Lazarus Disavowing

Disavowing Decolonization: Fanon, Nationalism, and the Problematic of Representation in
Current Theories of Colonial Discourse

Author(s): Neil Lazarus
Source: Research in African Literatures, Vol. 24, No. 4, Special Issue in Memory of Josaphat
Bekunuru Kubayanda (Winter, 1993), pp. 69-98
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3820255
Accessed: 16-01-2016 16:27 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3820255?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Research in African
Literatures.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 86.9.99.102 on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 16:27:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Disavowing
Decolonization:
Fanon,
Nationalism,
and the
Problematicof
Representation
in Current
Theoriesof
Colonial
Discourse1
NeilLazarus
Since 1989,forvery obvious geopoliticalreasons,therehasbeensomething

ofanobsessive return tothesubjectofnationalism inWestern-based historical
and
socialscientific
scholarship.The unfolding ofeventsineastern Europeandthefor-
merSovietUnion,inChina,insouthern andnortheastern Africa,andelsewhere,
has beenbothunpredicted and unprecedented. Yetforthemostpart,theout-
pouring ofWestern-based scholarship hastendedtoremain withintheparameters
oftheestablished post-1945 ideologeme ofnationalism."[S]incetheSecondWorld
War,in a conveniently European lapseofmemory," as TimBrennan hasrecently
pointed out,"studiesofnationalism havenotonlyincreased; theyhaveforthemost
partcondemned thethingtheystudied" (57). Naturalizingthetrajectories
ofthe
European nationalisms,andhypocritically-not tosayunhistorically-extrapolat-
ingU.S. nationalism tothesemodels, mainstream scholarshavecharacteristically
deplored "new"nationalisms wherever theyhavebeenmobilized, on thegrounds
thattheyfoment revolution, orthattheyaretotalitarian, orthattheyresultonlyin
theintensificationofalready existingsocialdivisions.
Inpart, ofcourse,
thisdispar-
agement ofwhatBrennan calls"insurgent orpopular"nationalismsinmainstream
Western scholarshiphasbeenstrictly Western
ideological: scholars'
"recoil...
from
70 I in African
Research Literatures
nationalism" inthepost-1945 periodclearly needstobesetagainst thebackdrop of

thechallengeposedto Western hegemony bytheanticolonial "nationalmove-
mentsofthedeveloping world"(57). Indeed,itisarguable thatthefurther capital-
ismhasbeenabletoconsolidate itselfas a world-system overthecourseofthepast
50 years, themoreinsurgent nationalisms havecome,to bourgeois metropolitan
eyes,toloompreeminently asbarriers toexpansion andaccumulation. Thus,inthe
words ofArmand Mattelart, therehasbeenevident thegradual naturalization of
[t]he ideathat itisnecessary to smash the the
nation-state,lastobstacle tothe
newphase oftheworld-wide expansion oftransnational andtransform
capital,
itintoa simple management stateinan"interdependent" world....
[T]hetrans-
nationalization process creates anappealforincreasingly similar,ecumenical
anduniversal values, or,tousetheterms of[Zbigniew] "anewplane-
Brzezinski,
taryconsciousness," a new"harmony," a "newworld unity"anda new"consen-
sus."(qtd.inBrennan 46)
For radicalWestern-based scholarstoday,opposedto the smugly"First
Worldist" quality ofmuchoftheprevailing scholarship(exemplified mostnotably,
perhaps, inFrancis Fukuyama's widely disseminated recentessay, "TheEndofHis-
tory?"),thequestion ofhowtothink differentlyaboutnationalism-above allinthe
ongoingcontextof anti-imperialist struggle-isproving to be a vexedone. In
another era,themanifest volatility ofnationalism might havecausedradicalschol-
arsto viewitwithcautiousoptimism as theopensiteofpoliticalandideological
contestation. Nationalist ideologies, as AnneMcClintock haswritten, "arecon-
testedsystems ofrepresentation enactedthrough socialinstitutions, andlegitimiz-
ing,orlimiting people'saccesstotherights andresources ofthenation-state" (104-
05). Stranded upontheperceived ruinsofMarxism, however, andwiththeirears
ringing withthecacophony ofbourgeois triumphalism, manyoftoday'sradical
scholars tendtoconstrue nationalism lessas volatilethanasJanus-faced.2 To these
scholars, McClintock suggests (sherefers toHobsbawm),
specifically "nationalisms
aredangerous, not...inthesensethattheyrepresent relations topoliticalpowerand
to thetechnologies ofviolence"but"in thesensethattheyshouldbe opposed"
(104).
This moveamongradicalWestern-based scholarsto disavownationalism
toutcourtreceivesa distinctive stampwithinthecontemporary problematic of
"colonialdiscourse theory." In an important and challenging essaypublished in
1987,BenitaParry drewattention towhatsheidentified asa widespread "disparag-
ingofnationalist discourses ofresistance" amongthetheorists mostactively associ-
atedwiththisproblematic. Writing withexplicit reference totheworkofGayatri
Chakravorty SpivakandHomiBhabha,Parry suggested thatthepractical conse-
quenceofthisdisparaging ofnationalist discourse wastowriteouttheevidenceof
concerted resistance tocolonialism onthepartofthecolonized (35).
I havewritten elsewhere aboutthedebatebetweenSpivakandParry, sug-
gesting thatalthough thereareweaknesses inSpivak'stheorization ofnationalism
andsubaltemity, Parry's reading isitselflimited, tending onoccasiontobereductive
andcareless oftheparticularly enabling insights ofSpivak'sposition.3 As a general
commentary on colonialdiscourse theory, however, Parry's critique strikesmeas
beingindispensable. Foritisclearthata profound hostility toward nationalism is
muchinevidenceintheworkofsuchinfluential colonialdiscourse theoristsas,say,
Bhabha,TrinhT. Minh-ha, andChristopher Miller.Nationalist discourse-both
metropolitan (i.e.,colonial)andanticolonial-emerges variously inthewriting of
theseandothertheorists as coercive, totalizing, elitist,
authoritarian, essentialist,
NeilLazarus I 71
andreactionary. Anticolonial nationalist

discourse is disparaged forprecisely the
samereasons asmetropolitan nationalist
discourse, andforoneadditional andpara-
mount reasonbesides: itisheldtoamount toa replication, a reiteration, oftheterms
ofcolonialdiscourse itself.
To readthediscourse ofanticolonialnationalism inthisway,as correspond-
ingtoa repetition, a doubling, ofcolonialdiscourse,isnotnecessarily toconflate the
two.After all,as Bhabhapointsout,"therepetition ofthe'same'caninfactbe its
owndisplacement, canturntheauthority ofculture intoitsownnon-sense precisely
initsmoment ofenunciation. Fortoimitate istoclingtothedenialoftheego'slimi-
tations; to identify isto assimilateconflictually"("Articulating" 216).Nor,more-
over,is thiskindofreading peculiarto colonialdiscourse theory. WhenSpivak
notesthatMahasweta Devi's"DoulotitheBountiful" is a story that"invites [the
reader] torealizethat...'Empire' and'Nation'areinterchangeable names,however
hardit mightbe...to imagineit" ("Woman"107), forexample,I, at least,am
reminded ofAmaAta Aidoo'sstory "ForWhomThingsDid NotChange"inNo
Sweetness Here(1970) orofAyiKweiArmah's first threenovels-The Beautyful
Ones AreNot YetBorn(1968), Fragments (1970), and WhyAre We So Blest?
(1972)-all ofwhichrehearse muchthesameargument. Similarly, whenSpivak,
withparticular emphasis uponthefiguration ofWomaninanticolonial nationalist
discourse, remarks thatone isobliged, on thestrength of"recent historical exam-
ples,"to"suggest thatevenif,inthecrisis ofthearmedorpeaceful women
struggle,
seemtoemerge as comrades, withthereturn oftheeveryday andintheporesofthe
struggle,theoldcodingsofthegendered body,sometimes slightly altered,seemto
fallintoplace"("Woman"113),I think ofthedevastating episodeinWhy AreWeSo
Blest?inwhichModinandAimee,guests on a communal farm ina newlydecolo-
nizedNorthAfrican state,areinformed bythemanager that:"Yes,wehavehada
revolution. Ourwomenhelpedusa lot.Theycontinue tohelp,asyousee.Revolu-
tionsarenotforturning womenintomen"(243).
Nowhere istheviewthatanticolonial nationalism might bestberepresented
as an ambivalent duplication ofmetropolitan discourse rather thanas an uncom-
promising alternative toitmoresuggestively developed thanintheworkofFrantz
Fanon.In hisessayon "ThePitfalls ofNationalConsciousness" inTheWretched of
theEarth, Fanonproduced an excoriatingcritique ofbourgeois nationalist antico-
lonialism, a discourse aimedatthe(re)attainment ofnationhood through meansof
thecapture andsubsequent "occupation" ofthecolonialstate,andwhichon Fan-
on'sreading represented onlytheinterests oftheeliteindigenous classes.Fanon
characterized bourgeois nationalist
anticolonialism as"literally...good fornothing"
(176). Itsspecific project, he wrote,was"quitesimply... [to]transfer intonative
hands"-thehandsofbourgeois nationalists-"those unfair advantages whicharea
legacyofthecolonialperiod"(152).Thesocialaspirations ofthebourgeois nation-
alistsweregeared toward neocolonialclassconsolidation: thismeantthattheir "his-
toricmission"was to constitute themselves as functionaries, straddling the
international division oflaborbetween metropolitan capitalism andthesubaltern
classesintheperipheries. The "mission" ofthenationalelites,Fanonargued, "has
nothing to do withtransforming thenation;itconsists, prosaically, ofbeingthe
transmission linebetweenthenationanda capitalism, rampant thoughcamou-
flaged,whichtodayputsonthemaskofneo-colonialism" (152).
Now whilesomecontemporary theoristsofcolonialdiscourse attempt to
builduponFanon'srepudiation ofbourgeoisnationalism, Fanon'sownposition typ-
icallyposessevereproblems forthem.The difficulty derives from thefactthatFan-
on'scritique ofbourgeois nationalist
ideology wasitself delivered from analternative
72 1 in African
nationalist standpoint,and seemsitself,hence,deeplyvulnerableto a deconstructive

reading-above all in theeyesoftheorists whosebroadcommitment to poststruc-
turalistintellectualproceduresinclinesthem to a mistrust of what Bhabha has
ratherdismissively called "naivelyliberatory"conceptionsoffreedom("Question"
102). As we shall see, Bhabha himselftendsto "solve"thisproblemby,in Parry's
words,"annex[ing]Fanon to Bhabha'sown theory"(Parry31), maintaining,for
instance,thatFanon'spoliticalvisiondoes "notallowanynationalorcultural'uni-
sonance' in the imaginedcommunityof the future"("Question" 102). In truth,
however,Fanoncommitshimselfto preciselysucha 'unisonant'viewofthedecolo-
nized state in distinguishing categoricallybetween bourgeoisnationalismand
anotherwould-behegemonicformofnationalconsciousness-a liberationist, anti-
imperialist, nationalistinternationalism, representedin the Algerianarenabythe
radical anti-colonialresistancemovement,the Frontde LiberationNationale
(FLN), to whosecauseFanondevotedhimselfactivelybetween1956 and 1961,the
yearofhis death.Of thislatter-"nationalitarian"(the termis Abdel-Malek's)-
formofconsciousness, Fanonwrotethatit"is notnationalism"in thenarrowsense;
on thecontrary, it"is theonlythingthatwillgiveus an international dimension....
[I]t is nationalliberationwhichleads thenationto playitsparton thestageofhis-
tory.It is at the heartof nationalconsciousnessthat international consciousness
livesand grows"(247-48).
Because of thispalpable commitment on Fanon'spartto a would-behege-
monicnationalitariandiscourse,some theorists withinthe generalproblematicof
colonialdiscoursetheoryhave movedtorepudiatehislegacy,chargingthathisideas
areas saturatedwithessentialist, and latentlyauthoritarian
totalizing, tendenciesas
those of his bourgeoisnationalistantagonists.Perhapsthe mostinteresting, and
revealing,oftheserepudiations isthatadvancedbyChristopher Miller,inhisrecent
book,Theories
ofAfricans.
Since Fanonaddressedhimselfinsuchdetailto thequestionofnationalliber-
ation,many"orthodox"Marxistshave envisionedhimas a nationalist-no matter
how progressive-rather thanas a socialistrevolutionary and have movedto criti-
cizehimon thesegrounds.Miller,however,takesFanon'scommitment to theques-
tion of the nationto be indissolubly linkedto a commitment to Marxism;and he
attacksFanon simultaneously forhisnationalitarianism and hisMarxism.Arguing
in generalthat"theMarxistapproachtendstoo muchtowardprojectionofa Euro-
centricparadigmontoAfrica,a continentin reference to whichtermssuchas 'class
struggle'and 'proletariat'need to be rethought" (32), Millerclaimsto findthesame
irreducibleEurocentrism in Fanon's use of the languageof nation and national
liberation:
byplacingthewordat thecenterofhisconcern forevolution,without ques-
tioningthecomplexities ofitsapplication
todifferent
geographicalandcultural
environments, Fanonwindsupimposing hisownideaofnationinplaceswhere
itmayneedreappraising.... Farfrom being"naturalnationalentities"
orcohe-
sivenation-states,themodemnations ofblackAfricamustmakedowithbor-
derscreated tosatisfy
European powerbrokering inthe"scramble forAfrica,"
borders thatoftenviolaterather thanreinforceunitsofculture....
In Fanon's
essayon nationalculture, thereis no analysisofwhata nationmightbe,
whether itisthesameinreferencetoAlgeriaasitisinreference
toGuinea,Sen-
egalor,mostnotoriously, theCongo(nowZaire).The singlemostimportant
factofpolitical inblackAfrica,
existence theartificiality
ofthenational borders
and theconsequent problem ofcultural
andlinguistic receivesno
disunity,
attention (48).
NeilLazarus 1 73
One muststart byconceding thevalidity ofsomeofwhatMillersayshere.Itis

