CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE COLONIALISM, VIOLENCE AND EMANCIPATION IN FRANTZ FANON

ABSTRACT

Colonialism in Fanon’s perception is violent in nature. Colonialism is violence in the sense that it took a violent process to invade and subdue Africa. It destroyed as Fanon observed, African socio-political, psychological, cultural and economic structures. Injustice which is also a dominant feature of colonialism is seen in the exploitative relationship that existed between the native and the settler as well as in the alienation of the native by the settler. In simple term, colonization was a violent process that destroyed old ways of life and robbed Africans of their means to live with dignity. Fanon, therefore, advocated through socialist revolution using violent armed means to fight the colonial power. He further stated that out of this violence a new, humane man would arise and create a new culture. The question now is, in the wake of this twenty-first century can violence be gladly upheld in actualizing a course? Will it be relevant even as we still experience neocolonialism? In our Africa of today, is it advisable to adopt violence in settling disputes even as we march towards development? Can dialogue be an alternative to violence in the face of disputes? These questions constitute a problem and this thesis seeks to make a critical appraisal of Fanon’s conception of colonialism, violence and emancipation. For this work violence serves only direct and short-term purposes while dialogue affords durable and long-term results. Finally, this research work made use of critical and analytical method.

 

CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE COLONIALISM, VIOLENCE AND EMANCIPATION IN FRANTZ FANON

 

                                        CHAPTER ONE

1.0                                  INTRODUCTION

1.1     BACKGROUND OF STUDY

The phenomenon of violence which occurs in our society almost on daily basis together with the works of some scholars on colonialism and emancipation was what provoked this research work. My interest to embark on this work was also captured by the colonization of Africa and Africa’s struggle for emancipation which was approached from different dimensions by some African scholars. Some of these African scholars fought for their independence through dialogue while others got theirs through either intellectual protest or physical violence. Frantz Fanon among other African scholars advocated violence for the emancipation of Algeria, hence he advocated same approach to Africa as a whole. But why would Fanon opt for violence?

The above question can well be answered if we reflect on how Africans were treated during the era of colonization. The abolition of slave trade in the nineteenth century ushered in another form of enslavement of the Africans called colonialism. This was made possible by the 1885 Berlin Conference that brought about the sharing and partitioning of Africa among some European countries like England, France, Belgium, Portugal, and Germany. The decision and action of these European countries “…were taken without any reference to the wishes and aspirations of the people about whom they took their decision.”¹ Africans resisted but the imperialists were able to subdue them. Africa, however, became the colony of these Western States. The Africans were considered by the Westerners as having no soul or put in other words, living tool. They were oppressed, suppressed, marginalized, molested, discriminated against, treated as savages, and lastly as inanimate objects. The Africans lost their right, dignity and freedom.

Freedom as a phenomenon is paramount in every person’s life. When it is denied any person or group of people, there is the tendency that they would fight back to regain their freedom. To regain this freedom might take a violent process. Far from regaining freedom through violence, it could also be argued that violence is a phenomenon which appears to occur in the society almost on daily basis. John Odey captures it thus, “…every human society has within its structure some roots of violence which often tend to polarize the people into two main groups: the oppressors and the oppressed.”² Violence is a phenomenon which naturally occurs in the lives of some human beings. It can come through psychological or physical means. As psychological violence, violence may take the form of discrimination on grounds of race, colour, religion and sex. As physical violence, it may take the form of brutality, aggression, cruelty and fighting. Adebola Ekanola opines, “A constant feature of society is violence in its various manifestations. People appear to be too quick in resorting to violence as a means of achieving desired ends without exhausting all non-violent alternatives.”³ Naturally, every human being would want to fight back when he or she is stroke at or when his or her right is infringed upon. To this end some see it “…as not only inevitable but necessary in society,”⁴ and it is there argument also that, “…social progress cannot be recorded without violence.”⁵

