Manichean psychology and violence

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

MANICHEAN PSYCHOLOGY AND VIOLENCE

Frantz Fanon was born in Martinique in the year 1925. He started studying medicine and later qualified as a psychiatrist. Born in a French colony and later working in Algeria (also a French colony), he joined the fight for Algeria’s liberation. His books have exerted a fundamental influence on the study of oppression and post-colonialism. The following will provide a brief description of the master-slave paradigms of Georg Hegel and Fanon. The second section will discuss Manichean psychology and how I perceive its effect on the concept of alienation and violence.

Master and slave paradigms

In summary, Hegel’s master-slave concept argues that man will only become conscious of himself through recognition by another. Hegel spoke about how man’s self-consciousness originates in desire, a desire for recognition. Bulhan (1985, p. 103) says that “[recognition] is possible only in the presence and confrontation of the other. Thus recognition by the other confirms one’s self-worth, identity, and even humanity”. In terms of master and slave, he who receives recognition without having to return the recognition will become the master and the slave will be the one who is not recognised. Therefore, the master is in a position of elevation and the slave is reduced, this reduction results in the slave becoming “an extension of the master’s will and body” (Bulhan, 1985, p. 104). Hegel continues to say that a human’s search for recognition is not one of peace. A struggle will ensue that will give rise to the master-slave dialectic. But as Bulhan (1985) points out, neither adversary must die or else recognition will not take place. Therefore each adversary must take on opposite behaviours – “one risking life till recognized, the other submitting for fear of death” (Bulhan, 1985, p. 103).

Whereas Hegel approached the subject of oppression from an academic perspective, Fanon wrote about it from lived experience, he could identify with the victims of oppression (Bulhan, 1985). Fanon agrees with Hegel’s statement that recognition is unachievable without a struggle and that without reciprocal recognition humans would have no identity, self-worth nor dignity, for in his book Black Skin, White Masks “[man] is human only to the extent to which he tries to impose his existence on another man in order to be recognized by him” (Fanon, 1970, p. 154).

Manichean Psychology

Hook (2004 p. 574) defines Manichean as a “approach to culture in which all values and concepts are split into binary opposites, one that is positive (which is white) and one that is negative (black)”. Within the oppression situation there also exists two camps. Each of these camps represents the binary opposites of the Manichean world. These “reciprocally exclusive zones” (Bulhan, 1985 p. 116) consist of characteristics which are in absolute contrast to each other. In the camp belonging to the oppressor, the roads are tarred, the streets are well lit, there is an efficient garbage removal system in place, there is a feeling of space (one does not feel overcrowded), and a feeling of organization and order exists (Bulhan, 1985). However, in the camp where the oppressed inhabit, the absolute opposite is evident (Bulhan, 1985). The streets are littered with garbage and the residents live either in shacks or in houses that are in serious need of renovations and are situated very closely together. The roads are hardly paved and are not in good condition. Due to the poor supply of electricity to this side of the Manichean world, after sunset, the roads are poorly lit and a sense of ever present danger lurks around every corner. The contrasts between these two camps occur also in the inhabitants’ values and beliefs. The white settler considers himself “the embodiment of supreme good, but portrays the colonized as the incarnation of evil” (Bulhan, 1985, p. 116).

The Manichean psychology of the oppression situation is one where colonizer imposes his language and culture onto the colonized, erases the colonized past, devalues their thinking and denies them their individuality (Hook, 2004). For segregation of living areas goes further into levels of morality, culture and psychology.

Alienation

This is a preview of the whole essay

Alienation

For this section, the formulations of Karl Marx and Fanon will be discussed and compared. Bulhan (1985, p. 186) says that alienation “has become an omnibus diagnosis for economic, social, psychological, and existential malaise”, “being a dynamic concept, it not only relates experiences to social conditions, it also entails a critique”. Although Marx and Fanon both use alienation for the purposes of description, Fanon emphasises more on psychological and cultural aspects than those of economic and class as Marx did (Bulhan, 1985).

In the Marxian formulation of alienation there are four major sections. The first one Marx referred to as “estrangement from the thing”. This basically means that the workers were alienated from the products that were a result of their own labour activity. In other words, if the worker was involved in the making of vehicles on an assembly line, the worker would never be able to afford the product vehicle being made, the worker’s labour activity does not meet his own needs but that of someone else. The second aspect is that of “self-estrangement”. The worker is alienated from himself. The third section is man’s alienation from his species-being. By being involved in the activity of labour, a worker will leave his mark on the world; the worker is part of transforming the objects around him. But since the labour is alienated from him and therefore no affirmation of his being and personality occurs, he feels alienated from himself and those around him. The fourth and final aspect of the Marxian formulation is man’s alienation from man, this aspect “concerns alienation from specific others by virtue of class contradictions. Alienation, according to Marx, is a result of society’s substructures, especially because of capitalist modes of production (Bulhan, 1985).

It should be noted here that Fanon was directly and indirectly influenced by the work of Marx. Directly through his personal study of Marx and by studying the works of Satre and Cesaire who also were influenced by Marx, Fanon was influenced by him indirectly. As noted above, Fanon being a psychiatrist was more inclined to view alienation from a psychological standpoint. His formulation on alienation consists of five fundamental aspects. The first one is alienation from the self, from one’s personal identity. The second aspect is alienation from the significant other, in other words being alienated from one’s family or community. The third aspect is alienation from the general other; this is illustrated in the violent, suspicious relationship between black people and white people. The second last aspect is alienation from one’s own culture, in other words one been estranged from one’s own language and cultural history. The fifth and final aspect is that of alienation from creative social praxis. Put simply, this is when one is alienated from one’s village or community that is that person’s foundation.

