Below I summarize and paraphrase Fanon's essay into a schematic fashion. Hopefully this will be useful to some.

Original: https://proletarian-library.neocities.org/en/on-national-culture

The three phases of the colonized intellectual

Phase 1: Racial and regional culture.

Colonialism asserts that the colonized are barbarians without nations or culture, who need colonialism in order to be saved from themselves. It does not bother with making a special case against the existence of any individual nationalism, but for the sake of efficiency, instead chooses to deny the existence of culture on regional or racial grounds. This also has a reciprocal effect on the colonizing Europeans nations, forming them into an international mass of whiteness.

In an attempt to negate the Europeans' claims, the colonized intellectuals assert an international or interregional culture, such as Pan-Africanism, or Pan-Arabism. The colonized intellectual first finds the qualities that define white culture: dull reason, stifling logic, rigidity, ceremony, protocol, skepticism - qualities of the capitalist colonialist venture and the cold calculation of surplus value. Within these limits, the intellectual then defines the regional culture by finding the opposite of those qualities: poetry, exuberant nature, naivete, petulance, freedom, luxuriance - portraying the colonized as irresponsible. Although it emphasizes international solidarity against colonialism, the simple negation of racial capitalist culture does not culminate in an overall antagonistic contradiction to colonialism. The intellectual who forwards it desires most of all to be seen as equals to the Europeans. They attempt to combat the colonizer on their own terms, resorting to racialized claims to match the concept of whiteness and the vision of a universal Europe. Equal footing in this case then could only mean that the colonized intellectuals meet the European intellectuals as the exploited to their exploiter.

However, soon objective problems undo this attempt at regional culture. The intellectual finds that the fight against colonialism differs in progression amongst the nations of the region. They abandon their asserted regional/racial culture once these objective problems make it clear that the decisive unit of struggle against colonialism is the nation, not the region or race. As culture is a reflection of struggle, it too differs amongst the nations, revealing that culture is first and foremost national. To be connected to reality, productive, and substantive, culture must be a national culture, not a pseudo-continental culture. The problem with the racialized cultures, is that they are a negation without transcendence of the colonialist's whiteness, whereas national culture is the progressive negation of the colonialist claims of barbarity. In order to really find a regional culture and cultural unity of a region, first there must be national liberation for all nations in that region. Specifically national problems expose racial universalization as immaterial, returning the intellectual back to the nation.

Phase 2: Stuck between the colonizer and the masses.

Phase 2A: Persuading the colonizer with defensive shallow national culture.

As the intellectual returns to the nation, their approach to the national culture has been altered. In the period preceding colonialism, the intellectual has a dynamic attitude towards the people’s culture, but after colonialism, this is replaced by a static attitude full of concrete particularism. The intellectual claims that national culture is the folklore of 'the people', turning it into simple self-discovery and at attempt at defining an abstract people through historical appeals. National culture becomes defined by narrow terms and limits, a rigid structure. Particulars of the nation are elevated to mystical proportions to signify the nation's historical roots. The intellectual brings forth cultural items in a mechanical way, finding the most surface level cultural items to display the existence of a national culture. It is loud, it is bold, and it is cliche.

This aesthetic of particularism is a defense mechanism to preserve what remains of the old culture and life before colonialism. It is also an attempt to assert the nation to the colonizer. The intellectual hopes they can stop the colonial occupation by putting the shallow culture under the occupier's nose. But to do this, they must necessarily make the culture comprehensible to the occupier, translating the culture into a language they will understand. This locks the intellectual into the style and aesthetic of the colonialist, dooming the culture to shallowness, and especially making it alien to the national masses.

The national masses have their own relationship to the national customs. Following conquest, they continue to practice the customs of pre-conquest culture. They do this as a means of asserting their nationhood, in the only way they know how. In doing so, they prove by themselves that their nation does exist, despite the colonizers' claims to the contrary. This demonstration of nationhood upsets the racial (nation denial) justification of colonialism and is subsequently prohibited by the colonizers. When, in spite of prohibition, the masses go on practicing the customs, the colonizer responds with repression, calling forth a correspondingly violent reaction by the colonized. Such violence unites and emboldens the national masses, furthering their claim to nationhood.

