File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1997/marxism-thaxis.9709, message 146


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005