On Nation vs. Culture

A nation is deemed as a “politically organized body of people under a single government” or “the people who live in a nation or country” thus one would assume that reference to a “national culture” would be laden with political nuances of the said nation. However, it is necessary to look at the way in which politics and culture intersect and furthermore define one another. To what point do the people of “a nation” have influence over the cultural evolution (or lack thereof) that comes about as a result of change.
In order to explore that which is “national culture” we must first define the nation in reference. Fanon primarily speaks of a post-colonial African nation, as his observations and proclamations came at a unique time in the history of Africa, when Africa was establishing its independence from a Colonized existence. At the time when Fanon conceived this dissertation on the idea of a National Culture he explored the result of colonized Africans residing beside “natives” and if this post-colonialism would indeed create a national culture and how Africans of all ethnicities would be affected. Africa is a continent that is now composed of 53 sovereign countries so the idea of a national culture seems virtually impossible, especially when one considers that each individual country considers itself a small nation. Colonialism changed the native traditions of Africa and furthermore, drew new borders within the continent to divide territories amongst the colonizing countries, and those borders still exist to this day. But we must understand that within these borders exist both native natives and colonized natives, and those who have emigrated from Africa to other continents. Fanon questions how one can differentiate between the Negro Culture and the African Culture. They are both perceivably black in their skin tone, so ones initial presumption would be the two cultures are interchangeable. Yet this is clearly not the case, as Fanon describes the reaction of American Negroes and African Negroes integration during the first congress of the African Cultural Society, held in Paris in 1956, and find that their skin tone and culture are actually mutually exclusive. Fanon explains “the American Negroes considered their problems from the same standpoint as those of their African brothers……..but little by little the American Negroes realized that the essential problems confronting them were not the same as those that confronted the African Negroes.”
Fanon follows up by explaining that the racial discrimination that the black culture in American feels is quite different than African blacks; thus the common factor may be the push for civil liberty and racial equality, but the context is polar in platform. The political landscape of a nation heavily affects the residing culture(s) and Fanon finds strong ties between the geographical location and political culture in all regions, and in this mix religion often plays a significant role. Politics and geographical location can divide what once was a seemingly “united culture” and I find a personally relevant example of this to be the difference between Israeli Jews and American Jews. Like African Negroes and American Negroes, Jewish people share a common bond that extends beyond religion, as Judaism is often defined as a culture (especially for those of us who are reform in belief), like Negroism has defined itself as a culture. Nonetheless, we American Jews find staggering cultural differences with our Israeli brothers and sisters and what unifies us is nothing more than a history and a title. When I was in Israel, the Israeli Jews asked why we American Jews do not hang the flag of Israel from our apartments and houses, and it is because we as Jewish Americans have assimilated into the melting pot of American culture and in turn define our Judaism through American ideologies.
This process of native assimilation into foreign culture is defined, by Fanon, as a three-phase process where the native intellectual goes through a succession of reactions that range from attempting assimilation to negation and revolt. It is the third phase of this process that finds itself most relevant in relation to American culture, when the assimilated native attempts to recreate his native culture through literature or artwork. Although, in the process the individual finds that the native recreations are inevitably expressed through the language, culture and custom of the colonized nation. Therefore, true representation of culture can only be created in the exact moment and time in which those events that define culture occur. Fanon explains this in saying “The artist who has decided to illustrate the truths of the nation turns paradoxically towards the past and away from actual events. What he ultimately intends to embrace are the cast-offs of thought, its shells and corpses, a knowledge which has been stabilized one and for all.” This theory of stabilized knowledge corresponds with the fluidity of culture and the inability to recreate a movement that has already occurred. Translated into what we know as American culture, this can be defined as the commoditization of a movement or a cultural renaissance. The intellectual wishing to recreate or redefine the music, art and “culture” of the sixties counterculture will never produce more than a static idea or image of what that culture encumbered, because the political, environmental and social landscapes have all changed. Thus, that artist or intellectual who wishes to draw from this era and recreate it will only populate images that he or she has been taught to represent that cultural movement.
Depestre, the Haitian poet and communist, is who Fanon quotes to articulate the non-rhythmic tongue and didactic purpose of native poetry. He explains, “the native poet who is preoccupied with creating a national work of art and who is determined to describe his people fails in aim, for he is not yet ready to make the fundamental concession that Depestre speaks of.” That concession is ones relinquishing of core or native values to “romanticized” or “classicized” ideals. For colonized Africans, this meant trading in aspects of their native culture to maintain existence under the European culture that overthrew them. This concept of displacement where the “cultural obliteration is made possible by the occupying power, by the banishment of the natives and their customs” (Fanon p. 45) occurred in the colonization of the United States. Indian or Native Americans, among others, were pushed to the side, and their culture ignored and “replaced” by the idealized culture of the colonialists. Now those of Native American descent must attempt to maintain their culture through an existence on the outskirts of American culture and concede portions of tradition in order to survive as a people.
The only resurgence of culture that is found is through artifacts or symbols that are meant to represent the culture of a nation but do not do justice. By the time an oppressed culture, sub-culture or counterculture finds it’s way into the light of the masses, everything that culture stood for – its core structures, have faded into materialistic representations through “dress or a few broken down institutions. Little movement can be discerned in such remnants of culture; there is no real creativity and no overflowing life” (Fanon 46). Yet, these post-cultural symbols and ideologies are what we often use to define a culture, and this is where the mysticism and uncertainty about national culture and culture in general lies.
Fanon explains culture as “the expression of a nation, the expression of its preferences, of its taboos and of its patterns.” But, what if the people of a culture do not create the preferences, taboos and expressions? Can a culture still develop? American culture is one example where the cultural choices of its constituents have been largely considered and decided for them, and the concept of American culture is very different than the reality of American culture. As a result, the development of an American national culture seems impossible with such a rift in national identity and individual perception. However, we seem to be teetering on the edge of something new, something unique - a moment when a diversified populace united under the notion of hope and change. Fanon explains that the most creative cultural movements come on “the eve of the divisive conflict for national freedom, the renewing of forms of expression and the rebirth of the imagination” (Fanon 50). It will be interesting to see if this theory can apply to where we stand as a country, right now.