Nietzsche, Freud, Fanon, and the Algerian War of Independence
In 1962, Algeria gained its independence from France after a seven-year long war between the National Liberation Front (FLN) and the French Army. It cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and led to thousands more fleeing the country. The war was uniquely brutal, being characterised by French war crimes, FLN bombing of public spaces, and guerrilla warfare. It is a prime example of a violent decolonisation effort. Much scholarly work has been done regarding the war, but very little through a philosophical and psychological lens. This paper will provide a different perspective of the war and the independence movement in general by utilizing the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, and Frantz Fanon. Is there a connection between Nietzsche’s theory of slave morality and master morality to the Algerians’ attitude to the French? Can Freud’s ideas regarding guilt and aggression be applied to the violent efforts of the Algerians? And finally, what is the connection between the Algerian War of Independence and Fanon’s ideas regarding violence?
Nietzsche’s theory regarding promises and its relationship with punishment and guilt can be compared in an interesting way to the Algerians’ attitude towards the French. In the second essay of his On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche explains that keeping a promise is one of the core virtues that make up the foundation of morality. It is something that society encourages people to do. Indeed, society can and has exacted severe punishment on its members in order to teach them to abide by the “rules” (follow through with promises) or face the consequences. When someone inflicts harm by, for example, breaking a promise, he/she may be physically punished by the victim(s) as a sort of compensation for the perpetrator’s wrongdoing. According to Nietzsche, this particular understanding of punishment stems from the ideas of credit and debit, both of which are part of the ancient phenomenon of bartering and trading that has long been a crucial part of the history of mankind. Guilt, therefore, comes from the feeling of owing a debt by failing to abide by a moral standard such as keeping a promise which in turn leads to a bad conscience. In the context of Algeria, the Algerians broke a promise – to abide by French law and to accept French rule without question. The punishment, following Nietzsche’s theory, could be represented by the severe response of the French authorities that came in the form of torturing prisoners, destroying villages, and massacring Algerians en masse. However, one could argue that the French broke a promise as well – to treat Algerians as equal citizens and to grant them self-rule. The punishment for the French was therefore exacted by the FLN through bombings and urban/guerilla warfare. When it comes to guilt, the Algerians might have been an exception. Nietzsche described bad conscience (guilt) as a sort of sickness – “I regard the bad conscience as the serious illness that man was bound to contract under the stress of the most fundamental change he ever experienced-that change which occurred when he found himself finally enclosed within the walls of society and of peace” (Nietzsche, 84). Arguably, however, the Algerians did not suffer from a bad conscience due to their violent struggle against the French. They were able to free themselves from society the moment they first struck their French overlords and rejected the moral standards imposed on them by the authorities. Moreover, Nietzsche believed that because people in a society cannot act on their animal instincts, particularly the destructive ones, they internalise their instincts and in turn suffer from guilt. We feel guilt because we are aware of our natural instincts that are forbidden by society. According to Nietzsche, the only for humans to release these instincts is through war and violence. An obvious connection could therefore be made to the Algerians’ use of violence against the French which, based on Nietzsche’s’ theory, would have led to them having less guilt. This idea of using violence as a way to unleash one’s animal instincts will be discussed from a Freudian perspective next.
Like those of Nietzsche, based on the ideas of Freud, the Algerians’ use of violence acts as an outlet for their human aggressiveness while albeit damaging society. Freud states that civilisation causes unhappiness because it represses the natural aggressiveness of human beings. He refers to this inherent aggressiveness as the “instinct of death” or Thanatos. Thanatos is our natural tendency to inflict death and destruction on other people and it can manifest itself in torture, rape, theft, humiliation, exploitation, etc.. Because such aggressive tendencies are not acceptable by society, we are forced to internalise them. This is similar to Nietzsche’s internalisation of man. As a countermeasure, civilisation installed the superego, a conscience that is heavily influenced by societal moral standards, in a person’s mind so as to control one’s aggressive tendencies. From this arises a “bad conscience” and the feeling of guilt, guilt being the product of one’s shame for having aggressive feelings forbidden by society and being under constant scrutiny by the superego. This is the source of unhappiness. The only way for humans to reduce their innate aggressiveness is to engage in certain acts that could vent or release it. This leads to an interesting connection with the Algerians. One could argue that the violent endeavours of the Algerians provided them with a chance to act on their deep-seated aggressive tendencies. It is important for humans to release their instinctual aggressiveness because of the dangers of guilt. However, society provides no secure way for humans to do this and when there are inevitable outbursts of human aggressiveness, they are often destructive. Indeed, Freud states that the instinctual aggression of humans is the greatest threat to civilisation – “The fateful question for the human species seems to me to be whether and to what extent their cultural development will succeed in mastering the disturbance of their communal life by the human instinct of aggression and self-destruction” (Freud, 92). In the case of Algeria, an obvious connection can be made to the fact that indeed the violence practised by the FLN and others damaged the society that was French Algeria. But of course, that was the intent. Regardless, from a Freudian perspective, those involved in the violence would have benefited from the fact that because they were able to release their aggressive instincts, they were freed from the guilt that arises from the internalisation of these instincts and the constant judgement by the superego. As result, theoretically, they were happier.
