The Rehabilitation of Violence Fanon

8/13/2019 The Rehabilitation of Violence Fanon

1/25

The Rehabilitation of Violence and the Violence of Rehabilitation: Fanon and ColonialismAuthor(s): Messay KebedeSource: Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 31, No. 5 (May, 2001), pp. 539-562Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2668075.

Accessed: 27/11/2013 14:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc.is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Black

Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.121 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:47:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2668075?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2668075?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/25

THE REHABILITATION OFVIOLENCE AND THEVIOLENCE OF REHABILITATIONFanonand Colonialism

MESSAY KEBEDEUniversityfDayton

It is generallydmitted hatnthe pecificase of self-defenseinvolving ersons rnations,ecourse oviolence s a legitimatechoice.Outside uchcases ofself-defense,nly he tatehasthelegitimateower ouseviolence,tbeing ssumed hat hemonop-olyof violence ythe tate s precisely ow ndividualsiveuptheir wnrighto violence ndagreeto comeunder politicalauthority.owever,heories,uch sMarxism,ave lsoapprovedviolence s a legitimatexpression f revolutionaryovements.They dentifyiolence s a midwife fhistory herebymerginghigherocial demands verthrowutdated nd reactionaryocialsystems.Frantz anonprovideds with new egitimationf violenceissuing rom he pecificaseofcolonial ppression.rguinghatcolonialismsqualitativelyifferentromrevious orms f con-quest ndsubjugation,anonrecommendediolence or easonssurpassinghenecessityf self-defensertheremovalfa rottensocial ystem. e seesviolence s anecessaryherapyor culturaldiseasebroughtbout y olonial ubjugation.hemere epartureofthecolonizers notenough; iberationnddignityannot erecovered nless thecolonizedget involvedn violent erfor-mances. his rticle irstxamines he easons nd xperienceshatledFanon o endow iolencewith curativeffectndthen valu-atesthe onsistencyfhis nterpretation.JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES, Vol.31No. 5, May2001 539-562? 2001Sage Publications,nc.

539

This content downloaded from 200.89.69.121 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 14:47:02 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/25

540 JOURNALOF BLACK STUDIES /MAY 2001

THE NEED FOR REHABILITATIONThe almost-universalgreementf native s well as Westernscholarsn thenecessityfrehabilitationnderlineshat olonial-ismhas been qualitativelyifferentorm f onquest. he depar-ture f the olonizer r the onquest f political ndependencesonly firsttep.Colonialdiscourse ndrulehave o dehumanizedand degraded olonized eoples hat hey aveto go throughhewholeprocess frelearningobe human. hetagofprimitiveness

affixednthem,he ontemptornd ompleteestructionf heirculturalegacy,heir orced ssimilationnto he uropeanultureata reduced rice, llhave esultednthenculcation,eep nto hesoulof achcolonized erson,f devastatingnferiorityomplex.Notonlydoes this nferiorityomplex aralyze ll thedynamicforces f he olonizedworld,ut t lso nstitutespermanenttateofdependency,hich urtherggravateshenabilityfcolonizedpeoples o ffecthenecessaryhangesogoout f heirmiseryndperipheralxistence. o showhowdeep-seatedhe henomenonfalienation nder olonial ule s for anon, scholarwrote,

Nomatter hatnew nstitutionsake heplaceofthe ld, hepsy-chologicalffectsfoppressionontinueo inger, erhapsor en-turies. venafterindependence"sdeclared,olonialism ontin-ues to reside n the mindsof thenative eople.Fanon's workdemonstrateshat ven moreterriblehan he colonizationf acountrys the olonizationfthemind.Schoolman, 979,p. 43)Inagreementithheprevailingiew, anon ttributedhedis-tinctiveeaturefcolonialism o tsracistdeology. lthough re-viousforms fconquest ave ll entailedubjugation,he olonialenterpriseadthe articularityfdestroyinghe ulturalegacy fthenative eoples nthename fthe acial uperiorityfthe on-queringivilization.naddition ogivinghe onquerorshe ighttoconsiderhe ativessprimitive,ncivilized,he acialhierarchyallowed he ashioningf he ativesy llmeans ecessaryoas toharness hem o theEuropean ngine.Given his orcefulracticeofestrangement,prominentigurefNegritude,amely, imeCesaire1959),concluded,Decolonizations not utomatic.... t



4/25

Kebede/VIOLENCE AND REHABILITATION 541

is always heresult f a struggle,heresult f strenuousfforts.Eventhemost eaceful orm fdecolonizations always he esultofa rupture"pp. 125-126).Indeed, he olonizers idnot eavebehind state f hings hatcanbe usedtobuild newfuture.hedevastations such hat oth-ing ess than resolute ndforcefulisengagementromts fter-mathsrequired.nparticular,tnecessitateswholework freha-bilitationywhich henatives,ver nd bove he eappropriationof ndependence,elearnhe ask fbeing uman. majormomentof his eacquaintances the estorationf heir ignityy reeval-uation f heir istorynd ulturalegacy, hich avebeen xposedtoa systematic isinterpretationnddebasement.Cesaire1956)definedhis rogramfrehabilitations "a returntothe ources"p. 195). tgavebirtho henspirationfNegritudeand owhat asbeen alled thnophilosophy.hus, tressingnthetask frehabilitation,he rominenthinkerfNegritude,eopoldSedarSenghor1970),characterizedegritudes "the wareness,defense nddevelopmentfAfricanulturalalues" p. 179).ForSenghor,he estway orefutehe olonial hesis fprimitivenessis toturnhe llegationnto claim oOtherness.hecolonial lle-gation fbackwardness ould esquarely ismissed, ere tdem-onstratedhatwhat he olonizeronsiderssprimitivesonly heexpressionf differentivilizationasedondissimilaralues ndorientation.hecomparativendevolutionaryankingfpeoplemakes o sense f t sprovenhat ivilizations ere dvancingoton the ame ineof volution ut ndivergentaths. ncetheplu-rality f ivilizationss admitted,heWesternechnologicaluperi-orityppearss an diosyncraticevelopmentith oqualificationtorank s deficientr nferioreopleswhohappenedofollow if-ferent irections.he erection fanidiosyncraticharacterntouniversalorm snothingut n aberrantsurpation.Senghortretchedhis trategyf rehabilitationothepoint fendorsinghe acialdistinctionetween lackandWhite eoples.He grounded is nowfamous acialdistinctionn theepiste-mologicaldisparityetween motionnd reason.AccordingoSenghor1995),Westernationalityeeps he bject at distance,immobilizest utside ime nd n ome ense utsidepace, ixest



