by Roy Jackson
Spotlight
It is only relatively recently in Nietzschean scholarship that his views on the importance of the Volk, or community, have become more greatly appreciated. Having said that, there are some modern scholars who would nonetheless deny he has such concerns at all. Possibly, this ambiguity is a reflection of Nietzsche’s own reluctance to present any kind of ‘agenda’ in his writings.
The immoralist?
Leaving aside whether or not a liberal democratic society is capable of achieving such cultural peaks, it is still questionable whether Nietzsche is simply stating what he perceives as a fact or whether he wants to go further and prescribe an aristocratic society with slavery ‘in one sense or another’. The fact that Nietzsche considers himself the bringer of an urgent message to humanity makes him come across as the messenger of ‘ought’ rather than just ‘is’. He writes of:
’… virtuous stupidity; what are needed are unwavering beat-keepers of the slow spirit so that the believers of the great common faith stay together and go on dancing their dance; it is an exigency of the first order which commands and demands.’
The Gay Science, 76
There is definitely an ‘ought’ here, an ‘exigency’, a necessity for ‘beat-keepers’ of ‘virtuous stupidity’ so that Nietzsche’s higher men can ‘dance their dance’. Are these ‘virtuously stupid’ Nietzsche’s oppressed slaves who live in misery so that the select few can live in joy? Nietzsche often referred to himself as an ‘immoralist’ in the sense that he rejected Christian morality, but a number of scholars have gone so far as to say that Nietzsche is, in fact, an immoralist of the highest order – that is, he defends views that are morally abhorrent to most people, such as the support of slavery. If this is indeed the case, it brings into serious question why anybody would wish to praise Nietzsche’s moral philosophy.
The modern philosopher Julian Young has argued against this understanding of Nietzsche’s immoralism, stating that a better term to describe Nietzsche’s moral outlook is paternalism. While paternalism may not be a particularly fashionable view these days, it is in keeping with Nietzsche’s time and, indeed, most of human history. This may not help anyone who wants to argue that Nietzsche was ahead of his time, but what this book has hopefully demonstrated is that Nietzsche was not quite the radical existentialist that he has often been made out to be, but more of a traditionalist who looks back, rather than forward, for his values. Nietzsche is paternalistic in that he believes most people are better off being subordinate and led by stronger figures. Incidentally, as will be considered overleaf, ‘most people’ was particularly relevant to women. While his views on the masses may be misplaced in relation to modern morality, this does not make him immoral, given his concern for the welfare of these masses, even if he refers to them mockingly as ‘virtuously stupid’!
Other philosophers, notably John Rawls and Philippa Foot, have argued that Nietzsche is not at all concerned with the well-being of the masses and that his only concern is for his Socratic elite. Section 258 of Beyond Good and Evil does seem to defend this view:
’When for example an aristocracy like pre-Revolutionary France tosses away its privileges with sublime revulsion and sacrifices itself to its excess of moral feeling, this is corruption: it was really only the final act of that centuries-long corruption that caused the aristocracy to abandon its tyrannical authority bit by bit and reduce itself to a function of the monarchy (and ultimately in fact to its ornament and showpiece). The crucial thing about a good and healthy aristocracy, however, is that it does not feel that it is a function (whether of monarchy or community) but rather an essence and highest justification – and that therefore it has no misgivings in condoning the sacrifice of a vast number of people who must for its sake be oppressed and diminished into incomplete people, slaves, tools.’
Beyond Good and Evil, 258
In the same section, Nietzsche goes on to compare society to ‘scaffolding’ for the greatest to climb. How can this be seen as anything other than a justification for using the masses as ‘tools’ for the elite? The best defence, again offered by Julian Young, is that Nietzsche does not say here that it is ‘my belief’, but again is simply stating facts of the past in an anthropological way. What Nietzsche is doing in this section is blaming the French aristocrats for being so complacent and arrogant and ‘tossing away’ their privileges, thus leading to the collapse of society, to decay and ‘corruption’. He is not, in fact, endorsing this particular kind of aristocracy. Nietzsche’s more ‘spiritual aristocracy’ would be of a different kind altogether: one in which the elite would be there for the benefit of society as a whole, not to use them for its own ends. This reading can only be understood in the context of other things Nietzsche has said and cannot stand alone, in particular (though by no means exclusively) in Beyond Good and Evil (see below).
On women
We have seen that one reading of Nietzsche is that his views on slavery are somewhat ambiguous, and that it may well be understood as Nietzsche’s own anthropological approach to how aristocracies have operated in the past. He then uses this as his model to propose a new state led by a spiritual aristocracy which, being elitist, would, no doubt, be hierarchical but also for the benefit of all. This will still leave a bad taste in the mouth of many modern readers brought up in a liberal, egalitarian society, but Nietzsche has given his reasons – whether you agree with him or not – why a liberal, atomized society is actually a lot worse.
