The Image of Nietzsche in Contemporary Political Thought

We know that Hitler was an ardent advocate for the promotion and dissemination of Nietzsche’s works and in this regard benefited greatly from the collaboration of Nietzsche’s sister. It is even said that during his first meeting with Mussolini, Hitler presented him with a volume of Nietzsche’s works. Nevertheless, there are many who believe that Nietzsche’s thought not only does not endorse fascist ideas but stands in contradiction to them. The evidence cited by proponents of this view is that Nietzsche, in some of his works, explicitly condemned and criticized anti-Semitism in Europe; but is Nietzsche’s opposition to certain forms of racism or racial hatred sufficient to dismiss any connection between him and fascist ideas? On the other hand, we see that some commentators tend to regard Nietzsche’s philosophy as a kind of evasion of a full-scale confrontation with the political. Thus, the question of where Nietzsche’s philosophy places him on the spectrum of political views is a very serious one.

To find a framework for answering this question, an examination of Nietzsche’s perceptions of various modern and pre-modern societies is necessary. We know that Nietzsche praised the liberating revolution of the Enlightenment but simultaneously criticized the legacy of the Enlightenment; while he praised Voltaire and Goethe, he rebuked Kant for his practical philosophy; while he rejected Platonic idealism, he also criticized Athenian democracy. Although this multifaceted and multilateral engagement with every social situation makes a final assessment of the dimensions of his political thought more difficult than with other systematic and system-building thinkers, I believe that by searching through the various aspects of his historical evaluation of the evolution of Western societies, one can still approach his ultimate perspective.

Although some commentators insist on placing Nietzsche’s theory of knowledge at the center of his thought, I imagine that “anti-mass sentiment” is Nietzsche’s most central idea. Anti-mass sentiment and opposition to holism lie at the heart of Nietzsche’s interpretation of the structure of the social system and the mythical thought of Athens, and serve as his primary tool for criticizing the philosophy of Kant and Hegel on the one hand, and for explaining the degeneration of the Enlightenment and criticizing German democracy in the final period of his intellectual life on the other. Nietzsche’s anti-mass sentiment places him at the greatest distance from leftist and socialist ideas; to the extent that explicit criticism of the socialist parties and groups of the nineteenth century is repeated many times in his works and takes on a more radical form than his critique of democracy. But what is Nietzsche’s relationship with right-wing and centrist political thought? To understand this matter, we must return to the ancient society of Athens and grasp the foundation of Nietzsche’s laudatory perception of the social system governing Athens as a more reasonable form of democracy compared to the later democracies of nineteenth-century Europe; in doing so, we will be able to attain a semi-clear perspective on his relationship with contemporary societies as well.

Nietzsche’s unreserved admiration for the social order of Athens provides the most important clue to the ideal element of his political thought: “aristocracy of the hero.” The historical prominence of the Athenian city-state, in Nietzsche’s view, is not due to its democracy, for Nietzsche was not only a critic of Athenian democracy, seeing it as a cause of the weakness and decline of the Athenian city-state in the face of the authority of Sparta, but he also praised the despotic authority of Caesar and Napoleon against the weakness and fragmentation of the Roman Senate and the French Parliament. Nietzsche’s praise for the Athenian city-state stems from the dynamism and heroic liberality latent in its social life, which is also manifested and formulated in Athenian myths. This heroic liberality lays the groundwork for a “continuous agonism” and endless competition that guarantees the historical evolution of society. But on what ideological vision and system of myths can a social order built on competition be founded? Nietzsche believes it is this anti-totalitarian and individualistic framework that makes a social order based on competition possible, and then, by examining the texts of Athenian myths such as the “Theogony” and the Homeric epics, he shows that the distinguishing feature of Athenian mythology from other mythological systems is its anti-totalitarian and anti-cohesive element. While the consolidated unitarian cosmology of the ancient world—the quintessence of which can be seen in Saadi’s saying, “Human beings are members of a whole…”—offered a holistic view of ethnic and tribal roots, affirming the commonality of group interests and the negation of individual identity, or advocated the dissolution of individuality within essentialist cosmological dichotomies, the Homeric and Hesiodic cosmology is based on the conflict of individual interests and the polyphony of individual identities, which are in a state of endless competition with one another and form irreducible (or temporarily reducible) multipolarities. This “individualism” and acceptance of the conflict of interests causes a vast cultural arena for competition to be provided and paves the way for the formation of institutions that promote competition, such as the Olympics and the theatre carnivals (circles in which the great playwrights of Athens competed with one another) in Athens.

