From: "Russell Pearson" <r.pearson-AT-clara.net> Subject: Re: M-TH: MARX, HEGEL, & MASTER-SLAVE DIALECTIC Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 11:42:46 +0100 James H writes of Kojeve and asks: "... Why, if the interaction of self and other describe relations of serfdom and lordship, should they seem so evocative in discussion of contemporary relations of the sexes, first and third world, child and adult etc etc? Surely categories developed to encapsulate one discrete epoch ought not to have any hold on another." And Ralph asks: "So what do you make of Fanon?" Fanon as both a practicising psychiatrist and a revolutionary (a good topic for M-Psy perhaps!) experienced his political awakening firstly in France. He grew up in French Antilles and and was born into a relatively wealthy family- enjoying the status and pleasures of a member of the colonial bourgeoisie. On arriving in France he describes the shock of being what he describes as being called a 'dirty nigger', or children staring at him in the streets and exclaiming 'look a negro'. From his experiences of this time in france he provides a very early analysis of rascism _and_ popular culture- mainstays of the Cultural Studies crew. On gaining work in Algeria at one of its key psychiatric instutions, he witnessed the brutal oppression of the Algerian struggle for independence at first hand- at one point both a torturer and his victim were his clients... In terms of James' points I reckon that Fanon (drawing from Kojeve) is a big source of the contemporary fascination with the self-other in modern theory. Fanon is far more amibiguous than say Lukacs and as an Hegelian, Marxist existentialist; influenced by Heidegger, Jaspers and Nietzsche; Fanon's philosophical and political outlook is further compounded by its intertwining with his psychiatric training and his incorporation of Freudian, Adlerian and Lacanian thought. This complexity leads to very many and varied readings and he has been described by Henry Gates Jr as 'a Rorsch blot test on legs'! So at the risk of same: For Fanon, what has become known as the 'subaltern' must literally be prepared to die if they are to achieve both political and existential freedom. Thus, Fanon argues, when a member of the oppressed kills a settler, a double gain is made, one political in the death of the oppressor, and the other a existential gaining of freedom on the part of the oppressed. "The colonised man finds his freedom in and through violence." (Wretched of the Earth p68) "For the native, life can only spring up again at out of the rotting corpse of the settler." (WOE p73) and At the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his dispair and inaction... (WOE p74) This is all based on Fanon's use of the Master Slave dialectic. Drawing from Sartre's idea that the anti-semite creates the jew, Fanon argues that the racist creates the negro. He theorises this further using Hegel, to argue that in the encounter between two beings, one "tries to impose his existence on another man in order to be recognised by him." (Black Skin White Mask p216) In seeing the Manichean world of colonialism in terms of the Master/Slave dialectic Fanon's use of the dialectic differs from that of Hegel. Fanon envisages a reciprocity where "the master laughs at the consciousness of the slave. What he wants from the slave is not recognition but work." (BSWM p220n) Fanon in fact misreads Hegel, for when Hegel as says that "...they recognise themselves as mutually recognising each other" (BSWMp217 / Hegel Phenomenolgy of Consciousness p112) Fanon misses the point that Hegel is talking about the initial contact, prior to the creation of the Master and the Slave. Hegel sees this struggle as a splitting into extremes with "...one being only recognised, the other only recognising (Hegel Phenomenolgy of Consciousness p114) as essential to the process of the creation of self consciousness. Fanon in contrast argues that there is "an absolute reciprocity which must be emphasised".This is crucial to his politics, for "There is not an open conflict between the white and black. One day the white master, without conflict, recognised the Negro slave." (BSWM p217) The Slave must be prepared to risk his life to "make himself recognised" (BSWM p217) if the false freedom of the colonial situation is to be changed. For the Negro has been set free by the Master, but "He did not fight for his freedom" but has merely been "allowed to assume the attitude of the Master" and to "eat at his table". (BSWM p219) The Slave's freedom is merely a "white liberty and justice; that is the values secreted by his masters." (BSWM p221) The Negro therefore retains a 'slave mentality' by unconsciously interiorising the inferiority created by the white man. Now it's this aspect that so appeals to writers such as Homi Bhabha and Gayratari Spivak. They, in one way or another attempt to gain freedom (though I'm sure they's take me up on this reading) by arguing not for a political struggle in tems of economic power and rights, but for a 'writing back' a purely textual stuggle. Hence the master slave dialectic gets smuggled into contemporary theory, but with all the real political substance turned into a battle of the texts. Russ Apologies once again for any duff formatting -much of this mail is taking from an old essay written in a now defunct word processing format. --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005