Case study: comments on women in Beyond Good and Evil
‘A deep man, on the other hand, deep both in spirit and in desire, deep in a benevolence that is capable of rigour and harshness and easily mistaken for them, can think about women only like an Orient: he has to conceive of woman as a possession, as securable property, as something predetermined for service and completed in it.’ (238)
‘In no other age have men ever treated the weaker sex with such respect as in our own – it is part of our democratic inclinations and basic taste, as is our irreverence for old age. Is it any wonder that this respect is already being abused? They want more; they are learning to make demands; they end by considering that modicum of respect almost irritating, preferring to compete, or even to battle for their rights: let’s just say women are becoming shameless.’ (239)
‘Women want to be autonomous: and to that end they have begun to enlighten men about “women per se” – that is one of the worst signs of progress in Europe’s overall uglification.’ (232)
‘Stupidity in the kitchen; women as cooks; the frightful thoughtlessness that goes into providing nourishment for families and heads of households! Women don’t understand what food means – and yet they want to be cooks! If women were sentient beings they would in their thousands of years of cooking experience have discovered the most important physiological facts and taken over the healing art!’ (234)
Nietzsche’s masses will, seemingly, be heavily populated by women, according to his views in Beyond Good and Evil. Like his views on slavery, the best we can say perhaps is that this is, again, not Nietzsche being immoral but being paternalistic or, perhaps more accurately, patriarchal.
However, this still seems unsatisfactory and does not get at a key question here: why, if Nietzsche is actually traditionalist, elitist, aristocratic, anti-egalitarian and sexist, does he appeal so much to modern liberal, free-thinking men and women? While part of this appeal may well be due to Nietzsche’s unique and modern style, his clever use of metaphor, irony, ambiguity and so on, it is certainly inadequate to be satisfied with this and simply ignore the actual content.
Nietzsche, for his part, was out to criticize European feminism, in the same way that he attacked just about everything in Europe during his time: nothing escaped his scattergun. Feminism was just one of those features of modernity, with its origins in the French Revolution and its ideas of equality. Nietzsche could, and indeed has, been conscripted into the feminist cause to some extent by feminist scholars emphasizing Nietzsche’s atta
ck on equality as an enemy of the Noble spirit: the aristocratic figure, or the philosopher-king, if you like. Seen in one context, the Noble spirit can encompass women as well as men, in that it is essentially an attack on nineteenth-century egalitarianism that diminishes self-worth rather than women as such. However, this may be seen as a somewhat generous reading of Nietzsche.
Jacques Derrida, an important philosopher on Nietzsche mentioned in the Introduction, comments in his significant work Spurs on the following remark made by Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil:
’Assuming that truth is a woman – what then? Is there not reason to suspect that all philosophers, in so far as they were dogmatists, have known very little about women?’
Beyond Good and Evil, Preface
Derrida sees this as arguing that, in the same way as there is no single, unitary Truth as such, there is no single, unitary Woman as such. Nietzsche’s criticism of feminism, then, is that it attempts to determine an essence of womanhood, which is doing the same thing as men do to women: that is, women are ‘this or that’. In fact, by woman attempting to define herself, she therefore limits her own freedom for ambiguity. Nietzsche’s Noble spirit is one that is an artist, in the sense that he (or she?) creates himself (or herself) and is not limited by any universal essence. It is this understanding of Nietzsche that has its roots in existentialism, most succinctly defined by Jean-Paul Sartre as ‘existence precedes essence’ (see Chapter 11). Again, however, this seems like a very generous reading of Nietzsche, given what Nietzsche actually says about women in such a deriding manner. It does not seem likely that Nietzsche was talking metaphorically here or, as Derrida suggests, that Nietzsche is actually writing with a feminine voice.
The philosophers of the future
In Beyond Good and Evil especially, Nietzsche talks of the philosophers of the future, and it has been argued in this chapter that there would be political implications involved (although see below for dispute over this). Nietzsche’s comments on these leaders – especially given the German word Führer – has resulted in many misunderstandings, with visions of blond Aryan beasts oppressing the masses. It still begs the question, nonetheless, who these philosophers of the future would be and what exactly they would do. Those who would argue against any political agenda at all would see these philosophers as essentially freethinkers, artists, musicians and so on, whereas Nietzsche’s use of such terms in Beyond Good and Evil as ‘commanders and lawgivers’ (BGE, 211) seems more akin to Plato’s philosopher-kings legislating over a new form of society:
’I am talking about an increase in the Russian threat so great that Europe would have to decide to become equally threatening, that is, to make use of a new ruling caste in order to gain a will, a terrible, long-lived will of its own that could set itself goals over millennia…’
Beyond Good and Evil, 208
Nietzsche’s philosopher of the future is not just a codifier of values, but a creator of values, a lawgiver, a legislator, and this is why Nietzsche sees figures of history like Napoleon as a philosopher more than he does, say, Kant. Like Plato’s philosopher–kings, Nietzsche’s philosophers will be compelled into action, although the temptation to retreat into solitude through disgust with society will be great. In many respects, the new philosopher will be like Zarathustra, compelled to go down and encourage people to act. He will be the bad conscience of his age – disagreeing with the majority opinions – and will be derided as such. These new philosophers will also be experimenters, not dogmatic in their views. In a Darwinian sense, many will not succeed in their attempts, but it is hoped that years, if not generations, of experimentation will lead to a new age of stability, rather like the Laws of Manu (see below), which Nietzsche also saw as the stable product of many years of empirical experimentation.