5/25


and lays t,"whereas heAfrican ay doesnot eep he bject tdistance,oesnot nalyzet"but feels t" p. 118). nSenghor'smind, he cceptance f anepistemologicalivergence,nd thatalone,can accountfor the African echnologicalag withouttherebymplyinghe nferiorityfBlackpeoples.Unsurprisingly,anyAfricancholars esentedenghor'sineofdefense. he claim o emotionalnowledge,hey aid,does nomore han onfirmhe olonial llegation f the nferiorityf theBlackrace.No matterhe oint foriginalityhatenghors tryingtomake, hevery ttemptodissociate lackness rom he ationaltypeofknowledgeomesup against hegoal ofrehabilitation.CheikhAntaDiop (1970) even nterpretedhevalorizationftheemotionalptitudes an indicationf thedegree o which theNegro ntellectual"as lost confidencenhisownpotentialndthat fhisrace" p. 23).To refutehe olonialistrgumenthat heBlack race haspro-ducednogreativilizations,iopsettled own o hejob fdemon-stratingheAfricanriginf ncientgyptianivilization.hethe-sis ofBlackEgypt indicatedhe riginalechnicalnspirationfthe lackrace.Butfurtheret,t urnsuropento neternal ebtorofAfrica y uggestinghat heGreeks wetheir cientifics wellas philosophicalnspirationoBlackEgyptians.arfromndors-ingthenontechnicalityftheBlackrace,Diop operatesn inver-sionthat estoreshemeritf technical ivilizationo tsrightfulAfricannitiator.eedless osay, n nversionf uchproportionsis creditedwith formidableedemptiveower.To quote Diop(1974),To hisgreat urprisend atisfaction,e theAfrican] illdiscoverthatmost fthe deasusedtoday odomesticate,trophy,issolve,or tealhis soul,"were onceivedyhisown ncestors.obecomeconscious f that act s perhaps he firstteptoward genuineretrievalfhimself; ithoutt ntellectualterilitys thegeneralrule, r lsethe reationsear know otwhatmprintf he ubhu-man. p. xv)Fanon ympathizedith he oalofrehabilitationndperfectlyunderstandshemeaningf he trategyfOthernesss well s the



6/25


passionate earchfor splendid ast. Howeverdifferentheseapproachesmany e, theyllaim tpersuading fricanshat heyhaveno reason o put p with hedegradingnterpretationftheirpast.On thecontrary,heyhould einterpretheir ast na wayconsonant ith heirridend nterests.nthus ounteringhe is-abilitiesnduced ycolonial ule,Africansrepare hemselvesorapromisinguture.anon1982)concluded hat he urpose f hereturno the ource s to show,Therewasnothingo beashamed f n thepast, ut atherignity,glory,nd olemnity.heclaim o nationalulturen he astdoesnot nly ehabilitatehat ation nd serve s a justificationor hehopeofa future ational ulture.nthe phere fpsycho-affectiveequilibriumt sresponsibleor n mportanthangenthenative.(p. 210)

Unfortunately,he cheme f returnothe ast ackfires,ith-out ven roducingome angibleesults.nthe yesofFanon, herehabilitationf he ast,audable hought s, sa dangerousrap.Itscompleterrelevanceothe oncrete emandsf he trugglesits immediate efect.Those African cholarswho assure thatprecolonial frica adknownrilliantnd dvanced ormsf ivi-lization o not ndicate o what xtent his iscoverys relevantoliberate frica romtspresent iserynd ubjugation.he mem-ory f glorious asthasnopower ver resentisabilities.nwhatsense, anon1982) asked,will the roofsf wonderfulonghaicivilization.. changehe act hatodayhe onghaisreunderfedand lliterate,hrownetweenky ndwaterwithmptyeads ndemptyyes?" p. 209).Notonlysthe lleged lorious astpower-less to remove resent isabilities,utworseyet,tdistractsfri-cansfromhe ask thand yconferringn them bygone ignity.Instead fthinkingftheir ignitys somethinghathey eedtoconquer ere ndnowbyconcretetruggles,fricans illtend ositbackona gloryhat hey lready ad.Thisretrospectivelorydilutes heirnger,ustas itmoves hem wayfrom hetaskofinventingnewfuture.Fanon 1967) insistedn the rrelevancyfthe anonizationfthe ast.Even f t sprovenhata correspondenceadflourished



7/25


between omeNegrophilosopherndPlato," tillhe "can abso-lutely ot eehowthiswould hange nythingnthe ivesof the8-year-oldhildren ho abor n the anefields f MartiniquerGuadeloupe" p. 230). The point s that hereturn o the pastinvolves formfrehabilitationhat sonly heoretical,ot o sayimaginary.t sa refutationf colonial llegationy shakyhet-oric hat,moreover,unsway romhe ntricatenddemeaningit-uationn which he olonized ind hemselves. iven henature fthe ituation,hat anpull he olonized ut f he lum snotver-balregeneration,ut heirulldentificationithheirresentes-titutionhich lonemakes hem eally ebellious,rreverent,ndantithetical.heirwretchednesshapestheir evolutionaryndfightingpirit.t s because hey avenothingnd renothinghatthey redisposed o call everythingnto uestion. yburdeningtheir esolation ith commitmentopastvalues, hebackward-looking lory eakens he evolutionarypirit.ncewretchednessis covered pwith layer f ontentment,t oses tsnegativityndtransformingthos. he valuesofthepastmust otbeallowed ointerferena strugglententn turningverythingpsidedown.Thus rrelevancerowsnto etriment.orFanon, he xtent fthedrawback ecomes videntwhenwe takenote hat hecolo-nizedhave ochangedhat hey o ongerdentifyhemselvesiththepast. Thedesire oattach neself o traditionrbringban-donedtraditionso lifeagain," anon 1982) warned,doesnotonlymeangoing gainst he urrentfhistoryut lso opposingone'sownpeople.When peopleundertakesn armedtrugglereven politicaltrugglegainstrelentlessolonialism,he ignifi-canceoftraditionhanges" p. 224). Inotherwords, olonialismandthe trugglegainstolonialismaveputpeople na situationrequiringew and daring esponses. he successof the truggledependsnthe ppropriatenessf he esponses,hats,onthe os-itive ndadequate hanges hat eopleare able toachieve. uchpeopledonotwant o dentityith past hat as become rrele-vant.Having eveloped ewvalues ndambitions,heyre out ocreate newworld. heirtruggleasnothingodo with estoringpast ociety,oweverublimetmayhavebeen.The scheme f hereturnothe ources ails o see thathe olonized re dialectical



