Ow Does Frantz Fanon Justify

ow does Frantz Fanon justify the use of violence in his book "the wretched of the earth?" Discuss in relation to decolonisation in Algeria.

The issue and meaning of violence has been a widely debated subject throughout the world. The complexity of the issue has made it to be the target of various interpretations, or, more precisely has transformed into a subject that can be justified through various means. Indeed, there are different types of violence from individual violence to state violence. However, despite the relative notion, violence serves a particular purpose: it is the means through which change can be achieved.

Franz Fanon discusses the issue of violence in one of his most important books, "The Wretched of the Earth." Although the discussion is placed in a historical background, the analysis is made in consideration to the human psychic and thus the author offers a thorough perspective on the way in which violence affects of influences the human conscience.

Fanon considers violence from different points-of-view but most importantly it places it in relation to the idea of decolonization. In his opinion there is a distinctive connection between the colonization and the decolonization in terms of the means used to achieve both of them. In this sense, therefore, while the colonization process was often the result of "a great array of bayonets and cannons" (Fanon, 1963, 36), decolonization is simply the replacing of a certain 'species' of men by another 'species' of men" (Fanon, 1963, 35). Nonetheless, taking into account the fact that the first situation implied automatically the use of violence, the second also required the application of subversive means. Therefore, from one point-of-view, violence is used to determine change.

In this context however, there is a question to be answered. Is the violence used in the decolonization process legitimate and justifiable? From Fanon's point-of-view, the decolonization process is a completely legitimate affair taking into account the distinctive nature of the relationship which led to the state of being colonized. As he briefly points out, from the very beginning the first contacts of the settlers with the natives were represented by a violent attitude as "the settler owes the fact of his very existence, that is to say, his property, to the colonial system" (Fanon, 1965, 36). Therefore, from this point-of-view, it can be said that it was in fact the act of violence that brought the two elements of any colonial culture together.

Another element which was used by Fanon to justify the use of violence in a revolutionary attempt was the historical argument. The colonists have benefited from the riches and conditions they found on the Black continent and have placed its natives in a servile situation. Therefore, in order to recreate the social and historical justice, a reparatory act is needed. However, colonial powers in general lack the sense of commitment towards a historical reshape of the ante equilibrium. This is why it is necessary for the population and the African peoples as a united front to rebel against its oppressors and regain, through the sheer power of violence, what they consider to be rightfully theirs. However, it may be that at the time, the solution would have been considered as viable, but in the contemporary world, it would raise a series of controversial issues, especially some related to the justified reasons for using violence and for drawing the line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.

In relation to the role of violence attributed by Fanon to the establishment of the contacts between the settlers and the natives lies the idea that violence, as a means of achieving change, is essential and therefore necessary for destroying the colonial reign over different regions of the world. His perspective can be considered as somewhat justifiable, taking into account the historical framework in which he wrote his book. Fanon was considered by many analysts as one of the most virulent men opposing the colonial system in Africa. In this sense, Dereck Wright views Fanon's contribution to the theoretical approach of colonialism in terms of a national culture at the level of the African states and a continental conscience at the level of the African continent. Thus, Fanon "made his nationalistic best of the botched job of colonial boundaries inherited by Africa whilst, on the other hand, making a pan-African virtue of the colonial 'necessity' of race prejudice" (1986, 1). Therefore, Fanon was integrated in the revolutionary movement of the 1960s when the continent fought for liberation from the colonial powers. Algeria's case was often taken as reference as a turning point in the struggle for independence.

Fanon's relation with identifying and theorizing violence in his time must be perceived also in the light of the various movements he took into consideration that were related to the issue of black emancipation. Although he was a supporter of the cultural heritage of the black continent, he was reserved in assessing the role of different initiatives such as the Negritude, a movement which increasingly worshiped the glorious past of the African states, without much regard for an ominous present. Thus, it was considered that Fanon "was alert to the pernicious glorification of the African past, by leaders such as Leopold Sedar Senghor and Kwame Nkrumah, as an opiate to divert the masses from their suffering in the present" (Wright, 4) From this perspective, Fanon's choice for a revolutionary approach towards the colonial rule appears to be obvious. In order to have a massive change in the society there was a stringent need not for a backward looking, but rather for a violent act that would erase from its roots the colonial evil.

In Fanon's view, violence was the only tool for enabling the process of decolonization. The necessity of this process was in his opinion undeniable taking into account the historical mischief especially French colonists had made the Algerians experience. However, the opinions expressed in his book revealed the fact that decolonization, and therefore the use of violence, would transform the participants in heroes of history and not mere spectators. In this sense, by following a peaceful and often unsuccessful unfolding of history, natives and the ones against the colonial system can be in the position of being unable to modify the course of history and therefore fail to change the future of their country. On the other hand however, the use of violence as a means of ensuring change, "transforms spectators crushed with their inessentiality into privileged actors, with the grandiose glare of history's floodlights upon them. It brings a natural rhythm into existence, introduced by new men, and with it a new language and a new humanity. Decolonization is the veritable creation of new men" (Fanon, 1963, 36) Therefore, violence is seen here not only as a means for creating a new different future, but also a new generation of revolutionaries, of people willing to bring change and survive it.