indeedtruethatFanonfailstoquestionthepurchase oftheideaofthenationon
African hearts andminds. Inthisrespect he takesforgranted theunforgoability and
eventheworld-historical "appropriateness" ofwhathasbeenimposed uponAfrica
bythecolonialpowers. He alsoprivileges thenationas notonlythe"obvious" but
also thedecisive unitof anti-imperialist struggle. Certainly, his commitment to
internationalism issuchthathedoesnottheorize theacquisition ofnationhood as
anhistorical terminus: on thecontrary, heinsists that"thebuilding ofa nationisof
necessity accompanied bythediscovery andencouragement ofuniversalizing val-
ues"(Wretched 247). Butthisis onlyto confirm Miller'sgeneralobservation that
Fanon'sthinking follows thecourseofmuchpost-Enlightenment Western thought
insubordinating "history...to History, particular touniversal, localtoglobal"(50).
ItisalsoclearthatFanon'sconceptualization ofthenationisderivative ofthe
discourse ofromantic nationalism intheWest.Inhisessay"Nationalism: Irony and
Commitment," Terry Eagleton hasargued that
[t]hemetaphysics ofnationalism speak oftheentry intofull ofa
self-realization
unitary subject known asthepeople. Aswith allsuchphilosophies ofthesub-
jectfrom Hegeltothepresent, thismonadic subject must somehow curiously
preexist itsownprocess ofmaterialization-must beequipped, evennow, with
certain highly determinate needs anddesires, onthemodel oftheautonomous
human personality.(28)
Itisrelatively simpletodemonstrate theapplicability ofthisformulation toFanon's
nationalitarianism. Fanon'sdiscourse is fullofreferences to theself-realization of
theAlgerian people-as-nation through their struggle against colonialism. Andonat
leastoneoccasion,he movesexplicitly tofigure therelation between individuality
andnationhood inanessentialist language ofparticular anduniversal:
Individual experience, because itisnational andbecause itisa linkinthechain
ofnational existence, ceasestobe individual, limited, andshrunken andis
enabled toopenoutintothetruth ofthenation andoftheworld. Inthesame
waythat during theperiod ofarmed struggle eachfighter heldthefortune ofthe
nation inhishand, soduring theperiod ofnational construction eachcitizen
ought tocontinue inhisreal,everyday activitytoassociate himselfwiththe
whole ofthenation, toincarnate thecontinuous dialecticaltruthofthenation
andtowillthetriumph ofmaninhiscompleteness hereandnow.(Wretched
200)
YetMiller's fundamental argument against Fanonislessthathisdiscourse is
derivative ofEuropeantheory thanthatit is inapposite-notto sayhostile-to
African realities. Pointing to numerous passagesin TheWretched oftheEarthin
whichFanondoesindeedspeakoftheAfrican peasantry in what Miller interpretsas
"massively ethnocentric" terms asbeing"stuck intime, outside ofhistory,plunged...
intherepetition without history ofan immobile existence,"' he claimsthatFanon
"leavesno roomforlocalknowledge": Fanon'snationalitarian historicism commits
himtoviewing "precolonial history asnohistory atall"(50).
Thisreading strikes meas beingdeeplymisconceived. To startwith,Miller
failstoacknowledge numerous passages inTheWretched oftheEarth, andelsewhere,
in which-eventhoughhisfocusfallsfairly unremittingly on colonial culture-
Fanondoesquiteclearly address thespecificity andinterior adequacy ofprecolonial
socialandcultural forms. I havealways beenstruck, forinstance, bythepassagein
"Concerning Violence"in whichFanoncelebrates as profoundly democratic the
74 I Literatures
in African
Research
"traditional" protocolsofpubliccultureinAfrica.Referring to "thesubstanceofvil-

lageassemblies,thecohesionofpeople'scommittees, and theextraordinary fruitful-
nessoflocal meetingsand groupments," he maintainsthat
Self-criticismhasbeenmuchtalkedaboutoflate,butfewpeoplerealizethatit
isanAfrican Whether
institution. inthedjemaas ofnorthern Africaorinthe
meetings ofwesternAfrica,traditiondemands thatthequarrels whichoccurin
a villageshouldbesettledinpublic.Itiscommunal ofcourse,
self-criticism, and
witha noteofhumor, becauseeverybody is relaxed,andbecausein thelast
resort weallwantthesamethings. (47-48)
Similarly, in the essay"On National Culture," thereis a good deal ofinformed and
appreciativediscussionofthestyles,themes,tonalities,and registers ofprecolonial
culture.Statingquiteexplicitlythatthereis"nothingto be ashamedofin the[Afri-
can] past,"Fanon remarksthatone will encounterthereonly"dignity, glory,and
solemnity"(210). He also refersfreelyto the "wonderfulSonghai civilization,"
observing, however,thatno numberofsuchreferences can compensateforor alter
"thefactthattodaythe Songhaisare underfedand illiterate,thrownbetweensky
and waterwithemptyheads and emptyeyes"(209). To suggest,in thefaceofsuch
passagesas these,thatFanonhad nothingbutcontemptforprecolonialAfricancul-
turesor thathe regardedthesocial universethattheyregistered and to whichthey
constituteda responseonly as "a primitivestage to be transcended,or... 'liqui-
dated'" (Miller 49) seemsindefensible. Certainly,such a readingdoes not in my
viewfindmuchwarrantin Fanon'swork.
The fundamental errorcommitted byMiller,I believe,isto misconstrue Fan-
on'srepresentation ofAfricanculturein theeraofcolonialismas a representation of
a history-less,culture-lessprecoloniality. Millerfailsto reckonwithFanon'scon-
structionof colonialismas a total and elementalrupturewithinAfricanhistory.
Alreadyin BlackSkin,WhiteMasks(1952), Fanon had viewedcolonialismin these
terms:
Overnight theNegrohasbeengiventwoframes ofreference withinwhichhe
hashadtoplacehimself. Hismetaphysics, or,lesspretentiously,
hiscustomsand
thesources onwhichtheywerebased,werewipedoutbecausethey wereincon-
flictwitha civilization
thathe didnotknowandthatimposed itself
on him
(110).
We need topayattentionhereto thetimeframeimplicated-"Overnight"--and to
the effectofcolonialismas Fanon sees it-"customs... wipedout."Fanon does not
saythatprecolonialcustomsweresuppressed undercolonialismor thattheywent
into decline. On the contrary, he insiststhattheywereobliterated, and thatthis
obliterationwas instantaneous. Elsewherein BlackSkin,WhiteMasks,he usesthis
conceptionto grounda definition of the experienceof colonization.A colonized
people,he writes,is one "in whosesoul an inferiority complexhas been createdby
thedeath
andburial
ofitslocalcultural added).Again,colo-
(18; emphasis
originality"
nialismisphrasedas utterlydestructiveofprecolonialculture.
In TheWretched oftheEarth-as thepassagecitedabove on thesubjectofthe
reflexivityofpubliccultureattests-Fanon occasionallyseemspreparedto soften
thispositionslightly,
toallowthatinsomeareasand toa limited itismeaningful
degree
to speakofprecolonialculturalformssurvivingintothecolonial era.Yetthesame
generalunderstanding as beforecontinuesto underpinhis analysisofcolonialism.
In "On National Culture,"thus,he arguesthat"[t]hecolonialsituationcalls a halt
to nationalculturein almosteveryfield....A nationalcultureundercolonialdomi-
nation is a contestedculturewhose destructionis soughtin systematic fashion"
NeilLazarus 1 75
(237). Similarly, in "ConcerningViolence,"he speculatesthat"[t]heappearanceof

the settlerhas meantin thetermsofsyncretism thedeathoftheaboriginalsociety,
culturallethargy, and thepetrification ofindividuals"(93).
We comeclose,here,to sensingbothwhyFanonshouldreferto thecultureof
the colonizedin thedisparaging termsthatso offendMiller,and whatis at stakefor
himin doingso. Millerhas it thatFanon holds Africanculturein contempt.The
truthisquitedifferent. Forina significant senseFanondoesnotregardthecultureof
the colonizedin Africaas "Africanculture"at all! On the contrary, the cultureof
the colonizedis forhim a starklycolonial projection,bespeakinga colonial logic
that,fromthestandpointofthecolonizedmassesthemselves, cannotbe redeemed
exceptthroughthedestruction ofcolonialismitself:"The immobility to whichthe
nativeis condemnedcan onlybe called in questionifthenativedecidesto putan
end to thehistoryofcolonization-the historyofpillage-and to bringintoexis-
tencethehistory ofthenation-the history ofdecolonization"(51).
RatherlikeEdwardW. Said'sconceptofthe"oriental"orSpivak'softhe"sub-
altern"-figures withincolonialdiscoursethatareimposeduponand,subsequently,
takenup underduressand "lived"by,colonizedpopulations-Fanon's conceptof
the"native"or the"Negro"is not to be thoughtofas merelydescriptive ofindepen-
dentlyexisting(African)subjects.This isa pointabsolutelyinsisteduponbyFanon:
he notestimeand again thatthe figureof the native is not autochthonous, but is
rathera construct ofcolonialism-in fact,ofthesettler:"The settlerand thenative
areold acquaintances.In fact,thesettlerisrightwhenhe speaksofknowing'them'
verywell.Foritisthesettlerwhohasbroughtthenativeintoexistenceandwhoper-
petuateshisexistence"(36); and,elsewhere:
The settler makeshistory; hislifeisan epoch,an Odyssey. He is theabsolute
beginning: "Thislandwascreated byus";heistheunceasing cause:thecountry
willgobacktothemiddleages."Overagainst himtorpid wastedby
creatures,
obsessed
fevers, byancestralcustoms, form analmostinorganic background for
theinnovating dynamism ofcolonialmercantilism. (51)
In addressinghimselfto "native"culture,therefore, Fanon isnotaddressing himself
to "traditional"Africanculture.On thecontrary, he is addressing himselfto a cul-
turefabricated almostentirely bycolonialism,a culturethatpositionsthenativeas
itsdegradedother:
Thenativeisdeclared insensibletoethics;herepresents notonlytheabsenceof
values,butalsothenegation ofvalues.He is,letusdaretoadmit, theenemy of
values,andin thissensehe is theabsolute evil.He is thecorrosive element,
destroyingallthatcomesnearhim;he isthedeforming element, all
disfiguring
thathastodowithbeauty ormorality; heisthedepository ofmaleficentpowers,
theunconscious andirretrievable
instrument ofblindforces. (41)4
Pace Miller,then,Fanon does not arguethatprecolonial Africancultureis
"plunged...in the repetitionwithout historyofan immobileexistence."This state-
mentrefersto the worldof colonialculture.Nor is precolonialcultureheld to be
"primitive";rather,it isheld to have been destroyed, ifnottotallythenverynearly
so. Forthisreason,Fanon maintainsthatcolonialismcan onlybe combattedon its
"ownterrain," as itwere-that is,on thebasisofnationalitarian struggle.Nations,of
course,like"natives,"area functionofcolonialism, havingbeen imposeduponAfri-
can populationsforreasonshavinglittleto do withtheirown aspirations, and in
accordancewitha social logicfundamentally alien to them.But the materiality of
colonialismmustbe reckonedwith,and cannotsimplybe wishedaway,byitsantag-
onists.As PatrickTaylorhas putit,althoughperhapstoo muchin thevocabularyof
76 I in African
individualagency:"[o]ne has to defineoneselfin termsofone's oppositionto the

colonial system"(60). Colonialismcannot be overturnedexceptthroughantico-
lonial struggle; and, as the historicalrecordhas surelydemonstrated, the colonial
statecannotbe capturedand appropriated exceptas a nationstate.It onlyremains
to be askedwhatkindofnation-state. Hence Fanon'scritiqueofbourgeoisnational-
ism,and his insistencethatthe nationalliberationstruggle has broughtnationali-
tarianconsciousnessintoexistenceas a fundamental practicalreality:
The Algerian people,thatmassofstarving thosemenandwomen
illiterates,
plungedforcenturies in themostappalling obscurityhaveheldoutagainst
tanksandairplanes, against napalmand"psychological butaboveall
services,"
againstcorruption and brainwashing, againsttraitorsand againstthe
"national"armies ofGeneralBellounis. Thispeoplehasheldoutinspiteofhes-
itantorfeebleindividuals, andinspiteofwould-be Thispeoplehas
dictators.
heldoutbecauseforsevenyearsitsstruggle hasopenedupforitvistasthatit
neverdreamed existed.(Wretched 188)
One notessome imprecision on Fanon'spartas to the relationship between
thisdecolonizedworldthatthe Algerianpeople are said to be bringingintoexis-
tenceand theprecolonialsocial order.Fanonspeaksat one pointofthe"tabularasa
whichcharacterizes at theoutsetall decolonization,"addingthat"theproofofsuc-
cess lies in a wholesocial structure beingchangedfromthe bottomup" (35). This
tellsusabouttherelationship betweenthedecolonizedfuture and thecolonial present,
butnotwhethertheformer is to be understoodas amountingin anysenseto a resti-
tutionofprecolonialsociality.The claimthatthe liberationstruggle is openingup
vistasthatthepeople"neverdreamedexisted"suggests not,butthereareotherpas-
sages in The Wretched of theEarth-particularlythose concerningnational cul-
ture-that seem to encouragea different reading.We have alreadyglanced at
Fanon'saffirmative characterization ofsuchtraditionallegislativeforaas thedjem-
aas or thevillageassembly(withrespectto sub-SaharanAfrica,one thinkshereof
institutions like the kgotlain Botswana),which seem to providemodelsforthe
futureto emulate.And consideralso the followingpassage,in whichFanon cele-
bratestheemergenceofnewstorytelling practicesundertheauspicesofthenational
liberationmovementand arguesthat,wherethe colonial orderhad renderedoral
traditions"inert"and reducedprecolonialculturalformsto a stateofpetrification,
thesenew practicesoperatein accordancewith,and offerto redeem,the vibrant
and communitarian culturalpracticesoftheprecolonialera:
the oral tradition-stories,epics, and songsof the people-which formerly
were[sic]filedawayas setpiecesarenow beginningto change.The storytellers
whousedto relateinertepisodesnowbringthemalive and introduceintothem
modifications
whichareincreasingly
fundamental.
Thereisa tendency
tobring
conflicts
uptodateandmodernizethekindsofstruggle
whichthestories
evoke,
withthenamesofheroesandthetypesofweapons.
together The method
of
allusionis moreand morewidelyused.... The contactofthe people withthe
newmovement givesrisetoa newrhythm
oflifeandtoforgotten
muscular ten-
sions,anddevelopstheimagination.
Everytimethestoryteller a fresh
relates
episodetohispublic,he presidesovera realinvocation.The existenceofa new
typeofmanisrevealed tothepublic.The present
isno longer
turned inupon
itself
butspreadoutforalltosee.Thestoryteller
oncemoregivesfreereintohis
(240)5
imagination.
I have been arguingthatFanon'sthinkingaboutcolonialcultureis premised
upona preliminary assumptionas tothedecisivenessofthetransformation wrought
bycolonialism,suchthatscarcelyanythingofprecolonialAfricancultureisseen to
NeilLazarus 1 77
intothecolonialera.SinceMillerfailstorecognize
survive thisinitialassumption,
here,itseems
uponit.Yetit isprecisely
he isobviouslyinno positionto putpressure
tome-and notwithrespect toanysupposed contempt onFanon'sparttoward pre-
colonialAfrican culture-that Fanon'stheorization is legitimately susceptible to
criticism. Fortheplainfactis that,throughout Africa, precolonial cultural and
ideologicalformssurvivedmeaningfully, oftenintact,and in some instances
entirely not
unaffected, onlyinto, but also through, thecolonialera.Indeed,they
continue tosurvive meaningfully today,inthe"postcolonial" present.
Thesignificance ofthispointcannotbeoverestimated. However central the
ideamight betohisanalysis, Fanonissimply incorrect whenhemaintains thatthe
imposition ofcolonialism entails"thedeathoftheaboriginal society, culturalleth-
argy,andthepetrification ofindividuals" (Wretched 93).Reports of"thedeathofthe
aboriginal society" in Fanon,one is tempted to say,aregreatly exaggerated. The
necessary corrective to Fanonis provided byAmilcarCabralin a paperentitled
"NationalLiberation andCulture," initiallydelivered in1970.Inthispaper, Cabral
points out that "[w]ith certain the
exceptions, period of colonization was not long
enough, atleastinAfrica, fortheretobea significant degree ofdestruction ordam-
ageofthemostimportant facets oftheculture andtraditions ofthesubject people"
(60).
Atthetheoretical level,Fanon'serror consists ina confusion ofdominance with
hegemony.6 Fora majority ofthecolonized, aboveall those(mostly peasant)mem-
bersofthesubaltern classeslivingat someremovefromtheadministrative and
increasingly urbancenters ofcolonialpower, colonialism wasexperienced preemi-
nently interms ofdominance, thatis,alongthelinesofmaterial, physical,andeco-
nomic exaction:conquest,taxation,conscription, forcedlabor,eviction,
dispossession, etc.Therewascomparatively littleattempt onthepartofthecolonial
establishment toseekhegemony amongthesesubaltern classes,thatis,towintheir
ideological, moral,cultural, andintellectual support forcolonialism. The explicit
targets of colonialhegemonization werethe nationalor (sometimes) regional
elites.7
One consequence ofthiswasthatalthough thesubaltern classescouldon
occasionbe recruited tothecampaigns ofthecolonialgovernment ortheindige-
nouselites-andalthough theimposition andconsolidation ofcolonialruleobvi-
ouslyhad cumulative and long-term effects on the way in whichsubaltern
populations lived,worked, andthought-inherited subaltern cultural forms (lan-
guage,dance,music, storytelling) wereabletoretainboththeirtraditionality and
theirautonomy frommostforms ofeliteculture(colonialand "national"). The
pointismadethusbyPatrick Taylor:
Thecolonizer's culture andhisorherlanguage, inparticular,isthemedium
through which European values andlife-style
canbepresented asthenorm and
thegood,andinrelation towhich thecolonized begin todefine themselves.
Still,themajority ofthecolonized, unlike thecolonial bourgeoisie,areableto
maintain a certaindistance from these norms byresisting them andrecreating
traditionalculturalpatterns. (60)
Nowitisnotasthough Fanonisaltogether blindtothisdistinction between
theforms ofsubjugation undergone bydifferent classesamongthecolonized. Itcan
certainly be argued thatinBlackSkin,White Masks,at least,he tendstogeneralize
unwarrantedly from theideological experience ofhisownclass-fraction-that of
thecolonizedintelligentsia-to the experience of the colonizedpopulation at
Buteventhere,
large.8 hedoesfinally movetodifferentiate between themotivations
78 1 in African
thatunderlie"thequestfordisalienationbya doctorofmedicinebornin Guade-