8/25


product f colonialism ndnot vestige f a past ociety. anonsaid, Tobelieve hatt spossible ocreate Blackcultures tofor-get hat iggersredisappearing,ust s those eoplewhobroughtthem nto eing reseeing hebreakupftheir conomic ndcul-tural upremacy"p. 234).Instead funderstandinglack dentitys anoutcome orgedytheprocess fthe ctual truggle,egritudeesortso a fixed ndahistoricalace ttribute,ven tthe xpense f ndorsingolonialdescriptionsf heBlackentity.heresultsthe efinitionfAfri-can dentitynterms hatmake talien o modem equirementsothat hegapbetween frica ndEurope s furthernlarged.Whatelse cancome ut f his strangementut defeatistttitude?hisis howFanon 1967) depictedhe ffectsfthe strangement:He [theNegro] ongratulatesimselfnthis,nd nlarginghe if-ference,hencomprehension,he isharmony,efindsnthem hemeaningfhisrealhumanity....And t s with age n hismouthand abandonnhishearthathe burieshimselfnthevastblackabyss.We shall see thatthisattitude,o heroically bsolute,renounceshe resentnd he uturenthename f mystical ast.(p. 16)And f hedenial frationalitynd echnicalnessadsomeuse-ful utcome thasnone, ince vennterms fmysticismheAfri-can uperioritys essthannassured osition. uropeans illhavethe asygame fretorting:Wehavehad arthmysticsuch syouwillneverpproach"Fanon, 967, . 129). ndeed,what s Africanmysticismomparedothe epthfmysticccentricityeached ymedievalurope, stage bandonedlong imegone?ThuswhenAfricanseny hemselvespositivettributeust o avoid he vo-lutionarynterpretation,heyre hownhat urope asdonebettereven nthat enial.AndwhenAfricans,ejecting therness,laimthathey adcivilizationsomparableotheWest,hese ppear sclumsy spirationso a form f ife hat uropehasdevelopedo adegree nreachableyAfricans. anon 1967) noted, Thusmyunreason as countered ith eason,my easonwithrealreason'.Every andwas a losing and orme" p. 132).Neitherhe laim oOtherness or hepaternityfrationalityefuteshe olonialdis-



9/25


course:WhatAfricansan brandishs their nique nd gloriousachievementnvariablyurnsnto n nferiorerformancefwhatEurope ealized etter long ime go.Farfromchievingehabili-tation,hewhole deaofrevivinghe astbecomes confirmationof nferiorityndan nvitationo a defeatistttitude.

THE THERAPY OF VIOLENCEIfAfricanttemptsoresemble rdifferrom heWest ackfire,what lse s eft orAfricansut o ettle he ssuebymeans f on-frontation?ounderstandheroleofviolence,we must eginbyindicating hy or anontherelationshipetween he olonizedandthe olonizer annot etranslatednterms fHegelian ialec-tics.Hegel'sdialectics etweenmaster nd laverelate situationinwhich heneed for ecognitionetsone human eing gainst

anotheruman eing.Recognitionefers ere othe esire feachindividualobeaccepteds a free eing, or Unlikenimals,mendesirenotonly opreserventheir eing, o exist hewaythingsexist; hey lso imperiouslyesire o be recognizeds self-con-sciousness, as something aised above purely animal life"(Hyppolite, 974,p. 169).Atthis nitialtage f hedialectics,heonlyway by whichone individual an gainrecognitionromanotherndividuals toshow hat e or he is not ied pwithife"(Hegel,1971,p. 232). The extent fone's readiness o sacrificeone's ifes ademonstrationffreedom,he roofhat ne s ndeedbeyondmere xistence. o useHegel's 1971)words,

Its s solely yriskingife hat reedomsobtained;nly hus s ittried ndproved hat he ssential ature fself-consciousnesssnot are xistence,s notmerelymmediateormnwhich t tfirstmakes ts ppearance,snot tsmere bsorptionn the xpanse flife. p. 233)Accordingly,he truggleor ecognitionurnsnto fightorlife nddeath. he ndividual hobacksdown romacrificingisorher ife ccepts efeat ndbecomes slave.Thismeans hat heslave cceptsworkingor hemasternexchangeor hepreserva-



10/25


tion fhisorher ife. nthus lacing etween imselfrherselfndnature human ool, hemasters relieved f henecessityfwork-ing and, herefore,anfully ssert nd enjoyhis or herfreedom.This s not,however,he ndofthe tory. hroughoiling ndthesubsequent asteryfnature,he lavereappropriateshe enseofdignitynd freedom.nshaping ature,he oiling onsciousness"only ecomes ware f tsownproper egativity,ts xistence nitsown account,s anobject, hroughhefact hatt cancels heactual ormonfrontingt" Hegel,1971,p. 239). By contrast,hemasters ina precariousituation.oronething,he reedomhathe or she enjoys s recognized yan unfree uman eing.Foranother,he hoice f mode f ife educedothemere onsump-tion fnatureccelerateshe ependencef hemaster nthe lave,therebyurninghe utonomyf hemasternto a dependenton-sciousness"Hegel,1971,p. 237).The ogicofthis ialectics husexhibits doubleprocess:t sheaded or he ehabilitationftheslave even as it knocksthemaster ffthepedestal.All thisannounceshe eginningf historicalrocess rogressivelyead-ing o he issolutionfbondagend ordshipnfavor f he niver-salrecognitionfequalityndfreedom.WhatHegelestablisheds, then, hat iolence s a necessarymomentnthehistoryfthe ecognitionfhuman reedom.hishistorynitiates contradictoryutcome: t assertsfreedomthroughhenegationf freedom. owever, lavery eneratesheconditionsf ts mancipationo that he rocessmoves owardhemutual ancellationf ervitudenddomination.t s a negationfthenegation:henegationhat nstitutedondagesnegatedn tsturn.his astnegation ields developed, ore niversalistotionoffreedom:n placeoffreedom ersus lavery,toffersmutualrecognition.Let tbe said tonce hatt s this utcome fmutualecognitionthat hecolonial ituationannot eliver, locked s it is bytheassumption f the inferiorityf the colonizedpeoples. TheHegelian ituationescribesheossoffreedomsaresultfdefeatbetweenwo ontendingndividuals;tdoesnotportraysituationwhere heonepartners considereds subhuman.nthe olonialsituation,efeattselfs construeds anexpressionf hatnferior-



