Fanon argues that the process of decolonization is always violent. He refers to decolonization as an act of “substitution” whereby one group, the colonized, reclaim their self-determination by fighting back against another group, the colonizers – described as a “historic process”. Ultimately, the process of decolonization will only be successful if the colonized achieve complete destruction of the colonizer’s institution of power –a triumph orchestrated by violence. To Fanon, the goal of decolonization is for the colonized to break free from the colonizer’s constraints in finding self-recognition as an independent entity. Fanon says that this can be achieved in restoring pre-colonial culture whereby the colonized no longer conform to western ideals and reclaim their physical resources, too. For the process of decolonization to ignite, self-discovery is vital; rather than the colonized being complacent, they must recognize themselves as equal humans. Essentially, they are individual’s too, who, as a result, have every right to reject being reduced by their colonizers.
Using the heuristic of analogy, I will attempt to theorize Fanon’s work through the use of comparison. Although a small scale comparison, I see colonization as having some similar elements to that of peer bullying – the distinct difference, however, being the unnecessary component of violence. Similarity then, decolonization replicates the process of confronting and overcoming a bully. The first step is recognizing that there is, in fact, a dominating force (ie. the bully) and their words and actions towards you are suppressive. Once this recognition has been made it is common for the victim to begin to speak up, either directly or indirectly (ie. to the bully or talking to a superior etc.) – this is essentially the element of fighting back. The main correlation I see between decolonization and standing up towards a bully is the return to their prior state. Considering a psychological state, it is necessary for the victim to return to a mindset of self-confidence that is not influenced by the dominating individual and or group.
Butler’s utilizes Foucault’s work through critique and comparison – using a foundational lens. She has challenged public discourse pertaining to heteronormatively and suggests our (sexual) identity as ‘performatively’ produced. Essentially, Butler describes our ‘inner space’ through the use of two key concepts: the heterosexual matrix and gender performativity. The heterosexual matrix describes the socially constructed association between gender and sexuality – for instance, it is assumed that women are sexually attracted to men, and vise-versa (a heterosexual binary). That is, we expect members of society to be straight (heterosexual), conforming to a heteronormative ideal. Furthermore, Butler explains gender performativity. Essentially, as individuals we evolve into who we are and what we know, rather than being born as a fixed ‘masterpiece’ (our gender develops). From this, Butler emphasizes that we are not born our sex, it too, is socially constructed. Possibly, individuals are taught to feel and think as a female or male – rather than it being predetermined.
In theorizing Butler’s concept of gender performativity, I wish to use the heuristic of comparison around identity. Gender performativity is similar to the education system as they both represent a model of ‘becoming’. In education, one does not go into elementary with the same amount of knowledge that they graduate high school with. While knowledge is taught, the institution of education as a whole is taught (ie. educational norms and processes). The same goes for gender whereby society is the institution that teaches gender. Essentially, our gender and ideals develop just as our knowledge develops – we become gendered and we become educated. As individuals we attempt to conform to an ideal; in gender that is conforming to a heterosexual binary and in education that is trying to get the best grades and be recognized as the smartest. Regardless of the system, these two concepts both present unrealistic ideals that are unobtainable for the fair majority – they are both ‘performatively’ produced.
Harbermas reintroduces purposive rational action as a system of labour whereby individuals have a purpose of conscious intent (ie. working). Essentially, Harbermas critiques Marx’s theorizing around work and labour suggesting that there is too much emphasis placed on the work itself with little recognition of the communicative (communicative action) element involved. He argues that communication is directed towards other people as a means to come to a conclusion. Ultimately, communicative action facilitates democratic progress as people have the ability, through the use of language, to convey their ideas of truth, freedom, and justice. An important element of communicative action is the dependability of validity claims. Harbermas argues that as social contexts vary, so do the types of validity claims necessary to communicate: a) the external world, b) the social world, c) expressive claims. The external world relates to what is actually happening, the social world is relative to societal morals, and the expressive claim characterizes what you believe to be true.
In theorizing Habermas’ work, I want to emphasize that language does not have to be verbally communicated to be a communicative action. Habermas’ discusses ‘speech’ as an idea of communication throughout society, however, language can be see amongst other platforms. Take for instance reading a book, the words are directed towards a person with the intention to reach a conclusion. Similar to Habermas’ work, words in a book are communicated through validity claims. The external world represents the scenario taking place in the context of the book. The social world is dependent on the genera of the book, however, statements made by the author are written on the basis of what is appropriate to include, which is then left to the reader to interpret. The expressive claim developed within the book reflects if what is written aligns with what the author is attempting to convey.
Foucault introduces power as a concept that comes from everything and is everywhere; essentially, we all have access to power. He argues that power is not an institution, rather it exists in many different relationships and interactions; power influences the structure of these relationships – as he discusses in sexuality. Power relations are intentional; as power is exerted on the basis of an objective. He suggests four rules that act as the foundation to his theorizing of power. Firstly, rule immanence describes knowledge and power as being interconnected, with knowledge comes power as he describes through our sexual being. Secondly, the rules of conditional variations suggest that the dynamics of power relationships change over time. Foucault describes this in terms of a child and their sexuality which undergoes modification of involvement (ex. parental). Thirdly, the rule of double conditioning depicts the dependency local and larger powers have on one another. Finally, the rule of tactical polyvalence of discourses highlights discourses as they relate to knowledge of power being joined.
Using Foucault’s rule of conditional variation, I intend to compare his example of a child and their sexuality to a student and teacher relationship. Student and teacher dynamics have changed over time as they have evolved into a new relationships of power. At one point, teachers held the power to grades, discipline, and overall control. Talking back or question the teacher’s practices and or ethics was deemed inappropriate and not tolerated. The student teacher relationship has progressed into a less formal exchange of power where it is more acceptable to challenge a grade, teachers are no longer permitted to physically discipline you, and there are systems in place for you to take control of your education (ie. formal complaints). While a power dynamic remains, (teachers still hold the power to what they teach you and the grades they give you) the power subtleties have changed and will continue to change/progress over time.