loupe"and thatof"theNegrolaborerbuildingtheportfacilitiesin Abidjan" (223).
In theformer case,"alienation"isdescribedas being"ofan almostintellectualchar-
acter";in thelatter,"itisa questionofa victimofa system basedon theexploitation
ofa givenracebyanother,on thecontemptin whicha givenbranchofhumanityis
heldbya formofcivilizationthatpretendsto superiority" (223-24).
Unlike PatrickTaylor,however,I do not findFanon'sconceptionofthedis-
tinctionbetweeneliteand massesconvincing.What isat issue,forme,isnotmerely
whetherFanon recognizes thatwhatis trueofthe colonizedelite is not necessarily
trueofthemajority ofthecolonizedpopulation.Rather,itis a matterofthewaysin
which,on thebasisofthisrecognition, he thenproceedsto thinkaboutthe social
existenceand the formsofconsciousnessof thiscolonizedmajority. And here,it
seemsto me,Fanon'ssuppositionthat-in Taylor'swords-"[i]n the creationofa
colonial world,precoloniallifeand horizonswere totallytransformed and shat-
tered"(47) beginsto loomas a decisiveliability. Forinasmuchas he severelyunder-
estimatestheresilienceand vitalityof"traditional" culturalformsand practicesin
the colonial era,Fanon rendershimselfincapableofunderstanding exactlywhatis
at stakeforthesubalternclassesin theirinvolvementin anticolonialism.
Fanonhas,ingeneral,an insufficient graspofwhatRanajitGuha, in thecon-
textofcolonialIndia,refers to as theautonomous"politicsofthepeople":
parallelto thedomainofelitepoliticsthereexistedthroughout thecolonial
periodanother domain ofIndianpolitics inwhichtheprincipal actors
werenot
thedominant groups oftheindigenous society orthecolonialauthorities but
thesubaltern classesandgroups constitutingthemassofthelabouring popula-
tionandtheintermediate strataintownandcountry-that is,thepeople.This
wasanautonomous domain, foritneither originatedfrom elitepolitics
nordid
itsexistencedependonthelatter. ("Aspects"4)
In thespecificcase ofAlgeria,Fanon'sfailuretocreditthedegreetowhichsubaltern
consciousnessin thecolonialperiodisstillgovernedbyvital"traditional" protocols
causeshimto misreadthemassrecruitment oftheAlgerianpeasantry to theFLN as
testifying to theirembraceoftheFLN'splatform. In TheWretched oftheEarth,thus,
he speaksof the "upwardthrustof the people" and declaresthatthe people have
"decided,in thenameofthewholecontinent,to weighinstrongly againstthecolo-
nial regime";andhe refers to the"coordinatedeffort on thepartoftwohundredand
fiftymillionmen to triumphover stupidity, hunger,and inhumanity at the same
time"(164).
In mybook,Resistance inPostcolonial Literature,I arguethatthistendencyon
Fanon'spartto projecta unityand coordinatedpoliticalwillonto themassesofthe
Algerianpopulationin the late 1950s cannot withstandclose historicalscrutiny.
Foritis impossible,in Fanon'sreading,to accountforthewholesaledemobilization
and disenfranchisement of "the people" in the yearsimmediatelyfollowingthe
acquisitionofindependencein Algeriain 1962,afteran anticolonialwarthathad
lastedforeightyearsand claimeda millionAlgerianlives.Such a developmentcan-
notbe reconciledwithFanon'sevocationofa disciplinedand progressively unified
populationcomingcloserand closerto self-knowledge as the struggleagainstthe
Frenchcolonial forcesintensified. It seemsinconceivablethat,havingbeen deci-
sivelyand world-historically conscientizedduringthe anticolonialstruggle(as
Fanon claimstheyhad been), thispopulationwouldhave permitted itselfto be so
easilyand so quicklyneutralized afterdecolonization.The truth, rather,wouldseem
to be thatas a classtheAlgerianpeasantry wasnevercommittedto thevisionofthe
NeilLazarus 1 79
FLN,evenwhenitwasfighting undertheFLN'sleadership. Thuslan Clegg,onthe

basisofhisresearch intosubaltern politicsandstateformation in Algeriain the
yearsfollowing independence in1962,claimsthat
[t]heinvolvement ofthepopulation ofthetraditional rural areasintheinde-
pendence strugglemust beclearly separated from their passivityinfaceofits
revolutionary aftermath. Thepeasants were fightingfor whatthey regarded as
their inheritance:a heritage firmlyrooted intheArab, Berber, andIslamic past.
Theirconsciousness wasrooted inthevalues andtraditions ofthispast,and
their aimwasitsre-creation. (239)
Nowitshouldbe concededthatas a moreorless"orthodox" Marxist-and
writing,moreover, inthelate1960s-Cleggconstrues thepolitical consciousness of
theAlgerian peasantry during thewarofindependence disparagingly, ascharacter-
isticofpeasantsas a classglobally. He arguesthatwhiletheAlgerianpeasantry
might wellhavecommitted itselftoa chauvinistic struggle fortherestitution ofits
"homeland," itlackedtheideological resources totransform thisstruggle intoa full-
fledgedsocialrevolution: "[r]evolution, as a concept,is aliento thepeasantcon-
sciousness, whilethepeasants' relationship totheenvironment remains oneofpas-
siveendurance rather thanactivetransformation" (239). It wouldnotbe difficult
todaytodemonstrate theinsufficiency ofthissortofstatement. Recentwork bysuch
scholarsasJames Scott,TerenceRanger, Benedict Kerkvliet, andthesocialhistori-
ans associated withtheDelhi-based Subalter Studiesprojecthas servedpretty
thoroughly tofalsifytheideathatpeasants' relationship totheirworld canbechar-
acterized interms ofpassivity.
Despitethis,I findClegg'sanalysis compelling. Itsgreatstrength seemstome
toconsist inthefactthatitisabletoaccountbothfortheAlgerian peasantry's com-
mitment tothestruggle forindependence, ontheonehand,and,ontheother, forits
lackofconcerted militancy infaceoftheanti-socialist policiesoftheyearsimmedi-
atelyfollowing decolonization, when"[n]either thepeasantry northesubproletariat
playedanyotherthana purely negative roleintheevents"(239). Clegg'sobserva-
tion,therefore, thatFanon"lacksa critical anddialectical analysis oftheprocess of
theformation ofconsciousness" (239),rings asplausible andjudicious. ForFanon's
formulations are consistently intellectualist in tone,oftenphrasing subaltern
thought andpractice intheelitist idealistvocabulary ofnegation, abstract totaliza-
tion,andselfactualization.
It is worthnoting, therefore, thatto theextentthatFanon'scontemporary
followers remain faithful tohisownideasinthisrespect, their writing tendsitself to
berevealingly intellectualist. Consider thefollowing twopassages from Patrick Tay-
lor'sTheNarrative ofLiberation, forexample.In thefirst, Taylorisglossing Fanon's
theorization ofdecolonization:
Decolonization, Fanon writes,istheprocess whereby "spectatorscrushed with
their aretransformed
inessentiality" into"privileged actors,with thegrandiose
glare ofhistory's
floodlights uponthem" [Wretched 36].Thecolonized riseabove
theManichaean conception oftheworld asa tragicdrama toassume ahistorical
conception oftheworld asinfinitepossibility.
Theyrecognize human agency
andresponsibility inanopenandunknowable history.Fanon's notion ofthe
entry intohistory must beunderstood, notinManichaean terms,butinterms of
thestepping outofdrama (mythical, tragicunderstanding) andtheassumption
ofhistorical,national, andhuman (70)
responsibility.
In thesecond,Tayloris referring to Fanon'stheory oftheroleofviolencein the
anticolonial struggle:
80 I in African
It isnottheactofviolentstruggle thatisthekeytodecolonization but,rather,

therevolutionary leap,the"willed" entry intohistory,theconsciousness ofthe
categorical imperative. WhatmovestheHegeliandialectic from a situationof
mutually exclusive protagonists tooneofmutual istherecognition
recognition,
oftheotherandtherecognition ofoneself as an active,freely
creative being.
(85)
I citethesepassagesbothbecauseI believethattheyprovidea reliable(if,perhaps,
one-sided)account of Fanon's own conceptionof decolonization,and because I
believethattheirweaknessesas representations ofpopularanticolonialstruggle are
veryclearlymarked.9 Briefly put,theproblememergesfromthefactthattheradical
intellectualpositionssubalternthoughtand actionas theexactsubstantification of
his revolutionary theory.Theory and practice are so closelyaligned that it almost
seemsas thoughthelatterexistsprincipally to confirm theformer. One isreminded
ofthosepassagesin theearlyMarx-the MarxoftheContribution totheCritiqueof
Hegel'sPhilosophy ofRight ( 1844)-that give the impression that the Europeanpro-
letariatwill soon be risingup to smashprivateproperty and the capitalistsystem
because,as an emergentclass,itrepresents thenegation,"theeffective dissolution
ofthisorder"(59). Comprehensively theorizedin thisway,howcouldtheproletar-
iatfailto overthrow capitalism,and,withit,classsocietyas such! SimilarlyFanon
and Taylorareoftentemptedto "overread"anticolonialmilitancy, toconstructitas
theobjectivecorrelative ofa revolutionary philosophy.
That the massesact; thattheyact againstthe colonial order;thattheyact
underthebannerofthenationalliberationmovement-all ofthesethingsare true.
Butthe interpretation ofthesemassactionsas corresponding to "theconsciousness
ofthecategoricalimperative" orto a recognition of"humanagencyand responsibil-
ityin an open and unknowablehistory"seemsappropriativein its externality. I
shouldstressthatI do not doubtthe legitimacy ofFanon'sauthority as thespokes-
personofthe massesin the anticolonialstruggle; at thesametime,however,a cer-
tainunwarranted "speakingfor"-thatis,speaking intheplaceoforinstead of-seems
to be involvedhere.
It is preciselyin this contextthat GayatriChakravortySpivak's warning
about the need to "watchout forthe continuingconstructionof the subaltern"
seemsespeciallytimely("Subaltern"295). One of Spivak'sinsistentcontentions,
afterall, is thatthe "genuinelydisenfranchised" amongthe colonizedare repre-
sentedas subalter notonlyinthetextsofempire,butalso in"thegreatnarratives of
nationalism,internationalism, secularism,and culturalism,"whose unfolding
marksthe trajectory of anticolonialism("Practical"102). In Fanon's world,the
"genuinelydisenfranchised" areplainlythepeasantclasses,ofwhomhe writesthat
they are "systematically disregarded forthemostpartbythepropagandaputoutby
the nationalistparties.And it is clear thatin the colonial countriesthe peasants
alone are revolutionary, fortheyhave nothingto lose and everything to gain"
(Wretched 61 ). Fanon'sownworkdistinguishes itselfsharply fromnationalistpropa-
gandain thisrespect.Buteven in his representations oftheAlgerianpeasantry as a
revolutionary force,thereis no sustainedconsiderationof the waysin whichthe
peasants'viewsfailto matchthoseoftheFLN leadershipor aim at different ends,or
reflect another social logic.
In the lightoftheseconsiderations, it mightbe usefulforus to returnat this
pointto ChristopherMiller'scommentary on Fanon in TheoriesofAfricans and to
saysomethingfurther aboutthedirectionthatMiller'sreadingtakes.ForMiller,as
we have seen,Fanon'sweaknessis seen to consistnot in an underestimation ofthe
NeilLazarus 1 81
persistenceof"traditional" politicalpractices andforms ofthought in thecolonial