The use of violence is justified according to Fanon's beliefs for restoring the initial social justice. In his opinion, the colonial system had turned the scale of the social system upside down and thus has placed the society in its integrity on reverse positions. The colonists had transformed the levels of the social system and created a certain sense of disequilibrium. However, the role of the revolution is precisely the reorganization of the society according to the pre-colonial stands. Thus, he considers violence not only as a means of change but also as a means of restructuring the state. In this sense, "that affirmed intention to place the last at the head of things, and to make them climb at a pace (too quickly, some say) the well-known steps which characterize an organized society, can only triumph if we use all means to turn the scale, including, of course, that of violence" (1963, 37). The perspective offered from this point-of-view places Fanon alongside traditional socialist revolutionaries advocating for a change in regime in different countries of the world.

The theoretical context which determined his radical stand on both the decolonization and the means used to achieve it, more precisely the violence he instigates to, was made up of various scholars and politicians who shared his opinion on these matters. There were certain opinions voiced concerning Fanon's relation in terms of theoretical analysis with Karl Marx. Indeed, both of them considered revolution as the only means to achieve a higher goal. In the first case, Marx considered revolution to be useful in regaining the power from the privileged class, while in the second case revolution is seen as a means of changing the political and cultural domination of one nation over another. However, they tend to have a different opinion on the actors of the revolution. Marx considers that the proletariat must be the striving force of the movement, while Fanon views the peasantry as the driving force able to make use of their violent urges in order to provoke change (Perinbam, 1973, 427) While for Marx, the working class was seen as the most important stratum of the society and therefore the ones entitled to create change, for Fanon, it was more a matter of practical nature. Fanon considered in this sense that violence can be used by those people least attached to the values of the colonial society and with the fewest connections with the foreign settlers, as change can take place only "from the bottom up. The extraordinary importance of this change is that it is willed, called for, demanded," therefore felt at the lowest levels of the society, the peasantry. (Fanon, 1963, 35)

On a similar note is Sartre's approach to the role of the peasant in conducting the revolutionary movement. Unlike Marx, Sartre is keen in underlining the importance of the peasantry to the revolutionary effort. However, in Fanon's consideration of the peasants as the moving force of the revolution, there is a certain lack of coherence. In this sense, it can be noticed the fact that despite acknowledging the role of the least affected people in the society in terms of colonial pressure, he does propose the peasantry, who are deeply attached to the land they posses, as the initiators of the revolution.

In the first essay of his book, "The Wretched of the Earth" he deals with certain aspect of violence, and, more importantly he discusses the relevance of the violent act in reestablishing the pre-colonial order. However, in his attempt, and taking into account his studies in psychology, he considers violence expressed by the colonists as having both a physical component and a psychological one. Against this complex theorized system a revolution must break out.

The physical component of the colonial violence is seen as the actual expression of their rule and political dominance. In the case of Algeria, this dominance was exercised by the French who had established their reign over the country. In many instances, the French intervention in Africa was seen as neo-colonial pressure which influenced the proper evolution of both Algeria and the continent as a whole. In this sense, Robert Mortimer argues that "for Algeria, neo-colonial intervention was a grave reality retarding the independent development of the country. These attitudes placed Algeria squarely among the revolutionary states; much of Algeria's African policy can be understood as a campaign to stimulate the political consciousness of moderate Africa" (1970, 1). Therefore, the Algerian case can be considered to be the example advocated by Fanon in his debate over the use of violence as the means to create a revolution and eventually a change in the political status quo. The historical experience of the French in the African country proved most of Fanon's considerations, as they were forced to withdraw from the territory in 1962 following one of the most important decolonization wars in history.

The use of violence in the Algerian struggle for independence took many forms, from guerilla warfare, to the torturing of the French enemies. It represents a practical example for the precepts of Fanon's theoretical approach on violence. Nonetheless, the Algerian case taken in its entirety can be considered as a larger scale adoption of the idea considered by Fanon in relation to the forces that must start a revolution in order to achieve chance. More precisely, according to most scholars, the African continent was unofficially divided between countries that were willing to take on the risks of revolutionary change and those that were reluctant to take drastic measures against their colonial rulers (Mortimer, 1970, 2) Algeria, by initiating the fight against the French, proved to belong to the revolutionary side. In this way, from the perspective of the turn the events took in the French-Algerian war, the confrontation subscribes to Fanon's notion of the need for violence. It can therefore be used with the purpose of throwing from power the colonial rule and, at the same time, it can be an example of revolutionary attitude which would trigger the emancipation of the African continent, not by peaceful means as promoted by the Negritude adepts, but rather through an active attitude which can take the form of violence. Despite the wide coverage received by the Algerian war, it was not the sole example of independence struggle seen in Africa at the time. Ghana gained its independence in 1957, while Guinea achieved an independent status in 1958. These successes could have been seen as results of the nationalistic movements that came to symbolize the rebirth of a continent. Nonetheless, it is the Algerian case that stands out as the best example to portray Fanon's beliefs on violence.