1
2
How did the world come to be what it is today? The question itself is a broad one, as the
world may mean many things: the natural world or the social structure in which societies
continue to fight for existence, dominance, and power. Nonetheless, the term “world” in this
paper will be posed as the social structure we take part in as a society. Through analysis, it is
evident that in most countries, there are social groups that face inequality: economic,
educational, racial, etc. It is useful to note that conflict theory explains the mechanics behind the
persistence of inequality. Conflict theory assumes that institutions persist through the
exploitation and dominance over others. When discussing dominance and its effects on cultures,
theorists Frantz Fanon and Stuart Hall broached the subject of power and its effects -- Fanon
presents the Post-Colonial Theory of colonial subjects being affected by the oppressors; Stuart
Hall uses the theoretical argument of Globalization to explore its effects on cultures, the
consequences, and how individuals are defending themselves against such influence from the
dominant group. It can be proclaimed that Stuart Hall’s analysis of the effects of domination,
resistance, and globalization can certainly be applied today to most cultures, specifically in the
United States based on observations, experiences, and the current political climate.
For Frantz Fanon, the world is divided into a two-tier structure: groups that can exert
their power and dominance and groups that face continuous oppression. A particular way that
countries dominated and continue to is through neo-colonialism, colonialism and violent
conquest, as understood when exploring the Post-Colonial Theory by Fanon. Born in a colony
himself, Fanon highlights that the colonizer is able to dominate the native through submission
3
through education and socialization (Fanon, 1961: 361). In essence, domination shapes the
cultures at the local and national level because, as he presumes, within institutions the native will
learn a language different than their own, learn about the colonialists’ history, and will be
socialized to fit into their culture -- this process can be thought of as “civilizing” the native. As
an example, Fanon’s idea can be connected to the “civilizing” of the native people by the
dominant group in efforts to assimilate individuals to American culture and society.
Interestingly, such historical facts are not presented in textbooks and can relate to the
perpetrators’ power to write history through their own perspective and decide what periods of
history to include and omit. Nevertheless, the history of the colonizer is structured in a way to
“serve [the] purposes” of the dominant group by manipulating historical facts and manipulating
the natives into believing that their version of history is non-existent (Fanon, 1961:363)
Consequently, the native will see the savagery when comparing the harsh reality of the world in
which he lives and the false conscious that the white culture paints through its history. To reject
the white culture, Fanon argues, is to stay true to oneself and if the native assimilates into white
culture then he will have exchanged his own culture for theirs, thus pleading the natives to reject
it and decolonize even if violence is required. Fanon’s theory builds on the main assumptions of
conflict theory because there are persistent conflicts surrounding the haves and have nots. In this
context, it may not be based on economic resources -- the haves account for domination and
power while the have nots account for resistance against domination. Though conflict theory fits
Fanon’s theory best, functionalist theory is not applicable – it assumes that social order is based
4
on common and shared values but these values are being forcibly imposed onto the less
powerful. Overall, the powerful want to maintain the oppressed as powerless and continue to
assert their dominion over as many cultures as possible.
Contrary to Fanon and the Post-Colonial Theory, Stuart Hall presents the return of
ethnicity through his analysis of globalization and its effects. While Fanon presented a micro
level analysis of the interaction between the dominating group and the native, Hall offers a
macro perspective of how globalization affects the world and the cultures, not just one specific
nation or group of people. When beginning to think about national culture, Hall defines the term
as a composition of symbols and representations through stories, memories, and images relating
to the nation. But rather than simply thinking of national culture through symbols or stories, Hall
emphasizes that such culture is also related to the structure of cultural power (Hall, 1996: 626,
629). Not only will symbols help shape the national identity, but the power that dominant groups
hold can influence the national culture into their aspirations for how the culture should be
represented – and to them it would be to unify all cultures into one large cultural identity.
Although dominance may have the possibility of uniting cultures into one, the force of
globalization or linking nations, also has the power to reduce the efforts of having one national
identity among the oppressed. Hall expresses that one consequence of globalization is the decline
of a national identity and the strengthening of hybrid cultural identities (Hall, 1996: 360-361).
Unlike Fanon, Hall contends that individuals do not necessarily have to choose one culture and
5
abandon the other, rather can assume more than one culture as their identity and reject the notion
of being one or the other.
Differing assumptions transpire between both theorists because Fanon would have
assumed that culture was shaped as being with your own or against your people. Hall, on the
other hand, accepts the idea of hybrid identities. Essentially functionalist theory would not be
applicable for either theory because there is no consensus for social order -- rather one group
maintains national identity through force while other social groups are attempting to resist it
through actions that go against the dominant intentions.
Both theorists would generally agree that dominant groups have the ability to assert their
dominance and influence cultures, but they also have differing opinions on how the less powerful
react to the oppressive task of an enforced culture. Considering the political climate and
progressive society of today, Stuart Hall’s ideas are more relevant to modern day circumstances
and his concepts are applicable to recent observations and experiences. I understand Fanon’s
disquietude of natives assimilating to the dominant culture, but identifying with a sole culture is
near impossible in today’s world due to neo-colonialism and conquest that influenced many
countries and its people. Fanon’s argument is not relevant in today’s culture since he assumes
that an individual is either one or the other and describes cultural identity in a binary system of
white and black rather than accounting for the various ethnicities and races affected. For
instance, the United States is a land of immigrants – there are many cultures, values, norms, and
attitudes and one cannot simply take up a single identity. Because I am a daughter born in
6
America from Mexican parents, I do not consider myself one or the other. I am
Mexican-American because I practice Mexican culture but still partake in American culture and
Hall would describe me as a hybrid identity. Moreover, with globalization and its integration into
other cultures, many individuals are resisting this force due to its adverse effects. Every year
immigrants leave to escape hunger, poverty, and violence, but with them they bring customs,
cultures, and languages. But the white culture and politics of today’s society feel threatened by
the influx of cultures and want their national identity to remain as white as possible, hence the
current President making comments about immigrants arriving from “shithole countries” while
asserting that the United States should have more people come from places like Norway (Vitali,
et al. 2018). This goes back to the conflict theory and the historically dominant ideologies of
Caucasians as the superior race striving to retain power. It seems that today’s dominant group
holds the desire of making the nation great again when their true intentions are to stay in power,
keep the oppressed powerless and assimilate them to the superior culture.
To conclude, Fanon’s theory of decolonizing and rejecting white culture to assert their
own is not viable in today’s society. There are many cultures and many individuals that bring
with them customs and attitudes so it would be difficult for someone to identify with one
identity. Though for Hall, cultures are shaped by domination and resistance – if there are
dominant groups aiming to unify everyone to one, individuals will fight back and proclaim their
identities. Stuart Hall’s theory is more relevant today because of the national impacts
globalization has on national and local cultures.
7
Bibliography
Vitali, Ali, Kasie Hunt, and Frank Thorp. 2018. “Trump Referred to Haiti and African Nations as
'Shithole' Countries.” NBCNews.com. Retrieved October 23, 2018
(https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-referred-haiti-african-countries-shitholenations-n836946).
0
