in
Fanon’s view the masses and they are also the ones that ought to be taken
seriously if true decolonisation is going to take place. Perhaps more
importantly, they are the ones who are able to spearhead the struggle due to
the fact that they are able to commit to it wholeheartedly. They after all have
nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Following
his discussion of the process of decolonisation and the movements involved in
this process, Fanon turns to the idea of national consciousness. The idea of a
common nation which is under threat from colonialism and in need of protection
by the members of that nation is often invoked by the liberation movements
(Fanon, 1961: 135). The ANC for instance defined a South African nation in
order to effectively oppose apartheid. For Fanon this notion is particularly
dangerous, though necessary. The idea is necessary because it allows for people
to unite around a given cause. They can identify with one another and use this
unity around which they have defined themselves to oppose the oppressive
system. At the same time, this is extremely dangerous. Defining a nation
automatically excludes some people. This in turn gives rise to xenophobia[7]
(Fanon, 1961: 136). It implies a national essence and this propagates the
colonial notion of fundamental differences between people. The fact that Fanon
is in agreement with most of Jean-Paul Sartre’s ideas around existentialism
implies that the idea of a national essence is both false and problematic. It
groups people together to unite against others, but it is not more than a
momentarily necessary form of false consciousness. Furthermore, the nationalism
that is endorsed by various liberation movements is often designed to maintain the
existence of said liberation movement. In South Africa this means that
nationalist ideas that are still being propagated by the ANC make the ANC
responsible for independence in 1994. Furthermore, the political education
which is often closely linked to nationalist parties is not concerned with
teaching people to determine what is best. It is rather concerned with teaching
people to agree with the liberation movement (Fanon, 1961: 145). Thus nationalism
is necessary in the sense that it allows for a united opposition. It must
however give way to humanism in politics as soon as independence has been
gained (Fanon, 1961: 165).
In the final
chapter of the book, Fanon provides the reader with examples of the violence of
colonialism. He provides various examples of how colonialism was either
directly or indirectly responsible for the mental disorders that people
suffered from. These people were both the colonisers and the colonised. In this
chapter his fundamental concerns are emphasised again. His fight is against a
particular system, not the people in that system. He demonstrates how the
system of colonialism is dire for both
the settler and the ‘native’ and seeks an emancipated and truly socialist
future for everyone.
Fanon hopes
to move into an emancipated future. It is this emphasis on emancipation in the
post-colony which in my view makes Les
Damnés de la Terre so quintessential in understanding the post-colony. The
book allows the reader to understand colonialism as well as some of the
requirements for successful decolonisation. Furthermore, the text allows for
the reader to make sense of the status quo in the post-colony. Fanon is
radically opposed to colonialism and in my view he is just as radically opposed
to the postcolonial situation. This is why he urges the reader to “work out new
concepts” (Fanon, 1961: 255). In order to do this he insists that we cannot
look into the past and hope to find some pre-colonial African mode of being
that we can return to (Fanon, 1961: 251). We must remain forward-looking. Fanon
also warns against turning to Europe for the answer. A place that invents colonialism
and violently maintains it cannot be looked to for an emancipated future
(Fanon, 1961: 251). Our starting point must be acknowledging that “the masses
are [capable] of governing themselves” (Fanon, 1961: 151). If this is our point
of departure, I am confident that we will be able to “work out new concepts.
And try to set afoot a new man [sic]” (Fanon, 1961: 255).
Works Cited:
·
Fanon, F. 1961, The Wretched
of the Earth, Penguin Books: London.
[1] The violence of colonialism, the violence
involved with the process of decolonization and the violence that prevails in
the post-colony.
[2] This is rather ironic in
light of the fact that this statement is often made with reference to the
colonised. The idea that the colonised is not capable of reason and only
understands violence is widespread during colonialism. Now this idea is turned
around and the coloniser cannot understand anything but force.
[3] This negotiations/compromise route was followed
in South Africa in 1994. South Africa is in fact often held up as an example of
a (relatively) peaceful transition from colonialism to the post-colony.
[4] This would happen due to compromises made by
the leaders of the liberation movement (South Africa for example).
[5] The “native bourgeoisie”.
[6] Fanon wrote Les Damnés de la Terre with particular reference to the time he
spent in Algeria. As a result his references to ‘the colony’ relate most
specifically to his experiences in Algeria. One cannot assume that the things
that are true for Algeria are true for other colonies as well (though they
might be).
[7] We saw the dangers of defining what is South
African in the 2008 attacks on foreigners. Till today the debate of who in fact
counts as South African tends to exclude some people. In the rhetoric of some
nationalists, white people or people from other African countries are not
‘authentically South African’.
