Négritude

At Senghor’s time of writing, colonialism had ossified divisions along the fault lines of race and ethnicity. Keeping this context in mind, is there any value that can be truly seen as universal? Being dismissive of Négritude by seeing it as a particularism does not capture its true essence. According to Senghor, the purpose of Négritude is not to merely affirm as it also focuses on self-confirmation: “it is rooting oneself in oneself.” While Négritude cannot be seen a universal ethic, it still attempts to construct an effort to resist. This aspect of Négritude should not be ridiculed as a struggle against the discourse perpetuated by colonizer can manifest itself in different ways.

Universalism can be interpreted as a universally applicable philosophical concept that entails the creation of an inclusive space that seeks to involve everyone. Senghor, in Négritude, implies that this is his objective is to create “an opening to the world, contact and participation with others.” While his focus is on African culture, he alludes to the transformative qualities of Négritude that the entire world can experience. He claims it to be an ethic that synchronizes itself with the rhythm of life. It can be seen as an ethic that is almost break from the perils of modernity through self-affirmation. However, the origin and manifestation of the ethic is primarily centered on an “African” who possesses the interplay of forces. The claim that Négritude is predicated on a Pan-African racial identity is perhaps Senghor’s own reckoning as there is an underlying assumption that the framework is representative. A fundamental problem with Senghor’s argument is one of categorization. While he is emphasizing the importance of African culture, there is no mention of who specifically this “African” is. There is an assumption of African homogeneity throughout the text which is slightly problematic. By coalescing identities, not only is internal difference amongst the colonized negated, but there is also an implication that colonialism impacted the colonized in a homogenous manner.

At the same time, entirely denouncing Négritude as unrepresentative is an injustice to its ethos and literary framework. The origins of the ethic can be traced to the “colonized intellectual.” Through the revitalization of art, the intention is to claim ownership of the self. If we view Senghor as a “colonized intellectual” who is temporally dislocated, we can see how that dislocation leads to an identity crisis which paves the way for a rather unique form of resistance. Individuals who try to assimilate into the colonizer’s culture suffer from a cognitive bifurcation which Memmi seeks to understand. It is almost as if Memmi’s diagnosis in The Colonizer and the Colonized is the perfect preface to reading Senghor as it allows to assess the impact of cognitive dualism. If we see this dualism as an ailment rather than an attempt to coopt, we can better understand the nature of this resistance instead of dismissing it for its inability to represent. Borrowing from Fanon’s usage of the term, Négritude can be perceived as a “muscular spasm.” It might not be a solution, but it is a self-confirming reaction. However, there is a difference between interpreting it is a reaction and classifying it as reactionary. The term reactionary implies that there might not be any substance within the literary framework. Making such an assumption is rather reductive as Négritude did make an effort to represent even though it cannot be entirely classified as a universalism.