Fanon's Theory of Violence and Decolonization Explained

Introduction: Violence as a Means of Change

The issue and meaning of violence has been a widely debated subject throughout the world. The complexity of the issue has made it the target of various interpretations — or, more precisely, it 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 its relative nature, violence serves a particular purpose: it is the means through which change can be achieved.

Frantz 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 context, the analysis is made with consideration of the human psyche, and the author thus offers a thorough perspective on the ways in which violence affects and influences the human conscience.

Fanon's Justification for Revolutionary Violence

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

In this context, however, a question must 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, given the distinctive nature of the relationship that produced the state of being colonized. As he briefly points out, from the very beginning the first contacts between settlers and natives were characterized 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 36). It can therefore be said that it was the act of violence that originally brought the two elements of any colonial culture together.

Another element Fanon invokes to justify the use of violence in a revolutionary attempt is the historical argument. The colonists benefited from the riches and conditions they found on the African continent and placed its natives in a servile situation. Therefore, in order to restore social and historical justice, a reparatory act is needed. Colonial powers, however, generally lack any sense of commitment to a historical reshaping of the prior equilibrium. This is why it is necessary for the African peoples, as a united front, to rebel against their oppressors and reclaim — through the power of violence — what they consider rightfully theirs. It may be that at the time this solution was considered viable, but in the contemporary world it raises a series of controversial issues, particularly those related to the justification for using violence and to the difficulty of drawing the line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.

Fanon in Context: Africa, Negritude, and the Revolutionary Tradition

In relation to the role Fanon attributes to violence in establishing contact between settlers and natives lies the idea that violence, as a means of achieving change, is essential and therefore necessary for dismantling colonial rule over different regions of the world. His perspective can be considered somewhat justifiable given the historical framework in which he wrote. In Fanon's view, violence was not only a means of creating a different future but also of forging a new generation of revolutionaries — people willing to bring change and survive it. As he writes, the use of violence "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 36).

The use of violence is further justified in Fanon's thought as a means of restoring the initial social justice. In his opinion, the colonial system had turned the social order upside down and placed society as a whole in reversed positions. The colonists had distorted the levels of the social system and created a sense of disequilibrium. The role of the revolution is precisely to reorganize society according to pre-colonial arrangements. Thus, he considers violence not only as a means of change but as a means of restructuring the state: "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" (Fanon 37). This perspective places Fanon alongside traditional socialist revolutionaries advocating for regime change in various parts of the world.

Fanon was considered by many analysts as one of the most virulent opponents of the colonial system in Africa. Derek Wright views Fanon's contribution to the theoretical approach to colonialism in terms of both a national culture at the level of individual African states and a continental conscience at the level of Africa as a whole. 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" (Wright 1). Fanon was integrated into the revolutionary movement of the 1960s, when the continent fought for liberation from colonial powers. Algeria's case was frequently taken as a reference point — a turning point in the struggle for independence.

Fanon's engagement with and theorization of violence must also be understood in the light of the various movements he took into consideration regarding black emancipation. Although he was a supporter of the cultural heritage of the African continent, he was reserved in his assessment of initiatives such as the Negritude movement, which increasingly celebrated the glorious past of African states with little regard for a troubling present. It was considered that Fanon "was alert to the pernicious glorification of the African past, by leaders such as Léopold Sédar Senghor and Kwame Nkrumah, as an opiate to divert the masses from their suffering in the present" (Wright 4). From this perspective, Fanon's preference for a revolutionary approach to colonial rule becomes clear. In order to achieve meaningful change in society, there was an urgent need not for a backward-looking idealization of the past, but rather for a violent act that would eradicate the colonial evil at its roots.

Conclusion: Violence, Decolonization, and Cultural Renewal

Overall, it can be stated that Frantz Fanon, as one of the most important theorists of his time, in his attempt to offer a comprehensive account of the process of decolonization, sought to underline the use of violence as a tool for achieving a completely transformed political system. He considers that not only is the act of decolonization just, but it is also necessary from the perspective of the African continent, because it offers the means to achieve cultural independence as well. From this dual perspective, he distinguishes between the physical and psychological violence applied by the colonists upon the native — the same type of violence the revolutionaries must also employ. In this sense, the Algerian decolonization experience stands as the most relevant example of how violence was used to force the French troops to withdraw and, ultimately, to begin the process of reconstructing a sovereign African identity.