In the entire globe with particular reference to Africa and the Middle East, uprisings and violent revolutions are on the increase. In Africa, violence is experienced in countries like Nigeria, Liberia, Rwanda, Kenya, Somali and Sudan.  Violence often times arises as a result of ethnic hatred and its attendant physical clashes, violent revolution for emancipation and political assassinations. How justified then is violence? Must all fight or conflict be settled with violence? Are some people more violent than others? Can nonviolence ever be used to achieve a course? If Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jnr. used nonviolence to achieve their goal, where lies the justification of violence? If violence can sometimes be used to achieve a course, is it not wise to adopt it? In our world and Africa of today is it wise to adopt violence to settle disputes? How many individuals of today will be willing to pursue a course through the violent means? Can dialogue be used in settling of conflict and disputes? If it can, how far can it go?

Dialogue did not interest Fanon neither did nonviolence tickle his fancy. He instead opted for physical violence and his main thesis was the struggle against oppression, and colonialism was the target of this fury. Fanon’s interest was captured by the ugly experience he had in Algeria. His philosophy of violence began with his experience of treating wounded Front Liberation Nationale (FLN) rebels which he joined and later became their journalist. His experience in the army also resulted to his positing violence as the solution to colonialism.

In the army, he experienced discrimination of the highest order. There, white French troops were separated from Black West Indians, who were supposed to be French citizens. Black African soldiers were also segregated from French troops as were Arab Africans, whom the French reviled and treated in their own soil like pariahs. Fanon’s experience in the army came at the time that the French confronted German fascism. He fought the war as an adolescent with all these experiences fresh in his mind. The segregation impact indirectly shaped his understanding of violence. He called this racism, “…the psychiatric disorder of colonialism.”⁶

All these experiences made Fanon to posit greater violence as a measure to counter violence which is colonialism. He stated it clearly that, “Colonialism is not a thinking machine, nor a body endowed with reasoning faculties. It is violence in its natural state, and it will only yield when confronted with greater violence.”⁷ He therefore, called on all Africans to indulge in decolonization through the violent process since violence and cruelty are the major features of colonialism. Succinctly put, Fanon believes that the true liberation of Africa from the colonial domination must be through violence. The question to ask is; In the present Africa, can the use of physical violence be used to emancipate ourselves even as we still experience neocolonialism? Can our arms match the sophisticated arms of our so called neo-colonizers? How best can we emancipate ourselves in isolation of violence? This thesis seeks to find the best alternative to violence in the face of conflicts and disputes.

1.2                        STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Fundamentally speaking, every human being cherishes his or her freedom and right. When the freedom and right of an individual is infringed upon, it becomes a problem because such an individual will fight to regain his freedom and right. The question now is how does one regain one’s freedom? Through what means can one achieve one’s freedom? Though it is said that man is a free animal, it does not entail that man’s freedom is limitless. The limit of one’s freedom lies at the commencement of another’s. Hence, it is often said that “one’s freedom stops where another person’s freedom begins.” It is therefore, inhuman for man to enslave or colonize another. Colonization has in its nature the features of depriving the colonized their right and freedom. It goes with suppression, domination, subjugation, exploitation and discrimination. The colonized that resisted the colonizers were brutally dealt with or silenced. Those who could not put up resistance died in silence.

The brutal way of suppressing the colonized takes the form of force, hence, violence. The attitude of the colonizers towards the Africans made Fanon to posit violence as the solution for decolonization. Is violence justified then? Some authors or scholars would argue that injustice, denial of another’s freedom and oppression are the chief causes of violence. They argue that the man who suffers from injustice often tends to reply with violence and this is the position of Fanon. Since injustice breeds violence, can there not be other ways to settle disputes or conflicts without the use of violence? Must it necessarily be with the use of greater violence? This research work sets out to tackle the problems posed above.

