In The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon alludes to sources of power for both colonizers and colonized. Colonizers gain their power from both physical and psychological violence, whereas the colonized must gain power over the colonizers through physically violent rebellion. Hannah Arendt, in Crises of the Republic, takes a very different view of power. While she agrees that occasionally violence is used to exert power and control, true power comes from the concerted efforts of the group, not necessarily from violence. The outcomes of these two very different theories of power are worlds apart, with Fanon demanding violent revolt and Arendt espousing peaceful civil disobedience. Arendt and Fanon both have very distinct views on power, but
…show more content…
These forces become the only real way in which the colonizing regime interacts with the people they have colonized. “In the colonies, the official, legitimate agent, the spokesperson for the colonizer and the regime of oppression, is the police officer or the soldier,” states Fanon (Fanon 1963:3). Since a militarized force is the primary point of interaction between the regime and the colonized, the colonized people cannot help but feel the physical power of the colonizers.
And how are the colonized people to respond to the physical power of the colonizers according to Fanon? The only way forward for them is through violence. It is not enough to find a way to live in peace with the colonizing force, they must be entirely eradicated. It requires “nothing less than demolishing the colonist’s sector, burying it deep within the earth or banishing it form the territory” (Fanon 1963:6).
Psychological power, on the other hand, is just as strong, and potentially more long-lasting and deeply felt. For even when the colonizer has been physically banished from the land that they colonized, the psychological colonization can continue to affect the colonized for generations. But how is it that this psychological power effects the colonized …show more content…
But what power does the colonized have that can make this happen? According to Fanon, the power of the colonized to heal the psychological wounds inflicted by the colonizers comes from violent rebellion. He says that when “colonization remains unchallenged by armed resistance” the psychological wounds build up until the “colonized’s defenses collapse” and they require institutionalization. For the colonized, the power of physical rebellion is not only proof against the physical power of the colonizer, but also against their psychological power.
While Hannah Arendt sees the connection between power and violence, she does not see it as a productive force as Fanon does. Instead, she views the power of a people as residing in their ability to work together towards a goal, as through civil disobedience.
Arendt first defines power by examining various theories of what power is. She concludes that most current theories of power equate it with violence. She summarizes that “If the essence of power is the effectiveness of command, then there is no greater power than that which grows out of the barrel of a gun” (Arendt 1973:136). She largely doesn’t accept this definition, however, and instead points towards the Roman concept of civitas, where the power of the government comes not from its command of the people, but from their active support
These forces become the only real way in which the colonizing regime interacts with the people they have colonized. “In the colonies, the official, legitimate agent, the spokesperson for the colonizer and the regime of oppression, is the police officer or the soldier,” states Fanon (Fanon 1963:3). Since a militarized force is the primary point of interaction between the regime and the colonized, the colonized people cannot help but feel the physical power of the colonizers.
And how are the colonized people to respond to the physical power of the colonizers according to Fanon? The only way forward for them is through violence. It is not enough to find a way to live in peace with the colonizing force, they must be entirely eradicated. It requires “nothing less than demolishing the colonist’s sector, burying it deep within the earth or banishing it form the territory” (Fanon 1963:6).
Psychological power, on the other hand, is just as strong, and potentially more long-lasting and deeply felt. For even when the colonizer has been physically banished from the land that they colonized, the psychological colonization can continue to affect the colonized for generations. But how is it that this psychological power effects the colonized …show more content…
But what power does the colonized have that can make this happen? According to Fanon, the power of the colonized to heal the psychological wounds inflicted by the colonizers comes from violent rebellion. He says that when “colonization remains unchallenged by armed resistance” the psychological wounds build up until the “colonized’s defenses collapse” and they require institutionalization. For the colonized, the power of physical rebellion is not only proof against the physical power of the colonizer, but also against their psychological power.
While Hannah Arendt sees the connection between power and violence, she does not see it as a productive force as Fanon does. Instead, she views the power of a people as residing in their ability to work together towards a goal, as through civil disobedience.
Arendt first defines power by examining various theories of what power is. She concludes that most current theories of power equate it with violence. She summarizes that “If the essence of power is the effectiveness of command, then there is no greater power than that which grows out of the barrel of a gun” (Arendt 1973:136). She largely doesn’t accept this definition, however, and instead points towards the Roman concept of civitas, where the power of the government comes not from its command of the people, but from their active support