Fanon: The Wretched of the Earth

Fanon, Frantz, & Philcox, Richard. (2004). The wretched of the earth / Frantz Fanon ; translated from the French by Richard Philcox ; introductions by Jean-Paul Sartre and Homi K. Bhabha. New York: Grove Press.

The mighty preface to this edition was written by Sartre, who presents a scathing telling of the effects of colonialism on European society. He makes the case that Fanon is not writing to the colonialists. No, he is writing about the colonialists. This, he claims, is important to realize, so that the Europeans can eventually move out of their humanist costume and towards an authentic embrace of the history of their involvement in the oppression of the global masses.

From Sartre:

"I have written one, however, to carry the dialectic through to its conclusion: we, too, peoples of Europe, we are being decolonized: meaning the colonist inside every one of us is surgically extracted in a bloody operation. Let's take a good look at ourselves, if we have the courage, and let's see what has become of us" (lvii).

"Today whenever two Frenchmen meet, there is a dead body between them. And did I say one…?" (lxii).

And on to Fanon (and it might be sufficiently colonialist to put Sartre before Fanon, but that's how the book is structured):

This book is very in tune with the movement of history. In fact, Hegel can be seen throughout the text and the master/slave dialectic is one of the most defining characteristics of the identities, rather, the consciousnesses of both the colonizers and the colonized.

This is a book about de-colonialization, the effects of this, and how this aspect of history has moved forward. "Decolonization, we know, is an historical process: in other words, it can only be understood, it can only find its significance and become self coherent insofar as we can discern the history making movement which gives it form and substance" (2).

In one of the critiques of colonialism, Fanon talks about the compartmentalized nature of colonialism. "The colonized world is a world divided in two. The dividing line, the border, is represented by the barracks and the police stations" (3). This division also extends to the division between the rural and the urban areas within the colonies.

Another aspect of colonialism that is highlighted by Fanon was the dehumanizing nature of colonialism, the reduction of the colonized individual to the position of always being below, subservient, a slave. It is interesting to note that Fanon was a psychologist for most of his life.

The colonized respond to this process of dehumanization in some easily identifiable ways. There is a return to traditional cultural forms of expression, like dance. These cultural expressions were able to hide some of the symbolic rebellion and violence enacted against their colonizers.

Another relationship that Fanon highlights in relation to the de-colonial push is the rivalry, or distrust, between the rural and the urban classes. The urban people are seen as being collaborators with the colonial leaders. The rural people are seen as being unable to run a country as they have evolved. Neither the rural nor the urban populations can fully control the government, and neither will they fully trust each other when they are trying to take this control from the colonialist.

This is not struggle for the sake of struggle, but rather for the sake of emancipation. This is not an all-encompassing account of this text, but just some of the main themes that emerge. The book is rich, angry and a powerful critique of a certain stage of history that still exists in certain important ways.

The key to emancipation involves the autonomy of the army from the citizenry. Also, heavy investment must take place in education. People need to have opportunities to struggle in a direction, and education provides the means to achieve this. Prevent chauvinism, xenophobia, bigotry in general, as they can be pervasive in a nationalistic society. Have to develop a counter-hegemonic culture (Gramschi) to the prevailing cultural norms. This involves an organic alliance between cities and country-sides. You do not position yourself as just being the opposite of the common culture, because then you are dependent on the hegemonic cultural position. This new cultural hegemony would have to create its own agenda; it would have to define its own path.