How do Arendt and Fanon conceptualise the relationship between violence, power, and freedom?

What insights do their differing views provide on the effectiveness of violent action in achieving political goals?

This essay was a university assignment. Module—Political Philosophy. Autumn, 2024.

Violence, as a central issue in political theory, is often considered a means to achieve political change. Yet, its ethical and practical dimensions remain a subject of intense debate. Frantz Fanon and Hannah Arendt are often seen as having opposing views on this matter. Fanon argued for the necessity of violence to destroy violence—both the external structures of domination and the internal structures of oppression caused by colonialism. Arendt argued that violence only undermines political power and proposed that we consider the distinctions between what violence and power mean and how they work to achieve political aims. When reading their political ideologies on violence, power, and freedom, it's important to keep their backgrounds in mind. Fanon was writing from firsthand experience of the anti-colonial struggles for liberation, born into a colonised nation; he not only fought for freedom with his words but also as a soldier in the Algerian War of Independence. Arendt’s life was profoundly affected by the violence of antisemitism, being a European with Jewish heritage, and she wrote extensively on totalitarianism.

In The Wretched of The Earth, Fanon speaks of the ‘real struggle for freedom’ and the violence of colonialism from which ‘the blood of the people have flowed',  exploring the relationship between violence, power, and freedom in the context of colonial oppression. Violence, for Fanon, is a fundamental and ontological necessity for liberation. Colonialism is a system of total violence—physical and psychological—that dehumanises and disempowers the colonised. Through revolutionary violence, a ’repressed counter-violence', the colonised assert their sovereignty and actively shape their future, laying the foundation for a new social order — the counter-violence of the revolution is to uplift and transform the citizens back into ‘human beings through the development of their minds. Fanon speaks of the potential of violence in action as unifying and raising the awareness of the people, both cleansing them of despair and their sense of inferiority while restoring their self-respect and dignity through their destruction of the violent structures of oppression. This destructive counter-violence is a necessity as ‘colonialism will only yield when confronted with greater violence.' 

Fanon writes of the severity of the internalisation of violence caused by the violence of Manichean colonialism, which ‘dehumanises the native.' This dualistic framework pervades all aspects of society, and in response to the attitude of the 'absolute evil of the native,' the 'absolute evil of the settler' is created in response. Fanon sees violence as both a necessary and temporary mode of action. He wrote that the solution to violence is not always to react with greater violence; true power is not gained through the perpetual use of violence and counter-violence, and what is best, once it has been made possible to do so, is to ‘relax the tension.' Fanon’s ideas challenge conventional moral boundaries, offering an understanding of the complexities of resistance and the role of violence in achieving true freedom. 

For Fanon, the fight for freedom is not only reliant on the use of physical violence; after liberation, the people are ‘called upon to fight against poverty, illiteracy, and under-development.' Fanon's quest is not to glorify violence for violence's sake; the purpose is a reclamation of freedom and political independence and the right to 'demand political stability and a calm social climate.’ Fanon writes of a ‘less bloodthirsty violence’ at play in the modern-day political relations of his time; he is aware that violence is not a solution to all but the means to start a new beginning, which requires a political reeducation. He acknowledges the political disadvantage of oppressed peoples, even speaking of the colonised peoples as ‘political animals’ who, once emancipated, need time to establish a society and ‘affirm values' which cannot be done in a climate of violent upheaval. While Fanon’s endorsement of violence as a path to liberation has generated critique, particularly concerning the potential for perpetuating cycles of oppression, his framework remains powerful in contemporary struggles for justice. 

 It is often best to separate or overlook an individual's personal biases and prejudices when analysing their work. However, when their discriminatory attitudes directly influence a line of argument or intellectual endeavour, it is necessary to address them. I believe this to be the case with Arendt’s dismissal of the anti-colonial struggles. Her book On Violence was written as a direct critique of Fanon’s anti-colonial call for violent revolutionary action in The Wretched of The Earth and was written in response to the public demonstrations of the civil rights movement and the student riots, the cause of which she strongly disapproved. It’s of great importance to remember that there were revolutionary uprisings she admired. This not only does justice to the historical record but also allows us a more honest insight into her work — better allowing her philosophical endeavours to influence and shape the current debates on the proper use of violence in politics moving forward, for Arendt’s work offers key insights into the use of violence to gain political power for revolutionary and governmental purposes.

