How Colonialism Uses Economy and Culture to Hold Power: Fanon’s Insight
Hello everyone, this blog is a thinking activity give by Megha mam. Before I answered the questions given in the task let me introduce you with the novek in brief.
The wretched of the earth
The Wretched of the Earth is a book written by Frantz Fanon, a psychiatrist and revolutionary thinker, in 1961. The book discusses the struggles of colonized people as they fight for freedom from colonial rule. Fanon highlights how colonization not only takes away land and resources but also harms people’s identities, culture, and self-worth. He argues that violent resistance might be necessary for oppressed people to regain their freedom and dignity. Fanon also explores how, even after gaining independence, former colonies face challenges like inequality and the lasting impacts of colonialism. The book is a powerful call for justice, self-respect, and liberation for oppressed nations.
In The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon takes an unflinching look at the role of violence within colonial systems, showing how it becomes woven into the lives of both the colonizer and the colonized. Fanon’s view is that violence is more than just a physical tool—it’s a psychological weapon that colonial powers use to dominate and break down those they rule over. For Fanon, this violence is systematic, creating a cycle that is both dehumanizing and self-perpetuating.
Colonialism, in Fanon’s view, starts and survives on the raw force of violence. When a colonial power invades a land, it does not simply ask the people for control—it takes control through war, punishment, and suppression. The colonizers enforce their authority through the police, the military, and a legal system designed to favor their interests over those of the native population. This kind of control is not only external; it reaches into the minds of the colonized, reshaping how they see themselves, others, and the world. The native population is often treated as inferior and even made to feel like they’re worth less than the colonizers. Over time, this can lead to self-doubt and a sense of helplessness, which further traps them in a cycle of oppression.
1) What is the role of violence in colonialism with reference to the wretched of Earth?
Fanon believes that the violence of colonization is intentional and carefully planned. For example, he describes how colonizers often impose segregation, creating physical and psychological barriers that make natives feel as if they are outsiders in their own land. The colonized are cut off from resources, educational opportunities, and basic human rights. By constantly reinforcing the idea that the colonized are second-class, colonial powers maintain their control without the need for constant physical force, as the mental conditioning can be just as powerful.
One of Fanon’s key arguments is that the violence colonized people experience doesn’t stay “out there.” It seeps into families, communities, and individual lives, creating anger, frustration, and deep psychological scars. The colonized people may start to feel they have no choice but to accept their “place” in society. But Fanon argues that this inner turmoil can also build up, transforming into a powerful desire for change. He believes that, under the constant pressure of colonial violence, a natural response is to fight back. For many, reclaiming their land and rights can mean reclaiming their very sense of self and humanity.
Fanon doesn’t romanticize this violence. He knows it can be brutal, but he suggests it’s sometimes necessary for colonized people to confront their oppressors with the same force they’ve experienced. For them, it becomes a way to disrupt the long-standing power structures, a cleansing process that removes the colonial authority and opens the door to new possibilities. By fighting back, the colonized people begin to restore their dignity and assert their own identity, saying in essence, “We are here, and we matter.”
Fanon also argues that this violent struggle can lead to a deeper kind of freedom, one that’s mental and emotional as much as it is political. When colonized people push back against their oppressors, they are, in a way, healing themselves. They are rejecting the ideas that have been imposed on them—that they are “less than,” unworthy, or incapable of self-governance. This resistance becomes a transformative experience, helping them break free not only from colonial rule but also from the psychological chains that have kept them feeling small and powerless.
Finally, Fanon points out that the process of decolonization can be chaotic and challenging. The violence doesn’t simply end when the colonizers leave; the wounds left behind take time to heal. New governments struggle with the effects of colonialism, such as economic dependency and social inequality. Yet, despite these challenges, Fanon believes that reclaiming control through whatever means necessary is an essential step for colonized nations to begin rebuilding on their own terms.
