Philosophy Now Forum

There is an interesting story I once read regarding Frantz Fanon. Apparently when he was relatively young he witnessed a fight between a local Caribbean man against two French sailors. Upon seeing the fight, Fanon rushed to the aid of the local to fight the sailors. Later it was apparently discovered that the local had stolen the wallet of one of the sailors, triggering the fight. Fanon's position after this revelation was unwavering; that he did the right thing because the sailors were ultimately colonial oppressors.

Noam Chomsky tells a story of when he was younger, of some children picking on a fat kid in the school yard. Chomsky says he has always felt as though he ought to "stick up for the underdog". I don't remember seeing any more context to Chomsky's story than kids were picking on a lone fat kid. We don't really know why the kids were picking on him. Perhaps the "fat kid" started it by insulting the other kids, who knows?

Both of these philosophers seem to have committed significant intellectual resources sticking up for the "underdog" in one sense or another. Sometimes it seems like their allegiance is almost unconditional. Power is evil. Wealth is evil. Nietzsche might say this is an example of "slave morality" overturning what would otherwise be considered "noble". Some may call it cynicism. Of course "cynicism" and "slave morality" seem to bring negative connotations and perhaps it therefore isn't very fair to summarize their positions as such.

In any case, going back to Fanon's story, what would be the "right thing to do" in the circumstance of the two sailors fighting against the local who stole the wallet from one of them? Did Fanon do the "right thing" by fighting on behalf of the local?

Personally, from my perspective it seems to me that being the "underdog" maybe doesn't automatically make one worthy of support or allegiance just by virtue of being the "underdog". Sometimes sticking up for the "overdog" is maybe ethically warranted depending upon the circumstances. Chomsky's and Fanon's political philosophies are maybe much more intricate and complex than this but sometimes I wonder. (Sometimes they seem uncompromising, so that you either agree with them or you are siding with imperialism, aggression or power.)

Honestly, I'm not much of a fighter and would most likely have walked by and tried not to get involved. On the other hand perhaps the most pious reaction to the Fanon scenario might be to try to break up the fight and/or find out more about what was going on before jumping in and trying to help one side or the other. Of course, upon examining the situation closer, maybe it will be proven or demonstrated that Fanon was right to side with the pick pocket?

Thanks for reading.

Gary

I can't speak to Chomsky. But you aren't accurately representing Fanon there. It's been a while since I read him, so forgive me if my own recollection is fuzzy....

In Wretched of the Earth he was arguing that the colonised are victims of institutional violence. In their everyday existence they are subject to institutions placed there by an outside force to rob them of their autonomy, and so even though they aren't beaten every day, their every activity is subject to coercion (he had a fairly expansive view of what constitutes violence). I'm pretty sure he also argued that this has a brutalising effect on the colonisers who both fear violent reprisal and become increasingly willing to inflict violence.

The end result is that violence becomes a part of all political relations between not only the colonists and the colonised, but also in the relationships between colonists and each other, the colonised and each other, and even the colonists and their homeland. (I think he wrote that before the French Algerians tried to invade France)

The cycle of violence which begins with the initial colonisation therefore poisons all and remains long after decolonisation as whichever rebels fought the invader will inevitably become the next government and inherit many of the institutions and all of the legacy of violence left behind. Nevertheless, overthrowing the occupiers was an imperative for the whole healing process to even begin, in spite of it adding to the immediate trouble.

In that context, most political actions have an undercurrent of violence, and most violent actions have at least a little bit of politics in them. So although the guy nicking the wallet was a thief, he would still count it as a little bit of constructive rebellion to some extent.

I'm pretty sure I've left out something important, but I can't remember what. And you should be cautious about taking my word for the above because I don't remember it too well, and I also think I got quite a crappy score for my essay on the topic.

FlashDangerpants wrote:I can't speak to Chomsky. But you aren't accurately representing Fanon there. It's been a while since I read him, so forgive me if my own recollection is fuzzy....

In Wretched of the Earth he was arguing that the colonised are victims of institutional violence. In their everyday existence they are subject to institutions placed there by an outside force to rob them of their autonomy, and so even though they aren't beaten every day, their every activity is subject to coercion (he had a fairly expansive view of what constitutes violence). I'm pretty sure he also argued that this has a brutalising effect on the colonisers who both fear violent reprisal and become increasingly willing to inflict violence.

The end result is that violence becomes a part of all political relations between not only the colonists and the colonised, but also in the relationships between colonists and each other, the colonised and each other, and even the colonists and their homeland. (I think he wrote that before the French Algerians tried to invade France)

The cycle of violence which begins with the initial colonisation therefore poisons all and remains long after decolonisation as whichever rebels fought the invader will inevitably become the next government and inherit many of the institutions and all of the legacy of violence left behind. Nevertheless, overthrowing the occupiers was an imperative for the whole healing process to even begin, in spite of it adding to the immediate trouble.

In that context, most political actions have an undercurrent of violence, and most violent actions have at least a little bit of politics in them. So although the guy nicking the wallet was a thief, he would still count it as a little bit of constructive rebellion to some extent.

I'm pretty sure I've left out something important, but I can't remember what. And you should be cautious about taking my word for the above because I don't remember it too well, and I also think I got quite a crappy score for my essay on the topic.

You are probably right. As I said above there is probably more nuance to their philosophies than simply "sticking up for the little guy".I've only read a little about Fanon and none of his works themselves. Chomsky's political writings I'm much more familiar with. I shouldn't say Chomsky is strictly "sticking up for the little guy" either. I just remember the anecdote from an interview between him and Bill Moyers (IIRC) and it sort of resonated with me.

I think sticking up for the underdog is related to protective parental instincts. We instinctively want to help the weak. Besides, the strong don't need our help (and have probably screwed us as well). If we are to make ourselves useful then we usually do best by standing up for underdogs rather than getting in the way of the strong, who already have everything under control and perhaps suspect unsolicited help to be gold digging.

Having said that, Fanon's after-the-fact rationalisation is dodgy. He walked into a dispute blindly, backed the wrong horse and was too proud to admit the mistake.

Greta wrote:I think sticking up for the underdog is related to protective parental instincts. We instinctively want to help the weak.

I'd say it's more of a tribal instinct than a parental instinct. In a tribe, all members are incredibly valuable. You don't want any member to be weakened or destroyed by in-fighting.

Compare this to fights between members of different tribes: you'll always help your school chum against the other school's pupil if they are to fight. You can substitute "clique" for "school".

If you encounter strangers, and they seem to be at worst neutral to you, and they are fighting, then your instinct will make them tribes members with you, being the same species. Species' specimen prefer to protect their fellow members. So you try to break up the fight, or side with the weaker one, to make the fight even so nobody would get hurt too much. Fenton comes to mind.

Singular exception to this is the anthropomorphication of other species. We'll protect a horse being whipped by a stranger, or at least feel like protecting it; the horse becomes a valued member of our species. If a to us known person is beating it, we'll be more ready to rationalize, even without checking the facts, that the person we know beating the horse has a good reason to do so.

-----------------------------

There may be other elements that compel us to help the underdog or to bet on it and then help it.

One is the social advantage: if you help the underdog in an important fight, then you win its loyalty. This helps you if you vie for alpha position, and helps you if the underdog goes for the alpha position.

One financial advantage: if you bet on the underdog with a handicap, you are likely to score more winfall if the underdog successfully defeats the overdog.