11/25


ity ndnot, s Hegel aw t, s a lackof ourage.n the ialecticsfstruggleor ecognition,hehumanityf he ontenderssnevernquestion;hefights aboutknowing ho s ready o defend ree-domtothepoint friskingne's ife.Radically ifferents the olonial ituation.lthought xhibitsa similar esire or ecognition,tdoesnot all nder he amedia-lectical ules. ecausebondages a loss offreedomatherhan nattributef nferiority,heHegelian lavecanrecover is or herfreedomrom efeat. ot o the olonized, ho re lavebynature,so to peak. oilingannever emove heirubhumanity.ere, er-vitude s a dialecticswithout ossible ynthesis,hat s, mutualrecognition.It sthis warenessf olonialisms anobstructedialectics hatexplains anon'sphilosophyf violence.As one scholar ut t,Fanon learly nderstoodhat he olonial ituationsnot xpres-sive ofa struggleor ecognitionsimilaro that fthe lave nHegel's LordshipndBondage'paradigm. hereas egel's lavewithdrawsnto he bjectnd ubmission,anon'sNegrospiresobelike hemaster,e spiresowardreedom"Masolo, 994, p.34-35).Why?Because servitudeas nopositive, uman utcome or hecolonized;t s a deadlock. hedemonstrationf he esire or ree-dom ndrecognitionyriskingne's ife emainshe nly ption.Becausecolonial acism epriveshe olonized elf f nyhopeofobtaining ecognition,omesuch absenceofpositive utcomebringsialecticsack othenitialtage f onfrontationherehewillingnesso die decides he ate fone's freedom.howinghatone is beyondifebecomes heonly ssertivexpressionffree-dom nddignity.Be itnoted hat nlikeheHegelianmaster,he olonialords onot eem o be disturbedythe act hat heir uperioritysrecog-nizedbydependentndunfreeeoples.Onthe ontrary,hemorethe ther lungesnto othingness,hehighers the ridend atis-factionf colonial ords. n thecolonial ituation,abor nd theshapingfnatureo not ounce sexperiencend ssertionffree-dom.The racistnterpretation,hich ttributesodifferentacesdifferentndhierarchicalasks, epictsoilings a racial ttributewith oliberatingunction.he colonial abor s not earningnd



12/25


discipline;thas no positiveonsequence or he oiling ubjectiv-ity. t s ratherrecognitionf nontologicalank tatinghatnfe-rior reatures ust erve uperiornes.Becausethe olonial itua-tiondoes not nterpretervitudes a temporaryoss of freedom,theres no passagefrom ondage oautonomy.etrifiedy thenotion frace, he oiling ubjectivityanno onger ounce. romthe olonial iewpoint,ondages aracial roperty,ot he esult ffear.No better ay xists odissolve his ealed, acist ankinghanoreturno the nitial tageofconfrontation.orFanon,violencebegins tsdissolvingmpact y subjectinghe olonialmasterofear. hisfear oesmore hanuspendinghe ssurancef he olo-nial ords;t lso nculcatesn hem he espectf hatwhich refersdeath o ontinuedervitude.hisviolence ecomes ecisive s thecolonized, ullydentifyinghemselves ith heirwretchedness,understandhathey avenothingo ose.TheHegelian lavehas astake ntheworld hat isorher abor haped ndhence spires obecome fullmember.uch s not he ase ofthe olonized,whohavenothingogain saresult fracial xclusion. ispossessed fattributesndpossessions,heir ssence s theirwretchedness.oassume hiswretchednesssfor hemoacquire he xperiencefpure ubjectivitys absolute egativity.This evel f dentificationefineshe olonized y he eadinesstorisk heirife.Noidentityrawnromhe ast anreach his ewself.thasno other efinitionhan his eadiness:t spure reedombecause tvaluesfreedom ore hanife. nrelatinghemselvesofreedomhroughhe eadinessodie, he olonized learlyndicatewhat t s at stakehere.Theynolonger onsento be definedyfixedttributes,ornstance,sbelongingo race rhavinghis rthat lorious ast.Allthese ttemptsavefailed,nd he olonizedmusthow heir umanity,otnan ncarnatedorm utn tspure,transcendent,niversalorm,s readyodie for reedom,nshort,as untamable.No," aidFanon1967), nthe olonial ituation,Idonothave he ightobeaNegro.... I haveonerightlone:Thatofdemanding umanbehavior rom he other"p. 229). Whatcomesfirsts not he ecognitionfparticularityut hehumanityof he olonized,he truggleor ecognitionshuman eings.t s



13/25


a struggleor uman ights ot or he ecognitionfdifferencersameness.Violence xpresseshis isincarnate,thereal reedom.t s howfreedomxists ess as anattributehan s thevery ubject xactingrecognitionhroughherisking f ife.The rehabilitatingalueofviolence ies nthe quation hat he olonized reready orisk heonly ndmost recioushing hey ave, amely,heirife, or heirdignityndequality.tbringshewhole ssueofthe mancipationof he olonizedoa finalhowdown: heawe-inspiringctofvio-lence leans he isabilitiesnflictedy olonial ule ff he oulofthe olonized.t forces espectn the olonizer,utmorempor-tant,tbringshe olonized hemselvesound o the dea of theirownself-respect.ompletely isavowinghe method fethno-philosophy,hich xpectshe ise fpride nddarefromulturalrevival, anon 1982) maintained,Violence lone,violence om-mittedythepeople, iolence rganizedndeducatedy ts ead-ers,makes tpossible or hemasses ounderstandocial ruthsndgives hekey o them"p. 147).At his tage,t s essential ounderstandhat he iolence f hecolonizeds only noutcomeftheviolence fthe olonizer.orampants thisnduced iolence hat anon1982)saidthatt hasbeendepositednhis[the olonized] ones gainst is ownpeo-ple." p. 52). ndeed,he ggressivenessf he olonized, traitec-ognizable y emotionalensitivity"p. 56) isfirstirectedowardother fricaneoplesn ntertribalonflicts.his imless iolencereveals hepresence f a spasm ubsequento thedestructionycolonial onquestndacculturationf llwhat he olonized sedto be. Is it surprisingftheseoffendedndhumiliatedeoplesbecome xtremelymotionalnd ensitive? hen heviolence fthe olonizer akesway verything,hereemainsngersthe olelegacyofa degrading ule, s theonly xpressionfthehumanwreckagehathe olonized ave ecome. onstantnd ystematicbrutalityanreach hepoint ftaking oot nthevictimshem-selves s the ast iewith heirwnhuman elf.Letthere e nomisunderstanding.iolenceheredoes not ig-nify evenge nymore han t ignifiesnaturalisposition.ow-ever, ecausewe ustsaw that thadbecome ndiscriminateothe



14/25


point fbeing nleashedgainst fricans,his eposited iolencewill onsumehe olonized nlesst s provided ith he ppropri-ateoutlet. ence, he atharticalue f he iolencegainsthe ol-onizer:tpurgeshe olonized fthe ggressivenesshats eatingthem. ecause itsteers he nternalizediolence owardherealculprit,temergess the ightemedy oa situationhat iolenceitselfreated.t s a cure, therapy.s Abiola rele 1981)put t,The colonizednatives thus pathologicalase; in thecircum-stances,herefore,he nly emedysthathe olonizedmasses akeup arms gainstheirverlordsnorder o recreatehemselvessmen. he mphasiss thenpon he reativeole fviolence.p. 140)In thus hannelingheaggressivenessf thenative, iolencesucceedsnundoinghe rawbacksf olonial ule.nparticular,tdissolves he nferiorityomplex rom hich he olonized uffer.

