In his essay, Paul de Man talks about intrinsic and extrinsic criticism in terms of inside and outside. Intrinsic criticism is focused on form as the outside and content as the inside (). On the other hand, extrinsic criticism is focused on content as the outside form as the inside (). His means that intrinsic criticism is about analyzing the language itself without emphasis on the meaning while the extrinsic criticism is exactly the opposite. De man says that American literature has to return to intrinsic criticism, but moreover, he states that language must be seen from a different perspective: language can be syntagmatic and pragmatic at the same time. This is a paradoxical statement that seems incoherent at first glance but proofs to be a very interesting theory.

The syntagmatic and pragmatic characteristics of language are described as grammar and rhetoric by Paul de Man. De Man says this when talking about semiology. He says “one of the most striking characteristics of literary semiology is the use of grammatical (especially syntactical) structures conjointly with rhetorical structures (de Man 1368). That is to say that the syntagmatic structures of language are what is described as grammar by semiology; the pragmatic characteristics of language is what semiology describes as rhetoric. It is important to highlight that rhetoric I define as “the study of tropes and figures” (de Man 1368).

According to de Man, grammar refers to the structure of the language itself. Additionally, grammar also refers to the syntactical relationship of signs and logic. Also it has to convey a meaning both “locutionary” and “illocutionary”.  The locutionary part of grammar is the sentence while illocutionary is the tone of the sentence” “ordering, questioning, denying…” The illocutionary part of grammar seems to be a direct transition to rhetoric (de Man 1369).  Rhetoric refers to how one sentence can have more than one meaning and each of these meanings can be “mutually exclusive” (de Man 1370); this is the work of metonymies and metaphors. More importantly, rhetoric allows us to understand which meaning we should choose.

Grammar and rhetoric are very complex ideals to understand. Let’s look at the following example: In a conversation between two individuals, one of them says, “What did you just said!” Grammatically, this could mean two things: “I am very surprised by what you said” or “what you just said annoyed me.” However the illocutionary tools of grammar cannot help us decide which content is used in the conversation. Only through the means of rhetoric we can understand which definition is the correct. Yet, it does not mean that a text is rhetorical when one meaning is right and the other is wrong in a particular situation. As de Man states “The grammatical model of the question becomes rhetorical …when it is impossible to decide by grammatical or other linguistic devices which of the two meaning (that can be entirely incompatible) prevails” (de Man 1371). That is to say, that the rhetorical component is what help us find the meaning that prevails through other means that are not grammatically. It is something that is beyond the sentence content may include a whole paragraph or even the whole book.

Franz opens his essay with a racial slur to show his audience just how easily a human being can be put into an objectified state. His opening exclamation can remind us of times where someone could have easily have been saying things such as, “Look, a train!” or “Look, a _____”, as we often times do when an object captures our attention, or we want to bring others’ attentions to it. His unnamed speakers throughout his paper give the general effect that emphasizes how often this type of objectification occurs and how many people took part. It gave it a type of casualness, as it was during the time he was experiencing it.

When Fanon speaks about himself being a ‘third person’ or having that effect in his life, he is referring to the objectification warping the mind of the black men. He is conscious of his body in a way that it creates a certain uncertainness of his own movements because his body physically becomes his main attention because of the attention that the ‘white world’ gives it. He is under scrutiny and therefore becomes hyper aware of his own body, not only in the physical, but metaphorical sense. He talks about how the movement against this ‘white world’ caused him to live under a stronger scrutiny, which would make any person in such a serious and stressful position aware of the spotlight they are under.

The difference between white and black being based completely on physical appearance is what causes this stress on the actual color of the narrator and his people. He reflects on this when he speaks of laboratories and doctors trying to create ‘whitening’ practices in order to help the ‘Black’ change to ‘White’ in the literal sense. This goes beyond self-consciousness as the twistedness of such an absurd situation could make someone try to be ashamed of the color of their skin. Not only is the actual color being scrutinized, but the character and history of the ‘black’ people are being put into a negative perspective just based off the word “negro”. This splits the person into a “triple person” as every aspect of the being is picked apart and analyzed and in this case, all with negative connotations. This left the being cursed by these connotations of their body, their culture and their history. Every part of them neatly cut into pieces that could be ripped apart and negated.

Fanon does discuss other discriminated groups, such as the Jewish. He believes that there is a significant difference between the discrimination the Jewish face and the discrimination that the African American do. His difference is explained by the fact that the Jewish are white, there is no outer indication of their religion, unless they are outwardly representing it, but they must be ‘found’, while the black man is pointed out and cannot even be considered found, but identified, making the skin an indicator or scarlet letter of sorts. Their own skin is betraying them, and they have nothing to hide from being identified (unless they are light skinned). He is “overdetermined from without” (page 5) by the fact that he is stripped of his own individuality and cut down by the perspective of the world around him, slicing away pieces of his humanity so that they can see him as they believe him to be. Nothing more or less of their expectations and ideas of a black man.

Fanon’s essay puts the idea and connotations of ‘black’ in a ‘white’ world into perspective of readers as he examines what it is for him to be black in a world where language is used against his entire race in order to brand him, take away his individuality and doom him. It is disgustingly sad to think that such a time existed in any world and caused any person to feel the way Fanon expressed his emotions.