Frantz Fanon penned this classic The Wretched of the Earth, in
his last years as he was being treated for leukemia. The urgency of the
book is evident in his style of writing. After having participated in
the Algerian freedom struggle and seen various events in Africa, he
could sense that Africans were probably approaching independence from
the wrong perspective. His predictions ended up being true.
Throughout Wretched,
Fanon sees political education as the key to Africa's freedom and has
great hope that the intellectual was the key to the distinction between
genuine freedom and simply replacing the white colonial actors with
black ones. However, in chapter 4, which will be the focus of our
discussion, Fanon notices that the even the African intellectuals had
baggage - colonialism had made them so sensitive to defending culture
that the intellectuals forgot the larger goal of liberation. On the
other hand, Fanon thought that if African intellectuals went through a
painful journey of conscientization, they would eventually come around
and commit themselves to addressing the challenges facing their people.
Have
these dynamics remained in Africa, or have they changed? What does that
mean for the PhD student studying Kenyan society and the world at
large?What personal challenges might you have to deal with in order to
commit yourself to the academic work you will do?
There
are two translations of the book, one by Constance Farrington (1963)
and Richard Philcox (2004). The later translation is definitely better
and easier to read, and should be in the Daystar library. Most Nairobi
bookshops have the older version.
Remember to post your questions or comments by tomorrow, Thursday, 7pm.
Kenya is going through an interesting phase. On one hand, are the ruling class who have voted that the country should no longer be part of the Rome Statue, reason being that the International Criminal Court is politically inclined against Africa. Yet deep down we know that this group of leaders in nailing our country on the cross for the sake of two individuals. The presidency is the highest rule of power in the country, but it is inherently separate from whoever occupies it. What Kenyans have been waiting for is for an intelligent mind, an intellectual to voice the concern of making decisions to save two individuals while putting at risk the forty million plus others.
ReplyDeleteAs these developments continue to bedevil our country, it is good to ask ourselves why the voice of the intellect is silent. Is it that years of struggle have yielded little results hence the lethargy of following in the footsteps of those who spoke for freedom? Is it that the intellect is busy pursuing personal ends to forget the greater picture of the nation? Fanon says ‘the colonized intellectual realizes that the existence of a nation is not proved by culture, but in the people’s struggle against the forces of occupation’, yet even after this realization we still see very little action from the intellects.
Or is it that the intellect has crossed over to form part of the middle class and the ruling class, hence unable to open their eyes objectively to the oppression that an increase in milk price is to the poor? Does the intellect even know that the price of milk went up?
I thought of your question when I was reading the book. Maybe the problem is that Kenyan intellectuals haven't gone through the three phases that Fanon talks about. We're at still the stage where we are trying to prove we have a culture. But who are we trying to prove that to? On the other hand, others say - and I agree, I think the memory of the Nyayo era and the days when lecturers were detained is still with us.
DeleteWhile addressing a meeting shortly before independence, Mzee Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya’s first president asked his audience to bear with him since — it was not his wish to speak to them in a colonialistic language. This may explain the mood as it was that the Pan Africanist saw of the colonial administration. If Amadi, the leprous character in Achebe’s Things fall Apart were an intellectual, then Achebe would in the Fanon’s articulation, have said the colonialist look like Amadi, and though without feet yet Amadi speaks like them. If the intellectual was trained to think like the colonialist and his psychology is that of the colonialist, then the peasant is held in a dilemma since would be vanguards of the revolution has gone to bed with the common enemy (colonialist). In being whitewashed, the intellectual has the wrong priorities and wants to fight the struggle by look behind at culture before they forge ahead. In the meantime, he risks losing touch with the natives. This may explain why independence Africa had to do away with the intellectual cream at the time. First, their theories were not applicable to the native, whether or not they explained them in the native language (160). The reason why it could not work was that the theories were not meant for Africa. So the Kwame Nkuruma’s national consciousness and the Nyerere’s ujamaa and Africa socialism did not materialize in the manner to cause a revolution in Africa. No wonder those who were not of high education standing like Idi Amin (never mind he was "His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Alhaji Dr. Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE") could garner support to upset Milton Obote in Uganda.