Thus Nietzsche holds that the Golden Age of Athens represents the first crystallization of “anti-mass” sentiment in history. Nietzsche’s rejection of mass-ism and his defense of individuality and individualism can also be seen in his laudatory remarks praising John Stuart Mill and Hume on the one hand, and his disparaging remarks about Hegel on the other. In Nietzsche’s view, a social order based on competition fosters heroism within itself and leads to the flourishing of latent human forces and the natural dynamism of society; whereas any form of mass-ism, due to its illusory foundation, stifles the liberating potentials inherent in the competitive process in the cradle and ultimately leads to the dominance of a form of “slave morality” that stands in polar opposition to hero-aristocracy. Slave morality, Nietzsche believes, causes stagnation and brings about a halt in the historical evolution of societies. One of these long historical halts, in Nietzsche’s view, begins with the rise of Christianity and the decline of the Roman Empire. Another important halt in Nietzsche’s era is the emergence of forms of popular culture and, subsequently, democracy, which, in step with socialist ideas, led to the negation and weakening of social hierarchies. Nietzsche had borrowed his opposition to various manifestations of popular culture, including mass media and populist journalism, from Goethe, and he deepened and radicalized Goethe’s ideas in his critique of popular culture. Nietzsche held that democracy and popular culture in general—akin to Christianity—are a manifestation of cultural decline that, by affirming plebeian positions and actions, leads to the consolidation of slavish values and, by weakening heroic competition, suspends transcendent values. Therefore, Nietzsche’s concern is the preservation of elitist institutions and the promotion of “masterly” values among the masses. Such an aim requires the preservation of the social hierarchy that existed in the aristocratic era and collapsed with the Industrial Revolution.[1] Thus Nietzsche believes that the Enlightenment project, as a revolutionary event accompanied by the decline of the nihilistic Christian worldview, was diverted by the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent rise of mass-ism, weakening the very hierarchies necessary for the supremacy of master morality and the heroic spirit. In fact, the feature that, in Nietzsche’s belief, makes Athenian democracy stand out compared to the later democracies of his own time is precisely this system of social hierarchy, which is supported by elitist institutions and institutionalizes heroic values. Of course, Nietzsche believes these superior values must be natural and based on human instincts and desires. Although the concept of the “state of nature” is somewhat opaque and ambiguous in Nietzsche’s works, Nietzsche attempts to define and explain it in a negative manner through the definition of nihilistic culture.

Nevertheless, in Nietzsche’s view, the social hierarchy must not be rigid and static. Heroic liberality requires that the possibility of advancement within the social hierarchy be available. In other words, the fluidity of the social hierarchy is the very factor that guarantees the possibility of competition and causes the dynamism and growth of the social system. Thus Nietzsche considers a degree of freedom necessary for class advancement and individual creativity; but it should not be imagined that liberality in Nietzsche’s view is entirely aligned with the liberalist conception. In Nietzsche’s perspective, preserving the social hierarchy is essential, and it is the transition within this hierarchy that must possess sufficient fluidity. To maintain and sustain this class framework, it is necessary to limit the expansion of any popular culture, such as democratic culture.

Therefore, it must be said that just as Nietzsche is counted among the opponents of socialism, he is also incompatible with liberalist thought and absolute individualism. Thus Nietzsche prescribes a constrained form of individualism; a form of individualism that is transcendent[2] and does not become an obstacle to latent human forces. Hence, Nietzsche’s political thought might perhaps be called a form of conservative liberalism. Nevertheless, one must consider the differences and boundaries that distinguish Nietzsche’s thought from the conservative right of present-day Europe. Among these differences is the emphasis on “nationalism,” which Nietzsche, in passages of his works, explicitly shunned and counted as a manifestation and sign of the decadence of “nations.” Therefore, if we suppose that Nietzsche lived in the present age and wish to draw an assessment of his views on the political in today’s world, we can affirm several major points:

Given Nietzsche’s analysis of the state and situation of the “university” and education in general in Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century—which he regards as one of the last conquered bastions of aristocracy, arguing that even the university has lost its revolutionary function and, through the sterilization of the educational system, has become an agent of mass desires and values—one can surmise that if Nietzsche were alive today, he would probably see the pervasive expansion of mass media and social networks in the twenty-first century as a prominent manifestation of the massification of culture and the triumph of vulgarity. This assessment of Nietzsche’s bears a strong resemblance to the Frankfurt School members’ interpretation of the culture industry; nevertheless, Nietzsche diagnosed this problem from a different angle. It can therefore be accepted that if Nietzsche lived today, he would certainly assess the crisis of massification as deeper than in the nineteenth century. He would likely point to the strengthening of populist parties[3] in recent elections and see them as a consequence of the massification of culture.

On the other hand, Nietzsche would probably distance himself from today’s right-wing parties and see their growing influence as a result of societies’ inability to genuinely confront social crises. Nevertheless, Nietzsche would explicitly and strongly reject leftist reformist policies and see them as a greater danger for the future. So what could Nietzsche’s recommendation be for confronting the crisis? Which of the existing models would Nietzsche prefer? Nietzsche would probably prefer the progressive yet conservative and controlled policies of the Chinese government to Western governments and also to reactionary ideologies. Perhaps Nietzsche would see the very educational system he had once despaired of as the last option for reviving an elitist culture, and would hope that with greater state control and supervision over cultural institutions and more direct support for universities, the negative effect of manifestations of popular culture could be somewhat neutralized. Perhaps he would even offer a more radical idea, calling for reforms in the system of political rights and proposing that democratic mechanisms and the instruments of political participation in civil society be more restricted.

Despite Nietzsche’s emphasis on epistemological relativism and given his empiricist tendencies, Nietzsche would probably see the only stance for the development of the popular culture industry as the threshold of the domain of the empirical sciences, and would call for an increase in the political power of academic and scientific institutions, so that perhaps this institutional revival could limit the influence of popular currents and media such as social networks. In any case, Nietzsche stood on the border between the realm of liberal moderation and conservative thought advocating the expansion of state intervention and institutional control.

The End

23/10/95

.

---

.

[1] It must be emphasized, of course, that Nietzsche’s conception of social hierarchy does not correspond to the classes actually existing in the aristocratic system, but the very existence of social classes and, more importantly, noble values in the aristocratic system, in Nietzsche’s view, places it in a higher position compared to a classless system lacking institutionalized, overarching values. In other words, the existence of a system of social classes is necessary insofar as it establishes and institutionalizes a system of overarching “life-affirming” values throughout society. These values, of course, must not be nihilistic.

[2] Transcendental

[3] Populist

.

---

.

The Image of Nietzsche in Contemporary Political Thought

Author: Roham Barkhchizadeh

.

---

.