But this practice and defense of customs is not in itself a struggle for national liberation. Rather, the violence is too only a defensive reaction to prevent losing what little remains of material life before domination. Customs are built by, and reflect the needs of, struggles that existed before the fight for national liberation. In their practice, the masses parade out something that is dead and try to pretend it is alive. Culture, on the other hand, reflects the living, always adapting needs of the present. Culture becomes solidified into custom through changes in the economic structure. Thus, asserting that customs are the primary symbol of the nation deteriorates the culture, making it lifeless, highlighting the past while ignoring the issues of the present. However, there is a positive side to the masses continual practice of customs under colonialism. By experiencing the masses’ demonstration of nationhood, the intellectual sees that the nation is being created through the masses' struggle against colonialism.

Phase 2B: Moving towards the masses, recreating their struggle.

The intellectual starts to identify with the masses through their movements and their development of national consciousness, moving the primacy of the contradiction within themselves towards the masses. The longer any open battle and combat for national liberation persists, more intellectuals will be moved from phase 2A, through 2B. The national masses' staying power, their ability to persist in their struggle despite repression, setbacks, and any other attempts to stop their struggle, impresses the intellectual and impels them to stop whatever else they were doing.

The intellectual begins to openly criticize colonialism, rather than attempting to persuade it. When the intellectual first attempts to prove the existence of the nation, they, in a kind of clumsy way, raise above all else the particulars of custom. But now, the masses have displayed their fresh vibrant quality of creation in the struggle. By counterposing this quality of the masses to the qualities of the colonial administrator, the opposition between the colonialist and the intellectual are brought to an antagonistic contradiction, progressing past the racial and regional culture of phase 1.

The intellectual’s work now changes forms, from poetry to novels, short stories or essays. The work becomes more direct. The abstract indirectness of poetry fades away as the intellectual becomes involved in the masses' struggle. The content of the work changes as well. Gone are the intellectual’s emotional cathartic outbursts towards the colonizer, which were always acceptable to the colonizer anyway. As long as violence is left to the domain of art, and doesn’t make its way to the masses, these outbursts will always be applauded.

But now the audience is shifted. In phase 2A, the audience is still the colonizer, while in phase 2B the masses become the audience. The intellectual now insists on describing the sacrifices of the national masses. They attempt to capture the masses in their moment of national creation. The intellectual analyzes and describes the moment of revolt with unnerving precision, creating a careful rendition of truth. But Fanon asks if this version of truth is real, or if it is outmoded, irrelevant, called into question by the actual reality being created by the masses.

Despite their rationality and commitment, the intellectual still fails to live up to the rationality and irreversible commitment displayed by the masses actually in motion. The intellectual is not capable of showing the reality of the nation this way, because culture is the continual never-ending struggle of the nation. As soon as the artist sets down to catalog the moment, it has passed. The intellectual that attempts to create culture and a work of national significance by simple replication of motion is chasing a dead end.

The intellectual who is intent on describing the national culture must make a full break with their colonial side. The intellectual is still caught in a contradiction that makes the creation of culture impossible. They must decisively define the masses as their subject. This objective choice must first begin within the intellectual, through recognizing their division between their colonialist education, and the colonized nation. Fanon calls this the intellectual’s alienation. This alienation is a result of what the intellectual has taken from colonialism. The transaction has been one-sided; the colonizer did not actually give what the intellectual took. Everything ‘given’ has been in the interest of colonialism, making the intellectual the one who was really taken. In an attempt to reverse what they gave, the intellectual proclaims against the colonizer, proclaims for the nation, proclaims against being divided, attempts to reunite with the nation through old dead customs. But to really reverse what was taken, the intellectual must give instead to the masses. The intellectual must reunite with the masses and the living culture of the present struggle. This will suddenly call the alienation into question.

The intellectual of 2B begins with simply highlighting the contradictions between the nation and the colonizer. But culture is authentic when it reflects the reality of the nation, and the reality and culture of the colonized nation is not just its life under domination, but actually its liberation. The culture describes where the nation is going, not just where it is at or where it has been, calling upon the whole people to join in the struggle for the existence of the nation. They must move to rousing the masses to liberation.

