Lou Turner’s (2026) invites us to reengage Fanon not only as a philosopher of decoloniality, but as a practicing psychotherapist trained in the psychiatry of his time. In this commentary, the author explores the implications of Turner’s analysis for our work as scholars and clinicians. The paper first investigates Fanon’s critique of how humanistic accounts of race within post-World War II liberal democratic regimes function as a form of “management,” a way of controlling, disciplining, and seducing Black and other colonized subjects with the promise of upward mobility and assimilation. The author critiques Turner’s distinction between a “sociogenic” and an “organic/constitutional” Fanon, mirroring a tendency in Fanonian studies to distance or “split” Fanon from psychoanalysis, and inadvertently, split language and “psyche” from body and the embodied. By recovering how Fanon’s sociogeny is always organic and embodied, the author distinguishes their position from Turner’s while noting how they arrive at commensurate conclusions. In sketching the implications of Turner’s thinking, Fanonian studies stand on the verge of an imperative intervention on the trials and tribulations of identity politics both in the clinical setting and our current times of tumult and uncertainty.
Daniel José Gaztambide (Sat,) studied this question.