Franz Fanon begins his essay “The Fact of Blackness” with the use of the words “dirty nigger” and the slightly more polite 1950s term “negro.” He resorts to using this shocking lead-in so as to force the reader to immediately open his eyes to the power of those words. The racial slur, now more commonly referred to as the n-word, is merely one little word and yet there is a great deal of connotation behind it. Fannon explains that “as long as a black man is among his own, he will have no occasion, except in minor internal conflicts, to experience his being through others” (1). However, once he enters the mainstream world — the world of the white man — the black man is forced to seem himself through their eyes. Rather than saying, “Look at that man,” the white speaker focuses only on one aspect of Fanon’s existence – his race. In addition, the addition of the adjective, “dirty,” makes Fannon seem like an object, as if he is nothing more than a muddy car or last week’s laundry. Moreover, the speaker’s description of Fanon as a “dirty nigger” brings to mind Saussure’ theory of arbitrariness. These words single Fanon out as a non-white entity that is unclean and therefore somehow corrupted. His presence contrasts with the other objects (people) in the scene, which are clean (innocent) and white (pure).

Furthermore, Fanon’s choice to quote unnamed speakers throughout his piece has two effects. First, the dialogue of these speakers highlights the objectification that the black man is forced to endure. Fanon desperately wants “to be a man among other men… and help to build [a world] together” (3). However, he tells us, “the occasion arose when I had to meet the white man’s eyes. An unfamiliar weight burdened me. The real world challenged my claims” (2). In fact, one of the speakers whose words Fanon shares, endeavors to prove that he is no racist by absurdly explaining his thoughts on “the negro” thereby actively pointing out Fanon’s blackness or otherness. Second, by not attaching names to the dialogue, the author lends power to his theme that these white people are also other. Though they are part of the mainstream, they are other to him. They have made themselves so by rejecting his notion that he could ever be “a man among men”.
Fanon further asserts that his encounters with the white world force him to exist as a triple person, “responsible at the same time for [his] body, for [his] race, for [his] ancestors” (3). In terms of his body, the black man operates like any other man, using a corporeal schema, which is the way our bodies react with the world. For example, after I get my milkshake at the counter from a cashier, I then have to walk to the beverage area to get a straw so that I can drink it. There is a relationship between my body and the physical world that is obvious. Next, when Fanon speaks of his race, he is referring to the historico-racial schema, which involves the interrelationship between the black man and the white community. The white child expresses fear towards Fanon because of the “thousand details, anecdotes, [and] stories,” (2) that have been constructed by the white community in an effort to define the nature of the “negro.” Though this child has no personal knowledge of Fanon, he believes that he knows something about him because of preconceived notions about black men that have been instilled in him prior to this chance encounter. Finally, Fanon explains that the racial epidermal schema makes him beholden to the behavior of his African ancestors, men and women who engaged in cannibalism, endured slavery and expressed their spiritual beliefs through music, dance and foreign rituals. Therefore, though Fanon himself is separated by hundreds of years from his ancestry, there is still an “evanescent” and hostile racism that is attached to him.
Fanon sees the last two parts of his triple identity as being thrust upon him. He finds that even amongst white liberals, who embrace the black man as a human being, do so with very set conditions. The white man can accept that the black man “has his heart on the left side” (7) like every other man. However, “under no conditions did he wish any intimacy between the races” out of a fear that the “physical and mental” prowess of the white race would somehow be diminished or diluted by an integration of black blood. Moreover, the white liberal treats racism or “color prejudice” (6), not as a destructive force that should be combatted, but as an outdated ideology that will hopefully go out of fashion in time. Thus, there is no real understanding or urgency amongst these liberal thinkers towards the plight of the black man.
Through the remainder of his essay, Fanon tells the reader about his journey of self-discovery as a black man; how he explored the history and culture of the African peoples; how he developed a sense of cultural pride; how he learned to define his own blackness. He refers to this journey as reclaiming his “negritude” (15) and uses examples and arguments that invoke the works of other theorists including: Marx, Hegel. Sartre, and Eliot. By the end of his piece, Fanon makes clear that his journey is ongoing. Every day he must endure the psychological onslaught in which the black man is defined through the lens of a white world. And every day, he resolves to emotionally counter that one-dimensional definition with his own understanding of his blackness.