The Algerians’ war against the French fits neatly into Frantz Fanon’s description of violent decolonisation. Fanon described the “colonial situation” as involving a dichotomy. On the one side there are the settlers (colonisers) who are active, advanced, and wealthy. On the other side are the natives who are passive, primitive, and poor. Fanon draws a Manichean picture in which the colonisers are seen as light (good) and the natives are seen as dark (evil). The colonisers live in This hierarchy is sustained by the colonisers through violence, both physical and psychological. The physical violence involves torture, murder, and other forms of physical harm and abuse. The psychological violence is exacted by the installation and development within the minds of the natives the feelings of self-guilt and self-doubt as a result of their perceived weakness and inability to break free from the chains being held by the colonisers. Colonisation is a violent affair, and therefore Fanon posits that violence is needed to decolonise. As the popular saying goes, “to fight fire with fire”. Violence is needed because the colonisers’ influence and presence are so comprehensive. In addition, the situation of the colonised natives is so dire that violence is simply to only possible solution to improve their condition. Indeed, the natives are aware of the necessity of violence, as Fanon states, “This threatening atmosphere of violence and missiles in no way frightens or disorients the colonized. We have seen that their entire recent history has prepared them to "understand" the situation. Between colonial violence and the insidious violence in which the modern world is steeped, there is a kind of complicit correlation, a homogeneity. The colonized have adapted to this atmosphere. For once they are in tune with their time” (Fanon, 81). Once the natives do begin their violent struggle, they must also expect an even stronger (deadlier) violent response by the colonisers. In the context of the Algerian struggle for independence, there are clear connections to the Fanon’s theory of violence. First, Fanon’s description of the more powerful and wealthier colonisers and the weaker, poorer natives can be compared to the vast difference in the living conditions of the Algerians versus the French. The European districts of Algiers, for example, were in much better shape in terms of cleanliness and the physical state of the buildings. The districts primarily inhabited by the Algerian natives, such as the Casbah, were dirtier and the buildings in a much poorer state. There is a clear wealth gap between the French colonisers and the Algerian natives, something that the French did not wish to change. The Algerian decolonisation effort was characterised by violence, something which immediately connects to Fanon’s ideas. Indeed, the disproportionate nature of the violence practised by both the French and the Algerians is evident. Conservative estimates put French military casualties at around 27,000 and those of civilians at around 6,000. As for the Algerians, estimates vary greatly but the number of casualties is thought to be between 500,000-1,000,000 (military and civilian). Fanon’s description of a much deadlier response by the colonisers to the natives’ use of violence is clearly illustrated here.
Another connection between the Algerian War and Fanon’s theory of violent decolonisation is the idea of violence acting as a sort of cathartic experience for the natives. The natives have endured years of guilt and humiliation for allowing the colonisers to take over their land and subject them to abuse and discrimination. Rage continues to build up in the natives’ hearts, but because the natives cannot do anything about it, they feel even more guilt. Fanon argues that the cure for this is violence. He states, “At the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect” (94). Violence acts an outlet for the natives’ rage and aggression towards the colonisers and rids them of their deep-seated sense of inferiority. In short, it’s a cathartic experience. This is very similar to Freud’s idea of the importance of releasing one’s aggressive tendencies lest they suffer from guilt and unhappiness. One could argue, therefore, that the Algerians’ use of violence was key in improving their psychological state. It allowed them to pour centuries worth of rage onto the French. It allowed to cleanse themselves of self-doubt and self-guilt. It granted them the long-desired confidence and self-respect that Fanon describes.
In conclusion, interesting connections can be made with the Algerian struggle for independence to the ideas of Nietzsche, Freud, and Fanon. The Algerian decision to overthrow French rule can be analogically compared to Nietzsche’s theory of promises and their importance in being part of the foundation of morality. When it comes to Freud’s pessimistic view of civilisation due to it being the source of unhappiness for humans, the Algerians have arguably found a way to satisfy their aggressive instincts through their use of violence while, as Freud described, destroying the society organised by the French. The ideas of Fanon are arguably more clearly illustrated by the Algerian War. The Algerian decolonisation effort is a classic example of Fanon’s idea of violence being used to overthrow the colonisers and as a way of cleansing the minds of the colonised natives. The Algerian War is one of the deadliest examples of violent decolonisation. Its legacy is still felt today as France continues to have an ambiguous understanding of its involvement in the war. The country has rejected the possibility of it apologising for the human rights abuses and war crimes that took place during the war by the army. It is troubling to see how a major European country has seemingly refused to acknowledge its blatant errors in running the affairs of another country. The Algerian War was uniquely brutal as both the Algerians and the French practised extreme forms of violence and were both responsible for the deaths of innocents. In such a case as this, the black and white notions of who is right and who is wrong are much harder to recognise. Perhaps the key to understanding the “truths” of such a war, and indeed any war, is to study it using a variety of perspectives. This paper has provided a brief analysis of the Algerian War through a psychological and philosophical lens. Such analyses as this allow for the audience to recognise the extreme complexity that is war by acknowledging its nuance and understanding the motivations of those involved.