In Fanon’s The Fact of Blackness, Fanon argues that the term “blackness” in not an original identity, but one that is forced upon the individuals that are labeled as black people. “Blackness” is determined by the physical traits of a being, the darker you are the more you fit the identity of “blackness.” This term is used to isolate and ultimately alienate the black man from the rest of the society. The black man does not have the opportunity to to create an identity for himself, rather he is subjected to the ideas and portrayal that someone else has for him. Fanon focuses on the concept of self-identity, realizing that he is an object amongst other objects, having no control over his own free will. The black man finds it difficult to grasp his own reality because of the social constraints put upon him.

The black man knows that he cannot be overlooked. He cannot hide the color of the skin, he cannot be anonymous. The label of “blackness” constantly shadows him. Compared to the white man, he will always be considered inferior. The judgements and criticisms that people have weigh him down. Fanon explains that no matter how many good qualities or talents that the black man may have, people will always denounce him for the color of his skin. He begins to feel ashamed of the criticisms hurled at him, realizing that he will never be good enough for them. This makes him have less control over his own identity.

The black man has already become “blackened” by society even before he can create an identity for himself. His existence only lives on what society makes of him, rather than making an identity for himself. Everyone holds the right to be proud of their background and race, but that becomes hard to do when the society around you treats you and your people less than equal. This ultimately makes one’s self-identity become a burden on them.

I was listening to this song by California hip hop supergroup Living Legends, and it felt it very appropriate to our class. In this song I hear everything from Marx to Fanon and Foucault. Maybe even a little Nietzsche? Check it out!

YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4V_Q7qsZLw

[Hook: Bicasso]
It’s a kid on the corner of his block
And there’s a genius in his room with a deep thought
It’s a grower in the hills with a crop
But if they all come together what they got?
A little power unified to make a knot
Well of course
And if a plan to expand is endorsed for some more
Lend a hand, pay attention and explore
We all in this people we all in this…

[The Grouch]
Well now I don’t know where you’ve been
But if you got here I’ll let you in
Welcome you with open arms, now let’s begin
Set the scene, serious as fuck minus the mean
Build up your esteem and get to growing
I’m showing fools a place where they can come
And erase the dumb deeds they’ve done
Cause ever since I was young I’ve been shown I wasn’t alone
I roamed with my unhoned skill
And anyone who talked down on me
I knew they didn’t know the deal
My belief was way larger than life
Taking charge with the might in my mind
And recognizing that in other mankind
I knew I was on the right path, see
Combating a fight, wrath raging for way too long
And you might say you’re strong, proud, loud and so on
Steadily doing damage every time you get your flow on
I build in Oakland, Chicago and everywhere else I go
There’s people who know exactly what I mean
More than a scene, great minds think alike
So when you find hate it ain’t tight
Decipher the paint right
Get your sights set on what’s important
Quit distorting the big picture
When will it hit ya?

[Hook]

[JC]
A rich man in a poor man’s body
That’s what I was growin’ up, hustlin’ for the buck
Mentally torn between just to be or not to be
It gotta be it betta be betta days ahead of me
Cheddar cheese, luxuries, was never gave to me
Instead I shift from home to home, feelin’ lone was I prone
From the destiny in which I lay to wallow
I live for today and give a fuck about tomorrow
The sorrow and hatred is my only perception
Because all my memories is filled with lies and deception
The stressin’, deprived of a childhood and adolescence
Learned my lesson, now it’s all good
I never thought I’d see the streets there’s so many hoods
My heart done broke so many times, boy it’s harder than wood
It’s been a long road, but you know the game unfolds
I listen to the stories told by the cats of old
Tryin’ to tell me I don’t know about strugglin’
Like in the slave days, but ain’t shit changed
Instead we ain’t wearin’ chains, huh
I feel the same pain but it’s escalated
Niggas feel free, but still ain’t emancipated
So gettin’ faded is what’s left off the green leaf
Hindering the mind, but when I’m high I feel fine
Been in the wrong place at the wrong time
All the time
Tryin’ to journey into the light
But the dark ain’t far behind
I’m at a color disadvantage but I manage
To make it work for me by the use of my talents
And use common sense to gain dollars and cents
And ain’t ashamed it’s what I do
Until the day I repent