era,butin a contempt fortradition. Miller's generalsuggestion is thatthis"con-
tempt"is characteristic of Marxisttheory, whichis heldto "lack...relativism";
operating witha universalizing optic,Marxism, according to Miller, isconstrained
togesture conceptually toward a "totalizing unity," inthenameofwhichittendsto
"overlook or'liquidate' difference, thatwhichitcannotassimilate orsubsume" (64).
Marxism invariably claims "to the
possess only fullyintegrated vision"
political...
(32).
Withrespect toFanon,Milleradvancesthisargument as aggressively andas
tendentiously as possible, even claiming at one point that Fanon's ignorance about
andarrogance toward precolonial African historyisreminiscent ofthatofHegelor
HughTrevor-Roper (50)! Noris thisextreme statement resorted to accidentally.
On thecontrary, having introduced usto a of
conception "ethnicity"-tentatively
defined,following Jean-Loup Amsellandothers, as "a senseofidentity anddiffer-
enceamongpeoples, founded ona fiction ororigin anddescent andsubject toforces
ofpolitics, commerce, and
language, religious culture" (35 )-Miller maintains that
Fanon'simposition ofthecategory of"nation" uponAfrican cultures organized ideo-
around
logically "ethnic" modesofself-understanding hastobeaccounted anactof
epistemic violence, of such colossalproportions thatitinvites comparison withthe
violenceofcolonialdiscourse itself.
"Whatmatters most, whatismostimpressive in
readingFanon,"he writes, "isthesheerpowerofa theoretical truth todictatewho
shallliveandwhoshallbe liquidated" (50-51).Andjustas colonialdiscourse is
undergirded bytherepressive powerofthecolonialstate, sotooMillercastsFanon's
discourse as theofficial ideology ofan empowered regime. Thisseemsimplausible,
sinceFanondiedin1961,withthestruggle forindependence stilltobewoninAlge-
ria.Miller,however, brushes thisfactasidein constructing an imageofFanon's
politicalphilosophy fully compatible withbourgeois nightmares ofRobespierre or
LeninorMao.When,forinstance, Fanoncallsforthe"liquidation ofregionalism
andoftribalism" and,addressing himself tothecollaborative roleplayedbymany
localrulers (thedeliberate wooingofwhombycolonialregimes, in an attempt to
facilitate
thepacification oflocalpopulations, iswelldocumented), suggeststhat
"[t]heir
liquidation is thepreliminary to theunification ofthepeople"(Wretched
94),Millerdrawstheconclusion that"Fanon's response tolocalresistance istocall
outthefiring squad"(Miller50).Thestatement reversesthelogistics ofpowerinthe
colonialcontext. Itwasnotthenational liberation movement butthecolonialstate
thattendedtousefiring squads;anditwasnot"localresistance" buttheofficial sup-
oflocalresistance
pression thatmandated theliberation front's "response."
Millerthengoesevenfurther: inan extraordinarily dehistoricizing analysis,
heattempts toimplicate FanoninSekouToure's execution ofpoet-politician Keita
FodibainGuineain 1969!Rhetorically, hisquestionas towhether "thefactthat
SekouTourewrapped himself in Marxist andFanoniandiscourse ma[kes]Fanon
responsible forthereignofterror inGuinea"isalready answered inbeingasked.But
Milleris careful to affect scrupulousness: he statesthatKeitaFodiba'sexecution
cannotbereadasa "necessary outgrowth ofeither Marxism orFanon'stheories" (62;
emphasis added).However, thisostentatious circumspection issurely compromised
bybeingpositioned between an earlier observation that,whenalive,Fanonoften
citedToureas a "practitioner ofwhat...[Fanon]preache[d]" (52), andthesubse-
quentsuggestion thatFanon's"discourse onliberating violenceinevitably [leads]to
thoughts ontheviolenceofdiscourse" (63).V°Inconstructing SekouToure's Guinea
82 I in African
as a modelofFanonismrealized,Millercompletelyignoresa centralfeatureofFan-
on's analysisof "the pitfallsof national consciousness."In his essayof thistitle,
Fanon had spokenwithremarkable prescienceoftheevolutionofpreciselysuch a
leaderas Sekou Toure,a "man ofthe people" who mighthave had "behindhim a
lifetimeofpoliticalactionand devotedpatriotism," butwhoseobjectivehistorical
functionit wouldbecome in the postcolonialera to "constitutea screenbetween
thepeople and therapaciousbourgeoisie"(Wretched 167-68). No matterhow pro-
gressivethe rolehe playedpriorto independencemighthave been,Fanon argued,
thispopulistleader,positionbetween"thepeople"and theelite,wouldfindhimself
thrust,in thepostcolonialera,intothepositionofpacifierof"thepeople":
Foryears onendafter independence hasbeenwon,wesee[theleader] incapable
ofurging on thepeopletoa concrete task,unablereallytoopenthefuture to
themorofflinging themintothepathofnationalreconstruction; weseehim
reassessingthehistory ofindependence andrecalling thesacredunityofthe
struggleforliberation....
During thestruggle
forliberationtheleaderawakened
thepeopleandpromised thema forwardmarch, heroicandunmitigated. Today,
he useseverymeanstoputthemto sleep,andthreeorfourtimesa yearasks
themtoremember thecolonialperiodandtolookbackon thelongwaythey
havecomesincethen.(168-69).
Farfrombeing"responsible"in anywayforthe directiontakenbySekou Toureas
theleaderofGuinea afterindependence,Fanonhad alreadyforeseenitslikelihood
and triedto warnagainstit. Miller pointsto the contradictionbetweenToure's
"ostensibly socialistideology"and thefactthat"hisGuinea was alwaysdominated
bymultinational corporations," as thoughthistellsin somewayagainstFanon and
Fanonism(60-61). Fanon,however,does not need thislesson;beforeit had even
enteredthepoliticalvocabulary, he had alreadysubjected"Africansocialism"to a
blisteringcritique."
MillerpaintsFanon in the colorsof despotismin orderto suggestthatany
alternativehegemonicdiscourseis predicatedupon a willto powerthatcannot,in
ethicalterms,be distinguished fromthewillto powermaterially exemplified bythe
dominantdiscourseitself.Fanon'snationalitarianism, on thisreading,existsonlyas
a latentrecapitulation ofcolonialism:betweenit and colonialismthereis littleto
choose. A European-derived import, nationalitarianism is withoutorganicrootsin
Africansoil and can be imposeduponAfricaonlybyforce.Because itis a totalizing
discourse,there can be no dialogue between it and the "local" discoursesof
"ethnicity."
In recoilingfromFanonismand nationalism,Millercalls fora new cultural
relativism,"retooledas contemporary criticalanthropology" (66). Appealingto
intellectualstounlearntheirprivilege, toreimagineuniversalizing thoughtas "local
knowledge"(65), he goesto considerablelengthsto disclaimanyprivilegeforintel-
lectuals,above all wheretherepresentation ofsubalternpopulationsis concerned.
Indeed,he joins manyothercontemporary criticaltheoristsin embracinga stand-
pointfromwhichthe veryidea ofspeakingforotherscomesto be viewedas a dis-
creditedaspiration,and secretlyauthoritarian.12 What is at issuehere,it seemsto
me, is a kindof intellectualist anti-intellectualism,a premature post-Foucauldian
disavowalofthe problematicofrepresentation as such. It is one thingto concede,
withSpivak,thatunlessintellectuals "watchoutforthecontinuingconstruction of
the subaltern," theirworkwilltendto be "sustained"bythe "assumptionand con-
structionofa consciousnessorsubject,"and thatthisassumption/construction will
"in thelongrun"assurethattheirwork"cohere[s]withtheworkofimperialist sub-
ject-constitution, minglingepistemicviolencewiththe advancementoflearning
NeilLazarus I 83
and civilization"("Subaltern"295). It isquiteanotherthing,however,to argue-as

TrinhT. Minh-hadoes,forexample-that anyattempttodistinguish in socialterms
betweenintellectuals(or membersofsocial elites),on theone hand,and "thepeo-
ple" or"themasses,"on theother,alreadycontainsan implicitjustification ofclass-
division:
Likeall stereotypicalnotions, thenotionofthemasseshasbothan upgrading
connotation anda degrading one.Oneoften speaksofthemasses asonespeaks
ofthepeople,magnifying therebytheirnumber, theirstrength, theirmission.
One invokesthemandpretends towriteon theirbehalfwhenonewishesto
giveweightto one'sundertaking orto justifyit.... Guilt...is alwayslurking
belowthesurface. Yettoopposethemassestotheeliteisalready toimply that
thoseforming themassesareregarded as an aggregate ofaverage persons con-
demnedbytheirlackofpersonality orbytheirdimindividualities tostaywith
theherd,to be docileandanonymous.... One can no longerletoneselfbe
deceived byconcepts thatopposetheartist ortheintellectual tothemasses and
dealwiththemaswithtwoincompatible entities.(Trinh12-13)
One does notwantto deny,ofcourse,thatself-proclaimedly radicalintellec-
tualismis oftenan exercisein bad faith,and thatexpressions ofsolidarity with"the
masses"shouldtherefore alwaysbe scrutinized carefully. ButinTrinh'sformulation,
thebabyofrepresentation isthrownoutwiththebathwater ofideologicalappropri-
ation or "subalternization." The propositionthat intellectualscannot talk about
"the masses"withoutguiltilyromanticizing and/orimplicitlydisparagingthem
strikesme as beingempirically indefensible. I cannotacceptthatsuchcontempo-
rarywriters as Njabulo Ndebele,NaguibMahfouz,NinotchkaRosca,Ngugiwa Thi-
ong'o, Yashar Kemal, Micere Mugo, PramoedyaAnanta Toer, Michelle Cliff,
Salman Rushdie,Ousmane Sembene,and MahaswetaDevi (and one could name
literally hundredsmore) insiston thedistinctionbetweenthe massesand theelite
in theirworkonlyto sanctifytheirown positions,or to assuageguilt.Nor can I
acceptthatin thewritingofsuchinfluential contemporary culturalcritics,histori-
ans,and politicaltheorists as, say,Aijaz Ahmad,BenedictAnderson,BelindaBoz-
zoli, Hazel Carby,EdwardSaid, E. San Juan,Jr.,MargaretRandall,JeanFranco,
RanajitGuha,TerenceRanger,andJamesScott-all ofwhom,again,regardthedis-
tinctionbetweeneliteand subaltern populationsas indispensable-thereis at work
an implicationthat"themasses"areherd-like, doltish,oranonymous.
What Trinhsaysabout the representation of "the masses"in the totalizing
discourseofintellectuals accordsprecisely withMiller'sviewofFanon'sintellectual
practice.Yet ifwe returnto The Wretched oftheEarth,we findFanon reiterating,
timeand again,thattherelationship between"themasses"and "intellectualswho
are highlyconsciousand armedwithrevolutionary principles"is not to be viewed
fromthestandpointofelitistassumptions aboutleadersand led,seekersand follow-
ers,shepherdsand sheep."To educatethemassespolitically," Fanonwrites,
doesnotmean,cannotmean,making a political
speech. What itmeansistotry,
relentlessly andpassionately,toteachthemassesthateverything dependson
them;thatifwestagnate itistheir andthatifwegoforward
responsibility, itis
dueto themtoo,thatthereis no suchthingas a demiurge, thatthereis no
famous manwhowilltaketheresponsibility foreverything, butthatthedemi-
urgeisthepeoplethemselves andthemagichandsarefinally onlythehandsof
thepeople.Inordertoputallthisintopractice, inorder really toincarnate the
people,werepeatthattheremustbedecentralization intheextreme. (197-98)
It is easyto be cynicalin faceofsuchformulations as these.Millerstatesthat
"[e]veryone giveslipservicetodialectics"(64). Doubtless,thereissomething to this
84 I Research Literatures
in African
complaint.Butnoteverybody who evokesdialecticsis a hypocrite, ormerelygiving