1.3                PURPOSE OF STUDY

What the Africans suffered in the hands of the Colonialists were savagery and dehumanization. The freedom of the Africans was trampled upon and their right snatched away from them. It is an indisputable fact that man is by nature a free being. Mondin captures it,

Man, beyond intelligence, is also highly free. Freedom is therefore, another title for his excellence and nobility and represents another great window for looking into the mystery of man, with a goal to acquiring a more correct, more complete, more adequate comprehension of him.⁸

Stressing further, J.Omoregbe opines, “man is by nature free; freedom is part of his very nature as a rational being.”⁹ This rationality in man makes him to understand as well as to see justice in the fact that his freedom is limited and that

his freedom stops where another person’s freedom begins. Now when somebody’s freedom is deprived of him, naturally he would want to regain his freedom. The process to regain this freedom might lead to violence. This presents injustice as breeding violence. With the colonization of Africa and the Europeans relationship with Africa which is exploitative, oppressive and discriminatory, Fanon advocated for violence to be countered with greater violence. He states, “Their existence together, that is to say, the exploitation of the natives by the settlers, was carried on by dint of great array of bayonets and cannon.”¹⁰ This made Fanon to see colonialism as “violence in its natural state.”¹¹ Outside Fanon’s notion of colonialism and his philosophy of violence to counter colonialism, it is also pertinent to observe that across the globe, different individuals, groups, religions or countries lust for violence at the least provocation. Some do not even wait to be provoked before embarking on violence. Some yearn for it and derive pleasure displaying it.

Thus, from a philosophical point of view, this work seeks to analyze as well as  appraise the concept of violence as advocated by Fanon with the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that violence is not the solution to every crisis, conflict or provocation rather that nonviolence or dialogue could be used for the actualization of freedom or emancipation.

1.4                SCOPE OF STUDY

This thesis is a philosophical research on Frantz Fanon’s notion of colonialism, violence and emancipation. It also centres on the physical, psychological and structural violence, and more especially the physical as posited by Frantz Fanon to counter colonialism which is violence in its nature for the emancipation of Africa. It shall as well look into the rationality behind the use of violence in the emancipation of the Africans from the Colonial Masters.

1.5               SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

The significance of this study lies in the concept or notion of violence by Frantz Fanon. Frantz Fanon’s idea of violence did not descend from the blues. It was as a result of the dastardly act meted out to the natives by the settlers. The natives lost their dignity and freedom and to emancipate themselves, they have to adopt violence as postulated by Fanon.

Today, there are series of violent activities in some parts of Africa and even the world at large. In some contemporary African states, there are cases of tribal wars and conflicts, civil wars, secessionist attempts, struggles between nations over land and natural resources like crude oil. This study is important in our present world especially this part of the world where uprisings and violent revolution is taking its toll. It is also essential for social and political analysts who are interested in peace and conflict resolutions. It is also important as it will expose, criticize and refine Fanon’s violence by discarding its brutal nature and adopting dialogue as a preparatory ground for re-educating Africans.

1.6               METHODOLOGY

In this thesis, our method will be to present through critical analysis, Frantz Fanon’s conception of colonialism, violence and emancipation in six chapters while the seventh chapter will be for critical evaluation and conclusion.

Our data for this research work was collected from both primary and secondary sources. In the primary sources this thesis made use of the works entitled Wretched of the Earth, Black Skin, White Masks, and Toward the African

Revolution all by Frantz Fanon. In the secondary sources, it made use of journals and articles both published and unpublished, newspapers, magazines, and philosophical works of some philosophers on Frantz Fanon’s notion of colonialism, violence and emancipation.

This thesis is divided into seven chapters. Chapter one attempts to give a background of the work. It also presents the background of the study of philosophy of violence. This chapter also looks into the problem we are set to solve, the purpose of our study, the scope of our study, the significance of our study and lastly the method we adopted. Chapter two reviews literature on violence, colonialism and emancipation. In this chapter also we shall look at other philosophers and thinkers’ views on colonialism, violence and emancipation, and see their positions with or against Frantz Fanon’s view.

Chapter three presents Fanon’s conception of colonialism. Chapter four presents Fanon’s view of violence while chapter five looks at Fanon’s view of emancipation. Chapter six dwells on the critical appraisal of violence as postulated by Fanon. It also examines the merit and demerits of Fanon’s notion of colonialism, violence and emancipation. Chapter seven presents us with the critical evaluation and conclusion.