In summary, Fanon’s view on violence in The Wretched of the Earth is complex. He sees it as an inevitable response to a violently imposed system of control. It’s a way for colonized people to not only fight back against oppression but also reclaim their humanity and reshape their futures.
2) Describe what Manichaeism means in a colonial context.
In The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon uses the concept of "Manichaeism" to describe the way colonial systems create a strict, dualistic worldview where the colonizer and the colonized are seen as opposites. In this context, “Manichaeism” means a black-and-white division of the world, where everything associated with the colonizer is viewed as good, valuable, and civilized, while everything connected to the colonized is seen as bad, inferior, and primitive. This ideology doesn’t just serve as a belief system; it becomes a tool of power that allows colonial rulers to justify their control, as if they are “civilizing” the “savage” world they’ve conquered.
In colonial societies, this Manichaean structure is designed to create and enforce a sense of superiority among the colonizers while instilling feelings of inferiority among the colonized. The colonizers often place themselves at the center of everything, claiming the best land, the wealth, and privileges, while the colonized are pushed to the margins, often physically and metaphorically. The separation is reinforced through laws, education, and even everyday social practices, ensuring that people under colonial rule see themselves as “other” or “less than.”
A classic example of this Manichaean worldview can be seen in colonial Africa, where European powers took over large parts of the continent, segregating themselves from African communities. In cities designed by colonial authorities, European neighborhoods were well-developed, with access to services, clean water, and paved streets. In contrast, African areas were neglected, often lacking basic infrastructure. Europeans often labeled African cultural practices, languages, and social customs as “backward” or “primitive” while elevating their own ways as the only “proper” or “modern” way to live. This separation wasn't just physical; it also shaped people’s minds, making Africans feel ashamed of their own culture and heritage.
In Fanon’s native Algeria, which was colonized by the French, this Manichaean system was starkly visible. French settlers enjoyed privileges that Algerian Muslims did not have, such as the right to vote, access to better education, and freedom from the strict policing and surveillance imposed on the Algerian population. The French language and customs were seen as signs of education and refinement, while Algerian language and traditions were dismissed. This divide created a deep psychological impact, making some Algerians believe they had to abandon their own identity and “become like the French” to gain respect and social mobility.
Another example is in India under British rule. British colonial authorities often painted Indians as uneducated, incapable of self-rule, and in need of British governance to bring “order” and “progress.” They promoted British values and education while dismissing India’s ancient culture and knowledge systems. This Manichaean division served to make Indians feel that they could only be “civilized” through British influence, creating a psychological dependency on colonial authority.
In Fanon’s view, this Manichaean way of dividing the world has serious, lasting effects on the colonized. It does more than just separate people; it creates a powerful internalized belief that one group is superior while the other is inherently inferior. This division can lead colonized people to internalize feelings of self-hate and inadequacy, as they see themselves and their culture constantly devalued. Over time, this mindset can destroy their sense of self-worth, making it easier for the colonizers to control them.
However, Fanon also points out that this Manichaean structure can lead to a kind of awakening among the colonized. When they begin to see the artificial nature of this divide, they start to resist and reclaim their identity. They realize that the Manichaean system is not based on truth but on power and oppression. The desire to break free from this imposed identity becomes a source of strength, leading to resistance movements that seek to dismantle the colonial structure and rebuild society based on their own values and identity.
In essence, Manichaeism in a colonial context is a divisive tool, one that polarizes and dehumanizes. It justifies inequality, promotes racism, and destroys cultural pride, creating a system where colonizers rule and the colonized suffer. Fanon’s work urges the oppressed to recognize this division, break free from it, and redef3) What does Fanon mean when he says “the infrastructure is also a superstructure” in colonialism?ine their own worth, identity, and culture.
3) What does Fanon mean when he says “the infrastructure is also a superstructure” in colonialism?