lip service to it.'3 And in a remarkable passage in "The Pitfallsof National Con-
sciousness,"Fanonpointsto theimplications thatfollowfromhis understanding of
therelationbetweenintellectuals and "themasses"as dialectical:
Ifthebuilding ofa bridge doesnotenrich theawareness ofthosewhowork onit,
thenthatbridge oughtnotto be builtandthecitizens can go on swimming
acrosstheriver orgoingbyboat.Thebridge shouldnotbe"parachuted down"
from above;itshouldnotbe imposed bya deusex machinauponthesocial
scene;on thecontrary, itshouldcomefrom themuscles andthebrainsofthe
citizens.
Certainly, theremaywellbe needofengineers andarchitects, some-
timescompletely foreign engineers andarchitects; butthelocalparty leaders
shouldbe always present, so thatthenewtechniques canmaketheirwayinto
thecerebral desert ofthecitizen, so thatthebridge inwholeandinpartcanbe
takenupandconceived, andtheresponsibility foritassumed bythecitizen. In
thisway, andinthiswayonly, everythingispossible.(200-01)
Miller (and Trinh)would,ofcourse,seize on the characterization of the citizens'
intellectinthispassageas a "cerebraldesert."I have triedto demonstrate above that
in deployingsuchlanguage,Fanonwasdescribing colonialcultureratherthan"local
knowledge."Takenas a whole,moreover, thepassageis remarkable foritsrefusal to
sanctionthe idea ofimposingepistemologies or technologiesupon anypeoplewho
have not first"internalized" them,who have not firstmade themtheirown. The
verything that Miller accuses Fanon ofdoing,in fact,turnsout to be theone thing
thatFanon refuses on principleto do! Even ifthecitizens'intellectdoes amountto
a "cerebraldesert,"even ifthecitizensare-fromthepointofviewofthecosmopoli-
tan radicalintellectual-intransigent, narrow-minded, stubborn,wrong,nothing
can proceedwithoutthem.The "fighting" intellectualcan "shakethepeople"ortry
to "turn...himself [sic]intoan awakenerofthepeople"(222-23). Ultimately, how-
ever,"he" "mustrealizethatthetruthsofa nationare in thefirst place itsrealities"
(225). And theserealitiesneithernecessarily follow,norcan theyforcibly be made
to follow,"his"script.
One findstheseFanonianemphasesalso intheworkofAmilcarCabral.In his
essay,"NationalLiberationand Culture,"Cabral spokeoftheneed forrevolution-
aryintellectualsand leadersofthe nationalliberationmovementto live withand
among"themasses"as theliberationstruggle unfolded:
Theleaders oftheliberation movement, drawn generallyfrom the"petite bour-
geoisie"(intellectuals, clerks)ortheurbanworking class(workers,chauffeurs,
salary-earners ingeneral), havingtolivedaybydaywiththevarious peasant
groups in theheartoftheruralpopulations, cometoknowthepeoplebetter.
Theydiscover at thegrassrootstherichness oftheircultural values(philo-
sophic,political, artistic,socialandmoral),acquirea clearer understanding of
theeconomic realitiesofthecountry, oftheproblems, sufferingsandhopesof
thepopular masses. Theleaders notwithout
realize, a certainastonishment, the
richness ofspirit, thecapacity forreasoned discussion andclearexposition of
ideas,thefacility forunderstanding andassimilating concepts on thepartof
population groups whoyesterday wereforgotten, ifnotdespised, andwhowere
considered incompetent bythecolonizer andevenbysomenationals. (54)
Writinga decade afterFanon'sdeath,Cabral'sthoughtis suchthatone wouldnot
have imaginedthathe could possiblybe represented as undervaluing the richness
and sophistication ofprecolonialAfricansociality.Afterall, he refers explicitlyto
the"richnessofthe...culturalvalues"ofthe"ruralpopulations"and notesthat"the
accomplishments oftheAfricangeniusin economic,political,social and cultural
NeilLazarus 1 85
domains,despitetheinhospitablecharacteroftheenvironment, areepic-compa-
rableto themajorhistoricalexamplesofthegreatnessofman"(50). Yetin Theories
ofAfricans, MillercontrivestoreadCabralpreciselyas he readsFanon.He quotesan
observationof Cabral's,to the effectthat althoughthe peasantry--asthe over-
whelmingmajorityofthepopulationofcolonial Cape Verdeand Guinea Bissau-
were indispensableto the armedstruggleagainstPortuguesecolonialismin those
territories,thenationalliberationmovementdid notfinditeasyto mobilizethem:
"we knowfromexperiencewhattroublewe had convincingthepeasantryto fight"
(qtd. inTheories44). Millerthenproceedsto glossthisobservationas follows:
Anyrevolution inAfrica musthavethesupport oftheso-called peasants,who
makeupthevastmajority ofthepopulation, yetthepeasants do notleadbut
mustbe led.... The Marxistleadermuststandin a transcendent relation
between thepeasantandHistory. Thepeasant'sdestinywillberevealed tohim
bytheleader,ina relation literate
ofactiveto"passive," to"illiterate,"
progress
totradition,
knowledge to"ignorance."(44 )
It becomesapparentthatforMiller,Cabral'sfaultis thathe soughtto "convince"
the Guinean peasantryto take up armsagainstPortuguesecolonialism.Initially
encountering amongthepeasantry viewsthatweredissimilar fromhisown,Cabral
ought,itseems,as a good,respectful culturalrelativist,
to have acceptedtheirlegiti-
macyand abandonedforthwith his own aspirationsto struggle fortheoverthrow of
colonial rule!MillerreadsCabral'sword"convince"as meaningto "impose."The
fact,therefore, thatCabralwasso successful inpersuading theGuineanpeasantry to
take up armsagainsttheircolonizersthattheywereable, withina space offifteen
years,to topplethe colonial regime,is interpreted by Milleras revealingonlythe
degreeto whichthePAIGC (PartidoAfricanoda Independenciada Guine e Cabo
Verde) was able to inflicta "new"colonialismupon an alreadycolonizedpeople.It
seemsnotto occurto MillerthattheGuineanpeasantry's struggle againstthePortu-
guesemighthave reflected theirown identification-however belated-with the
PAIGC's cause; nor,indeed,thatthe PAIGC's ideologymightitselfhave been a
barometerof popularaspirations.There is evidentin Miller'sworka spectacular
reluctanceand/orinabilityto come to termswiththe manifoldpoliticalachieve-
mentsofanticolonialnationalism.
In theworkofMillerandseveralothercontemporary theoristsofcolonialdis-
course,anticolonialnationalism(whetherbourgeoisornationalitarian)is castas a
derivativediscourseofthe Europe-oriented colonizedmiddle-classes and is dispar-
aged,as such,foritsexternality and,indeed,alien-ness,to themajority ofthecolo-
nizedpopulation.Now it seemsquite clearto me thatnationalismin the colonial
theateris indeeda derivativediscourse-and unavoidablyso, giventhe objective
circumstances. But whereMillercommitshimselfto an essentialismin presenting
hisdissenting case for"ethnicity,"I believethatitiscrucialto allowforthepossibil-
itythat,in adaptingthereceivedorinheriteddiscourseofnationalismto theendsof
anticolonialism,even bourgeoisnationalistsmighthave had to refunctionit, in
orderto makeitbeartheburdenoftheirparticular politicalneeds.This,ofcourse,is
the argumentadvanced by ParthaChatterjeein his importantstudy,Nationalist
Thought andtheColonialWorld.Concedingthat(bourgeois)anticolonialnational-
ismwas inescapablyderivativeofEuropeannationalistideologies,Chatterjeenev-
erthelessarguesthat,merelybyvirtueofitsspecificity as anticolonialnationalism,it
wasobligedto go beyondthem:
86 I in African
Pittingitself
againsttherealityofcolonialrule...[anticolonial] nationalism suc-
ceedsinproducing a differentdiscourse. Thedifference ismarked, on theter-
rainof political-ideologicaldiscourse, bya politicalcontest,a struggle for
power, whichnationalist thought mustthinkaboutandsetdowninwords. Its
problematic forces todemarcate
itrelentlessly itselffrom thediscourseofcolo-
nialism.Thusnationalist thinking isnecessarily a struggle withan entirebody
ofsystematic Itspoliticsimpelsittoopenupthatframework
knowledge.... of
knowledge whichpresumes todominate it,todisplacethatframework, tosub-
tochallenge
vertitsauthority, itsmorality.
Yetinitsveryconstitution as a discourse ofpower, nationalist
thought
cannotremainonlya negation; it is alsoa positive discourse whichseeksto
replacethestructure ofcolonialpower witha neworder, thatofnational power.
Can nationalistthought produce a discourse oforder whiledaring tonegatethe
veryfoundations ofa system ofknowledge thathasconquered theworld? How
farcan itsucceedin maintaining itsdifference from a discoursethatseeksto
dominate it?
A differentdiscourse,yetonethatisdominated byanother: thatismy
hypothesis aboutnationalistthought. (40,42)
What is trueofbourgeoisnationalismin thisregardisdoublytrueofnationalismas
a massconfiguration. Perhapsthe centralweaknessof the readingofnationalism
proffered by the leadingcontemporary theoristsof colonial discourseis thatit is
incapableofaccountingforthe huge investment of"themasses"ofthe colonized
historically in variouskindsofnationaliststruggle-the"involvement," as Ranajit
Guha has put it, in the contextof India, "ofthe Indian people in vast numbers,
sometimesin hundredsofthousandsor even millions,in nationalistactivitiesand
ideals"("Aspects"3). Manyoftoday'stheorists ofcolonialdiscoursetendto follow
the trajectory of liberalhistoricaland anthropologicalscholarshipin castingall
formsofnationalconsciousnessas impositions upon moreor lessdisunited"ethni-
cally"(or "local knowledge")identified communities. In Guha'swords,however,
What...historicalwritingof thiskind cannot is
do toexplain...nationalism for
us.Foritfailstoacknowledge, farlessinterpret, thecontribution madebythe
peopleontheir own,thatis,independently oftheelitetothemaking anddevel-
opment Inthisparticular
of...nationalism. respect thepoverty ofthishistoriog-
raphy isdemonstrated beyond anydoubtbyitsfailure tounderstand andassess
themassarticulation ofthisnationalism except...in thecurrently...fashionable
terms ofverticalmobilizationbythemanipulation offactions.("Aspects" 3)
Referring to the Indian case, Guha argues that even in those cases in which "the
masses"weremobilizedveryself-consciously and willfully bybourgeoisnationalist
elites,they"managedto breakawayfromtheircontroland put the characteristic
imprint ofpopularpoliticson campaignsinitiatedbytheupperclasses"("Aspects"
6). Especiallyifwe followCabral (or,ironically, Miller),in believingthatcolonial-
ismwas,on the whole,unable to shatterthe strength and integrity of indigenous
culturaland moralframeworks, we shouldbe willingto concede that"thepeople"
could orwouldnot have spokenthe languageofnationalismwithouttransforming
itat leasttosomedegreeintoa discoursecapableofexpressing theirownaspirations.
FollowingChatterjee,I have spokenof nationalismas a "derivative"dis-
course.I do notmeanbythisthatit is an "ambivalent"discourse,at leastnot in the
sensethatthistermhas been deployedrecentlybyHomi Bhabha in his influential
writingson colonial subjectivity. When Bhabha refersto colonial discourseas
"ambivalent,"he meansto describea certainslippageat theheartofthe colonial
episteme.In his essay"SignsTakenforWonders,"thus,he arguesthatthecolonial
NeilLazarus 1 87
modeof authority is agonisticratherthanantagonistic: "thecolonialpresenceis

alwaysambivalent, splitbetweenitsappearance as original andauthoritative, and
itsarticulation asrepetition anddifference" (169).'4ForBhabha,"theeffect ofcolo-
nialpower" istoproduce notsubmission onthepartofthecolonized, nor"thesilent
repression of nativetraditions," buthybridization, or mimicry (173). Colonial
"mimicry" isdefined as
thedesire fora reformed, recognizableOther, asa subjectofa differencethatis
almost thesame, butnotquite. Which istosay, thatthediscourse ofmimicry is
constructed around anambivalence; inorder tobeeffective, mimicry must con-
tinuallyproduce itsslippage,
itsexcess,
itsdifference.("Mimicry" 126)
In theseterms, "hybridity" does not describe the identity ofthe"native"
undercolonialrule,butisrather "a problematicofcolonialrepresentation andindi-
viduation thatreverses theeffects ofthecolonialist disavowal, sothatother'denied'
knowledges enteruponthedominant discourse andestrange thebasisofitsauthor-
ity-itsrulesofrecognition" ("Signs"175).Bhabha'semphasis upontheincoher-
enceofthecolonialepisteme, uponthe"ambivalence at thesourceoftraditional
discoursesonauthority," enableshimtoinsist uponthedestabilizing propensities of
colonialmimicry: he speaksof"a form ofsubversion, founded on thatuncertainty,
thatturns thediscursive conditions ofdominance intothegrounds ofintervention"
(173). Bhabha'swriting thusoperates, as BenitaParry hasputit,torender "visible
thosemoments whencolonialdiscourse already disturbed at itssourcebya dou-
blenessofenunciation, isfurther subverted bytheobjectofitsaddress; whenthe
scenariowritten bycolonialism isgivena performance bythenativethatestranges
andundermines thecolonialist script"(Parry 42).
YetasParry alsonotes,theeffect ofBhabha's distinctive approach tocolonial
discourse"istodisplacethetraditional anti-colonialist representation of antagonis-
ticforceslockedin struggle witha configuration ofdiscursive transactions" (42).
Sheaddsthatsince,forBhabha,"colonialpoweristheorized...as a textual function,
itfollowsthattheproper form ofcombatfora politically engaged critical practiceis
to disclosetheconstruction ofthesignifying system andthereby depriveitofits
mandate torule"(42-43).Bhabha's textualism andhistheoretical idealism prevent
himfromengaging adequately with the vastly differential thrusts, effects,and
modesofdomination/subjection ofcolonialism aspracticed atdifferent times bydif-
ferentpowers indifferent partsoftheworld, orevenwithin singlecoloniessubject
tothevicissitudes of"uneven development."
Theproblem derives, arguably, from thefactthatalthough Bhabhapredicates
histheory ofcolonialdiscourse upontheworkofFanon,he contrives toreadhim
"backto front," as itwere-thatis,from TheWretched oftheEarthto BlackSkin,
White Masks-thereby falsifyingthetestimony ofFanon'sownevolution asa theo-
rist.Bhabha'sessay"Remembering Fanon"wasinitially written as a foreword to a
newBritish editionofBlackSkin,White Masks.The subtitle oftheessay, "Self,Psy-
che,andtheColonialCondition," doesjusticetothesituation (theterm ofcourseis
ofthattext,butnotto theworkofFanonas a whole.Bhabha,however,
Sartre's)
readsBlackSkin,White Masksnotmerely tendentiously butmorespecifically against
Fanon'ssubsequent intellectual production, usingitto disavowFanon'spolitical
commitments andhistheorization of"theAfrican Revolution." The strengths of
BlackSkin,WhiteMasksare seen,thus,to derivefromtherelatedfactsthatit
focusofcultural
"shift[s]...the racism from thepolitics ofnationalism tothepolitics
ofnarcissism" ("Remembering" 146) and thatit "rarely historicizes thecolonial
88 I Literatures
in African
Research
experience.There is no masternarrativeorrealistperspectivethatprovidea back-