We sawthat ative hinkersad nternalizedhe eelingf nferior-ity yendorsingtherness. llthey oulddowas to demand heequality fraceswithout oweverxplainingowequalityallieswithhenotionfdifference.anon1967)found hewhole roce-dure seless nd self-defeating.ncemore learly ifferentiatinghisproject romhat fethnophilosophy,ewrote,It wouldbeeasy oprove, rtowin he dmission,hat he lack sthe qualofthewhite. utmypurposes quitedifferent:hatwant odo shelp he lackman ofree imselff he rsenalf om-plexes hat as beendevelopedy he olonial nvironment.p.30)

Putotherwise,iscoursesn the qualityfraces refar emovedfromhe ightolutionor he imple eason hathey o not ttackthe nferiorityomplexwithwhich henotion frace s saddled.Fanon's 1967)positiononcerninghe ssueofrace ndracismbest ccountsor is hoice fviolences the nly fficientorm frehabilitation.orhim, he onceptfrace sdebilitating;toffersnoescape.Thebeliefnrace omingromhe olonized anonly etheproductfan internalizedolonialmentality. henBlacksspeak frace, venwhen t s todemandquality,t s aWhitenter-nalized oice hatsspeaking.his s tosay hat ace s an nvented



15/25


concept:TheNegrosnot.Anymore hanhewhiteman" p.23 1).Accordingly,here s no wayby which henotion f racecan bebroughtosignifyquality, iven hattwas originallyesignedonegate quality nd expresshierarchy.anon found tupid ndnaive he ttempto salvage henotionfrace; twas an nsultndremains o. Youdo not ehabilitateninsult.The bestwayto remove he nsults first o specify tsexactmeaningo as to avoidfightinggainst hantoms.hismeans hedeconstructionf thenotion f race.The result s that nferioritycomplex "is the outcome of a double process:-primarily,economic-; subsequently,he nternalization-oretter,he pi-dermalization-ofhisnferiority"Fanon, 967, . 13). Granthatracialdistinctions how conomic nequalitiesre ustified,nd tbecomes lear hat he nternalizationf those istinctionsy thecolonizedthemselves ecomes an endorsementf inferiority.Negritudendotherhilosophiesalling or he ecognitionftheequalityfraces o not eethat aces reoriginallyesignedous-tifynequality.ordotheynderstandhat he cceptancefracialclassifications an admission f nferiority.nstead,ndisguisingthe ocialmeaningfraceas a naturaleterminant,hese heoriesare ed tobelieve hathe xposurefdiversenheritancestronglymilitatesn favor fequalstatus.t nullifieshehierarchicalon-ceptionfracebybringingut he nitial ispersionfthehumanessence.ForFanon, he rimaryask fnative cholars hould avebeentoavoidfallingnto he rap fracist iscourses.hey hould avebegun ttackinghe ery otion fraceby xposinghe racticesowhich tleads.Most ofall,theunadulteratedffirmationf thehuman,n ieuofthe qualizationfraces, hould avebeen heirdominanturpose.fthey ad takenuch resolutetand gainstthenotion frace,violencewouldhaveappeared o them s theonlynonracist,nqualifiedffirmationf thehuman.As soon aspeopleexclusivelyonnect hemselves ith hedefense f theirdignitys human eings,heirubsequentesponses not o con-vincebut o remove ppressors.orFanon, hepromisedenais-sanceofBlackpeople annot ome hroughmere ultural edefi-nition. nsofar s race signifies conomicexclusion, ts only



16/25


remedy s socialrevolution,hecomplete ransformationf theeconomic rder. ere, anon oinstheMarxist nalysis:Violenceis necessaryodestroyn unjust ocioeconomicystem. hemeritof he ocial nalysisf he otion f ace s thattputs verybodynthe same socioeconomic ystem nd conceptualizes aces asexpressionsfunequal istribution.tgrasps henotion frace s asocial constructndreduces tsmeaningo discrimination.n thisway, he ightargetshe qualaffirmationfhuman ightshroughthe xtirpationfthenotion frace.Thisbreakdownfrace lassificationnto tshuman nd ocio-economic ontentstronglyindicatesheregeneratingmpact fviolence.The irreplaceablealue of violence riginatesrom tsuniquepower odissipate hedeferencenculcatedn thenatives.The defense f race andthedemand or acial quality othfer-vently omplywith olonial views.The colonized annotfreethemselvesrom his eferencenless heyearn obecomedaringanddisrespectful.ndviolence s the wayto such earning:tsmasheswhat henatives avebeentaughtorespectndrevere.Onlywhen henatives evelop uch n rreverentttitudeantheyrise bove ll thatppress hem. y turninghe egradingmpact fviolence gainst hecolonialworld, hey ommit he crimeoflese-majesty,hich nleashesheirutonomy.anon1982) says,"Violence sacleansingorce.tfreeshe ativerom is nferioritycomplex ndfrom isdespairnd naction;t makeshimfearlessandrestoresisself-respect"p. 94).Violence annot xtracthe olonized rom he rsenal fcom-plexeswithoutt the ame imenauguratingheir istoricity.heactbywhich he olonized ecome efiants also the ctbywhichthey egin oexist orhemselves,nd o become ubjects. iolencethus ttainself-creation.t s transitionohistoricityecause it sonlywhen he olonizedppropriatesheviolence f he olonizerandputs orth isown oncreteounterviolencehat ereentersherealm fhistoryndhuman istoricalecoming"Serequeberhan,1994,p. 71).There s nodoubt hat anon'spersonal articipationin theAlgerianwar of iberation as instrumentaln hisunder-standingfthe ransformingoleofviolence.Resistancegainstthe olonial rmy equires new ndhigherormforganization,



17/25


just as it nstitutesew forms f relationshipmong hepartici-pants. tpromoteswhole rocess f ulturehange nwhich eo-ple develop ew deas ndforms f truggleodefeat more ow-erful rmy. n thebasisoftheir ightingrganization,hey lsoimagine new ocialorder. s Irele 1986) remarks,