[Hook]

[Luckyiam]
I stay humble through the many of fumbles I found trouble
And trouble it doubles in cities amongst the rubble
I learned from my mistakes to miss another
Resembling ignorance, isn’t it all in the struggle?
Got you wondering, why?
You wanna bubble so you hustle
Building the muscle that’s not needed
So the other one you ignore it
And feed it more fantasy and you store it, in the bubble
(Your circumference of comfort)
“Ghetto fabulous” important in society
A circle of clubbing and girl fucking amounts to really nothing
While we fronting for the public
We shove it down the throats of our kids and watch em love it
And got the nerve to wonder why shit’s fucked up
The government lucked up, by giving fools the right to bear arms
Cause we shoot each other down at the last call…
What the fuck y’all???
Shit…

[Hook]

Frantz Fanon states that, even though his spirit is filled with a desire to attain, he finds that he is simply “an object in the midst of other objects”. In “The Fact of Blackness”, Fanon delves into this “crushing objecthood”, as he sheds light on the evident oppression and undeniable resilience of the black man.

Fanon opens the discussion with the term Ontology, which on a basic level, has to do with the nature of being. It is a set of concepts and categories in a subject area that show the properties between them, such as the relation between the white man and the black man. Fanon states, “not only must the black man be black; he must be black in relation to the white man” (1) Essentially, the relation between the two will always result in the inferiority of the black man; the lesser man.

As the piece progresses, Fanon dives into this concept of consciousness and the importance of finding his “tune”. His narration comes alive with first hand accounts of racism and an overwhelming fear and discomfort in the white man’s world. He says that, “the real world challenged my claims. In the white world the man of color encounters difficulties in the development of his bodily schema. Consciousness of the body is solely a negating activity. It is a third-person consciousness. The body is surrounded by an atmosphere of certain uncertainty” (2) Fanon then discusses the actions he would have to take to reach for cigarettes and matches, if he chooses to smoke. He states that these actions are not out of habit, but of implicit knowledge. He says, “a slow composition of my self as a body in the middle of a spatial and temporal world—such seems to be the schema. It does not impose itself on me; it is, rather, a definitive structuring of the self and of the world—definitive because it creates a real dialectic between my body and the world.” (2) Soon after, he goes into racial epidermal schema, which he claims is what tears down this basic corporeal schema and sets the black man apart. It forces him to be aware of his body in the “triple person”. He states that he exists triply, by occupying space, moving towards the other, and the evanescent other. His use of this word is clever, as he calls it “hostile but not opaque, transparent…” (3) It is not only the other, but the sneaky and prevalent form of the other that lingers and keeps the black man down.

“I was responsible at the same time for my body, my race, for my ancestors. I subjected myself to an objective examination, I discovered my blackness, my ethnic characteristics; and I was battered down by tom-toms, cannibalism, intellectual deficiency, fetishism, racial defects, slave-ships, and above all else, above all: “Sho’ good eatin’.” (3)

I found this striking because Fanon is able to include the heavy burden that sets the black man apart in just a few lines. He includes all the stereotypes and misconstrued ideas that are linked to the existence of the black man. His ability to make the argument personable and honest allows the reader to identify with his struggle and see just how irrational the white man is.

Fanon continues to discuss how all he wishes to be is a man that can help build the world together. It is this innocent and simple gesture that further proves how the white man “unmercifully imprisoned” him and countless others. Fanon mentions the time in which a child feared him, assumed he would eat him, simply because he was shivering from the cold. This is the most obvious form of racism, as it is explicit and straightforward. However, Fanon is able to include other forms of it, such as the subliminal or passive aggressive forms.