What many read as Arendt’s critique of violence was mainly a critique of the violence of the anti-colonial and civil rights movements. When questioned, she expressed that what she believed to be the main interest of the students protesting was ‘’to lower academic standards.’’ She wrote that Fanon as an author ‘’glorified violence for violence's sake’’ due to ‘’his compassion and a burning desire for justice.’’ This sentence not only shows her stance on compassion influencing politics - which is neither to be praised nor condemned— but it also shows what I believe either to be a flaw in her reading of Fanon or a purposeful denial of the complexity of his message. This information is not to discredit her as a person or diminish her intellectual authority. On the contrary, it gives us greater insight into her work. I believe her to be a great thinker and an influential writer - but to analyse her thoughts correctly we must not deny her truths on this matter.

Arendt is often read as the complete opposite of Fanon, seen as promoting a politics completely detached from violence, but when Arendt's critique is understood not to be a condemnation of violence itself but rather a rejection of the use of violence for political causes she does not sympathise with, it shows how her racial prejudice has profoundly shaped her critique of Fanon’s anti-colonial call for violent resistance as a means of combating systemic oppression. I believe that her theories must be understood as a direct response to the movements she critiqued, particularly in light of her racial views. Again I must confirm that this is not to invalidate her ideas but to see how her ideas were developed through the racial bias held at that particular time in history in response to specific revolutionary movements. This I feel does greater justice to comprehending her work — for had race not been a factor, perhaps the gap between Arendt’s and Fanon’s positions would not be so pronounced. I believe it important to note also that Arendt was writing at a time when the nuclear technological advancements of warfare were an imminent threat.  This, I believe, would have greatly influenced her negative view on the use of violence, terror, and threat in political strategy and the quest for freedom.

In On Violence, Arendt distinguishes differences between the terms violence and power, asserting that true political power emerges from the collective ability of people to deliberate, act together, and reach decisions through mutual consent. Power, in her view, is built on legitimacy, consensus, and shared political space—conditions that violence can neither create nor sustain. She highlights the dangerous possibility of the normalcy of the practice of violence in political action. She writes in favour of pure political power, thus being against the use of violence in the political sphere, stating that power need not justification but legitimacy, while violence can never be politically legitimate, although at times it can be justifiable. She affirms the difference between the two stating, that ‘’power is indeed of the essence of all government, but violence is not.’’ Arendt further affirms that violence can never create power but can only destroy it. I believe Fanon agreed, and that it was this destructive element of violence that he saw as an effective way to bring about change by destroying unjust powers at play.

Some believe that "violence and politics are inextricably intertwined," while others strive to keep them separate. I read Fanon as recognising the real and effectual relationship between them, while Arendt, in her book On Violence, strives to separate them further. In The Wretched of the Earth, one could say that it was also Fanon's goal to keep them separate—after the initial acts of violent rebellion and the process of political reeducation, he too would have wished for the stability of a state or nation free from the threat of violence. Perhaps too, if the cause Arendt's critique was against was different, she would not have dismissed the intersecting and pervasive effect of violence in political action. ‘’Legitimate violence refers to the socially sanctioned use or threat of harm as in police action and war. Illegitimate violence is that which goes against laws and the accepted norms of society.’’ In The Wretched of The Earth, I read Fanon as arguing for the use of what would be perceived as illegitimate violence against the politically and socially accepted legitimate violence of colonisation, while in On Violence, Arendt is promoting the practice of political power being enforced without the use of violence, this being an alternative way for creating change. The lack of necessity for violent means would always be an ideal. But when violence is already being used politically as a governmental tool of oppression, the use of counter-violence could be an effective way to destroy violence, providing that the oppressed do not become the oppressor.

