Sorels and Fanons Notions of Violence - Case Study Example

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: A general evaluation on how Sorel and Fanon’s notions of violence are necessary for radical political transformation Based on the unity of violence with the myth as reflected in both Sorel and Fanon, the relevant aspects of how radical subjectivity operates can be traced in both thinkers. These two thinkers see violence as the symbolic content of a mythical type of revolutionary identity. Both thinkers see liberation violence and the mythical presentation of identity as key contributors to a virtuous circle. Therefore, self-assertion of antagonistic subjectivity is the only way in which the revolutionary subject can be formulated and consolidated. Georges Sorel’s view is that consolidation of revolutionary subjectivity must involve decisive action in the sense that oppositions rather than being explained briefly, they should quickly relief the groups which are fighting against the other. It can be noted that Sorel’s perception of the revolutionary subjectivity is a situation in which liberation revolt or content is examined based on the mythical aspect of the absolute. In this case, the dialectic of myth and violence is separated to present it as effective and ethical. This shows that the significance of revolutionary identity represented in the myth is manifested through violent opposition to the bourgeoisie as the oppressor. Since violence creates the actor, it makes the action to appear big, and thus enabling the proletariat to perfect their respective organizations. Sorel also notes that violence forces the bourgeoisie to neglect its vocation so as to be seen as the dominant actor, indicating that violence restores warlike spirits aspects of capitalism. Sorel states that it is violence that results in the protesting actor and violence restrains the actor from being seen as flabby into the trade-unionism or syndicalism expected to negotiate. Similarly, Frantz Fanon examines the operation of mythical violence based on the dialectical understanding of a revolutionary subjectivity where this violence is practiced through ontological self-assertion. This promotes racial over-determination which in turn leads to the activities of master-slave dialectic. The Fanonian violence is considered as it was in the case of proletarian violence for Sorel, as a condemnation of the coagulated systems of privilege which functions to impose a perpetual hierarchy that causes division among human race. In regard to violence and poverty of voluntarism, Sorel assumes that the tactics of Parliamentary Socialism are the inherent cause of opportunism. Therefore, for the Parliamentary Socialists to win votes and gain influence within the bourgeois state, it will involve them to seek and get support or favour of classes rather than the proletarian. In the attempt to get favour from the middle classes, Sorel suggests that it is important for the Parliamentary Socialists to suppress the extremely radical and violent acts that proletariat involve in. Sorel tries to explain clearly that when opportunist social-democrats make their appeals or seeks favour from the large population during their election campaigns, they are required to present themselves as people who would effectively keep the public order as well as ready to have the interests of the middle class kept at their hearts. Sorel also noted that the Parliamentary Socialists do not support the general strike on the basis that it is an event they cannot control, yet the middle class has nothing to benefit. He states clearly that with the General Strike everything good disappears, rendering the revolution as revolt. This leaves no place for sociologists or advocates in favour of social reforms and intellectuals who take the responsibility of helping the proletariat. To explain further how the idea of general strike is intrinsically the same, Sorel argues that capitalism cannot stop unless people continue the myth that it will collapse which might inspire the proletariat to perceive capitalism differently, and hence make the myth to become a reality. Sorel suggests that the proletariat supporters should think of spreading the myth of the general strike more effectively so as to force it to act. Instances of how violence can be articulated By reflecting on violence and its influences, the poverty of voluntarism is exposed to demonstrate how efforts made to force consciousness on the working class fail, and the result of this is reactionary politics. Such difficulties that Sorel tries to respond to are very common today’s world where issues of class consciousness and subjectivity are undergoing decomposition process since the time of capitalist counter-revolution. This explains why reactionary and reformist ideas have over time influenced the working class. Sorel suggests that the proletariat leaders should use myth of the general strike to set off the other workers their oppressions. In so doing, rationalism could not be encouraged because workers could no longer be convinced by the well-informed policies of scientific socialism. This will help the irrational to be tapped into, rendering the general strike as a separate idea with its own power to free the oppressed individuals (Parkinson 11). Generally, once an organized collective action is initiated by an actor as it was noticed with the worker’s movement at the end of the First World War, then the actor is no longer seen afraid of the negotiations as well as institutionalization. From the perspective of workers’ movement, it can be noted that they fought battles that appeared to be long and hard. However, throughout their battles they did not involve violence which overtimes its history has been seen as a sign of its weakness and crisis in it or simply its deconstruction. Georges Sorel’s approach offered a basic ideology for the social movement, which created conflict during his time but that could not enable him to conceive conflict as a type of established and structured relationship. Similarly, once the workers became satisfied with the living and working conditions, they could no longer or stubbornly surrendered to be seen as proletarians and handled their revolutionary roles more solemnly (Bulhm 22). Fanon also notes that during the revolutionary period of the self-affirmation and objectification, new identities unfold, stagnant traditions are transformed into more dynamic cultures as well as creative energies that have long been repressed are revitalized. The fundamental idea that Fanon tries to put across is that during the self-affirmation and objection period of revolution, decisive measures such as an act of violence against unrelenting oppressor and irrevocable action taken against the surrounding strewn with prohibitions take on a new value during this period. Generally, Fanon considers all these as ways of demystifying the power of individuals taken as oppressors, removes all the unwanted accumulations of oppression and helps in restoring self-and group-confidence and a result, strong social cohesion is promoted among the oppressed. The acts taken during the revolutionary period of self-affirmation and objectification may be regarded as a communal pardon to allow the strayed and outlawed individuals of the group to return and consequently, reinstate their place of origin and be integrated once more Fanon as cited in (Bulham 143). When separated from its violent and liberation content, it has been observed that the myth can lead to positively reactionary results. Basically, if it is united with the proletariat violence, the myth is considered an essential mechanism for consolidating the revolutionary identity. Therefore, it is in Sorel’s context that this achieved through a working-class separatism approach that is symbolized in the form of proletarian general strike. This forms the unity of liberation violence and autocracy of mythical identity that reveals how a strike against the disgrace bosses is turns into “Napoleonic” battle. The general strike is perceived as the myth which comprises of socialism practices such as firmness of faith as well as absoluteness of identity (Ciccariello-Maher 104). Overall, it is makes sense to support Fanon’s idea that when conflict becomes impossible and what cannot be negotiated turns out to be a central issue and if the issue is considered an abandonment of the obvious political or social space, then violence becomes foundational. This is because violence in many instances of life makes liberation a real possibility more so when separation is crucial to individuals who demand emancipation as it is often considered unacceptable to their oppressors from whom liberation is demanded. Over and above, it should be noted that violence cannot be the only modality of change. Works Cited Bulhan, Abdilahi. Frantz Fanon and the Psychology of Oppression. Path in Psychology. New York. Plenum press, Springer, 2004. Ciccariello-Maher, George. Revolutionary Subjectivity in Sorel and Fanon, Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge: Vol. 5: Iss.3, (2007), Article 12. Available online at: Parkinson, Donald. Sorel’s Reflections on Violence and the Poverty of Voluntarism. International Communist Conspiracy, March 8, 2014. Availble online at: Read More