Phase 3: Revolutionary national culture

The intellectual transitions into their role of delivering marching orders for the liberation struggle, becomes more direct and calculated. It is only by calling the national masses to combat that the intellectual can assist in proving the existence of the nation. All other attempts at proving the nation's existence are for the colonizer only. The present colonial situation is no longer a matter simply for the intellectual, for their personal anguish, which they only communicate to the oppressor, but instead is channeled out to the national masses in every direction. The intellectual is called to the masses in their struggle for national liberation, but just the same, the intellectual calls the masses to rise for national liberation. Fanon’s word choices: rouse, galvanize, combat, signal that this is not a portrayal for artistic sake but for the purpose of revolution.

Only the intellectuals who are rousing the masses for the current national struggle at hand, speaking directly to the masses, are creating works of national culture. In all other roles, they fall short. Until they reach this point, the culture of the nation does not exist for the intellectual. They cannot create national culture, nor proclaim the nation by extension, until they rouse the people to combat. Then the intellectual can finally create, and finally becomes creative. To fight for national culture means fighting for the liberation of the nation. The intellectual who wants to fight for culture, must take part in the action by spurring the people into further action, fostering hope and using the past to open up the future.

Phase 3 creation does not 'trifle with the reality' of the nation, a characteristic of phase 2 creation, but rather reinterprets the images of the country for revolutionary purposes. It also finds the exact moment of the struggle, place of action, and ideas around which culture will form. The word 'will' is the main difference between phase 2 and 3. Phase 2B describes where the moment of struggle took place, rather than where it will take place. Phase 2B tells us about the struggle after it has passed, while phase 3 leads and amplifies the wave of the struggle.

Phase 3 literature is pedagogical. It presents things in a clear manner, and its account is meticulous and develops progressively. The most esteemed praise Fanon places upon the intellectual is to say that, through understanding their creation of national culture, the masses have performed an intellectual and political act:

To understand this poem is to understand the role we have to play, to identify our approach and prepare to fight.

This is the outline to any combat. The colonized national masses understand their position within the chain of command, the battle plan, and are ready to deploy at any moment. Fanon says that all colonized subjects will perform these acts when they receive the message of the national culture.

The intellectual and the masses' real movement against the colonial world is the determining factor for the culture. National liberation defines the national culture in explicit terms, determining the shape the intellectual’s work takes. Customs in all art forms will be upset during the revolutionary upsurge, updated to be relevant to the current struggle. The rough skeletons of customs are kept while the content and form are changed, transforming customs into living dynamic culture. New amateurs join in the creation of national culture, pushing old intellectuals to adapt to the new forms. Comedy and farce as artistic forms become less important, and drama is no longer simply for the intellectual only, but becomes part of the national masses regular experience, part of the struggle. Characters are portrayed in action or in combat, or instead of depicting single subjects, multiple people.

The degree to which the new culture reflects the old customs, is only determined by the capacity for the old customs to be appropriated to the new ends of advancing the national struggle. In practice, appeals to custom are not excluded by a set of rules, but rather the awakening to the real national culture, which is always in the moment changing, naturally excludes custom by definition. Custom is stagnant and in contradiction to the radical reality grasping required by revolution. National culture deteriorates and erodes all customs obsolete to the present. Involving or carrying through the customs is not the critical part of the formation of the new national culture, but rather the nation adapting and struggling against their colonialist, neocolonialist, or imperialist reality, creating national culture along the way. The intellectual’s appropriation of the nation's history is progressive only in the context that it is used for national liberation.

Summary

We began with the intellectuals' attempt to negate the European colonialists' claim that the colonized have no culture. And this attempt has gone through three phases, where only the final phase has not been a dead end. In the first phase, the intellectual is insignificant to the national masses. This is a historically transient phase, upset by national realities. In the second phase, the artist is producing for the nation and for the colonizer. It is probably the most prevalent and common phase, and the one most commodified. In the third phase, the intellectual is a revolutionary, intertwined with the masses and the creation of culture.