 

 

1.7               DEFINITION OF TERMS

VIOLENCE

Violence as a concept has broad meaning. It is so diversified that it cuts across all aspects of human life. It has different connotations and is understood in different perspectives. As a concept violence may have negative or positive connotation. As a negative concept violence is rejected or deplored by its opponent while as a positive concept it is embraced by its proponents. What then is violence?

Violence does not have a comprehensive and all embracing definition since the understanding and approach of people to this phenomenon differs from one person to another. Violence is as old as mankind. In the ancient epoch we can find violence in the philosophy of some ancient philosophers. It could also be found in the philosophy of some modern and contemporary philosophers. In the philosophy of Heraclitus we can deduce violence from his theory of the conflict of opposites. For Heraclitus, strife is necessary for changes to take place. The process of change entails war and all things happen by strife and necessity. Violence could be seen also in the dialectical idealism of Hegel and the material dialectics of Marx.

Hegel argues that since the objects of knowledge are the products of the mind, but not our minds, it must be assumed that they are the products of intelligence other than that of a finite individual. The whole universe is seen by Hegel as the self projection of the absolute and cosmic history is the process of the self projection and self-development of the absolute. This process of the absolute’s self development according to Hegel is a dialectical process in which conflicts and contradictions are synthesized into a new development, a new step forward. This dialectical process of Hegel’s exhibits a triadic movement from thesis to antithesis and finally to synthesis, after which the synthesis becomes a new thesis, and this process continues until it ends in the Absolute idea. One can therefore deduce from Hegel’s philosophy that violence is essential for change to take place.

Violence could be seen in Marxist philosophy in the dethronement of the capitalist (bourgeoisie) by the proletariats with the aim of establishing a classless and stateless communist society. The proletariat in the philosophy of Marx are being exploited and “alienated from their own labour, from their own products, from their fellow men, from the society and from nature.”¹² For the proletariats to liberate themselves there is need to destroy capitalism. It is at this juncture that he maintained that it can only be achieved through revolution by which capitalism will be destroyed and communism inaugurated.

Hannah Arendt perceives violence in its political dimension. She contends that

“…violence is nothing more than the most flagrant manifestation of power.”¹³ She further stressed that violence is the poorest possible basis on which to build a government. It can destroy the old power, but can never create authority that legitimizes the new. She also stated that violence can destroy power but cannot generate it thus, “…out of the barrel of a gun grows the most effective command resulting in the most instant and perfect obedience, what never can grow out of it is power.”¹⁴ Arendt’s definition presents violence to be associated with power. The power under discussion here is such that could be grabbed by a person or state using violence. This violence can also destroy an old power but cannot create an authority that legitimizes the new one.

Malcolm X the Afro- American activist defines violence as self defense. His understanding of violence emanates from his Islamic teachings which preaches nonviolence but carries with it a sense of violence such that one needs to be passive unless acted upon. This summarizes his notion of violence as “self defense.” Hence, he says “… I don’t call it violence when it’s self-defense, I call it intelligence.”¹⁵ Violence could now be deduced in the notion of Malcolm X as self defense when acted upon or put in other words intelligence.

Rollo May perceives violence as a phenomenon that is bound to occur when

Human beings (that is their person) are not recognized like others. He thus, opines, “Since every human being has a need for some sense of significance, there is going to be upheavals of violence for as long as experience of that significance are denied some people.”¹⁶ He further states “When people are consistently subjected to subhuman conditions with nobody to listen to or care about their groaning, violence may psychologically become not only inevitable but ‘life giving’ as well.”¹⁷

Martin Luther King Junior an apostle of nonviolence defines violence as “the antithesis of creativity and wholeness. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible.”¹⁸ He further views violence as that which “…creates many more problems that it can never solve. It returns hate for hate, and in the process, adds deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Violence multiplies violence, and in the process, increases hate in a descending spiral of destruction.”¹⁹ Luther King expatiated on his concept of violence when he

asserts:

Violence itself is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than to convert. It thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. It destroys all possibilities of dialogue between the oppressor and the oppressed and leaves society in monologue. It operates in the old law of an-eye-for-an-eye and ends up in making everybody blind. Finally, violence increases the existence of evil in the universe.²⁰

Peter L. Berger defines violence as “…the ultimate foundation of any political order. The common sense view of society senses this… in countries with less of a democratic and humanitarian ideology (where) instrument of violence are much less gingerly displayed and employed.”²¹ Violence is understood here as requisite for political foundation with particular reference to dictatorial or undemocratic system of government.