In thegeneralmobilizationfthe hysicalndpsychic nergiesfan entire eople,old values nappropriateo thesituation ereswept way, ewvalues reated, resagingnew ocialorder. herevolutionhus ook n the ignificancefan immense rocess fcollectivemetamorphosis.p. 138)To sumup,Fanongoes beyondheMarxistharacterizationfviolence s the"midwifefhistory."e reads nto heforcefulresistancegainstolonialismhe estation,he irthf historicalsubject. hroughhe iolence irectedt heir ppressors,he olo-

nizedpeoplesreconstituteheir uman elf nan autonomousndunrestricteday. hey mancipaterom olonial eurosis y has-ingout he ettlerhroughorce farms. uring he truggle,heyalso develop fficientndmorehumane ocialrelationshipshatcan readilyerve s a foundationor new and ustsocialorder.Jean aulSartre1982) summarizedhewholeoutcomewhenhewrote hat or anon, violence s neitheround ndfury,or heresurrectionf avage nstincts,or ven he ffectfresentment:tis manrecreatingimself' p. 21).

SUBLIMATING VIOLENCEWhathasbeen aidsofar hows hat anon's heoryfviolence

is anoriginalesponse oa no less unique xperiencefthe olo-nizedhumanity.hat aid, he roblems toknowwhetherhe rig-inalityfthe olonial ituationuthorizesheustificationf vio-lence.Thequestionsall themoremportantecause olonial ulebeing nly he pplicationfpermanentiolence,tcan bearguedthatt mplicates legitimatease of self-defense.heprinciplethat orce asno moral alidity ullyustifieshe olonizedwhen



18/25


they ay, What staken yviolence an,by he amemeans,egiti-mately eregained"Serequeberhan,994,p. 71).Butrecall hat anondoesnot aise he ssueofviolence nly sa means f expelling heruleof anoutsider. e attributeso vio-lencea therapeuticndcreative alue: t liberates hecolonizedfromnferiorityomplexndturnshemnto ctivemakers fhis-tory. ypurposes toquestion he lleged herapeuticnd reativevalueofviolence.

Let mebegin ysaying hat anon'srejection fthe ehabilita-tion f he ast ounds xcessive. isposition ouldhave een or-rect f, nstead fcharacterizingherehabilitationf thepast s auseless anddetrimentalttempt,e hadimplied hat t was notenougho obtainiberation. hatmakeshisargumentgainstherehabilitationf he ast ven essreceivablesthatmore hanny-body lse,Fanonhas studied heprofoundnddevastatingffectsof nferiorityomplexnthe olonized eoples.Hisstudyuggeststhat his enseof nferiorityas been nculcatedya deliberatelydisparagingiscoursenthehistoryf hese eoples.f o, t snotclear why heattempto refute hecolonialdiscoursewouldbewithoutffect. hediscreditf he egacy f he olonized eopleshavingnducedhenferiorityomplex,ts ehabilitationhould ctas an antidote.

This stosaythat anon'sresolutiono convince he olonizedthat hey aveno otherption han ecourse o violence s atbestexaggeratedndhighlyestrictive.rue, hemethod fethnophi-losophy,notably heclaim to Othernessnd the subsequentendorsementfthenotion frace, anbedebilitating.till, therways han acial lassificationxist odefendluralism.uch s thecase,fornstance,f ulturalluralism,hich raws iversityromculturalatherhan iologicalnheritances.hispositionsallthemore onsistenthemore dentitiesre ascribed oinventions,case inpoint eing anonhimself. o saythat henigger oes notexist nymore han heWhiteman s tohold hat hat istinguishespeople is less their iologicaldeterminantshan heway theychoose odefine hemselves.hisfact f dentitieseing onstructsallows he ulturalpproachopluralism.



19/25


Sureenough, uman eings an define hemselvesn a benefi-cial ordetrimentalay. anonwas quitewithin isrights henhemaintainedhat ehabilitationannotomefrom ongs ndpoemsorwhen echargedacial lassificationith etrimentalutcomes.But t s onethingo ay hat ulturalehabilitations not nough rmisguidedndquite nothero suggest hat herefutationf thecolonial iscoursesuseless.At ny ate, anon's ppositiono ul-tural ehabilitationoesnotyetndicate hy iolencehould akethe ead.Hisargumenthat he ehabilitationrawn romhe ast san llusory ealth hat istractshe olonized rom ullydentifyingwithheir retchednessndhence romrowingnto real evolu-tionaryorce an beseriouslyontested. oreyet, he uestionfwhetheriolences anefficientndrelevantesponseothe hal-lenge osedbyWesternegemony ust eposed gainst he ack-ground f economic owerbeing hemajordriving orce f themodern orld.No responsesreally efiantftheWestf tdoesnotpave thewayto economic ower.This ssueof conomic ower showHegeltookhisrevenge nFanon.Does itnotpoint ut hat hemasteryfnatures theonlydialectical, rogressive ay o iberation?nlike hedialectics fHegel nwhich he lave ubmitsndturns isattentionowork,Fanonwanted he olonized orebel.Withouthe pisode fviolentconfrontation,anonmaintained,he colonizedwillnevergainfreedomnd elf-respect.reedomemains mere rantf he ol-onizers o long s it snotwrenched rom hem.Galvanizingndfulfillingoweverhe natchingffreedom ay ppear obe, n hecontextf colonial nd neocolonial omination,toverlooks neimportantspect f the uestion: hecolonized reyet ounder-standhe ealreason or heirubordination.heywillunderstandtherealreasonftheyscribe heirnferiorityotheirnabilityodominate ature. utthen, he ssue s notso much heviolentexpulsionf he olonizers the esolutionorise othe conomicchallenge. o longas the conomic andicap ersists,ndepend-enceremainsllusory.anonwasright henhe stated hat nde-pendences not nough utwrong hen estipulatedhat egener-ation annot ccurwithouthemomentfviolentonfrontation.