One of the ways he does this is by comparing the black community to the Jewish community. He states, “the Jew is disliked from the moment he is tracked down. But in my case everything takes on a new guise. I am given no chance…I am the slave not of the “idea” that others have of me but of my own appearance” (5) Although there was, and still is today, plenty of Antisemitism, it does not compare to the discrimination towards the black man, as it has to do with a dislike towards their beliefs or ideals rather than their appearance. Another instance of racism that Fanon discusses is what many consider the “back-handed compliment” type, which is rather passive aggressive and is most of the time worse than the obvious, straight forward kind of racism. He includes some examples, such as, “Oh I want you to meet my black friend…Aime Cesaire, a black man and a university graduate…Marian Anderson, the finest of Negro singers….Dr. Cobb, who invented white blood, is a Negro…Here, say hello to my friend Martinique (be careful, he’s extremely sensitive)…” (5) I found this interesting, as it is something that was clearly prevalent in the fifties, and still is today. By structuring sentences this way, there is more damage done, as the ‘compliment’ is completely shrouded by the very obvious tinge of racism. This is still seen today, for example, when individuals say things like “oh, she’s pretty for a black girl”. Fanon follows these examples by saying, “when people like me, they tell me it is in spite of my color. When they dislike me, they point out that it is not because of my color. Either way, I am locked into the infernal circle” (5) Ignorance is the greatest factor when it comes to situations such as these.

Fanon discusses many different aspects that tie into the inferiority of the black man, but it is refreshing to see how his words can still find the ability to be optimistic and resilient. I enjoyed his method of writing, as it encouraged me to feel sympathize, while still informing me on the cold, hard facts. I specifically liked one of the closing lines, where he says, “my Negro consciousness does not hold itself out as a lack. It is. It is its own follower” (16) Eventually, he comes to terms with how the world has rejected him based on color prejudice and he decides to to move back towards unreason. He regresses, in order to make the white man more irrational than himself. As he closes out the piece, he includes songs and poems that reflect on the black experience. The words depict the struggle and pain that the black man has faced, and continues to face today, but above all, it shows strength and perseverance. He says, “the white man, I could see, was resentful. His reaction time lagged interminably…I had won. I was jubilant”. (14)

The Fact of Blackness by Frantz Fanon gives us a look into his life and experiences as a black man. We see how Fanon tackles racial identity while trying to find his own identity in a large pool of white power. “Dirty Nigger” or “Look, a Negro”. Fanon starts his essay with these words and they automatically bring the reader back to a time where this language was so prevalent. “Look, a Negro” are the three words that are the beginning of the detached third person consciousness that he experiences when he comes into contact with ‘the other’. ‘The other’ first comes in the form of a little white boy. “Mama, the nigger’s going to eat me up” said the white boy that showed fear toward Fanon. The child has been taught that black people are animals, bad people, mean and much more negative things. Even though the child has never met Fanon before, he believes that he know about him because of prejudiced mindset that was passed down to him. Fanon realizes that he has to make an identity out of a path that was already made for him. The detached feeling that embodies Fanon comes from suddenly coming into contact with a ‘white world’. The white world rejects blacks as people and places different kinds of characteristics and histories on them. Black people are then forced to learn and accept everything that this ‘white world’ has pushed upon them.

Fanon explains about being confined in the historicity of being black. Being black can not be overlooked. The racial epidermal schema makes Fanon bound to the actions of his ancestors. His ancestors who partook in cannibalistic activity and have experienced slavery. Hostile behavior is still prevalent to Fanon even though he is separated for over hundreds of years from his ancestry. Fanon now has to look at himself as a triple person because he has to be responsible for his body, his race, and his ancestors. He tries to find some structure through which to understand himself, and be proud of being black. Later, he tries to reason with racism but discovers “for a man whose only weapon is reason there is nothing more neurotic than contact with unreason”.

