by Pannaros (Bezt) Suriyamas
History plays a crucial role in shaping individual and collective identities. By examining the course of our history, we are provided with an understanding of how the past has shaped the world we live in today, whether it be in a beneficial or detrimental way. One pivotal chapter in our shared history is colonial domination, a practice which has been extensively studied by historians and scholars for its role in shaping our ideas about race, culture, and identity. Written in 1952, Frantz Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks investigates the physical and psychological effects of colonialism and confronts the complex manner in which identity, particularly Blackness, is externally influenced and constructed. He draws upon his own experiences as a Black man living in a colonial society to ground his theoretical arguments in lived reality, adding depth and nuance to his compelling analysis. By employing a historical framework to his argument, Fanon questions the value of history in overcoming alienation as he examines how the narratives promoted by colonial history serve to reinforce a perpetual system of racial hierarchy in which the colonized, black individuals, continue to perceive themselves as inferior to the colonizer, white individuals, who maintain a false sense of superiority over the colonized. Yochai Ataria and Shogo Tanaka’s article, “When Body Image Takes over the Body Schema: The Case of Frantz Fanon”, further adds a psychological dimension to explain this experience in terms of social influences on one’s self-image. Furthermore, Fanon explains how, albeit in differing ways, such historical narratives result in the alienation of both black and white individuals who are trapped in their race, proposing that true liberation from social oppression requires the rejection of persisting historical narratives so that one’s own agency and cultural identity can be reclaimed. Moreover, observations made by Tacuma Peters in his article “Black Skin, White Masks and the Paradoxical Politics of Black Historiography” will be utilized and considered to evaluate the credibility of Fanon’s proposed solution.
Fanon examines the nature of colonial racism which labels the black individual as inherently inferior to white individuals, highlighting how such a narrative comes to be problematic as it is internalized by both the colonizer and the colonized and leads to their respective experiences of alienation. In Black Skin, White Masks, Fanon asserts, in part, from his own experiences, how the essence of black identity is a construction imposed on black individuals by the historical and social influences of colonialism: “I did not create a meaning for myself; the meaning was already there, waiting. It is not as the wretched nigger, it is not with my nigger’s teeth, it is not as the hungry nigger that I fashion a torch to set the world alight; the torch was already there, waiting for this historical chance” (Fanon 113). Here, the dehumanizing stereotypes and images that have been historically associated with blackness illustrate how “[w]hite civilization and European culture have imposed an existential deviation on the black man, … [where] what is called the black soul is a construction by white folk” (Fanon xviii). The psychological foundation of this experience, according to researchers Yochai Ataria and Shogo Tanaka, can be understood through the application of Jean-Paul Sartre’s theory on the third ontological dimension of the body, which posits that under social tensions, a part of our body image is composed “through the look of the other, whose gaze transforms us into a pure object” (Ataria and Tanaka 7). By utilizing this lens to analyze the black man’s experience in Black Skin, White Masks, we can understand how the colonized being “reduced to appearance, and only appearance, from the outside” (Ataria and Tanaka 8) by the colonizer leads them to “experience the self (and the world) from white people’s perspective alone; in this situation tension no longer exists between the white and the black, the latter being dismissed by the former” (Ataria and Tanaka 9). Furthermore, this allows us to recognize how as black individuals come to adopt a self-perception that aligns with such dehumanizing narratives and internalize a sense of inferiority imposed the colonizer, such “internalization or rather epidermalization of this inferiority” (Fanon xv) is what leads “[t]he black man [to] want to be white …to prove at all costs to the Whites the wealth of the black man’s intellect and equal intelligence” (Fanon xii-xiv) in order to escape the experience of alienation. This is made evident as Fanon outlines the way in which black Antilleans attempt to assimilate into the colonial culture and become “whiter” through their use of the French language. Most notably, “[t]he black man entering France … will make every effort not only to roll his r’s, but to make them stand out” (Fanon 5) as “[i]n the French Antilles the bourgeoisie does not use Creole, except when speaking to servants” (Fanon 4). As black individuals are made to perceive their own language and culture as inherently inferior to those of the colonizer, the black Antillean’s attempt to conform to the linguistic norms of the colonizer can be seen as a manifestation of their internalized sense of inferiority and unworthiness, reflecting their belief that “the more [they] assimilates the French language, the whiter [they] get … [and] the closer [they] come to becoming a true human being” (Fanon 2). While such a display of European cultural adequacy may allow the black Antillean to alleviate their immediate experience of alienation within France to a certain extent, such assimilation into the dominant colonial culture comes at a cost as they are further alienated from their own cultural identity: “The black man who has lived in France for a certain time returns home radically transformed. Genetically speaking, his phenotype undergoes an absolute, definitive mutation” (Fanon 3). Although this process of assimilation may help black Antilleans better navigate the challenges of living in a colonial society, Fanon suggests that such a process can be detrimental to the individual as their sense of self undergoes a fundamental and irreversible change which further alienates them from their own culture and history. This can be observed through how “[t]he new returnee, as soon as he sets foot on the island, asserts himself; he answers only in French … He can no longer understand Creole … [and] he assumes a critical attitude towards his fellow islanders” (Fanon 7). As black Antilleans internalize the values and norms of the colonizer and adopt their sense of superiority over black individuals, they become alienated and distant from their native language and are critical of their fellow islanders, aligning their identity with that of the colonizer and viewing their people as inferior to themselves. Moreover, we are invited to examine how the historical and social influences of colonialism shapes the black individual’s identity and sense of self, dehumanizing them by perpetuating a system of racial hierarchy in which they are characterized and labeled as inherently inferior to white people. Not only does this lead to their initial experience of alienation as the dominant minority, but also their subsequent experience of alienation from their own culture following an attempt to assimilate into the dominant colonial culture and be seen as worthy and human.