Christina Jarvis divides violence into two different levels namely: (1) micro level and (2) macro level. Under the micro level of violence she defines violence under these three sub-headings (1) personal violence (2) collective violence and (3) institutional violence.

• Personal Violence: She defines personal violence as “…acts of aggression of force performed by individuals.”²² It is such that “…may be directed at inanimate objects, animals, one’s self, or other bodies.”²³
• Collective Violence: She explains this as “…when individuals engage in violent activities at a group or institutional level.”²⁴ Incidents of group violence such as riots, revolutions and gang warfare are typical example of collective violence.
• Institutional Violence: She defines this as “…violence that serves or results from institutional objective- can take extreme forms, like concentration camps or murders committed by totalitarian governments, or it can be part of a socially accepted economic system or religious organization’s goals.”²⁵

Jarvis opines that at the macro level, advances in military and media technology have made violence (and the threat of it) global. Not only can we annihilate the entire planet through nuclear weapons, but we can transmit, through satellite, war and other public spectacles of violence into homes all over the globe.

Having seen the different definitions of violence, violence therefore, may be perceived as those actions whether physical, verbal, sexual, structural or psychological which are perpetrated by individual, group of people, institutions or nations to endanger, destroy, kill, inflict pain or injury on people or their property. It could also be seen as that which is employed to return a hurt done to someone or to free oneself from oppression. In this research work, violence is taken as revolutionary tool for effecting change.

COLONIALISM

Colonialism may be seen as the establishment of a colony or colonies in another country by a superior country. In the view of Mmaduabuchi Dukor we can deduce that colonialism is the invasion and domination of Africa by Europe between 1875 and 1900 by European countries like Britain, France, Portugal, Germany and Belgium. He says, “This phenomenon of partitioning, occupation

and domination of the African race is what is classically called colonialism.”²⁶ C.B Okolo gave a rather different meaning or definition of colonialism. He perceives colonialism from an evil point of view because colonialism exploits the colonized of their economy. Thus he avers:

Colonialism is an evil for it is a political, social, economic oppression and exploitation of another, the domination of the weak by the strong, the poor by the rich; the developing by the developed nations. It is a total invasion of alien consciousness for the sake of subjugation and exploiting weaker people and nations. Colonialism thus establishes radical inequality between the colonizer and the colonized.²⁷

Walter Rodney in describing the socio-economic services of colonialism to Africa opines “Colonialism was a system which functions well in the interests of the metropoles.”²⁸ V.Y Mudimbe defines colonialism as “…the blatant denial of the humanity of the colonized which serves as its own proof. It is the affirmation that the colonized have no history and are introduced into the human community by European conquest,”²⁹ Mudimbe’s definition of colonialism points to the aspect that Africa has no history but discovers her history through the European conquest of Africa. In other words, Africans can only know themselves or their history through the Europeans. Tsenay Serequeberhan in his view defines colonialism thus, “…colonialism petrifies the subjugated culture. It becomes estrangement and abnegation (tribalism) for the westernized native. On the other hand, it prescribes for the rural native an inert existence whose present is an irrelevant past.”³⁰ One can also deduce from Serequeberhan another definition of colonialism as “…a double society in subordination: on the one hand, the rural mass who experience colonialism as an external limit and imposition, and on the other, those whose existence is directly tied to the new development brought about by colonial conquest- that is, the Westernized urban populace.”³¹

Having seen the above definitions of colonialism we can say that colonialism, is a phenomenon which is born out of exploitation, domination, subjugation, violent dehumanization and intimidation of a country by another stronger country.