groundofsocial and historicalfactsagainstwhichemergetheproblemsofthe indi-
vidualorcollectivepsyche"(136).
Bhabha's"re-membering" of Fanon invertsthe historicaltrajectory of Fan-
on'sthoughtinorderto proposea visionofFanonas preeminently a theoristof"the
colonial condition,"ofthe interpellative effectivity ofcolonial discourse.Fanon's
"searchfora dialecticofdeliverance"emergeson thisreadingas "desperate"and
"doomed" (133). Bhabha concedes the existenceof a revolutionary-redemptive
ethic in Fanon, of course,groundedin an existentialistand dialecticalMarxist
humanism,buthe insiststhattherealvalueofFanon'sworklieselsewhere,in a psy-
choanalyticinterrogation ofthe problematics ofcolonial desire.Fanon'sconstant
utilizationof existentialist,dialectical,and Marxist-humanist categoriesis there-
forecast in thelightofa sequenceofunfortunate lapses,or as a determinate failure
ofvision:
Inhismoreanalytic mode,Fanoncanimpede theexploration ofthe...ambiva-
lent,uncertainquestionsofcolonialdesire. Thestateofemergency from which
hewrites demands moreinsurgent answers,moreimmediate At
identifications.
timesFanonattempts tooclosea correspondence betweenthemise-en-scene of
unconscious fantasyand thephantoms ofracistfearandhatethatstalkthe
colonialscene;he turns toohastily from theambivalences ofidentificationto
theantagonistic ofpoliticalalienation
identities andcultural discrimination;
he istooquicktonametheOther, topersonalizeitspresence inthelanguage of
colonialracism. Theseattempts, inFanon'swords, torestore thedreamto its
proper timeandcultural
political spacecan,attimes, blunttheedgeofFanon's
brilliant ofthecomplexity
illustrations ofpsychic projectionsinthepathologi-
Fanonsometimes
calcolonialrelation.... forgetsthatparanoia neverpreserves
itspositionofpower,forthecompulsive witha persecutory
identification
"They"isalways anevacuation andemptying ofthe"I."(142)
Inasmuchas Bhabhawishestoconstruct a portraitofFanonas a poststructur-
alistavantla lettre,his writingis fullofsuchpassages.The procedurallogicofthese
passagesiscurious.Theirthrustistorepresent Fanon'sideasas accordingfundamen-
tallywith Bhabha's own epistemologicaland methodologicalprinciples.To the
extent that Fanon's explicit formulations seem to rendersuch a construction
implausible,however,theyneed to be reprovedforpreventing Fanon fromsaying
whathe wouldhave said,had he been able-that is,had he had therightwords,or
the timeto reflect, or thecourageto followthroughhis bestinsights.Forexample,
therealstrength ofFanon'sthoughtis saidbyBhabha to consistin his attentionto
"[t]heantidialecticalmovementofthesubalterninstance"("Interrogating" 198); but
since it cannotbe deniedthathis characteristic modeofconceptualizationis pro-
foundlydialectical,Fanon "mustsometimesbe remindedthatthedisavowalofthe
Otheralwaysexacerbatesthe 'edge' ofidentification, revealsthatdangerousplace
where identityand aggressivity are twinned"("Remembering"144). Similarly,
Fanon issaidbyBhabhato "warn...against theintellectualappropriation ofthecul-
tureof the people (whatevertheymaybe) withina representationalist discourse
thatmaybe fixedand reifiedin the annalsofHistory"("DissemiNation"302); but
since ithas to be admittedthatFanon'sdiscourseis typically emphatically nation-
alitarian,and therefore both historicistand representationalist, Bhabha bids us
understand thathis (Fanon's) preeminent claimto ourattentionisnotas a theorist
of decolonizationor revolution,but of the "subversiveslippageof identityand
authority" ("Remembering" 146).i5 And again,Fanon'sthoughtis said byBhabha
to tendtowardtheoreticalantihumanism; but since it has to be admittedthathis
NeilLazarus 1 89
languageis moreor lessunwaveringly humanistic,Bhabha is obligedto proffer the

rationalization that,forvariousreasons,
Fanonisfearful ofhismostradicalinsights: thatthespaceofthebodyandits
identificationisa representational thatthepoliticsofracewillnotbe
reality;
entirelycontained withinthehumanist myth ofManoreconomic necessityor
historicalprogress,foritspsychic effects
question suchforms ofdeterminism;
thatsocialsovereignty andhumansubjectivity areonlyrealizable intheorder
ofOtherness. ("Remembering" 142-43)
Accordingto Bhabha,in short,Fanon's"deep hungerforhumanism,despite[his]
insightintothedarksideofMan, mustbe an overcompensation fortheclosedcon-
sciousnessor 'dual narcissism' to whichhe attributes thedepersonalization ofcolo-
nial man"(143)!
AlthoughI believe,therefore, thatlittlewarrant forBhabha'sreadingofcolo-
nial discourseis providedby Fanon'swork--it is clear amongotherthingsthat
Bhabha'sFanon wouldhave been unrecognizable to Fanon himself-I wouldnot
want to be misunderstood as denyingthe suggestiveness of Bhabha's intellectual
productionoverthe courseofthe pastseveralyears.On the contrary, Bhabhahas
contributed verypositivelyand substantively to the contemporary theorization of
"(post)coloniality"as an ideologicalconfiguration. But itis necessaryto specify the
preciseobjectofBhabha'stheorization withgreatcircumspection. It mightbe sup-
posed,on thegroundsofhisdiscussionofambivalenceand hybridization-"Almost
thesamebutnotwhite," he punsin "OfMimicryand Man": "thedifference between
beingEnglishand beingAnglicized"(130)-that Bhabha'sreal object was colo-
nizedelitism.Bhabha'stheorization ofcolonialdiscourseis,indeed,manifestly perti-
nentto a readingofcolonizedelitism.But I wouldliketo suggestthatthecardinal
figureofBhabha'sworkisthemarginal subjectof(post)colonialism-"marginal" not
(necessarily)in the sense of being powerlessor "genuinelydisenfranchised"
(Spivak'sphrase),butin thesenseofexistingat themargins, thatis,"subjectto"but
not"thesubjectof' dominantdiscourse.
The particular burdenofBhabha'sworkistodemonstrate thatinthecontem-
poraryworld-system, social identities-"strategies ofidentification and...processes
of affiliation"("Question" 90)-are not only alwayscompoundand overdeter-
mined,theyarealso unstableat theirorigins,and incapableofbeingstabilized.On
thisreading,the problematics ofexile,migrationand diasporaemergeas paradig-
matic.Bhabha'scharacteristic concept-figures are the mohajirs, "emigrants" from
thecountriesoftheirbirthand "newcomers" in othercountries(as SalmanRushdie
putsitin Shame[89-90]), multiply-rooted subjectsdwellingfullyneitherwithinthe
"FirstWorld"norwithinthe"Third,"butrangedacrossthem,so to speak,athwart
theinternational divisionoflabor.The spaceofsuchsubjectivity islabeled"postco-
lonial"byBhabha:
Thepostcolonial spaceisnow"supplementary" tothemetropolitan centre;it
standsina subaltern,adjunct relationthatdoesn't aggrandise thepresence ofthe
westbutredraws itsfrontiersin themenacing, agonisticboundary ofcultural
difference thatneverquiteaddsup,alwayslessthanonenationanddouble.
("DissemiNation" 318)
As thisformulation makesclear,Bhabhatendsto use theconceptof"postco-
" as he has definedit,againstnationalism.He writesthat
loniality,
thepostcolonial perspective...attemptstorevisethosenationalist or"nativist"
pedagogies thatsetuptherelation ofThirdandFirst Worldina binary structure
ofopposition.Thepostcolonial resists
perspective attempts toprovide a holis-
ticsocialexplanation, forcing a recognitionofthemorecomplex cultural and
90 I in African
politicalboundaries thatexiston thecuspoftheseoftenopposedpolitical

spheres.("Freedom" 47-48)
In "DissemiNation,"Bhabha praisesEricHobsbawmforwriting "thehistoryofthe
modem westernnation fromthe perspectiveof the nation's marginand the
migrants' exile" (291). His generalcontentionis thattheproblematicofnational-
ismis exploded, renderedbothanachronisticand incoherent, bythequestionsthat
stemfromanyconsideration ofthesituationofthemarginalsubjectsofcontempo-
rary"postcoloniality." It isnotonlythat"colonials,postcolonials,migrants, minori-
ties" are "wanderingpeoples who will not be containedwithinthe Heim of the
nationalcultureand itsunisonantdiscourse, butarethemselvesthemarksofa shift-
ingboundarythatalienatesthefrontiers ofthe modemnation"("DissemiNation"
315). The "atonality"ofthediscourseof"postcoloniality" is in additionpositively
disruptiveof"thepowerful oratoryoftheunisonant"("Question"96). "Postcoloni-
ality"-the standpointofthe migrant-is in thesetermsitselfextremely powerful:
Bhabhaspeaks,thus,ofa "strange, empowering knowledge...that isat once schizoid
andsubversive" andwhichemergesas a functionoftheconditionofexile,migrancy,
diaspora("DissemiNation"319).
In his 1991 essay"A QuestionofSurvival,"Bhabhadevotesa gooddeal ofhis
timeto reflecting on the significance ofEdwardSaid's book AftertheLastSky.On
the basisof Said's poignantand deeplycontemplativereading,Bhabha drawsthe
followingconclusions,not onlyaboutPalestinianidentity butaboutthe"impossi-
bility"ofnationalistdiscourseingeneral:
Theopaquesilenceoftheatonaloverwritten spaceofthePalestinian-Aban-
donthemetanarrative!-petrifies thepresent, barring accesstoany...reflec-
tive,representationalistdistanceofknowledge, ortimeofreturn. Thequestions
oftheOther, "WhatdoyouPalestinians want?", cannotsimply beanswered in
theimages ofidentity orthenarrativeofhistoricism,becausetheyarealsoasked
inthelanguage ofDesire:He issaying this
tomebutwhat doeshewant? Andthat
question cannotbereplied todirectlybecauseitleadsuspasttheplaceofmean-
ingortruth andleadsusto theenunciative level,to themoment thatdeter-
minesuniqueandlimited existenceoftheutterance-the broken, fragmentary
composition ofthePalestinian: theatonalvoid....Thesilenceorvoiddanger-
ouslydecomposes thenarrative ofthenational culture.(97)
Two pointsneed to be made about thisformulation. First,it is important to draw
attentiontothetendentiousness ofBhabha'sreadingofSaid. As earlierwithrespect
toFanon,heretoohe seemssimplyto appropriate Said, to assimilatehimtohisown
theoreticalinterests and preoccupations. In a recentessayon "Yeatsand Decoloni-
zation,"Said distinguishes betweenthe"insufficient" momentof"nationalistanti-
imperialism" and "liberationist anti-imperialist resistance"(76). Like Fanon and
Guha, Said emergesin his work-even in an introspective textlikeAftertheLast
Sky--as well as in his politicalpracticeas an open advocate of the projectof
nationalliberation;thiscommitshimto a nationalitarian politics-that is,to a dis-
courseofrepresentation predicatedupon the assumptionthatit is indeedpossible
fora movementor alliance or partyto "speakforthe nation."This longstanding
commitmenton Said's partis not only ignored,but actuallytransmuted into its
opposite,in Bhabha'scommentary. The injunctionto "[a]bandonthe metanarra-
tive,"forinstance,findsno sanctionin Said's thought.
Second,and moreimportant, itseemstomethatBhabha'sclaimsbothforthe
representativeness and forthe "disruptive" effectivity of the kind of subjectivity
allegedlyembodiedin "the Palestinian"are considerablyoverstated.On the one
NeilLazarus 1 91
hand,thePalestiniansituationis sociallyand historically suigeneris,and cannotbe

takenas a generativemodel.On theotherhand,evenif,inthecontemporary world-
system,the subjectswhomBhabha addressesunderthe labelsof exile, migration,
and diaspora,are vastlymorenumerousthan at any timepreviously, theycannot
reasonablybe saidtobe paradigmatic orconstitutive of"postcoloniality" as such.By
thesametoken,even ifthecategoryofthemigrant ordiasporicsubjectsignificantly
complicates anyeasyespousalofnationalismin termsofbelongingorterritoriality, it
is scarcelysufficient to underminethecredibility ofthosecontemporary anti-impe-
rialistdiscourses-in SouthAfrica,in Palestine,in El Salvador,forinstance-that
presentthemselvesas nationalist.
Bhabha contendsthatto open the questionofthe nationunderthe signof
"postcoloniality" is to push oneself"not merelyto the edge of the discourseof a
nationalculture,butto thelimitsofa metaphorofthemodernity ofWesternMan at
the point at which he encountersthe Other" ("Question" 96). Let me, in
attempting to rebutthisposition,turnagainto Cabral'sessayon "NationalLibera-
tion and Culture."Earlier,I cited a passagein whichCabral commentedon the
"realizations" and "discoveries"(about themselvesand about"thepeople") thatthe
leadersof the liberationmovementmake in theirinteractionwith"the various
peasantgroupsintheheartoftheruralpopulations."ButCabralfocuses,too,on the
transformations wrought on theconsciousnessof"thepeople":
On theirside,theworking massesand,inparticular, thepeasants whoareusu-
andneverhavemovedbeyondtheboundaries
allyilliterate oftheirvillageor
region,in contactwithothergroupslosethecomplexes whichconstrained
themin theirrelationships withotherethnicandsocialgroups. Theyrealize
theircrucialroleinthestruggle;theybreakthebondsofthevillageuniverse to
integrate intothecountry
progressively andtheworld; theyacquirean infinite
amount ofnewknowledge, usefulfortheirimmediate andfutureactivitywithin
theframework ofthestruggle,andtheystrengthen theirpolitical
awarenessby
assimilatingtheprinciplesofnationalandsocialrevolution postulatedbythe
struggle.Theythereby becomemoreabletoplaythedecisive roleofproviding
theprincipal forcebehindtheliberation movement. (54)
I amparticularly interested,here,intheideaofa movementfrom"localknowledge"
to knowledgeof"the principlesof nationaland social revolution."ForCabral, of
course,thisis thedesiredconsequenceofthearticulationofrevolutionary intellec-
tualsand "thepeople." It reveals,therefore, not onlyexactlywhat it is thatsuch
intellectuals(can) bringto the struggleagainst imperialism, but also why the
momentof nationalism(and, behind and beyondit,of internationalism) should
emergeas decisiveto thisstruggle.
Readerswillno doubtrecallthatFredricJamesonopenshiscontroversial arti-
cle on "Third-World Literaturein the Era ofMultinationalCapitalism"bycasting
himself,oddly,as an eavesdropperon "recentconversationsamong third-world
intellectuals" (65). The empiricalweaknessesandquestionableconceptualassump-
tionsofJameson's articlehave been verywidelydiscussed:and I amsurethattheydo
notneed rehearsing here.16What Jameson"overhears," ofcourse,is that"a certain
nationalismis fundamental in the thirdworld";and this"mak[es]it legitimate"in
hisview,"to askwhetherit [nationalism] is all thatbad in theend" (65). One would
have wanteda much morepreciseformulation, obviously;yetthe "information"
thatJamesonrelaysto us remainsvaluable,nevertheless. Foritseemsto me that"a
certainnationalism"isfundamental in the"ThirdWorld."It isfundamental, argua-
bly,because it is onlyon theterrainofthenationthatan articulationbetweencos-
mopolitanintellectualismand popularconsciousnesscan be forged;and thisis
92 I in African
important, in turn,because in the era ofmultinational capitalismit is onlyon the

