Firstly, the act of self expression is a mode of rebellion in itself. ‘ (footnote fanon p8 bswm) By consequence, the ability not only to speak, but to fully comprehend French, endows the silenced Algerian individual with agency and immediately lifts him/her from the ‘zone of nonbeing’ (p2 bswm)
Moreover, reclaiming the language imposed by the Coloniser through the creation of subversive literature is an effective act of symbolic violence, as doing so enables the oppressed individual to pacifically undermine the entire belief system underpinning France’s alleged ‘mission civilisatrice’, (FOOTNOTE THIS France’s spurious justification for the hegemonisation and exploitation of overseas territories.)
Put simply, the eloquence of the putatively inferior intellectual entirely inverts the firmly-rooted colonial master-slave binary (footnote Hegel), the French view of that African people are merely uneducated ‘jungle savages’ (Footnote Fanon BSWM p5.) To illustrate, such Antillean authors as Aimé Césaire and Franz Fanon embody this insurgent yet composed literary revolt against French Algerian colonialism. Césaire’s seminal ‘Discourse On Colonialism’ exemplifies an articulate, scathing critique of french Imperalism. Throughout his work, (martinique-born) advocate of the Négritude movement (footnote – explain briefly) condemns the European ‘mission civilisatrice’ as an endeavour whose aim is ‘neither evangelisation, nor…philanthropic’ (footnote + p no.), symptomatic of a ‘sick’, ‘morally diseased’ civilisation harking back to Hitler. (footnote) By consequence, Césaire’s employment of French as a means of eroding the foundations of colonialism underlines the threat posed by a “colonised” (CORRECT THIS/RETHINK WORDING) academic with mastery of the coloniser’s own language. Moreover, Fanon’s ‘Black Skin, White Masks’ (footnote what about + date – 1952) too demonstrates the use of French to undermine the Algerian state through his assertion that ‘the one who expresses himself well, who has mastered the language, is inordinately feared’ (footnote p21 bswm)
Secondly, one could argue that an Algerian intellectual’s decision to write in their native language is a subversive act. In doing so, they entirely reject the French language imposed by the state, in turn
excluding a European French speaker from accessing their text and thus regaining power as a victim of colonial repression (footnote coombes lecture). It could also be posited that this renouncing of French (on behalf of…if word count low) represents a form of retribution, as the author, much like the early French colonisers of Algiers in 1830 (footnote – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria – REWORD), imposes a foreign language onto a non-native speaker, a tactic frequently adopted by colonial powers to achieve oppression/consequently inverting the coloniser-colonised relation and regaining agency. Though of Kenyan origin, post-colonial theorist and novelist Ngugi Wa Thiong’o is a staunch advocate of this renouncing the coloniser’s language, solely writing in his native Giyuku and Swahili (footnote wikipedia.) Thiongo’s 1986 essay anthology, ‘Decolonising the Mind: the Politics of Language in African Literature’, evaluates the retaliation against linguistic imperialism in African literature.
It could also be argued that colonised peoples subvert the language of the coloniser via ‘Relexification’ (footnote Todd), the fusion of both the lingua franca and their mother tongue to produce a ‘a new register of communication’ (footnote – the african palimpsest:indigenization of language in the west african Europhone Novel – Chantal Zabus), a ‘third code’ (ibid.) that exists ‘outside of the European Language/African language dualism’ (ibid.) Therefore, by ‘misus[ing] and abus[ing]’ the language imposed upon them, native authors (colonised individuals) achieve emancipation through, by way of example, their use of Tok Pisin (Pidgin) (FOOTNOTE IBID p7)
(Furthermore – think of new connective),
It could also be said those within European literary circles are also capable of sabotaging the colonised state via the use of French in prose. By way of example, Jean-Paul Sartre’s Orphée Noir overtly attacks the grossly imbalanced hierarchy in French Algerian territory, explicitly addressing French colonists, ‘the white man’(Footnote p13) ‘with divine right’(footnote p14), and those who, consciously or unconsciously, perpetuate the repression of the Algerian population on the basis of ethnicity. The novel’s first line unabashedly asks ‘what [the state was] hoping for’ ‘when [it] removed the gag…keeping these black mouths shut’, further underlining the folly of French state in assuming that this oppressed populace would ‘sing [its persecutor’s] praises’ (footnote) and express ‘adoration’(footnote 13) for those who had strived to ‘bend down’ (footnote p13) their heads. Therefore, Sartre uses the same ideological state apparatus (footnote Althusser), language, against the oppressor himself, to highlight the flagrantly corrupt and morally contemptible nature of the Algerian government.
SELF EXPRESSION IN ITSELF
However, employing the language of the coloniser as a tool for subversion is, in itself, an inefficient method of effecting change, of denouncing the Algerian government
It could be stated that the use of the coloniser’s language against himself is a form of controlled revolt, as the individual wishing to effect institutional change is still operating within the prescribed boundaries of colonised society via the use of their lingua franca. It is arguably impossible to reclaim one’s language, one’s identity, if the colonised individual still uses the language of their oppressor. Fanon further underscores this concept, contending that ’the colonised is elevated above his jungle status in proportion to his adoption of the mother country’s cultural standards’ (p9black skin white masks) and merely becomes ‘whiter as he renounces his blackness’ (footnote black skin white masks. p9) In light of this assertion, Fanon highlights that individual seeking equality must either strive to achieve ‘white’ status through their adoption of foreign language to attain ‘honorary citizenship’ (footnote), effacing their former self/ Algerian identity, or accept subjugation. They become ‘whiter’(p25) as they hone their use of ‘the cultural tool that [is] language.’ ( footnote p25 bswm)By the same token, it could also be said that Algerian subject peoples who wield the French language as a weapon against those in power are not destabilising the state’s power, but are assimilating. As Nigerian novelist China Achebe puts it, the colonised subject has ‘no other choice’ but to undertake the ‘dreadful betrayal’ of ‘abandon[ing their] mother tongue’ (footnote, p7 decolonising the mind.) This shunning of native language, an Algerian intellectual’s use of French, only serves to alienate fellow native Arabic/Berber speakers, rendering the latter unable to access and therefore engage with academic debate surrounding colonial rule. As a result, the use of French in academic debate literature would have undoubtedly established a divide within the Algerian population, which may arguably have been the intention of the state (to ‘otherise’ those who insist on speaking in their own language/dialect.) Ngugi Wa Thiong’o validates the inherently exclusive nature of African authors (those who have been colonised CHECK THIS) who have deliberately chosen the language of the coloniser as their preferred language in their work through his claim that a novelist’s ‘petty bourgeoisie readership is automatically assumed by [their] very choice of language’ (decolonising the mind.) Consequently, Thiong’o implies that the Proletariat, members of society to whom revolutionary discourse matters most, is immediately excluded from an author’s work, causing the impact of such debate to be minor and rendering it purposeless.
Moreover, in light of Antonio Gramsci’s Theory of Hegemony (footnote – the notion that all intellectual debate must be carried out using language prescribed by government), conducting academic discussion in a language prescribed by the state is futile, regardless of its progressive nature. Not only would such work risk censorship, but to truly weaken government influence, a native intellectual must operate beyond the bounds of imposed codes of conduct and rhetoric.