Satre on Frantz Fanon’s “wretched of the Earth”

Satre writes about Frantz Fanon and his and his own viewpoint on Europe’s colonialist attitudes towards the third world. He explains how Europeans took people from the third world and educated them in the ways of the European in an effort to turn them from natives into intellectuals. However he goes on to explain the effects of this and describes how Europe itself is undergoing similar oppression to that of Europe’s intrusion into the third world.

Satre goes about attacking the methods of the European in teaching the native colonies by explaining how despite creating a more intellectual third world, the racism and oppression used to  create it in the first place has ultimately made them into “monstrosities”. This ultimately sets them apart from the rest of humanity (presumably Europe is excluded from the rest of humanity according to Satre). Therefore there is no going back from this change which Europe has forced upon the third world. Oppression ultimately leads to more oppression. To explain, because the third world has been met initially with oppression and aggression it means that they are likely to pass this force on similarly to that which they first received. Also because of their bleak view of the natives, the Europeans seek not to transform them fully into Europeans because of the control they strive to hold over them. This means they are still natives but aware they are natives and have undergone a terrible transformation.

Satre explains how Europe is corrupted in itself and it has essentially been engulfed by its own methods of aggression and oppression due to the ruling elite. The ruling elite or the bourgeoisie fuelled by power move to control the proletariat or the working classes in the same way that Europe moves to control the third world. Europe because of this is in a state of no repair. It cannot go back to how it was and is proposed by Satre to be heading to its inevitable doom. Satre explains that if oppression had not come about with to begin with then there may not be any today. It wouldn’t have set the trend for it to continue between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, or between Europe and the third world.

“If violence began this very evening and if exploitation and oppression had never existed on the earth, perhaps the slogans of non-violence might end the quarrel. But if the whole regime, even your non-violent ideas, are conditioned by a thousand-year-old oppression, your passivity serves only to place you in the ranks of your oppressors.”

Karl Marx refers to the divide between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and suggests that they use the proletariat in order to maintain their rich lifestyle and continue ruling above and enjoying the finest things within a society. however he expresses his view that the proletariat will not always let the bourgeoisie continue to exploit their labour as they do and the whole system will crash inevitably ending in an uprising changed the system into a communist society.  

Satre makes clear Fanon’s point of view that the only way to escape this oppression is to oppress themselves however by doing so they are becoming like the Europeans. Despite this it would be necessary to once prove the third worlds power to stop and reflect in guilt to what has been commited and become free, not in the federal sense of the word but without the oppression, violence and unhappiness which Satre explains plagues Europe already. Therefore Force is the only option in order to overthrow and ultimately become socialist. The difference between Karl Marx and Fanon’s opinion is that violence will ultimately create the change for the third world, whereas the collapse of society between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will lead to an uprising. Fanon suggests nothing should instigate the uprising other than the need to become free and separate from the diving European land.

Satre’s preface to Fanons work can essentially be considered as an existentialist piece of writing due to the mainly dreary, unhappy and violent viewpoint he expresses to both the natives and the Europeans. He proposes force as the only method in which to help the situation whilst making apparent that even once using force to free the third world things will still be very bleak and pointless. The ability to choose is expressed strongly in this piece of writing as Satre constantly refers to a future thinking little of the past, and talks about how to overcome obstacles in order to become better than we are or have been. Dasein, or being and time are prominent throughout confirming the existentialist perspective.

Existentialism revisited, lecture 2, week 3

Existentialism was a movement which focused on the uncertainty, pointlessness and bleakness of life. It has a number of different theorists who hold slightly different perspectives on the subject.

“The rebel’s weapon is proof of his humanity. This irrepressible violence is man re-creating himself” - This quote is helpful in understanding the motives for violence as an agent for change.

Nietzsche was a provocative theorist and had a particular viewpoint which can be considered to reside in the category of existentialist literature and theory. He referred to the end of god, or at least the end of belief in God which highlighted the uncertainty of the 19^th century. His specific quotation of this sort of realisation was that – ‘god is dead’. He used this term in order to refer to the crisis of uncertainty and the need of something new to sustain us. This path to sustainability was found with freedom and the ability for people to find value within themselves;

“the sea, our sea, again lies open before us; perhaps never before did such an “open sea” exist.”

Therefore He was highlighting the ability for people to now choose where they go in life. For example different people had different moralities, therefore different conceptions to follow for their own individual strive towards excellence.

Nietzsche spoke of the Ubermensch, which meant to overcome. Choice was essential to the existentialist point of view, simone de Beauvoir, or, one is born.

Heidegger was a fellow existentialist. He spoke of Being and Time. He managed to influence other well known and well spoke of theorist of existentialists such as Satre with his theories on the Dasein within each of us.

Heideggers theories on being and time were mainly formed as an attack on Descartes theories of ‘I think therefore I am’. Descartes spoke of the difference between the mind and the body which split the world into two substances. This was known as the Cartesian idea, philosophy is ultimately impossible because of this because we cannot understand ourselves because we are not both our mind and our body but only stuck in our mind.  

This contradicts with Heideggers theory that being in the world comes from dedication to one specific subject for example, Journalism. The spatial relationship between you and this subject helps to define you as a person, not the imbalance between your body and mind. He also believed in the power of choice similarly to Nietzsche however contrasting with Satre with his Facticity (intractable human condition)

To explain this further Satre’s Facticity theory talks about how we do not have a choice from the beginning. We are born in a certain time, in a certain place with certain parents. He explains that the Dasein then must be wedded to where we happen to be thrown into life. Therefore he creates the term “throwness”. We are born with a blank slate however we already have a past and is ultimately luck.

In most existentialist literature it seems that it is the future which is the most important dimension as the future consists of creatures of the possible, or in other words the endless possibilities of what we seem to be moving towards.

The term transcendence is our own reaction to our own facticity, our possibilities which may or may not be realised. We are defined by our choices and our ability to re-create ourselves. The past is inapplicable to the present and the future. This was crucial for Frantz Fanon as it was a path to escape the role of the “victim”.