Fanon sees violence as essential to dismantling oppressive systems, while Arendt views it as ultimately self-defeating. They both recognise that violence is at times necessary and effective and acknowledge the inherent dangers of the use of violence. Fanon sees violence primarily as an emancipatory tool for ‘destroying the colonial system' but also cautions against the prolonged perpetuation of violence after the necessary revolutionary moment. Neither Arendt nor Fanon celebrates violence, but both condone it as a tactical response to oppression. In On Violence, Arendt can be read as critiquing Fanon for allowing his passionate call for justice to influence his political theory. Instead Arendt promotes a politics free from the desire to ‘’act from intense moral distress’ believing that compassion is an ‘’unpolitical phenomenon’’. Just as power and violence are of key interest, the exploration of the intersection of compassion and politics with these topics is of vital importance in the quest for freedom. History has shown that violence can be used as an effective tool to gain power and create changes that lead to greater freedom, but it is important to question whether violence can truly bring about lasting liberation or whether its continual use perpetuates cycles of domination, undermining the conditions for a just and free society. 

Bibliography

Arendt, H. (1969). On Violence. San Diego: Harcourt.

·  

Benhabib, Seyla. "Review of Hannah Arendt: A Reinterpretation of Her Political Thought by Margaret Canovan and Arendt, Camus, and Modern Rebellion by Jeffrey C. Isaac." The Journal of Modern History 67, no. 3 (September 1995): 687–691.

Bulhan, H. A. (1985). Frantz Fanon and the Psychology of Oppression. Plenum Press. (Chapter 7. Violence and Manichean Psychology).

Canovan, M. (1994). Hannah Arendt: A Reinterpretation of Her Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

·

Fanon, F. (2001). The Wretched of the Earth. London: Penguin.

Frazer, E., Hutchings, K. On Politics and Violence: Arendt Contra Fanon.Contemp Polit Theory 7, 90–108 (2008).

·  

Gibson, N. ed. (1999). Rethinking Fanon: The Continuing Dialogue. Amherst, N.Y: Humanity Books.

Gibson, Nigel C. (2007) "Is Fanon Relevant? Toward an Alternative Foreword to “he Damned of the Earth”," Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge: Vol. 5: Iss. 3, Article 6

··  

·  

Lang, Anthony F., 'Violence and International Political Theory', in Chris Brown, and Robyn Eckersley (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory, Oxford Handbooks (2018; online edn, Oxford Academic, 5 Apr. 2018).

·  

Mills, C. W. (2017). Black Rights/White Wrongs: The Critique of Racial Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

·  

Owens, P. (2017). Racism in the Theory Canon: Hannah Arendt and ‘the One Great Crime in Which America Was Never Involved’. Millennium, 45(3), 403-424.

·  ·  

Villa, D. R. ed. (2000). The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whelan, Patrick. (2019). Comparing Arendt and Fanon on Power and Violence. 2. 35-50.

References in order.

 Fanon, F. (2001) P36 

 Bulhan, H. A. (1985).p143

  Fanon, F. (2001) P159 

 Fanon, F. (2001) P74  

 Fanon, F. (2001) P48

 Fanon, F. (2001) P32

 Fanon, F. (2001) P73

 Fanon, F. (2001) P57

  Fanon, F. (2001) P74 

  Fanon, F. (2001) P82

 Fanon, F. (2001) P51

 Fanon, F. (2001) P162

 Fanon, F. (2001) P64 

 Owens, P. (2017) P 414 

 Bulhan, H. A. (1985) P 146  

 Arendt, H. (1969) P 65

 Arendt, H. (1969) P 65

 Arendt, H. (1969) P 3 & 14

 Arendt, H. (1969) P 80  

 Arendt, H. (1969) P 52

 Arendt, H. (1969) P 51

 Arendt, H. (1969) P 56 - 

 Frazer, E., Hutchings, K. (2008) P 90

 Arendt, H. (1969) P 52  ’’No one questions the use of violence in self-defense, because the danger is not only clear but also present, and the end justifying the means is immediate.’’

 Bulhan, H. A. (1985) P 133

 Anthony F. (2018) P 198

 Arendt, H. (1969) P 51   

 Fanon, F. (2001) P57 

  Arendt, H. (1969) P 65

 Villa, D. R. ed. (2000) P140

  Canovan, M. (1994) P170