Does Nietzsche have political views?
Spotlight
Ultimately, Nietzsche’s primary concern was with culture, and whatever heightened this was quite acceptable as far as he was concerned. Looking at democracy as it existed in Nietzsche’s time, this seemed to achieve the opposite, or so he believed.
As it is hoped has been made clear in this chapter, Nietzsche argued for a hierarchical society – certainly not a democratic one – in which at the top of the pyramid would be his philosophers of the future, his oligarchs of the spirit. This he discusses in Beyond Good and Evil, but another very interesting passage can be found in his later work The Anti-Christ, in which he praises the Laws of Manu. These laws are Hindu in origin and date back some 2,000 years, with codes concerning, among other things, the caste system. Consequently, it is anathema to the modern liberal mind. It is no surprise, therefore, that Nietzsche praises it so! He says the following of the Laws of Manu:
’At a certain point in the evolution of a people the most enlightened, that is to say the most reflective and far-sighted class, declares the experience in accordance with which the people is to live – that it can live – to be fixed and settled. Their objective is to bring home the richest and completest harvest from the ages of experimentation and bad experience. What, consequently, is to be prevented above all is the continuation of experimenting, the perpetuation ad infinitum of the fluid condition of values, tests, choices, criticizing of values.’
The Anti-Christ, 57
Here Nietzsche is piling praise on a hierarchical system not too dissimilar from Plato’s concept of the state ruled by philosopher–kings, and it is no surprise that Nietzsche himself makes this comparison, substituting Plato’s philosopher–kings, with their mystical vision of the Forms, for his own life-affirming Supermen.
It has been argued that, in the same way that Nietzsche seems to praise Islam as a way to contrast it with sickly Christianity, he is doing the same with the Laws of Manu by stating that even this is better than Christianity, and Nietzsche was actually quite critical of Manu in his unpublished notes. But, again, we need to ask why he chose not to publish his criticisms and must be wary of remarks he makes in notes not intended for public consumption. Rather, Nietzsche sees the Laws of Manu as something of a paradigm: as a model, an empirical attempt, to achieve an ideal, while also privately at least acknowledging its flaws. Nietzsche advocates a hierarchical society, but also one much better, more natural than the one Manu or Plato offer.
Key ideas
Existentialism: the philosophical movement that emphasizes human freedom
Laws of Manu: a treatise on law and government composed probably over a period of time (around 200 BCE to 200 CE) in India
Volk: German word for ‘the people’ or ‘the community’
Things to remember
• Nietzsche certainly had political views despite the claim by some scholars that he was not concerned with such matters.
• The Birth of Tragedy was originally intended to involve a discussion of politics. What was to be part of the book became a separate essay called ‘The Greek State’. ‘The Greek State’ is a work of cultural criticism, particularly aimed at the contemporary phenomenon of modernity.
• Nietzsche was, on the whole, critical of democracy as it was beginning to emerge in the Europe of his time. However, Nietzsche spoke of a new form of democracy, and so it would be wrong to say that he was against democracy entirely, rather certain forms of democracy.
• His main criticism of democracy was that it can be ‘levelling’, and so does not allow for great men and great culture to flourish.
• Nietzsche’s views on democracy are not that dissimilar from those of Plato.
• Rather than regard Nietzsche as immoral, perhaps he is better described as ‘paternalistic’ in his views on such things as slavery and women.
• Nietzsche’s philosophers of the future would not only be artists, musicians and writers, but would also be creators of values and legislators. Political leaders, therefore, are a possibility.
Fact-check
1 Which ancient society invented democracy?
a The Egyptians
b The Greeks
c The Aztecs
d The Romans
2 What is the name of Nietzsche’s short essay outlining his political views?
a ‘The Democratic State’
b ‘The Elite State’
c ‘The German State’
d ‘The Greek State’
3 Whose philosophy do Nietzsche’s political views most resemble?
a Aristotle’s
b Plato’s
c Hobbes’s
d Mill’s
4 What does the term Volk mean?
a Community
b A German car
c The Greek city-state
d King
5 Which philosopher regards Nietzsche’s moral views as ‘paternalistic’?
a John Rawls
b Philippa Foot
c Julian Young