basis ofsuch a universalistic articulation-thatis, on the basisofnationalitarian
struggle-thatimperialism can be overthrown.
In his essayon "Yeatsand Decolonization,"EdwardSaid helpsus to theorize
thisdistinctiveconnectionbetweennationalism(as a derivativebutdifferent dis-
course) and the specificities of intellectualism in the contextof imperialism. He
writesthat
[i]thas beenthesubstantial achievement ofall oftheintellectuals, and of
courseofthemovements theyworked with,bytheir historical and
interpretive,
analytic effortstohaveidentified theculture ofresistance as a cultural
enter-
prisepossessing a longtraditionofintegrityandpowerinitsownright, onenot
simply graspedas a belatedreactiveresponse toWestern imperialism. ("Yeats"
73)
The significance ofthispassage,arguably, isthatitenablesusto envisiontheaccom-
plishmentsnot onlyofanticolonialnationalism butalso ofradicalintellectualism as
irreducible. ForSaid, itseems,whatintellectuals havebeenable tocontribute to the
anti-imperialist struggle-theopeningup ofhorizons,thecrystallizing ofmemories
and experiencesas legitimateaspects of a culturalheritage,the globalizingof
resources, etc.-could nothave been providedbyanyotherformoflabor-power, by
anyothersocialpractice,inanyotherarena.Elsewhere,Said has commentedon the
immensesignificance oftherolethatliterature, as one specificmediumofintellec-
tualproduction, has been able to playin advancingthecauseofanti-imperialism in
thepost-1945era:
inthedecades-long struggletoachievedecolonisation andindependence from
European control, hasplayeda crucialroleinthere-establishment
literature of
a nationalcultural heritage,inthereinstatement ofnativeidioms, in there-
imagining andre-figuringoflocalhistories,geographies,communities. Assuch,
then,literature notonlymobilised activeresistance toincursions fromtheout-
side,butalsocontributed massively astheshaper,creator, agentofillumination
within therealmofthecolonised. ("Figures" 1-2)
Obviously,some writers, some intellectuals,could have "contributed mas-
sively"to thedecolonizingeffort on thebasisoftheirworkas tradeunionistsorparty
officialsorcoordinators ofarmedstruggle. (One thinksforexampleofsuchfigures as
Sergio Ramirezor Ghassan Kanafanior JoseLuandino Vieira.) But Said's point
seemsto be thatintellectuals have contributed mostdecisivelytodecolonizationon
thebasisoftheirspecificlaboras intellectuals: bywriting, thinking, speaking,etc.17
It is in these termsalone that theyhave been able to constitutethemselvesas
"agent[s]of illuminationwithinthe realmof the colonised."Nothing,therefore,
couldhave replacedthiskindofpractice,whoseeffects have been bothuniqueand,
perhaps,indispensable.
It is inthisconnectionthatI wouldlike,inclosing,tourgetheorists of(post)-
colonialityto thinkagain about thepotentialities ofbothnationalismand radical
intellectualism. Of courseI have in mindLenin'sasseverationthat"[w]ithout revo-
lutionary theorytherecan be no revolutionary movement," an idea,as he putit,that
"cannotbe insistedupon too strongly at a timewhenthefashionablepreachingof
opportunism goeshand inhandwithan infatuation forthenarrowest forms ofprac-
ticalactivity"(25). Butitalso seemsto me thatin thecontextofthecontemporary
capitalistworldsystem, theneed to constructa "countemarrative...of liberation"is
especiallypressing(Gates 458). Such a counternarrative wouldnecessarily be deriv-
ativeofthenarratives ofbourgeoishumanismand metropolitan nationalism,with
NeilLazarus 1 93
theirresonantbutunfoundedclaimsto universality. But itwouldnot need to con-

cede the terrainofuniversality to theseEurocentricprojections.On the contrary,
wherepostmodernist theoryhas reactedto the perceivedindefensibility ofbour-
geoishumanismand ofcolonialnationalismbyabandoningtheveryideaoftotality,
a genuinely
postcolonialstrategy mightbe to moveexplicitly, as Fanonalreadydidin
concludingThe Wretched oftheEarth,to proclaima "new"humanism,predicated
upona formalrepudiationofthedegradedEuropeanform, and bore embryonically
in thenationalliberationmovement:
LeavethisEuropewheretheyareneverdonetalking ofMan,yetmurder men
everywhere theyfindthem, atthecomerofevery oneoftheir inall
ownstreets,
thecorners oftheglobe....WhenI search
forManinthetechnique of
andstyle
Europe, I seeonlya successionofnegationsofman,andan avalancheofmur-
ders....ForEurope,forourselves, andforhumanity, comrades, wemustturn
overa newleaf,wemustwork outnewconcepts,andtry tosetafoota newman.
(311-12,316)
Fromthisproleptically "postcolonial"standpoint,it is vitalto retainthecategories
of"nation"and "universality." Hence, arguably,thespecificroleofanti-imperialist
intellectualismtoday: to constructa standpoint-nationalitarian,liberationist,
internationalist-from whichit ispossibleto assumetheburdenofspeakingforall
humanity.
NOTES
'Earlier versions ofthispaperwerepresented ata symposium on"ColonialDiscourse/
Post-colonial Theory" attheUniversity ofEssexinJuly 1991andata conference on"Emer-
gentLiteratures" attheUniversity ofMinnesota inApril1992.I wouldliketothank theparti-
cipantsin thesemeetings fortheirhelpfulcomments and criticisms.The paperthatI
presented at theEssexsymposium isdueto appearinprintsoon,underthetitle"National
Consciousness andtheSpecificity of(Post)Colonial Intellectualism."
2Thereference hereis to therepresentation ofnationalist ideology inNairn.Homi
Bhabhafurther develops Nair's thesis oftheJanus-face ofnationalism inhisessay, "Dissemi-
Nation,"wherehe arguesthat"thepoliticalunityofthenationconsists in a continualdis-
placementof its irredeemably pluralmodernspace,boundedbydifferent, evenhostile
nations, intoa signifying spacethatisarchaicandmythical, paradoxically representingthe
nation's modemterritoriality, inthepatriotic, atavistic
temporality ofTraditionalism. Quite
simply, thedifference ofspacereturns as theSamenessoftime,intoTradition, turning the
PeopleintoOne."
3See Lazarus"NationalConsciousness." For further commentary on the debate
between SpivakandParry, seeSharpe.
4Seealsotherevealing passageinwhichFanonbegins byspeaking of"thetownbelong-
ingtothecolonized people," butthenrevises himself:
"...oratleastthenativetown, theNegro
village,themedina, thereservation." The latter,
hewrites, is"a placeofillfame, peopledby
menofevilrepute.... Thenativetownisa hungry town, starvedofbread, ofmeat,ofshoes,of
coal,oflight. Thenativetownisa crouching a townonitsknees,a townwallowing
village, in
themire.Itisa townofniggers anddirty Arabs"(39).
5Seealso243-44:"Thenativerebuilds hisperceptions becausehe renews thepurpose
anddynamism ofdancing andmusic, andofliteratureandtheoraltradition. Hisworld comes
toloseitsaccursed character" (emphasis added).
6Thedistinction between dominance andhegemony was,ofcourse, first
elaborated by
Antonio Gramsci. Here,however, I amdrawing moreonthereconstruction ofGramsci's basic
concepts intherecent workofRanajit Guha.
7Inhisinfluential article"The Economy ofManicheanAllegory: The Function of
RacialDifference inColonialist Literature," AbdulJanMohamed offersa verystrange reading
oftherelationship between dominance andhegemony inthecontext ofimperialism. WhereI
94 I Researchin AfricanLiteratures
havefollowed RanajitGuhainarticulating theseconcepts aroundtheaxisofclass,JanMo-

hamedsuggests thattheyrefer rather todifferent historical
periods. "Dominance" isdefined by
himina moreorlessorthodox fashion, in terms ofthe"exercise [of]directandcontinuous
bureaucratic control andmilitary coercion ofthenatives" (80). However, asa modeofsubju-
gation, dominance ishistorically delimited: the"dominant phase...spans theperiodfrom the
earliestEuropean conquest tothemoment atwhicha colonyisgranted 'independence' "(80).
Withinthisperiod, "theindigenous peoplesaresubjugated bycolonialist material practices
(population transfers, andsoforth), theefficacy ofwhichfinally depends onthetechnological
superiorityofEuropean military forces" (81). This"dominant phase"isthentobesetagainst
the"hegemonic phase,"marked bythemoment ofindependence, within which"thenatives
accepta version ofthecolonizers' entire system ofvalues, attitudes, morality, institutions, and,
moreimportant, modeofproduction. Thisstageofimperialism doesrelyon theactiveand
direct'consent' ofthedominated, though, ofcourse, thethreat ofmilitary coercion isalways
inthebackground" (81). I do notfindthisconceptualization convincing, notleastbecauseit
clearlyhastheeffect ofminimizing, ifnotofdenying, thesignificance ofclassdivisions among
thecolonizedinboththe"dominant" andthe"hegemonic" phases.(In hisbookManichean
Aesthetics,JanMohamed hadearlier proposed that"inthecolonialsituation thefunction of
classisreplaced byrace"[5]-a reductive reading thatworks similarly todenythepertinence
ofhierarchical divisions within colonizedsocieties.)Whilethemoment ofindependence
might betakentomarktheacceptance bytheindigenous elite
of"thecolonizers' entire system
ofvalues," forexample (although toclaimeventhisseemstometoclaimtoomuch),itissurely
implausible toarguethatthelivesandcultural forms ofthesubalterpopulations ofAfricain
thepost-independence periodbetoken a conversion tobourgeois ideology. Nor,itseemsto
me,canitbeplausibly maintained thatthesesubaltern populations have"accepted" thecolo-
nizers'"modeofproduction," evenwhencashcropfarming, wagelabor,landrent,etc.have
beenimposed uponthem.
8InhisbookTheNarrative ofLiberation, Patrick Taylorattempts to defendFanon
against thischarge. He concedesthatinBlackSkin,White Masks,"itisthecolonized interme-
diaryandeliteclassesingeneral whosestory istold"(44). Butheargues thatthetextislessan
analysis ofcolonialism as suchthanan impressionistic andsemi-autobiographical working-
through oftheproblematic of"racialalienation" inanattempt to"overcome" it.Thevalueof
thetext,forTaylor, thenderives from thefactthat"itisnotconcerned withoneman'salien-
ation;itisaddressed tothealienated blackpersonintheCaribbean, andparticularly tothe
dependent blackbourgeoisie.... Thebookisa mirror inwhichtheycanreconstruct their own
stories,according totheirownparticular situation" (44).
9Taylor readsFanon'sthought verymuchin thelightofan existentialist Marxist-
humanism. Thushe constructs theFanoniandistinction between bourgeois nationalist and
nationalitarian ideologies in terms ofa distinction between "thehumanistic nationalcon-
sciousness brought aboutbytherevolutionary movement" and"thedegenerate consciousness
ofa dependent bourgeoisie" (Narrative 10);heargues that"[u]ndemeath therolesintowhich
theyareforced, thecolonized preserve a humanidentity andtemporal beingthrough therec-
ollectionofthepastinterms ofa visionofthefuture" (49); andhe proposes that"thetask"
confronting radicalintellectuals is"totellthestory ofhumanfreedom totalizing itssituation
insucha waythatfreedom iscommunicated andtheoppressive situation transformed" (19).
Intellectually, I do notfindthesetheorizations particularlycompelling. YetI believethatthe
representation theyoffer ofFanon'sownproblematic isconsiderably moreaccurate thanthat
proffered bysuchtheorists asHomiBhabhaorRobert Young, whowouldclaimFanonfora dis-
tinctly contemporary poststructuralism. In hisbookWhite Mythologies, forexample, Young
attempts todistinguish between "theMarxist-humanist attempt, byLukacs,Sartre, andoth-
ers,tofound 'a newhumanism' whichwouldsubstitute, fortheEnlightenment's conception of
man'sunchanging nature, 'a newhistorical humanism' thatwouldsee manas a product of
himself andofhisownactivity in history" (121), andFanon'sownposition, whichYoung
characterizes as "newhumanism"' (125).Youngmaintains thatFanon(andother"non-Euro-
peanwriters" suchasAimeCesaire)wereascritical ofthehistorical humanism ofLukacsand
Sartre astheywereofEnlightenment humanism; andheclaimsFanon'sstandpoint asa theo-
reticalantihumanism, onerootedin"therealization ofhumanism's involvement inthehistory
NeilLazarus 1 95
ofcolonialism,whichshowsthatthetwoarenotso easilyseparable"(122). Certainly, thereis

a critiqueofcertainaspectsofSartre'sphilosophyin Fanon'swork;butI do notacceptthatthe
substanceofSartre'shumanism isevertheobjectofthesecritiques.In short,I amnotpersuaded
thatFanon'shumanismdistinguishes itselffromthatofSartre.In myreading,Fanon never
placesa "new'newhumanism'" on theagenda.On thecontrary, thenewhumanismofwhich
he speaksinconcludingTheWretched oftheEarth-"ForEurope,forourselves,and forhuman-
ity,comrades,we mustturnovera new leaf,we mustworkout new concepts,and tryto set
afoota newman"(316)--strikesme as beingmanifestly Sartrian,and therefore justas Taylor
represents it.(I shallreturnto Fanon'sformulation in thefinalpagesofthispaper.)
"lThereisa superficial overlapherebetweenMiller'spositionand thatadvancedbythe
Moroccan writerand criticAbdelkebirKhatibi,in his important article"Double Criticism:
The DecolonizationofArab Sociology."(Millerdoes notcite Khatibiin TheoriesofAfricans
and appearsto be unfamiliar withhiswork.)In "Double Criticism," Khatibiarguesthatto the
extentthatMarxismisa universalistic "Westernsystemofthought,"it isproneto a reductive
andotherizing construction ofnon-Western societieseven thoughit"presentsitselfas,claims
tobe,and isapplied-in one wayoranother-againstimperialism" (12). In theseterms, Khat-
ibinotes,itbecomespossibleto "readMarxin thefollowingmanner:themurderofthe tradi-
tion(s) oftheotherand theliquidationofitspastarenecessaryso thattheWest,whileseizing
theworld,can expandbeyonditslimitswhileremainingunchangedin theend" (12). Unlike
Miller,however,Khatibidoes not finallyaccept thisreading-"which wouldreduceMarx's
thoughtto a murderous ethnocentrism" (13)-as legitimate.It fallsfoulbothoftheprogres-
sive thrustofMarx'sown ideasand ofthehistoricaleffects ofMarxismas an institutionalized
politics:"Who can denythat[Marx]wasagainstcolonialismand imperialism, thathisthought
has helped and continuesto help the Third Worldin overthrowing imperialism and local
powers?"(13). Ultimatelythe approachthatKhatibiadvocates is "neitherMarxistin the
strictsensenoranti-Marxist in thenarrowsenseoftheterm,butdoesrecognizethelimitsofits
potential.Forwe wantto uprootWesternknowledgefromitscentralplace withinourselves,
to decenterourselveswithrespectto thiscenter,to thisoriginclaimedby the West.This
shouldbe done byoperatingin thesphereofa pluralandplanetary'thoughtofdifference' that
struggles againstitsownreductionand domestication"(13).
l Fora critiqueofAfricansocialismexplicitlyanimatedbyFanon'sreading,see Armah
"AfricanSocialism."
"'Cf. Linda Alcoff'srecentobservation,withparticularreferenceto contemporary
feministtheory,that"[a]s a typeofdiscursivepractice,speakingforothershas come under
increasingcriticism,and in some communitiesit is beingrejected.There is a strong,albeit
contested,currentwithinfeminismwhichholds thatspeakingforothersis arrogant,vain,
unethical,and politicallyillegitimate" (6).
'3Cf.Parry, who notesthat"[a]ta timewhenthinkingisnottherageamongstcolonial
discoursetheorists, itis instructiveto recallhowFanon'sdialogicalinterrogation ofEuropean
powerand nativeinsurrection reconstructs a processofculturalresistanceandculturaldisrup-
tion,participatesin a textthatcan answercolonialismback,and anticipatesanothercondi-
tionbeyondimperialism" ("Problems"44).
'4Bhabhaaddsthat"[i]tisthisambivalencethatmakestheboundariesofcolonial'posi-
tionality'-the divisionofself/other-andthe questionofcolonial power-the differentia-
tion ofcolonizer/colonized-different fromboth the Hegelian master/slave dialecticor the
phenomenologicalprojectionofOtherness"(169).
'5"Nowhere"Bhabhawrites,"isthisslippagemorevisiblethanin [Fanon's]workitself,
wherea rangeoftextsand traditions-from theclassicalrepertoireto thequotidian,conversa-
tionalcultureofracism-vie to utterthatlastwordthatremainsunspoken.Nowhereis this
slippagemoresignificantly experiencedthanin theimpossibility ofinferring fromthetextsof
Fanon a pacificimageof'society'orthe'state'as a homogeneousphilosophicalorrepresenta-
tional unity.The 'social' is alwaysan unresolvedensembleof antagonisticinterlocutions
betweenpositionsofpowerand poverty, knowledgeand oppression,historyand fantasy, sur-
veillanceand subversion.It is forthisreason-above all else-that we shouldturnto Fanon
("Remembering" 146-47).
96 I in African
'6AijazAhmad's"Jameson's Rhetoricof Otherness and the 'NationalAllegory',"