Fanon wants to exist freely in society as a black man without having to constantly defend himself. In today’s society racism has not gone away but, it has only transformed. Racism plays a major role in today’s societies and has indiscreetly become the social norm. We may have moved past Jim Crow but race still dictates for many people who they hire, sell products to, or rent housing to. If Fanon could look down and look at where our society is right now, I don’t think he would be happy with the current status of the society. Especially, with Donald Trump as our president.

So, what is the fact of blackness?  Having your identity already predetermined by others.

What I got from the Althusser’s article on “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus (Notes Towards an Investigation) is that- what is essential to production is not just the reproduction of the necessary materials necessary for production but perhaps even more vital is reproducing the ideology. Althusser states this clearly in the beginning of his articles “the ultimate condition of production is therefore the reproduction of the conditions of production.” (127). Without the ideology there would be no reasoning or truth to sustain the mechanism. This reminds me of our previous readings on hegemony. What I also understand from the reading is that all these system are interrelated and cannot be separated.

An example that comes to mind in regards to Althusser’s claims- is the production of skin bleaching creams and reproduction that is necessary to hone in consumption. The production, Althusser mentions would not survive more than a year if they were not invested in the reproduction. Part of the reproduction of skin bleaching creams is first the tools to make the product, then the demand is in itself needs to be continuously sold to the public so that it can be consumed. A skin bleaching cream is self explanatory as intended to make ones skin lighter however the underlying assumptions under a skin bleaching cream- is to make ones skin “whiter” and thus “better”. One wouldn’t buy a skin bleaching skin cream unless they were buying also into the ideology that one’s skin needed to be lighter. In under for the skin bleaching cream to sell thus there must be an ideology around how white skin is better, which is upheld by white supremacy. This ideology can manifest through different ideological state apparatus and Repressive State Apparatus which Althusser also greatly expands in his article. In the ideological state apparatus- institutions like the media will for example will use their platform which is embedded with white supremacy to either by force spread this ideology or “mistakenly”. An example that I can think of currently is Dove’s infamous skin ad on Facebook which portrays a dark skin model molding and turning into a white skin model. This ad is thus portraying that white skin is the ideal goal, and thus insinuates anti-blackness. The ideology of white supremacy supports the consumption of skin bleaching cream as by consuming the skin bleaching cream you are okaying the underlying ideologies- which is that white or lighter skin is better. In Althusser’s article he mentioned how “In order to think this mechanism, which leads to a kind of ‘endless chain’, it is necessary to follow Marx’s ‘global’ procedure”, (129) which he mentions includes production of means of production and production of means of consumption. To me this signifies that there are various systems at play that must be reproduced for a particular product to be sold. In terms of the skin bleaching cream I know that there are various institution that reinforce this ideology worldwide, especially because how much western countries produce media. That leaves a lot of the world, that isn’t white, consuming media that reinforces ideas around white supremacy.

In “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility,” Walter Benjamin considers the ways in which technological reproduction affects the significance of art. The authenticity of a work of art is established by “its unique existence in a particular place” (1053). Benjamin argues that this authenticity is degrades when art is subjected to technological reproduction. The reason for this is twofold: technological reproduction is more independent from the original (therefore, it can effectively change the manner in which the original is received), and technological reproduction can introduce the original into contexts that it otherwise would have been excluded from (hence, the exclusivity of the original is diminished).

The authenticity of an object creates what Benjamin calls the “aura” of that object. In one aspect, aura can be defined as “the unique apparition of a distance, however near it may be” (1055). The authenticity and aura of an object hold within them the object’s history. When one encounters a unique work of art, one unaffected by technological reproduction, such a work would be imbued with an aura, which held within it the work’s historical significance. A unique work of art is created by an irreplicable process, and disseminated by limited means. Hence, the object is inseparable from the historical tradition which brought it about.