ReplyDeleteThis then begs the question, were the independent African intellectuals dabbling in the wrong field? Could they have stuck in the academia as opposed to leadership positions? Would this then imply that academia (intellectualism) is limited to class and of no practical purpose?
There has also be the continuation (or heavy borrowing) from the colonial (or is it post colonial) education system. Years after independence, we have seen intellectuals who perform dismally when given national assignments to undertake. It reminds me that the courage to off capitalist ills has been a subject that few intellectuals delve in. They would rather do what Sekou Toure warns against — sing cultural songs and take no action (145). In this case, the revolution that Fanon conceived of would collapse on its onset.
I think what you're talking of is not really mis-education but the fact that the intellectuals haven't matured to the point where they engage in the struggles of the oppressed. I think Fanon doesn't condemn intellectuals as useless because they're Westernized; rather he sees hope in the intellectual eventually liberating himself through a conscious decision. There's that eureka moment that some intellectuals go through and then decide to join the struggle.
DeleteThe one question that lingers in my mind after reading Fanon is whether African nations will ever recover the ground they lost due to the brainwashing effect of colonialism. Fanon laments at how African nations tried vainly to forge a collective African nationalism yet being very heterogeneous, it would have been better if each country pursued a national culture relevant to their country rather than to the entire continent. This is the whole purpose of contextualization.
ReplyDeleteIn speaking of colonized intellectuals, Fanon argues that “We must work and struggle in step with the people so as to shape the future and prepare the ground where vigorous shoots are already sprouting” (168). But, are our leaders, whether in the political arena, business or academia, in touch with the people’s day-to-day realities? Today some of the decisions made by our leaders lead to more despair than emancipation. Think of the current reduction of tax-exempt goods which has led to the taxation of essential commodities, causing the common man untold hopelessness. Are our leaders in step with the people? Or are they walking in the footsteps of their colonial masters, having learned their ways? Is there hope for a national culture that citizens across the social divide will truly be proud of? No wonder the phrase ‘Najivunia kuwa Mkenya,’ is a mere sterile and empty slogan that has been incapable of arousing any sense of nationalism. Is there much to be proud of?
Yet, just as it was more than 50 years ago, our leaders are still chasing the pan-African dream through a myriad of regional cooperation initiatives yet they still have no Kenyan national culture to talk about. National culture is a collective thought process of a people to describe, justify and extol commonly accepted actions (168). Yet different countries – their people and leaders- operate under different contexts and at a different pace (169) making it difficult to pursue a ‘black culture’ applicable to all Africans.
A PhD a student in Kenya therefore needs to constantly ask several pertinent questions: how do my studies contribute to unraveling answers to the problems that plague this nation? And are my proposed solutions in touch with the people? Do they apply in my context? How can I avoid making unwarranted generalizations?
I think the questions are pertinent. I'd rather PhD students were asked that, rather than be told to make a contribution to knowledge or some earth-shattering discovery.
DeleteThe Colonized intellectual is in a dilemma as he seeks to shake of the colonizers label as belonging to a continent that is "a den of savages, infested with superstitions and fanaticism and destined to be despised, cursed by God ...(p150). On the other hand, he longs to be perceived as a "cultured person" who also seeks to belong among his people who were once labelled as barbaric.This passion is what has led to numerous Pan Africanist efforts to bring Africans together in order to combat the colonialists' lies that were laden with racists overtones. Besides politicians, some of the people who have put some effort in liberating the African mind are colonized authors whose writing is intended to provoke the Africans to think and to act in a way that proves that they are no longer colonized but free. Such literature has been described as "combat literature, revolutionary literature and national literature". Ngugi wa Thiong'o is one such writer whose writings have provoked people to action to an extent that he was forced to flee the country because the government of the day did not appreaciate his writings but rather viewed them as anti-government and seditious.
ReplyDelete