In a similar fashion, the narrative of white supremacy in colonial history also alienates the white individual by perpetuating a false sense of superiority and entitlement which fosters a superficial understanding of the world and limits their ability to empathize with others. Fanon considers how the narrative of colonial history which portrays white people as the civilizing force has aided in the construction and maintenance of a distorted self-perception among white individuals who are “locked in [their] whiteness … [and] consider themselves superior to Blacks” (Fanon xiii-xiv), believing they are “the predestined master[s] of the world” (Fanon 107). As a result, this historical narrative of white superiority and its prescribed privileges and assumptions are utilized by the colonizers to justify racism and other forms of oppression enacted on the colonized. This can be observed in how “[a] white man talking to a person of color behaves exactly like a grown-up with a kid, simpering, murmuring, fussing, and coddling” (Fanon 14). Here, the paternalistic attitude shown by white people towards people of color in their conversations is reflective of white individuals’ perception and belief of their own superiority over black individuals, which is rooted in history. Furthermore, Fanon explains how the colonizer’s use of language reinforces this persistent, yet false sense of superiority and entitlement over the colonized in everyday interactions:
To speak gobbledygook to a black man is insulting, for it means he is the gook. Yet, we’ll be told, there is no intention to willfully give offense. OK, but it is precisely this absence of will––this offhand manner; this casualness; and the ease with which they classify him, imprison him at an uncivilized and primitive level––that is insulting. (Fanon 15)
The white individual’s use of meaningless or unintelligible language when communicating with a black person is indicative of their belief that the black individual is uncivilized and primitive, and therefore is not capable of understanding or deserving of clear, respectful communication. As such, Fanon invites us to examine how the narrow perspective offered by colonial history can alienate white individuals by perpetuating a superficial and dehumanizing view of others which prevents them from seeing the humanity and complexity of the colonized: “[color prejudice] is nothing more than the unreasoning hatred of … the stronger and richer peoples for those whom they consider inferior to themselves … the light skinned races have come to despise all those of a darker color” (Fanon 97). Furthermore, it can be understood how the narrow lens of colonial history perpetuates a cycle of ignorance and injustice that harms both the oppressor and the oppressed. The pervasiveness of history not only dehumanizes the colonized but also alienates the colonized by perpetuating a Eurocentric view of the world that limits their understanding of diversity and ability to empathize with, and relate to others.
Fanon proposes that one’s liberation from social oppression and the reclamation of one’s own agency and identity can be made possible through the rejection of persisting historical narratives which dehumanize and alienate individuals based on race. According to Fanon, this means that both the colonizer and the colonized “have to move away from the inhuman voices of their respective ancestors so that a genuine communication can be born. Before embarking on a positive voice, freedom needs to make an effort at disalienation” (Fanon 206). This is made evident as despite his feeling prideful of black history and its achievements, proudly asserting that he “belong[s] to a race that had already been working silver and gold 2,000 years ago” (Fanon 109), Fanon recognizes that embracing black culture and history means he is also accepting of “a series of corrosive stereotypes: the Negro’s sui generis smell … the Negro’s sui generis good nature … the Negro’s sui generis naïveté” (Fanon 109), which would limit him in his pursuit of an individual identity that is free from such stereotypes. Furthermore, in seeing “[n]egritude [as] dedicated to its own destruction, it is transition and not result, a means and not the ultimate goal” (Fanon 112), Fanon chooses to reject, rather than reclaim his own culture and history as a means of ending racism, emphasizing that individuals must be aware of the oppressive and dehumanizing narratives of their respective ancestors and remove themselves from such in order for a constructive, positive dialogue that is free from the distortions of the past to be established. For such a process to be successful, Fanon advocates for an agentic approach as he believes individual action and self-determination can allow one to successfully “initiate their freedom” (Fanon 205) from colonial oppression. This is made evident as Fanon posits how one must come to view themselves as “not a prisoner of History, … [to] not look for the meaning of [their] destiny in that direction. … [as] In the world [they are] heading for, [they are] endlessly creating [themselves]” (Fanon 204). As our knowledge of history often ensures that mistakes of the past are not repeated in the future, Fanon is not suggesting that individuals must assert themselves and entirely forget the past in order to initiate their freedom. Rather, he encourages us to reject it, to utilize what we know of the past and present to focus on creating a better future for ourselves: “It is through self-consciousness and renunciation, through a permanent tension of his freedom, that man can create the ideal conditions of existence for a human world. Superiority? Inferiority? Why not simply try to touch each other, feel the other, discover each other?” Moreover, Fanon proposes that so long as individuals are aware of the oppressive narratives and structures that have shaped their world and remain active in challenging the forces that seek to limit their agency and identity, it is possible for mankind to transcend the notions of superiority and inferiority and work towards fostering understanding and empathy in a more just and equitable society. In other words, “[d]isalienation will [only] be for those Whites and Blacks who have refused to let themselves be locked in the substantialized ‘tower of the past’” (Fanon 201).
