Talkin’ Bout a Revolution: A Comparative Analysis Between Hannah Arendt and Frantz Fanon

What is the role of freedom and violence in revolution? This thesis involves a comparative analysis of how two major political theorists – Hannah Arendt and Frantz Fanon – understood and conceptualized the role of violence and freedom in relation to revolution. Due to their differing theoretical frameworks and perspectives, they often come to different conclusions on these points of comparison. However, by placing these two thinkers in conversation with each other, we can better understand the core of their arguments on freedom, violence, and revolution and how they might be similar and different in various ways. For Arendt, violence is argued to be destructive, unreliable, and unable to create or lead to freedom and lasting political institutions. Additionally, freedom is argued to be relational, societal, and involves political participation and a deliberative political space. For Fanon, violence is argued to be justified and necessary against the violence perpetrated by colonialist powers and oppressors. Accordingly, freedom is conceptualized as the colonized people reclaiming their agency, dignity, and autonomy. Given their differing perspectives on these themes, they articulate revolution in different ways, but arguably towards similar pursuits and goals. This comparative analysis leads to the creation of a new theory on revolution that brings together the most compelling arguments by each thinker to form a more holistic and nuanced way to think about modern revolution and politics today. Rather than choosing one perspective over the other, the goal of this thesis is to provide better understanding of violence and freedom as they relate to revolutionary action. As long as freedom, liberation, and justice remain as the goals of revolutionary action and clear tactics and plans are outlined and justifiable, then that struggle is worthwhile.