Returning to the colonial situation, in the Manichean worldview where there exists two separate ‘camps’, where the colonized are severely exploited by the colonizers and are alienated from their culture and language. Fanon (1970) discusses in his book Black Skin, White Masks that those who mastered the language of the colonizers were feared by those who had not yet grasped the language, “keep an eye on that one, he is almost white” (Fanon, 1970, p. 15). Fanon continues saying that when the man from Martinique arrives in France, he takes on the world of France, its language, its mannerisms, its fashions, “all these contribute to a feeling of equality with the European and his achievements” (Fanon, 1970, p. 19). However, this mastery of another’s language may be seen as betrayal from one’s community’s point of view, gaining one thing results in the loss of the other.

But humankind cannot just accept this estrangement from oneself and culture. Human beings naturally will want to resist these feelings of alienation. This resistance leads us onto the next section which will discuss violence.

Violence

“A situation of oppression is essentially a caldron of violence” (Bulhan, 1985, p. 131), violence breeds and maintains oppression and these trigger the Manichean psychology. Bulhan (1985, p. 135) defines violence as “any relation, process, or condition by which an individual or a group violates the physical, social, and/or psychological integrity of another person or group”. For Fanon, he saw violence as a necessary tool for change. In the beginning, he believed that by reasoning with the oppressors, the colonized may be able to find liberation, but after living in Algeria and observing colonization first hand, Fanon’s thoughts on violence altered rather drastically. Fanon now saw the role that violence could play in the fight for liberation. For if the Europeans used violence in their process of colonization, why should the colonized not use the same instrument to aid them in their liberation. “Violence alone, violence committed by the people, violence organized and educated by its leaders, makes it possible for the masses to understand social truths and gives the key to them” (Fanon, 1968, p. 147, as cited in Bulhan, 1985, p. 140). Fanon observed, while in Algeria, that as the colonized of Algeria realized that they could take control of their futures, there was a revitalization of their culture and personal identities (Bulhan, 1985).

In the Manichean worldview, there exists the human and the subhuman (Bulhan, 1985). However opposite these two ‘worlds” are, they cannot exist without each other. For what one ‘world’ is the other isn’t, they are therefore interdependent of each other. Bulhan (1985), goes on to explain that these ‘worlds’ have to be kept flawlessly separated in order for the Manichean psychology to be maintained. For “[oppression] creates and requires such a psychology whereas at the same time violence too emerges from and reinforces the Manichean psychology” (Bulhan, 1985, p. 141). It is this psychology that is imprinted on the minds of each human being. It is this psychology that has degraded our morals and enables us to commit crimes against our fellow man, to declare war, and drop bombs on innocent people.

Apartheid in South Africa is a very good illustration of how the Manichean psychology is reinforced by violence. During the Apartheid period there were two very separated ‘worlds’. On one side were the whites on the other the blacks, there was a “national obsession on race classification [as] part of an elaborate scheme to enhance the wealth and well-being of whites at the expense of nonwhites” (Bulhan, 1985, p. 167). On the ‘positive’ side of the Manichean world where the white people, they experienced overall higher job satisfaction – higher salaries, efficient compensation for work-related diseases and injuries, they were provided with better pension funds, contributions and their housing was much better than the other side of the Manichean world, where there was a shortage of houses and extreme overcrowding. This ‘negative’ side of this Manichean world suffered greatly due to the exploitation experienced at the hands of the white population. They were not always guaranteed employment, nor could they expect to be well paid for the labour they provided.

In conclusion

In concluding this essay, I will use George Lukas’s series of movies called Star Wars as a means to illustrate the Manichean psychology and violence. In brief summary, the universe in Star Wars consists of two forces, the ‘light side’ and the ‘dark side’. On the light side you have those who seek peace and liberation for all, on the dark side is Darth Vader and his army who are constantly trying to conquer the universe. The universe in Star Wars is a battlefield between these two forces. Darth Vader can be seen as the colonizer, conquering other worlds, and exploiting the inhabitants of the planets he chooses to dominate. Those who are in support of the Jedi Knights – the light side – are those who are colonized. Darth Vader and his dark side army use violence and manipulation to overpower worlds and ultimately strengthen their force. The light side see the dark side as one of pure corruption; they aim to achieve a balance in the universe by denying the dark side, eradicating the universe of negative emotions. The Jedi Knights make up the liberation army that will fight back against the dark side, using violence when necessary to maintain the balance of the Force.

This dualistic view of Star Wars illustrates that Manichean psychology is created by one side oppressing another and that through this oppression emerges violence – violence that reinforces this Manichean psychology. I believe though that through the constant battle between good and evil – in any context – that those who have suffered because of another will reclaim what they lost. Be it their identity, dignity, lost culture, language or history. Unfortunately the Manichean worldview is imprinted in the minds of all human beings and it is this dualism of the world that “underlies human oppression and violence (Bulhan, 1985, p. 144).

References:

Bulhan, H.A. (1985). Frantz Fanon and the psychology of oppression. New York:

Plenum Press.

Fanon, F. (1970). Black skin, white masks. London: Paladin.

Hook, D. (ed)(2004). Critical Psychology. Lansdowne: UCT Press.