EMANCIPATION

Emancipation as a concept may not have been defined philosophically, but one can deduce from the definition of other scholars, a philosophical and scholarly definition of emancipation. Emancipation therefore, could be defined as “…the act of setting free from the power of another, from slavery, subjection, dependence, or controlling influence; also, the state of being thus set free; liberation….”³² It is further defined as “…the act or process by which a person is liberated from the authority and control of another person.”³³ This definition of emancipation is primarily employed with regard to the release of a minor by his or her parents, which entails a complete relinquishment of the right to the care, custody, and earnings of such child, and a repudiation of parental obligations.

Be that as it may, emancipation is somewhat synonymous with liberation. Though it is not the concept under definition here, it will be worthwhile if we have the knowledge of the definition of this concept liberation because we might be using it interchangeably with emancipation as we proceed in the subsequent chapters.  Liberation which comes from the verb “to liberate” could mean to free a country or a person from the control of somebody else; to free somebody from something that restricts his or her enjoyment of life.

Emancipation could, therefore, be said to be the act of liberating or setting free a person or a country from the authority, subjection, domination or control of another person or a stronger country.  

 

           ENDNOTES

1. Onaulogho, The Equality of Mankind According to Locke. A Doctoral Dissertation presented to the faculty of Philosophy of Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome as quoted by O.E Egelonu in “Towards the Emancipation of Africa” in NAPSSEC Journal of African Philosophy, vol. II by P. Bello (ed), p.88
2. Odey, Racial Oppression in America and the Nonviolent Revolution of Martin Luther King Jr., (Enugu: Snaap Press Ltd, 2005), p.11
3. B Ekanola, “Towards an Enduring Social Peace in a Violence Ridden Society: From a Culture of War and Violence to a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence,” in West African Journal of Philosophical Studies, by A.

Oburota (ed) vol. 8, p.93

6. Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, (Middlesex: Penguin Books,1963), p.234
7. , p.48
8. Mondin, Philosophical Anthropology, Man: An Impossible Project? (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1991), p. 101
9. Omoregbe, A Systematic and Historical Study, (Lagos: Joja Educational

Research and Publishers Ltd., 2000), p.36

10. Fanon, p.28
11. A Jinadu, Fanon: In Search of the African Revolution, (Enugu: Fourth Dimension Pub Co. Ltd, 1980), p.24
12. Omoregbe, A Simplified History of Western Philosophy, vol.II (Lagos:

Joja Press Limited, 2003), p.148

13. Arendt, On Violence, (New York: Harcourt, Broce and World, 1970), p.35
14. , p.53
15. Haley, “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,”www.bookrags.com/essay, accessed 4/04/2011
16. May, Power and Innocence: A Search for the Source of Violence (New

York: W.W Norton, 1972), p.179

17. , p.191
18. L King, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston:

Beacon Press, 1968), p.61

19. L King, Strength to Love (Glasgow: Collins, 1989), p.51
20. L King, Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story (New York: Harper SanFrancisco, 1986), p.213
21. L Berger, Invitation to Sociology: A Human Perspective, (New York:

Penguin Books, !963), P. 84-85

22. Jarvis, Oxford Companion to the Body, www.answers.com/topic/violence accessed 4/04/2011
23. Ibid
24. Ibid
25. Ibid
26. Dukor, African Freedom the Freedom of Philosophy (Berlin: Lambert Academic Publishing, 2010), p.35
27. B Okolo, “The African and Neo-Colonial Predicament” Sign, Vol. II, No. 5, 1987, p.11
28. Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, (Abuja: Panaf Press,

1972), p.246

29. Y Mudimbe, The Surreptitious Speech, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), p.xx in T. Serequeberhan in The Hermeneutics of African Philosophy Horizon and Discourse (New York: Routledge, 1994), p.78
30. Serequeberhan, The Hermeneutics of African Philosophy Horizon and

Discourse (New York: Routledge, 1994), p.101

31. , p.105
32. brainyquote.com/words/em/emancipation accessed 4/04/2011
33. answers.com/topic/emancipation accessed 4/04/2011

CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE COLONIALISM, VIOLENCE AND EMANCIPATION IN FRANTZ FANON

Sharing is caring!