20/25


If anything,he dealizationfrebelliousttitudeas ed a gen-erationfThirdWorld cholars nd eaders oassert heir reedomthroughherejection f Western alues.This defiant ttituderefuses hepatiencef earning;t dentifiest with ubmission.tgoeswithoutayinghat he epictionf he roblems f heThirdWorldnterms fbravado asbeendetrimentalo ts eal nterest.thas caused he evalorizationfbourgeois irtuess well s impa-tiencewithxpectations.ostof ll, thas serveds a ustificationfor hosenumerousegimeshat resentedictatorships the nlyappropriate efense gainst mperialism. ntagonismowardimperialismecame much-praisedirtue,hemark fa progres-siveregime,ven houghhedefiance asemptyalk.Wehear nechoofthis rientationoming rom anon 1982)himself hen,speakingf Africanourgeoisie,estated,Thecombinedffortof hemassesedby partyndof ntellectualsho rehighlyon-sciousand armedwith evolutionaryrinciplesught o barthewayto this seless ndharmful iddle lass" p. 175).Yet,withoutconomic ower,heviolence hat hecolonizedbrandishgainstheWest sanythingut rightening.tremainsheviolence farrows ndspears gainstmissiles nd et fighters.olong sviolencesnot acked y ciencend echnology,hewholeideaofconsideringheThirdWorld s a rising evolutionaryorceintent ntopplinghedevelopedworld s nothingut aughable.Insofars the oorworld sgranted ith power fviolence hattdoesnotyet ossess, anon anbe ustifiablyccused fputtinghecartbefore hehorse. n being echnologicallynsignificant,heviolence ftheThirdWorldwillbecounteredyrealviolence,oparaphraseanon. fviolence hus esolves othingecause t an-not venberealviolencewithouthe ower f echnology,henar-rowing fthe echnologicalap emergess theonlyremedyorWesternegemonynd, ence,he nly issolventf henferioritycomplex. et alonecuringhedisease, heprescriptionfbravadoretardshe dministrationfthe ealremedy.But theres more o the matterhan his.FanondenouncedNegritudend thnophilosophys an nternalizationf he olonialworld. he whole uestions toknowwhetherhevalorizationf



21/25


violence ndthevision fhuman elationshipsn terms fviolentconfrontationsrenot hemselvesprojectionftheviolent olo-nialworld. hequestionmakes ense nview f he act hat anonendowed iolencewith curativemission. f violence s an out-comeof olonial ule, t s not learhow t anpossess urative ir-tues.Theattemptodecontaminatene'ssoulfromuch perver-sionwouldbe the ightttitude.The point, nemay bject, s that hedecontaminationequiresthe haseofviolentesponse,here eingnodoubt hat or anon,the olonial eurosis illnot issipatenless he ccumulatedrus-trationsprovided ith n outlet. ut hen,his herapyfviolenceneeds oexplain ow apitulationoan mpulsemountsoa vic-tory ver hatmpulse. llethical hinkingeaches hat esistanceto mpulsessthemannerhewill nd he ood riumph.ven hosetheorieshat esentesistancedmit hat hebestway odealwithuncontrolledmpulsess to ublimatehem,hats, ochannel heminto uperiorndcreativeworks. anonrightlyooknoteoftheaccumulatednger fthe olonized eoplebutnever howshowthis mmensenger ouldbetransformednto creative ork. isproposalwas not o sublimatenger;twasrathero et t xplode.But scapitulationoanger ikelyohave positiveutcomewhenit sbut rovidingn outlet odestructivempulses?What heThirdWorld eeds s togive nto ts ngeress and ochannelt nto on-structiveorks. he ublimationfviolence,nd hatlone,wouldbe theright herapy. lludingo the urativend creativeoleofsublimation,he postle fnonviolence,amely, ahatma andhi,hadthefollowing ords:

I have earned ybitterxperience,hroughperiod fcloseuponthirtyears,he ne upremeesson, amely,oconservemy nger,tocontrolt, ndust s heat onserveds transmutednto nergy,oalso our nger,onservedndcontrolled,anresultna power hatbecomesrresistiblehroughoutheworld.Green, 993,p. 230)When nsteadfbeing onservedndcontrolled,ngersgivenfull ent,he utcomesrarely ositive. istoryasrepeatedlyon-firmed he stickingmania of violence.Guerilla movements



22/25


interiorize iolence o deeply hatdespite heir ften-generousgoal, heyndup by nstitutingiolent egimesor he imple ea-son hat hey ave ost he ense f rue uman elationships.n thisregard,heAlgerianase is instructive.s anactive articipantntheAlgerian ar f iberation,anon elieved hathe dealsof hewar will preside vertheemergence f a modem nd peacefulAlgerian ociety. hat ndependentlgeria s still orn y violentconflictsnd ittle ngagedna resolute rocess fmodernizationinvalidateshe lleged reative oleofviolence.This s the ime oreflectn the heoryfnonviolences devel-opedbyGandhi ndMartin uther ing.Themain esson s that omatterhe egree f ppression,he esthumanesponses neveroimitate ppressors;t s rathero refuse heir orld,o decontami-nate ne'ssoulby he ffirmationfpositive uman alues.Oppo-sition ooppressionecomes edeemingnlywhen tunderstandsthat s one Gandhi's ommentatoruts t, To resist tviolentlywouldbe toyield o the onquerors'sdeology"Green, 993,p.195).To tell he ruth,he ssociation fviolencewith he ffirma-tion fhumanenessounds trange. iolencehas more o do withanimalityhan umanity.he affirmationfthehuman ywayofviolence,which s the alueof he olonizer,s what he olonizedshould tronglyeject. ecause colonizers reactingikebeasts,theres no reason oaspire fter heir alues. nstead, ne mustrefuse o becomebeasts ike hem.Onceviolence s nternalized,twill ully ll the ehavior f hecolonized,whowould hen ehaventhe ameviolentwayvis-a-vis eachother. hisviolent ispositionas a handnthe ailure fmost hirdWorld ountrieso nstituteemocraticocieties. rantviolencewith hepower o provide olutions,ndnoreason xiststoassume hat heproblemsfpostcolonialocieties o notfallunderhe ame reatment.iewed rom his ecessityfcleansingthe olonized oulof he ccumulatednger, egritude'sppeal otheparticularssenceof theBlack soulappears s a protectionagainst olonial ontaminations,s anattemptopreserve mea-sure fhuman ountenancena world isfiguredyviolence.Thecrux f hematters that anonmistakeshe efusal fcon-taminationor ubmission.et,Gandhi'sdoctrinef nonviolent



23/25


resistances far rommplyingny ttitudef submission. irst,nonviolencempliesourage,ommitment,ndwillingnessoriskone's ife,n hort,llthe ositivelementshatmake pthe educ-tion f heviolent ption.t even eproduceshemna higherormbecause turges or ctive isobediencendnoncooperationntheface f njustice.hepracticef uch ctivismequiresreateron-trol n one'sfear. o show hat onviolencequarelyssertswhatthe iolent ptionwants o ssert-namely,ignity,ourage, eadi-ness osacrificene's ife,nd o on-a Gandhi's ollowerasthisto say:For themajorityf mankind,heheroic irtues f disdain f per-sonal omforts,onstantlertness,eadiness o ose one's ife orcausetranscendingne'sself, reforgedn the nvil fthebattle-field. ut he elievernnon-violentesistanceanforgehese ameheroicvirtues orhimself n the anvilof a moral quivalentfwar .. the ubstitutionfnon-violenton-cooperationrcivildis-obedience or iolentwarfare.Muzumdar,952,p. 21)

