Wretched Chapter 2

Grandeur and Weakness of Spontaneity

Whew! Well, it certainly has been a challenging few weeks. I haven’t had time to put together a mini review, though I’ve read a few interesting books recently that I’m excited to add in the future. I’ll just jump right into my thoughts on Chapter 2 of Wretched of the Earth entitled Grandeur and Weakness of Spontaneity. You can read my thoughts on the introduction and chapter 1 at these links [edit - whoops, now the links are in].

I re-read the chapter to refresh my memory as I was writing this post and on the second time through I gained a much deeper appreciation of Fanon’s incisive political analysis. Just as the chapter On Violence has many parallels and direct connections to the U.S. and especially its carceral system today, this chapter is full of insights that can help any modern movement or organizers better understand the many pitfalls mass movements face.

The chapter analyzes broad trends in political activation and organizing before narrowing its focus to the specific context of colonial Algeria. This is a pattern that repeats throughout the book, and the enduring value of the book comes from precisely these generalizable lessons Fanon pulls out of his context. That so much of his analysis is relevant today highlights the deep and continuing impact of colonization and colonial institutions.

Initially, Fanon critiques the nationalist parties and the various shortcomings and external factors that ultimately make them ineffective. There is a constant dichotomy throughout the book between the privileged few and “the masses” which Fanon highlights when talking about the nationalist party members. One early example of this is on page 63 where he states

“In any union or political organization there is a traditional gap between the masses who demand an immediate, unconditional improvement of their situation, and the cadres who, gauging the difficulties likely to be created by employers, put a restraint on their demands.” [emphasis mine]

This one sentence reveals what continues to be the main barrier to progress today: the few of the owning class who use their massive wealth to oppose improvements to working conditions both through election influence and through unified reactions to policies that level the playing field, taking away some of their wealth to improve conditions for all. As in earlier chapters, Fanon recognizes that a post-colonial society must rethink everything from the ground up to truly be post-colonial, stating on page 64, “The notion of party is a notion imported from the metropolis.” The metropolis is how he refers to the origin of the colonizers, both because of the great influence of central cities like Paris in the homeland, and because the cities of colonized nations become their own strongholds of the colonizers. He constantly pushes the reader to reimagine institutions in order to achieve liberation, rather than building on the flawed institutions of colonizers. Of course, this is easier said than done, so he points out flaws in these institutions in the hopes that those pitfalls can be avoided in the future.

There are many approaches to political science, though the definition I like the best came from a paper in a critical journal I read a few years ago. The authors called political science “the study of power.” Which I think is both apt and a point that many people miss when considering political stances. There are also many who intentionally misrepresent the power dynamics of a situation because with great power comes great responsibility (thanks Uncle Ben), and the goal is to always place responsibility, and therefore blame, on another party. This leads me to another facet of the enduring power of Wretched of the Earth: its clear analysis of power dynamics within political upheaval.

On both the right and the left there is often a lazy power analysis which obscures the root of the problem. The goals of each side are by no means equivalent, but both can offer the wrong solutions to the problems they see because of this poor analysis. The right often refuses to recognize the entrenched power of the wealthy and corporations and only recognizes the power of the government. On the left there are many who do not see the varying levels of power in human relationships, treating an entire identity as either oppressed or not.

Fanon breaks through these shortsighted analyses to paint a nuanced and accurate picture of what happens when you don’t recognize these dynamics. As in the first quote above, there is a distinction between the main body of a party or union and the leaders who tend to temper the demands of the people. He further goes on to emphasize the difference between the “politically conscious elements” in the cities and the rural peasants, pointing out that one of the biggest mistake of the political parties is to only speak to those who are already politically conscious. This is, of course, the easiest route to take as you know they will recognize what you are saying and you can get them on board quickly. But once they are politically active, they make up a tiny percentage of the overall population and without further education and outreach your movement will be a movement of a privileged few. He points out that, unlike the developed nations, in colonized countries the urban workforce has relative privilege compared to the rural masses.

“In the capitalist countries, the proletariat has nothing to lose and possibly everything to gain. In the colonized countries, the proletariat has everything to lose.” This distinction, and the recognition that a worsening of their condition could send them back to the conditions of the rural peasants makes them wary of great political change. They are both oppressed and have power and that divide is easily exploited by the colonizers to pit the urban and the rural against each other (sound familiar yet?). He describes how the feudal power structure of rural areas is nurtured by the colonists to keep the colonized in their place and keep power fractured among many small parties and tribal affiliations. Again, the major flaw of the nationalist parties is that they “base their methods on the Western parties” and thus ignore the masses (p66).