By technologically reproducing a work of art, this aura becomes diminished. Such a transition in the reception of art belies “a perception whose ‘sense for the sameness in the world’ has so increased that, by means of reproduction, it extracts sameness even from what is unique” (1056). Hence, the uniqueness and exclusivity inherent in a non-technological work of art is foregone in favor of a reproducibility that tailors art to the masses. Where art was previously tied up in its ritualistic creation, technological reproduction severs this tie, freeing the work of art from its “subservience to ritual” (1057) and allowing its range of exhibition to reach the masses.

In reading this essay, I was unsure whether or not Benjamin approved of this change in circumstance. It appears at times that he laments the “destruction of the aura” (1055), and at other times celebrates the “emancipation” (1057) of art. Rather than take a moral stance upon whether or not technological reproduction is a beneficial change in our society, he merely outlines the consequences of this change, leaving its ethical value ambiguous. This allows the reader to appreciate such consequences for themselves, and decide what value to place therein.

In this spirit, Benjamin’s essay brought to my mind two examples of the effects of technological reproducibility outside of the realm of art. Specifically, I am inspired by the moment in which Benjamin attempts to generalize his thesis: “It might be stated as a general formula that the technology of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the sphere of tradition. By replicating the work many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to reach the recipient in his or her own situation, it actualizes that which is reproduced” (1054). My examples attempt to display the ways in which the effects of technological reproduction can be both beneficial and detrimental.

First, this brings to mind the effect of technological reproduction on the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation would not have been possible if not for the creation of the printing press. Mass reproduction of the Bible allowed for individuals to own copies themselves, whereas the handwritten copies of the past were hard to come by. By mass-producing the Bible, it became “actualized” for those who previously only had access to scripture through the rituals of the Catholic church. Hence, individuals were free to reinterpret the Bible, and to disregard the rituals to which religious practice had been tied for centuries. Here, in my opinion, is a great beneficial effect of technological reproduction, for its ability to equalize.

However, technological reproduction can be very dangerous as well, as can be seen in environmentalist Wendell Berry’s criticism of modern conservationism. Berry criticizes conservationist organizations for presenting their mission as one to protect the nation’s “scenic resources.” By the reproduction of nature imagery, we become detached from the traditions of land stewardship and ecological immersion that once defined our relationship to the land around us. These reproductions of nature imagery “actualize” the idea of a healthy ecosystem for us, even if we live in an urban landscape of cement and steel. “The appreciator of a place perceived as scenic is merely its observer, by implication both different and distant or detached from it.  The connoisseur of the scenic has thus placed strict limitations both upon the sort of place he is interested in and upon his relation to it” (The Unsettling of America, 26). By reproducing scenic imagery of nature, we become disconnected to the rituals by which this nature survives. Needless to say, I consider this a detriment of technological reproduction.

I believe that it is pointless to ask whether technological reproduction is good or bad in itself. Rather, what is more valuable is to consider its affects, as Benjamin does, so that we may be able to direct it in ways that are best suited to its use. Where there are rituals that are harmful, let us throw against them the full weight of our technological-reproductive abilities! Where there are rituals worth preserving, let us keep technological reproduction far away, lest they be swallowed up by it.

In Antonio Gramsci’s The Formation of the Intellectuals it is supposed that all individuals are intellectuals, everyone uses their mind in a theoretical way. He states, ‘All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals’ (1004). Meaning, any person can bake a cake or use self-checkout at the grocery store, but that does not mean they are a baker or cashier. An intellectual is determined by what they put into every day life that is unrelated to their professional activity.

Gramsci goes deeper with this thought by identifying two strata of intellectuals, the organic and traditional. Organic intellectuals according to Gramsci ‘rise out of membership in social groups that have an antagonistic relationship to established institutions and official power’ (1000). An organic intellectual is a cultural figure or activist. They give a voice to the population who are being repressed such as the working class. Organizers and visionary inventors such as Eminem and Kendrick Lamar are organic intellectuals. They use their voice and wealth to raise a voice for the people who need it the most. They use their platform to speak to the people beyond their population to attract attention to the numerous social issues seen throughout America.