amongthe first critiques ofJameson's articleto be published, is stillarguablythe most
thorough.
l7ThetitleofoneofE.SanJuan, Jr.'s
essayscaptures "TheRespon-
thispointbrilliantly:
toBeauty:
sibility Toward anAesthetics ofNationalLiberation." Inthisessay, SanJuanoffers
a suggestiveanalysisofRoqueDalton'sextraordinary essay,"Poetry andMilitancy in Latin
America." Quotingdirectly from Dalton'sessay,
SanJuanwrites as follows: "Retrospectively
noting the'painfulscars'leftbyhisJesuiteducation, hisirresponsible nurtured
lifestyle inthe
'wombofthemeanspirited Salvadoran Dalton'scareerexemplifies
bourgeoisie,' thepredica-
mentoftheThirdWorldartist bifurcatedbyhis'longanddeepbourgeois formativeperiod'
andhis'Communist militancy.' His textregisters
thehesitancies, reservations, misgivings,
andscruples ofthishybrid genealogy. The writerengages inself-criticism notbyjettisoning
thepast,butbysubsuming itina dialectical
modeofabsorption/negation: hebelievesthatfar
from exhausting itspotential, thebourgeois outlookoffers 'creative so bydis-
possibilities,'
carding itsessentially
negative theartist
aspects, can'useitas an instrument tocreateideal
conditions forthenewpeople's artthatwillspringup'intheprocess ofSalvadorans fashioning
a newautonomous lifeforthemselves" (90).
WORKS CITED
Ahmad, Aijaz."Jameson'sRhetoricofOtherness andthe'NationalAllegory.'" SocialText17
(1987):3-25.
Aidoo,AmaAta.No Sweetness Here.Harlow:Longman, 1988.
Linda."TheProblem
Alcoff, ofSpeaking forOthers."CulturalCritique( 1991-92):5-32.
Armah, AyiKwei."African Socialism:UtopianorScientific?"PresenceAfricaine64.4(1967):
6-30.
London:Heinemann,
Fragments. 1979.
TheBeautyfulOnesAreNotYetBorn.London:Heinemann, 1981.
WhyAreWeSoBlest? London:Heinemann, 1974.
Bhabha,HomiK. "Articulating theArchaic:NotesonColonialNonsense." LiteraryTheory
Today.Ed.PeterCollierandHelgaGreyer-Ryan. Ithaca:ComellUP,1990.203-18.
"DissemiNation:Time,Narrative, andtheMargins oftheModemNation."Nation
andNarration. Ed. HomiK. Bhabha.LondonandNewYork:Routledge, 1990.291-
322.
"Freedom'sBasisintheIndeterminate."October 61 (1992):46-57.
"Interrogating
Identity:The Postcolonial Prerogative."Anatomy ofRacism.Ed.
DavidTheoGoldberg. Minneapolis:U ofMinnesota P,1990.183-209.
"ofMimicry andMan:TheAmbivalence ofColonialDiscourse" October28 (1984):
125-33.
"A QuestionofSurvival: NationsandPsychic States."PsychoanalysisandCultural
Theory: Thresholds.
Ed.James Donald.NewYork:St.Martin's Press,1991.89-103.
"Remembering Fanon:Self,Psyche, andtheColonialCondition." Remaking History.
Ed.Barbara Kruger andPhilMariani. Seattle:BayPress,1989.131-48.
"SignsTakenForWonders: QuestionsofAmbivalence andAuthority Undera Tree
OutsideDelhi,May1817.""Race,"Writing, andDifference. Ed. HenryLouisGates.
ChicagoandLondon:U ofChicagoP,1986.163-84.
Brennan,Tim."TheNationalLonging ForForm." NationandNarration. Ed.HomiK.Bhabha.
LondonandNewYork:Routledge, 1990.44-70.
Cabral,Amilcar. totheSource:
Return Selected
SpeechesbyAmilcar Cabral.Ed.Africa Informa-
tionService.NewYork:Monthly ReviewPress,1973.
Chatterjee,Partha.
Nationalist
ThoughtandtheColonial World: A DerivativeDiscourse?Delhi:
Oxford UP,1986.
Clegg,Ian. "WorkersandManagers in Algeria."
Peasants andProletarians:TheStrugglesof
Third World
Workers.Ed.RobinCohen,PeterC. W.Gutkind, andPhyllis Brazier.
New
York:Monthly ReviewPress, 1979.223-47.
Neil Lazarus 1 97
Eagleton,Terry. "Nationalism: IronyandCommitment." Nationalism, andLitera-

Colonialism,
ture.Ed. Terry Eagleton, Fredric Jameson, and EdwardW. Said. Minneapolis: U of
Minnesota P,1990.23-39.
Fanon,Frantz. BlackSkin,White Masks.Trans.from theFrench byCharlesLamMarkmann.
NewYork:GrovePress,1967.
TheWretched oftheEarth.Trans.from theFrenchbyConstanceFarringdon. New
York:GrovePress,1968.
Fukuyama, Francis. "TheEndofHistory?" TheNational Interest
16(1989):3-18.
Gates,Henry Louis,Jr."Critical Fanonism." Critical
Inquiry17.3(1991):457-70.
Gramsci, Antonio. AnAntonio Gramsci Reader: Selected
Writings,1916-1935. Ed.DavidFor-
gacs.Trans.from theItalian.NewYork:SchockenBooks,1988.
Guha,Ranajit."Dominance Without Hegemony andItsHistoriography." SubalternStudies
VI. Writings onSouth AsianHistory andSociety.Ed.RanajitGuha.Delhi:Oxford UP,
1989.210-309.
"OnSomeAspectsoftheHistoriography ofColonialIndia.Subaltern Studies
I. Writ-
ingsonSouth AsianHistory andSociety. Ed.RanajitGuha.Delhi:Oxford UP,1986.1-8.
andGayatri Chakravorty Spivak,eds.Selected Studies.
Subaltern Oxford:Oxford UP,
1988.
Jameson, Fredric. "Third-World Literature in theEraofMultinational Capitalism."Social
Text15(1986):65-88.
JanMohamed, Abdul."TheEconomy ofManichean TheFunction
Allegory: ofRacialDiffer-
enceinColonialist Literature." "Race,"Writing,andDifference.Ed.Henry LouisGates.
ChicagoandLondon:U ofChicagoP,1986.78-106.
Manichean ThePolitics
Aesthetics: inColonial
ofLiterature Africa.Amherst: U ofMas-
sachusetts P,1983.
Kerkvliet,Benedict J.Tria.Everyday inthePhilippines:
Politics ClassandStatusRelations ina
Central LuzonVillage. Berkeley: U ofCalifornia P,1990.
Khatibi,Abdelkebir. "DoubleCriticism: TheDecolonization ofArabSociology." Contempo-
rary North Africa.IssuesofDevelopment andIntegration.
Ed.HalimBarakat. Washing-
ton,D.C.: CenterforContemporary ArabStudies, 1985.9-19.
Lazarus, Neil. "NationalConsciousness and theSpecificity of (Post)ColonialIntellectu-
alism."ColonialDiscourselPostcolonial Theory.Ed. PeterHulme,FrancisBarker, and
Margaret Iversen.Manchester: Manchester UP,forthcoming.
Resistance inPostcolonialAfricanFiction.NewHaven:YaleUP,1990.
Lenin,V.I. WhatIsToBeDone?Burning QuestionsofOurMovement. NewYork:International
Publishers, 1969.
Marx,Karl.Contribution totheCritiqueofHegel's ofRight.
Philosophy KarlMarx:EarlyWritings.
Ed.andTrans.from theGermanbyT.B.Bottomore. NewYork:McGrawHill,1964.
41-59.
McClintock, Anne."'No Longerin a Future Heaven':WomenandNationalism in South
Africa." Transition 51 (1991): 104-23.
Miller,Christopher. Theories ofAfricans: Francophone Literature
andAnthropology inAfrica.
ChicagoandLondon:U ofChicagoP,1990.
Nairn,Tom.TheBreak-up ofBritain.London:Verso,1981.
Parry,Benita."Problems inCurrent Theories ofColonialDiscourse." OxfordLiteraryReview
9.1-2(1987):27-58.
Ranger,Terence O. Peasant Consciousness andGuerrillaWarinZimbabwe. Berkeley:U ofCali-
forniaP, 1985.
Rushdie, Salman.Shame. NewYork:Alfred A. Knopf,1983.
Said,Edward W."Figures, Configurations, Race& Class32.1(1990):1-16.
Transfigurations."
"YeatsandDecolonization." Nationalism, andLiterature.
Colonialism, Ed.TerryEagle-
ton,Fredric Jameson, andEdwardW. Said. Minneapolis: U ofMinnesota P, 1990.
69-95.
SanJuan, E.,Jr.Ruptures, Schisms, Interventions:Cultural
RevolutionintheThirdWorld.Manila:
De La SalleUP,1988.
98 I in African
Scott,JamesC. Weapons oftheWeak:Everyday Forms ofPeasant NewHaven:Yale

Resistance.
UP,1985.
Sharpe,Jenny."Figures ofColonialResistance."
ModemFiction Studies
35.1(1989):137-55.
Spivak,Gayatri Chakravorty. "Can theSubaltern Speak?"MarxismandtheInterpretation
of
Culture.Ed.CaryNelsonandLawrence Grossberg.UrbanaandChicago:U ofIllinois
P,1988.271-313.
"Practical oftheOpenEnd"(interview
Politics withSarahHarasym).ThePost-Colo-
nialCritic.Interviews,Strategies, NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,
Dialogues. 1990.
95-112.
"WomaninDifference: Mahasweta Devi's'DoulotitheBountiful'."
Cultural
Critique
14(1989-90).105-28.
Taylor,Patrick.
TheNarrative ofLiberation: onAfro-Caribbean
Perspectives Literature,
Popular
Culture,andPolitics.Ithaca:Conell UP,1989.
TrinhT.Minh-ha. Woman, Native,Other:
Writing andFeminism.
Postcoloniality Bloomington:
IndianaUP,1989.
Young,Robert.WhiteMythologies: WritingHistoryandtheWest.Londonand New York:
Routledge, 1990.

Lazarus Disavowing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lazarus Disavowing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Disavowing Decolonization: Fanon, Nationalism, and the Problematic of Representation in

Current Theories of Colonial Discourse

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Since 1989,forvery obvious geopoliticalreasons,therehasbeensomething

nationalism" inthepost-1945 periodclearly needstobesetagainst thebackdrop of

andreactionary. Anticolonial nationalist

nationalist standpoint,and seemsitself,hence,deeplyvulnerableto a deconstructive

One muststart byconceding thevalidity ofsomeofwhatMillersayshere.Itis

"traditional" protocolsofpubliccultureinAfrica.Referring to "thesubstanceofvil-

(237). Similarly, in "ConcerningViolence,"he speculatesthat"[t]heappearanceof

individualagency:"[o]ne has to defineoneselfin termsofone's oppositionto the

thatunderlie"thequestfordisalienationbya doctorofmedicinebornin Guade-

FLN,evenwhenitwasfighting undertheFLN'sleadership. Thuslan Clegg,onthe

It isnottheactofviolentstruggle thatisthekeytodecolonization but,rather,

persistenceof"traditional" politicalpractices andforms ofthought in thecolonial

and civilization"("Subaltern"295). It isquiteanotherthing,however,to argue-as

complaint.Butnoteverybody who evokesdialecticsis a hypocrite, ormerelygiving

modeof authority is agonisticratherthanantagonistic: "thecolonialpresenceis

experience.There is no masternarrativeorrealistperspectivethatprovidea back-

languageis moreor lessunwaveringly humanistic,Bhabha is obligedto proffer the

politicalboundaries thatexiston thecuspoftheseoftenopposedpolitical

hand,thePalestiniansituationis sociallyand historically suigeneris,and cannotbe

important, in turn,because in the era ofmultinational capitalismit is onlyon the

theirresonantbutunfoundedclaimsto universality. But itwouldnot need to con-

havefollowed RanajitGuhainarticulating theseconcepts aroundtheaxisofclass,JanMo-

ofcolonialism,whichshowsthatthetwoarenotso easilyseparable"(122). Certainly, thereis

'6AijazAhmad's"Jameson's Rhetoricof Otherness and the 'NationalAllegory',"

Eagleton,Terry. "Nationalism: IronyandCommitment." Nationalism, andLitera-

Scott,JamesC. Weapons oftheWeak:Everyday Forms ofPeasant NewHaven:Yale

You might also like