Interestingly, Fanon’s proposal to reject history as a means of reclaiming one’s cultural identity has also been analyzed and understood by scholars as a radical response to the paradoxical nature of Black historiography, acting as both a foundational text in the development of modern colonial and decolonial thought as well as a crucial point of reference for academics and activists seeking to understand and challenge the legacies of colonialism. This is highlighted by Tacuma Peters in his article titled “Black Skin, White Masks and the Paradoxical Politics of Black Historiography”, which argues how Black Skin, White Masks “has the paradoxical status of being a text that rejects historiography and History as a primary means of facilitating radical political transformation while also being a key point of departure for histories concerning modern colonial and decolonial thought” (Peters 1). Peters points out how Fanon’s “understanding of universalism and humanism place[s] into doubt projects that can be considered particularist, provincial, and bound by the logics of colonialism” (Peters 3), seeing that they may end up reinforcing the superiority complex of the colonizer and further marginalizing or oppressing the colonized rather than aiding in their departure from such historical narratives. Here, Peters emphasizes how Fanon’s skepticism regarding the value of history in overcoming such barriers is intertwined with his critique of traditional Western universalism and humanism, which he sees as tools historically used to justify colonial domination. This perspective is reflected in his statement: “Every time a man has brought victory to the dignity of the spirit, every time a man has said no to an attempt to enslave his fellow man, I have felt a sense of solidarity with his act” (Fanon 201). By showing recognition to those who are not “sing[ing] the past to the detriment of [their] present and [their] future” (Fanon 1), “Fanon’s idiosyncratic view of history… [serves] … as a model for how others might want to approach past human actions” (Peters 4). His work is crucial as a foundational text in the development of modern colonial and decolonial thought as it advocates for a more inclusive and liberatory approach to universalism and humanism which embraces the diversity and richness of human identities and experiences. While “[t]he challenge of Black Skin, White Masks to earlier historical scholarship including the work of Aimé Césaire, C.L.R. James, and others is noteworthy” (Peters 5), Peters also acknowledges how Fanon’s work has been “challenge[d] [by] recent historiographies on slavery, marronage, and anti-colonial resistance” (Peters 5). Most notably, Peters addresses how works by scholars of Black Studies from the past two decades have revealed that “historiography and History have [always had] a profound connection to anti-racist, anticolonial, and decolonial action aimed at addressing the structures of colonialism (Peters 5), “but [solutions were] not brought to the forefront due to the perspectives of scholars, the limited political/epistemological commitments of thinkers, and the structures of ‘post-colonial’ politics and society” (Peters 6). Furthermore, we are invited to examine and consider how, contrary to Fanon’s perspective, scholars have come to uncover and recognize the powerful influence of historical narratives in constructing efforts to challenge and dismantle colonial structures. Moreover, Peters suggests that Fanon’s arguments must be reevaluated in light of recent works which highlight the importance of historiography in promoting social and political change, in order for us to gain a more holistic understanding of how we can truly enable individuals to reclaim their individual, cultural identity.
To conclude, Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks is crucial for its exploration of the influence of colonial history on the construction of racial identities, highlighting how historical narratives perpetuate systems of oppression and alienation which continue to impact the colonized as well as the colonizer. His unique experiences and personal observations allow us to gain an insight into the patterns of colonial oppression and racial discrimination, which he proposes be rejected in order for us to reclaim our agency and cultural identity independent of our history. By putting Fanon’s insights into conversation with recent scholarly works, not only are we shown how psychological mechanisms have influenced his experiences, but are also invited to consider how his argument for a radical transformation of society and individual consciousness through a rejection of history may be reductionistic in nature; history may play a bigger role in humanity’s liberation from it than Fanon initially thought.
Works Cited
Ataria, Yochai, and Shogo Tanaka. “When Body Image Takes over the Body Schema: The Case of Frantz Fanon.” Human Studies, vol. 43, no. 4, May 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-020-09543-6.
Fanon, Frantz. Black Skin, White Masks. 1952. Translated by Richard Philcox, Grove Press, 2008.
Peters, Tacuma. “Black Skin, White Masks and the Paradoxical Politics of Black Historiography.” Journal of French and Francophone Philosophy, vol. 30, no. 2, Jan. 2023, pp. 120–27, https://doi.org/10.5195/jffp.2022.1029.