On the contrary, traditional intellectuals according to Gramsci, ‘are the administrators and apologists for existing social and cultural institutions, such as schools, various religious denominations, corporations, the military, the press, political bureaucracies, and the judicial system’ (1000). Traditional intellectuals are believed to belong to a different, elite group. They acquire their information from institutions that are well known, and have been around for a while, ‘long-lived’. Professions such as teachers, preachers, doctors and lawyers represent a continuity with the past, meaning that they have been around for decades, using roughly the same techniques and education from years ago to help them complete their job today. Organic intellectuals get their information from social, political, and cultural experiences going on in the ‘now’, while traditional intellectuals get their knowledge from books and former traditional intellectuals who have been around for a while.

In order for hegemony to exist in a society, there has to be equilibrium between traditional and organic intellectuals. And in order for it to succeed, it has to generate its own organic intellectuals, grown out of the dominant hegemony. Meaning, a single dominant group has to find the organic intellectuals within them to help them balance out the overpowering, traditional intellectuals. The society with the most power is the one that will succeed because of their ‘elite’ title.

In The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, Benjamin shows that through the process of technologically reproducing works of art, we lose the time and touch that goes into creating something by hand, and therefore, lose some appreciation as well.  The aura of the work is gone.  According to Benjamin, the aura of something is its unique authenticity.  Traditionally, art has attained value through its physical existence and the feeling someone derives from being in the presence of an authentic work.  When we begin reproducing art for the masses, it devalues “the here and now of the artwork” (1054) and jeopardizes its authority.   

I once visited the apartment of a friend and noticed a series of simple framed sketches hung on his wall with the signature “Picasso” in the bottom corner.  Seeing that signature brought me true excitement.  My friend had the means to potentially afford original art and the thought of Picasso himself drawing those figures brought me genuine excitement.  I asked him about the sketches and he replied, “Oh,  I got them at Ikea.”  Instantly my reverence of the work evaporated as it’s aura dissolved with my knowledge.  This supports Benjamin’s idea that art has a sacredness surrounding its production.   Technological reproduction overrides tradition surrounding the development of artwork and frees it from sacred rituality.  Creativity is no longer an essential component of creation.  Benjamin warns that this new method of producing art “can therefore contribute to the political struggle in ways that it would be a mistake to underestimate,” (1054), and that it can be exploited to the benefit of fascism.  

“As soon as the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applied to artistic production, the whole social function of art is revolutionized.  Instead of being founded on ritual, it is based on a different practice: politics.” (1057).  Benjamin uses Marxist language in talking about the proletarianization of modern man in the wake of the industrial revolution.  Fascism seeks to mock-support the working class in their defiance of capitalism while working to maintain it all the while.  So where does that leave us?  “The logical outcome of fascism is an aestheticizing of political life.” (1070).  In the same way that a beautiful film hides its apparatus, fascism violates the working class by masking it’s true motives.  Trump is a prime example.  He unites his supporters against a myriad of enemies:  Muslim “terrorists”, Mexican “rapists”, “fake” news; anything to distract from the fact that instead of trying to “Make America Great Again,” Trump’s intention is to keep us exactly where we are.

The current mediums and continuous evolution of modern reproducible art is conducive to mass distraction.   Someone who views a work of high art becomes enamoured within it.  Conversely, the “distracted masses” consume new art and make it a part of their being.  Film is able to “mobilize the masses” and turn the viewer into a distracted analyst.  As a modern society, we have become so distracted that we separate ourselves from the rest of America to the point of taking aesthetic pleasure our own self-destruction.  Why does Trump deny climate change?  Why is he so blasé about nuclear weapons?  Why does he think Neo-Nazis are “very fine people?”  Because it is in his best interest as a capitalist to keep the proletarians at war.