But nadditiono provingourage nddignity,onviolentesis-tance asthe learmpactfdenouncinghe arbarismf he olo-nizer,herebyrawingcleardemarcationinebetweenhe aluesof the oppressornd theideals of liberation.Most of all, indemystifyingndrejectingiolence,tgraciouslyreparesbrightanddemocraticuture,hevery ne where orcewillhavenosay.Whereas hemythfviolence ndsup byvalorizingiolence s alegitimateesource, andhi'snonviolentption anishes oreverthe se offorce rom umanociety. ot ven gainsthe olonizerwas violence sed: Such s thenorm hattestablishes.But re here o caseswhere he se offorce s the nly ption?For nstance,esistancegainstheNazi regimelearly fferedootherptionhan iolentesponse. rantedhat he esidualiber-alismof theBritish overnmentas a contributingactornthesuccessofGandhi'snonviolenttruggle,similar ormfresis-tancewould esimplyuicidal gainst regimeike hat fHitler.Agreed,ut heackof hoice sdifferentromhe ositiondealiz-ingviolence. utotherwise,hen iolence ecomes navoidable,itmust e exercised ith he nderstandinghatthasbeen mposed



24/25


on thepeople.Waysmust e designed ywhich uchpeople, husreduced o animalityo fight or heir reedom,egularlyenewtheirriginaleluctance.ny ttemptovalorize iolence ygoingbeyond hemere act fresigningneself o it wouldonlyopenPandora's ox.TakeAli A. Mazrui's tudy f the nfluencefGandhism nAfricaniberation ovements.t beginsby remindinghat uchAfrican eaders s Kenneth aunda and JuliusK. Nyerere adopted or ndusedtheGandhiannspirationfnonviolencenthestruggleor ndependence.ut it also notes heproliferationfguerrillamovementsnsuchcountriess Kenya,Algeria, outhAfrica, hodesia, ndAngola.For Mazrui 1978), theseviolentoptionsndicate he imit fGandhism,speciallynthose oun-tries wherewhiteettlersre neffectiveontrolocallynAfrica,or where he olonyn Africasdesignateds a legalextensionfthe motherountry"p. 118). He concludes hat heseviolentoptionsllustratethe riumphfFantz anon verMohandasGan-dhi" p. 119).But etus review hese iolentptionsrom he antage oint fknowing hetherhey ave edtothe riumphfthe ntegrityndinterestfthese ountries.heanswer s a loud"no": Mostoftheguerrilla ovementshat ucceedednseizing ower roved ar-ticularly nable to establish tableand democratic egimes.Angola, imbabwe, lgeria, ritrea,thiopia,nd oon, repatentexamples,nd his haracteristicallyontrastsith hemore rom-ising volutionf outhAfrica heremajorityulewasestablishedwithouthe pisode f violent verthrowf he partheidegime.To sumup,themoralizationfviolence omesup against hefact hathe se offorce s neveregitimate.tsimplynstituteshestate fnature,s opposed o thehuman rder hat lways tartswith he ule f aw.Fanon's ttemptomake nexceptionor heviolence f the olonized an never o beyond he egitimacyfself-defenseithoutnderminingheir wnhumanity.ecause hehuman rder eginswherehat fnaturends, he urrenderfvio-lence s whatnauguratesumanreativity.nlessthe olonizedextirpateheviolence hatwas nstillednto hem ycolonial ule,theywillnever ctivate heir wnsuppressedreativity.arfrom



25/25


violence eing cure, t s thevery isease hatmust ewiped ffthe oul ofthe olonized.

REFERENCESCdsaire, . 1956).Culturend olonisation.nPresenceAfricaine.aris: resence fricaine.Cdsaire, . 1959).Theman f ulturendhisresponsibilities.nPrisenceAfricaine.aris:

PresenceAfricaine.Diop, C. A. 1970).Thebirth f he Negromyth."n .L. MarkovitzEd.),African oliticsand society. ew York: reePress.Diop, C. A. (1974).TheAfrican rigin f ivilization: yth r reality? hicago: awrenceHill.Fanon, . (1967). Black kinwhitemasks.New York:Grove.Fanon, . (1982). Thewretchedf he arth.New York:Grove.Green,M. (1993).Gandhi:Voice f new ge revolution.ewYork:Continuum.Hegel,G.W.F. 1971).Thephenomenologyfmind.New York:Humanities ress.Hyppolite, . 1974). Genesis nd structurefHegel'sphenomenologyf pirit. vanston,NE: Northwesternniversityress.Irele,A. (1981). TheAfricanxperiencen iteraturend deology. ondon:Heinemann.Irele,A. (1986). Contemporaryhoughtn FrenchpeakingAfrica.n I. J. Mowoe & R.BjornsonEds.), Africand theWest. ew York:Greenwood.Masolo,D. A. (1994). African hilosophyn earch f dentity.loomington:ndianaUni-versity ress.Mazrui,A. A. 1978).Political alues nd he ducatedlass nAfrica. erkeley: niversityofCalifornia ress.Muzumdar,. T. (1952).Mahatma andhi.New York: cribner.Sartre, .P. 1982).Preface.nThewretchedf he arth.New York:Grove.Schoolman,M. (1979). The colonialoverlaynd the African esponse.n Christian .Potholm Ed.), Thetheoryndpracticeof African olitics.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice all.Senghor,. S. (1970). Negritude: humanismf he wentiethentury.heAfricaneader.NewYork:Vintage.Senghor,. S. (1995).OnNegrohood: sychologyf heAfrican egro.nA.Mosley Ed.),African hilosophy:elected eadings. nglewood liffs, J:Prentice all.Serequeberhan,. 1994).ThehermeneuticsfAfricanhilosophy.ewYork: outledge.

MessayKebede s anEthiopian urrentlyeachingt the epartmentfPhilosophy,UniversityfDayton.His researchnterestsre African hilosophy,evelopment,and culturehange. ecent ublicationsncludeMeaning ndDevelopment1994),Survival nd Modernization,thiopia's nigmatic resent: Philosophical is-course 1999), nd"DirectingthnicityowardModernity"n theournal f ocialTheory ndPractice2001).

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	marcelo-sanhueza
View:	227 times
Download:	0 times

The Rehabilitation of Violence Fanon

Documents