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 n
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
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
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
16
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
17
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
18
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
19
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
20
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.
21
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.
22
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.
23
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,
24
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,
25
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.
(1)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
(2)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.
26
(3)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
27
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
28
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
29
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.