When Fanon says “the infrastructure is also a superstructure” in the context of colonialism, he’s highlighting how, under colonial rule, economic systems (the “infrastructure”) and cultural or ideological beliefs (the “superstructure”) are tightly intertwined and work together to maintain control. Typically, in Marxist theory, the “infrastructure” or “base” refers to the economic foundation of society—things like labor, resources, and production—while the “superstructure” is made up of cultural, political, and ideological institutions, like schools, churches, and laws. Usually, the superstructure reflects the infrastructure, supporting it indirectly. However, Fanon argues that in colonial societies, these two elements become one and the same, working directly to support and enforce the goals of the colonizers.
To understand this, imagine a colonial society where the economy is entirely built around extracting resources like minerals or agricultural goods to benefit the colonizer’s home country. For the colonial economy to thrive, colonizers don’t just need control over resources; they also need the colonized population to accept, or at least submit to, this arrangement. So, the colonizers create not only the infrastructure to exploit resources (like plantations, mines, and transportation networks) but also a superstructure that reinforces their control, shaping education, religion, laws, and social practices. In this way, colonialism becomes a comprehensive system that makes the infrastructure—the physical systems of extraction—seem “natural” or justified, while the cultural institutions of the superstructure enforce it.
Take, for example, British rule in India. The British didn’t just build railways and factories for trade; they also established schools that taught British values and histories, often portraying British culture as superior and justifying colonial rule as a “civilizing mission.” English became the language of administration, education, and prestige, sidelining Indian languages and knowledge systems. The education system wasn’t just about learning; it was designed to produce a class of Indians who could assist in the colonial administration, creating a divide where those who adopted British ways were seen as more “advanced” than those who didn’t. This intertwined superstructure helped to justify the economic exploitation happening beneath it, making British dominance seem like a benefit rather than oppression.
In Algeria, Fanon’s homeland, the infrastructure and superstructure worked in a similar way. The French set up industries and agricultural systems that funneled wealth back to France, often displacing native Algerians from their lands. At the same time, they established cultural and legal systems that marginalized the Arabic language, Islamic education, and traditional social structures. French schools and institutions taught Algerians to see themselves as inferior and dependent on French governance. This cultural conditioning made the economic exploitation seem inevitable or even beneficial, a system where the French were seen as “developing” Algeria while, in reality, they were profiting from its resources and people.
Fanon’s point, then, is that in colonial contexts, the economic exploitation (infrastructure) and cultural dominance (superstructure) aren’t separate. They work together in a coordinated way to uphold colonial rule. The infrastructure doesn’t just stand as a physical entity; it becomes a symbol of colonial power, a reminder of who holds control. Similarly, the cultural systems don’t simply exist on their own; they actively justify and strengthen the colonial economy. Together, they form a self-reinforcing system that makes colonial control feel like a natural order rather than an imposed dominance.
By saying “the infrastructure is also a superstructure,” Fanon emphasizes that the economy, culture, laws, and ideologies in colonialism are all interwoven to create a total system of control that affects every part of life for the colonized. This fusion makes it very difficult for the colonized to challenge one part of the system without disrupting the whole. Fanon’s insight here pushes us to see colonialism as a deeply interconnected structure, where economic exploitation and cultural domination are two sides of the same coin, making the system not only oppressive but self-sustaining, until the colonized rise to dismantle it.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Fanon's idea that "the infrastructure is also a superstructure" reveals the deeply interwoven nature of colonialism, where economic exploitation and cultural domination function together to sustain control over colonized societies. By merging these systems, colonial powers not only exploit resources but also shape identities, beliefs, and values to justify and perpetuate their dominance. This alignment of infrastructure with superstructure turns colonial rule into a pervasive, self-reinforcing system, where physical control and psychological influence support each other. Fanon’s insight underscores that for true liberation, the colonized must challenge both the economic and cultural dimensions of colonial rule, recognizing that freedom requires dismantling both the structures of exploitation and the ideologies that support them.
.jfif)
.jfif)
