Understanding differing conceptions of violence through Self–Other relations in Gandhi and Fanon
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1755088217693650 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Author | Aparna Devare |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088217693650
Journal of International Political Theory
2017, Vol. 13(2) 215 –232
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1755088217693650
journals.sagepub.com/home/ipt
Understanding differing
conceptions of violence
through Self–Other relations
in Gandhi and Fanon
Aparna Devare
University of Hyderabad, India
Abstract
This article compares and contrasts Gandhi’s and Fanon’s views on violence by placing
these ideas within a larger framework of how each viewed the Self and its relationship
with the Other. I argue in the article that Gandhi did not view the Self as clearly
separable from the Other; the Self was internal to the Other and hence violence to
the Other would also affect the Self. This was one of the underlying reasons behind his
adopting a philosophy of non-violence. In the case of Fanon, I argue that one can identify
a “dominant” Fanon who makes a clear separation between Self and Other in contrast
to Gandhi and hence can justify violence inflicted on the colonizer. But, the article also
teases out a “marginal” or “Other” Fanon who comes much closer to Gandhi in the
manner in which he views the Other as implicated within the Self particularly through
his own lived experience, his activism, his views on psychiatry, and his other writings
apart from Wretched of the Earth.
Keywords
Colonialism, Fanon, Gandhi, non-violence, self-other, violence
Introduction
We live in increasingly violent times. The twentieth century was marked by a very high
degree of violence. The state has been a major source of this violence whether a liberal
democratic, Marxist, developmental, secular, or religious one. But, reactions or responses
to state-led violence have also increasingly accepted violence as the primary mode of
Corresponding author:
Aparna Devare, University of Hyderabad, Prof C.R. Rao Road, Hyderabad 500046, Telangana, India.
Email: adev73@gmail.com
693650IPT0010.1177/1755088217693650Journal of International Political TheoryDevare
research-article2017
Article
216 Journal of International Political Theory 13(2)
retaliation whether through ideologies of nationalism, religious fundamentalism, egali-
tarian or identity movements, and so on. Contemporary forms of dissent have increas-
ingly accepted violence as a legitimate means in which to question social injustice,
inequalities, oppression, and demand rights and recognition. Violence is of course not
new to human history. What makes it distinctive under conditions of modernity is that it
is often undertaken in the name of human emancipation, liberation and development and
not gain for glory, wealth, power, and religious domination as in the past (even if these
also might still be underlying objectives). It is often presented as benefitting the victims
or in the name of the “people” while inflicting widespread human suffering.
No one understood this relationship between modernity, its ethical claims, and its
underlying violence more clearly than two major twentieth-century theorists of violence:
Frantz Fanon and M.K Gandhi.1 Both thinking, writing, and acting from a colonial space
understood most acutely the nature of modern violence, its dehumanization and the
façade of liberal humanism. They recognized that the persistence of modern violence lay
in a “colonization of the mind.” They remain relevant today in thinking about these ques-
tions especially at a time when modernity is no longer confined to the West but has made
deep inroads into societies that were once colonized. The relationship between violence,
ethics, and dissent has become central to understanding global politics in the present
times, and these two figures provide important road maps in thinking about these ques-
tions. They are not merely Third World voices reflecting upon conditions particular to
their societies. But they do belong to societies that were once colonized and being on the
receiving end, they could more easily see the complicity between the violence of coloni-
alism, especially liberalism and modernity—on the one hand, granting equality, dignity,
freedom, and recognition and, on the other hand, taking it away. They knew underlining
it was a cold individualism that was self-centered, self-seeking, based on unlimited greed
and a denial of plurality. And yet, modernity cloaked itself in the language of human
equality based on the “dazzling idea of progress” that colonized so many minds but both
knew it had put countless humans in chains and deep misery.
Both in their different ways grappled with the question of giving dignity or recogni-
tion to the Other in all its plurality. In this respect, they anticipated the post-modern and
post-colonial critiques that emerged from the 1970s onwards, and it is not surprising
that so much of this body of thought draws from them. They were addressing humanity
at large, reminding us that beneath the glitter of modernity lay a bitter truth about vio-
lence that affected all, the very idea of being human itself.2 Their mission was to liberate
all minds and not just those lodged in colored bodies, although the latter as Fanon stated
(and Gandhi would agree) “are today political animals in the most universal sense of the
word.”3
So far, in highlighting the relevance of Gandhi and Fanon to our times, I have focused
on the similarities between the two and there are many others I have not mentioned
which have been well documented.4 However, in this article, I want to highlight some
important differences that have also been the subject of considerable discussion but have
primarily been done by comparing Fanon as an apostle of “violence” versus Gandhi as a
sage of non-violence. But, this kind of characterization masks the complexity of both
their positions on violence. To better understand their respective views, I argue that the
discussion should shift away from viewing violence as an objectified category or a
To continue reading
Request your trial