Frantz Fanon and the Challenge of Political Theory

Abstract

This paper analyzes Frantz Fanon’s four books, Black Skin, White Masks, A Dying Colonialism, The Wretched of the Earth, and Toward the African Revolution, as ethical prescriptions for how colonized societies (especially Algeria) organize in a collective, democratic fashion throughout the process of decolonization. Scholars like Hussein M. Adam have argued that Fanon advocated a radical democratic approach to decolonization; however, I take this analysis a step further by focusing on the moral implications of Fanon’s writings in regards to decolonization. I argue that Fanon’s basic concern was not simply with defeating colonialism and uprooting its political-economic structures, but also with creating and renewing an ethical self through praxis, corresponding to an axiology that can be described as a de-centered social democracy. Another part of my argument is to bring out the tensions and challenges that theorists like Fanon contribute to the field of political theory. Fanon is part of what Cedric Robinson calls the “black radical tradition” which challenges the traditional canon of European political thought. Black radicalism is a transnational movement that has its roots in Western European capitalist expansion and slavery, which is part of the larger experience of the African Diaspora. Fanon’s writings are not simple appropriations of Marxist theory but rather reflections on lived experiences. Thus, like W.E.B. Du Bois Fanon is not merely a supplement to the Western canon of political theory but rather challenges our notion of what counts as political theory. Fanon demonstrates the political significance of Algerian (and African) resistance to French colonialism by showing that their actions were not merely a reaction to European oppression but a significant movement where they possessed agency as political actors. By resisting French colonialism they were simultaneously constructing a political system based on their own history and culture. This does not mean it would necessarily be one that is diametrically opposed to all European thought but one that does not have to always refer to Europe for their political existence.