This can lead to an unexpected outcome, in which “the national government’s attitude toward the rural masses is reminiscent in some ways of the colonial power” (p72).

When the urban unions (both oppressed and privileged) exercise their power and break the colonial hold on the cities they win the opportunity to govern. They realize quickly that their demands are narrowly tailored for their own benefit, but would grant them even more privilege and power over the rural masses (who greatly outnumber them). The great mistake is being so absorbed in their own personal problems and personal organizing that they forget the key component of organizing: solidarity. It is only with solidarity and a social program for the entire nation that they can gain widespread support, but because of the narrow nature of their organizing they never considered speaking to or engaging in political education with the vast majority of the nation. This, Fanon notes, is the key. The thread running through this book is his support of the rural masses, their dignity and their key role in revolution that is only ignored at the peril of the political institutions and their leaders.

The second half of the chapter focuses on the real acts of revolution in Algeria and how, without a program of political education, the peasant masses often start the revolution without the nationalist parties, dragging them along behind them. In fact, he states that “insurrection disorients the political parties. Their doctrine has always claimed the ineffectiveness of any confrontation and their very existence serves to condemn any idea of revolt” (p79). This then is where the title of the chapter comes into play. Initially, there is grandeur in this spontaneous uprising. The peasants win many small battles and push the colonizers out of their villages and their resolve is strengthened by these early wins. However, the great weakness appears soon, which is that the colonizers have massive power and resources that they can bring to bear to suppress this revolt. Once they lose the element of surprise, they start to incur heavy losses and their resolve weakens. As Fanon notes,

“One can hold out for three days, three months at the most using the masses’ pent up resentment, but one does not win a national war, one does not rout the formidable machine of the enemy or transform the individual if one neglects to raise the consciousness of the men in combat.” (p86)

Without continuous political education, it is easy for the colonizers to divide and weaken this spontaneous uprising. “If we are not careful there is the constant risk that the people will ask why continue the war, every time the enemy makes the slightest concession” (p91). The end goal and the path toward it was not determined in advance, after all this was a spontaneous reaction to years of suffering and abuse. Without a clear analysis and political plan it can be hard to recognize that “certain concessions are in fact shackles” (p92). Thus, the weakness of spontaneity is also the error of the more privileged and educated classes in the cities to ignore the masses who would be their greatest support and instead treat them as an unknowable quantity whose eruption was completely unpredictable.

To finish this piece, I want to offer a personal reflection that occurred to me while reading this chapter. Obviously, there are many parallels to modern movements and organizing around the world and I hope Fanon’s nuanced analysis helps others see power more clearly in their present context. There is another key piece to this, which is that every time I read a “radical” book, I am struck by the rationality, nuance, and reason with which the arguments are supported. It is my experience that those who decry “extremism” are those who are unable to recognize the merit of different perspectives and who, whether through ignorance or malice, refuse to recognize the extreme harms of existing institutions. They instead must attack strawman arguments and present the works that cut through the noise as extreme or dangerous. The passage that sparked this thought was the following:

“The people who in the early days of the struggle had adopted the primitive Manichaeanism of the colonizer – Black versus White, Araba versus Infidel – realize en route that some blacks can be whiter than the whites, and that the prospect of a national flag or independence does not automatically result in certain segments of the population giving up their privileges and their interests… It was all once so simple with the bad on one side and the good on another… The people discover that the iniquitous phenomenon of exploitation can assume a black or Arab face.” (p93-94)

This is why I read. To see the world through another’s eyes. To gain a better understanding of the world. To learn from other’s mistakes and successes. To fully understand the nuance of our politics, rather than the “Manichaean” (black and white) version that serves only the interests of the powerful.

Purchase the Book

If you’d like, you can purchase some of the books mentioned in this post from bookshop.org. This is a way to support local bookstores (or me if you use the link below), and avoid the Amazon monopoly.

Here is the link to my store page, with all of my recommendations.

You can also use the store locator and select a local book shop for the profit of your purchase to go to. According to the website:

When you select your local bookstore on the map above and visit their Bookshop.org page, we place a cookie in your browser that identifies you as that store's customer, and the store will get the full profit from all your Bookshop.org purchases (30% of the book's list price).