The Psychology of Colonization
Albert Memmi: "The colonial relationship. . . chained the colonizer
and the colonized into an
implacable dependence, molded their respective characters, and dictated
their conduct." (Ix)
The colonial situation has a profound effect on
the psychology both of the colonizer (i.e., the colonial master) and the
colonized (i.e., the colonial subject). This psychology was examined during
the 1950s, near the end of the colonial period, by several writers from
the French colonial world: Albert Memmi, a Tunisian writer; Franz Fanon,
a physician from Martinique; and (Dominique) O. Mannoni, an Italian psychologist
working in Madagascar.
Memmi was a Tunisian Jew, whose ambivalent
status gave him perspective both on the colonized and the colonizer --
as a colonial subject of the French, and as a non-Moslem, which placed
him in a social position slightly above that of the average colonial subject,
with access to some of the privileges of the colonizer. Memmi describes
this "pyramid of petty tyrants" (17), each of whom responds to social oppression
from above by turning around and participating in the oppression of those
below. The psychic state of the colonizers is connected to economic advantages:
"If his living standards are high, it is because those of the colonized
are low; if he can benefit from plentiful and undemanding labor and servants,
it is because the colonized can be exploited at will and are not protected
by the laws of the colony; if he can easily obtain administrative positions,
it is because they are reserved for him and the colonized are excluded
from them; the more freely he breathes, the more the colonized are choked."
(Memmi, 8)
Mannoni argues, on the other hand, that the
colonial situation is perpetuated not by the colonials' economic profit,
but by the psychic satisfaction of the position of master (203). The two
positions seem oppositional, but in fact may be complementary; that is,
the economic force creates the opportunity for psychic satisfaction, which
then perpetuates itself even when/if economic factors change. Colonizers
are privileged at every step of the way, as against the "native" and in
contradistinction to the way they would be/are treated in the home country:
If he is in trouble with the law, the police and even justice will
be more lenient toward him. If he needs assistance from the government,
it will not be difficult; red tape will be cut; a window will be reserved
for him where there is a shorter line so he will have a shorter wait. Does
he need a job? Must he take an examination for it? Jobs and positions will
be reserved for him in advance; the tests will be given in his language,
causing disqualifying difficulties for the colonized. . . . From the time
of his birth, he possesses a qualification independent of his personal
merits or his actual class. He is part of the group of colonizers whose
values are sovereign." (Memmi, 12)
Fundamental distinctions between colonizer and colonized operate in a colonial
society, even if the colonizer is sympathetic to the plight of the colonized.
One cannot deny this privilege; it comes as a result of one's birth into
the colonizer group, not from one's merits or desires. Thus, colonial society
seduces even the reluctant colonizer into complicity with the colonial
situation.
Colonizers, if they did not experience the
automatic deference from the colonized that comes with race, skin color,
or nationality, would typically be only petty individuals in their home
society (49); this is exacerbated as the quality intellects and morally
aware individuals depart from the colony, leaving behind entrenched mediocrity
(50). Colonial Europeans, Mannoni argues, mask an inherent inferiority
complex by asserting dominance over the colonized natives. The colonials
project their own feelings of inferiority onto the natives, of whom they
are secretly terrified: "[Colonial] man is afraid because he is alone and
his fear is the fear of other men." (100) The misanthropic urges that lead
colonials to separate themselves from their "natural" society splits the
native Other into two images: "monstrous, terrifying creatures" (Shakespeare's
Caliban, Defoe's cannibals) who must be kept in their place for public
safety, and "gracious beings bereft of will and purpose" (Ariel, Friday)
(104).
In the colonial situation, a majority of the
colonists typically perceive the "native" as hostile; even the "gracious
beings" simply overlay their animosity to the colonizers with an appearance
of obsequious friendship, dropping the façade when the forces of
imperial law are absent. To protect themselves, then, the colonials turn
inward, shirking contact with the native Other. The colonizer, sensitive
that he has received privileges that are unwarranted by personal merit
and depend entirely on the distinction between himself and the colonial
subject, responds by further aggrandizing his own position, to seek justification
for his privilege. This may take the form of increasing harshness of judgment
against the colonized; this in turn creates further guilt feelings, and
thus further self-aggrandizement. "With all his power he (the colonialist)
must disown the colonized while their existence is indispensable to his
own." (54)
Responses of the colonized to the colonial
situation:
1. Assimilation: "The first attempt of the colonized is to change
his condition by changing his skin. There is a tempting model very close
at hand -- the colonizer." (120) In other words, the colonial subject seeks
to become like the colonial master, emulating the colonizers' behavioral
characteristics (as Memmi describes the Jewish community in Tunisia eagerly
embracing "Western" modes) and seeking education into the dominant culture
(cf. the heavily British basis of educational system in India, which persists
long after the colonial power has departed. "This fit of passion for the
colonizer's values would not be so suspect, however, if it did not involve
such a negative side." (121) In drawing himself closer to the master, the
colonial subject seeks to dissociate himself from his original culture
and its traditions -- he therefore becomes alienated from his "true" self.
2. Revolution: "Being unable to change his condition in harmony
and communion with the colonizer, he tries to become free despite him.
. ." (127) This includes both active resistance to the colonial situation,
but also an attempt to recapture the cultural legacy that the colonial
situation has tried to eradicate. (For instance, consider the way in which
the Gaelic League sought to resurrect the Irish language, folk literature,
and traditional instruments and folkways, during the Celtic Revival of
the late 19th century.) This period is also characterized by a sense of
xenophobia -- what may be considered, seen from the colonizers' perspective,
as a "reverse racism."
Partial list of sources: Albert Memmi, The Colonizer and the
Colonized (1957/1965); O. Mannoni, Prospero and Caliban: The Psychology
of Colonization (1964).
Back to Postcolonial Syllabus
Back to Wally Hastings' Homepage