forth-prejudices philosophers nietzsche france.pdf

8/13/2019 Forth-Prejudices Philosophers Nietzsche France.pdf

1/44

On the Prejudices of Philosophers: French Philosophical Discourse on Nietzsche, 1898-1908Author(s): Christopher E. ForthReviewed work(s):Source: Theory and Society, Vol. 23, No. 6 (Dec., 1994), pp. 839-881Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/657979.

Accessed: 11/11/2011 04:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theory and Society.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/657979?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/657979?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer


2/44

On the prejudices of philosophers: French philosophicaldiscourse on Nietzsche, 1898-1908

CHRISTOPHERE. FORTHUniversityof Memphis

Havingsacredtasks,suchas improving, aving,orredeemingmankind- carryingthe deity in hisbosom and being the mouthpieceof imperativesfromthebeyond- withsucha missiona man natu-rally stands outside all merely intellectual valua-tions: he himself is sanctifiedby such a task, hehimself s a typeof a higherorder Nietzsche

TheAntichrist'

Scholarshavetypically oundit necessaryto examine the receptionofNietzscheby writers nvolvedin self-consciouslycreativeprojectsonthe intellectual ield, those agentswho by inclinationor by necessityoperatedwithinthatsphereof culturalproduction dentified with thefree inquiryand expressionof the artist. Hence the proliferationofexcellent scholarshipdevoted to the appropriationof Nietzsche byGeorges Bataille, Andr6 Gide, Andre Malraux,and other notableFrenchwriters.However, o restrictone'sanalysis o thisliterary ectorof intellectual ife ignoresthe importantrole playedby academicsinculturalproduction,for the "freedom" f the artist can only exist inrelationto its opposite- thatis, against he backgroundof rules,con-ventions,and institutionsthat define the sphere of the university. nFrance, this tension between the literaryworld and the universitysphere became exacerbatedduring the 1890s as representativesofboth experiencedcrisesof identityand purpose,leadingto significanttransformationshat would inevitablystructure he mannerin whicheach wouldperceivethe other.Just as avant-gardewritersshiftedfromthe detached and "decadent" position of lart pour l'art during the1880s to the more committed stance of l'artsocial by the early 1890s,the academiccommunitycame to redefine the meaningof the profes-sion,as well as the requirementsor its ownreproduction, ccording oTheoryand Society 23: 839-881, 1994.? 1994 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.


3/44

840the liberalsocialperspectiveof the ThirdRepublic.Ratherthanparal-leling the movements of the literaryavant-garde, he universitaireseffected a polarizationof the intellectualworld between themselves,the dominantandculturally onsecratedacademics,and the culturallydominated iteratiof the artisticsphere.2Thisstrugglemanifested tselfas a conflict of classificationsand of the rightto speak legitimately nintellectual ife.The fieldof Frenchacademicphilosophyat theturnof the centurywasstructuredo anticipateand deter the intrusionof its other- thatis, theliterary withinits borders and amongits constituents.By excludingthe literaryas such, ndividualphilosophersaffirmed heirmembershipin a community oundedon the collective belief in a particulardefini-tion of acceptablephilosophicaldiscourse.In short,the philosophicalcorps dependeduponthe exclusionof its other, n order to maintain tsown identity.This pre-existingopposition between literaryand aca-demic classificationsof philosophymost succinctlyexplainsthe pro-blematicsof Nietzsche'sreceptionby academicphilosophers:whiletheliteraryavant-garden Francehad championed he ideas of Nietzschethroughoutthe turn of the century,3academic philosopherswouldresist andfinallycondemnwhattheyperceivedas yet anotherdanger-ous "seduction"of the literaryworld. These professorsconstructedNietzsche as anobjectof knowledge o legitimateand facilitate hepro-jects in whichthey held the greatest nterest,not least of which con-cerned the reproductionof the corps of those accorded the righttoprofess philosophy.Hence, despite the rhetoricof scientificdetach-ment and rigor so predominanton the universityfield, the variousreadingsof Nietzsche by academicphilosopherswere more apt toreveal the objectivesocial relationsand stakesin a complicated ntel-lectual contest thanany disinterestedconsiderationof the texts them-selves.4Inthisessay,which constitutespartof a largerstudyof the receptionofNietzschein France between 1891 and 1918, I have drawnupon thesociologyof academicand cultural ife practicedby PierreBourdieu.Ihave found Bourdieu'snotionsof the habitusandthefield to be usefulanalytical ools with which to investigate he dynamicsof intellectualproductionwithoutresortingeither to the rigidobjectivismof a struc-turalistanalysisor the subjectivismof the philosophy of conscious-ness.5 It was thereforewith great interest that I read the exchangeamong Fritz Ringer,CharlesLemert,and MartinJay in TheoryandSociety (June 1990, 269-334) concerningthe efficacyof employing


4/44

841Bourdieu's methodology for intellectual history. My own position onthis issue is situated between that of Ringer, who in his advocacy ofBourdieu also defends the notion of rational reconstruction and theregulative ideal of objectivity, and that of Jay, who stresses the con-structivist or "narrative"element in historical representation. AlthoughI certainly concur with Jay's assertion of the multiple readings that atext may yield, I add that the possibility of such multiplicity is itself con-ditioned by the field(s) within which one operates. That is, as Jay him-self might concede, the reading eye is the product of historical andsocial conditions that highly structure visual perception and intellectualproduction. As Bourdieu has noted:

The ideology of the inexhaustable work of art, or of "reading"as re-creation,masks, by the quasi-disclosure which is often observed in matters of faith,that the work is really made not two times, but one hundred times, onethousand times, by all those who are interested in it, who find a material orsymbolic interest in reading, classifying, deciphering, commenting on, repro-ducing, criticizing, combatting, knowing, and possessing it.6

Bourdieu's reflexive sociology should encourage us to examine criti-cally the space within which our reading gaze is constituted and repro-duced, especially when that gaze operates under the assumption (andoften the professional imperative) of infinite interpretations. Decon-structive strategies of "reading,"like other social strategies, are incul-cated and reinforced through participation in definite academic com-munities with their own agendas and tacit assumptions. The inter-pretive "freedom"of the reader - as well as the "narritivizingmoment"of the historian - often articulate rather than elude these social condi-tions. "The writer occupies a position in the space described: he knowsit and he knows that his reader knows it."7Nevertheless, in what follows I hope to illustrate what Martin Jay hasjustly observed about cultural products: "texts can be seen as the site ofcontesting impulses, they may well be understood as emerging out ofseveral competing or overlapping fields rather than merely instantiatingone unified habitus."8 The various representations of Nietzsche inFrance at the turn of the century were the products of struggles bothwithin specific fields and between competing fields. There is no singlefield to which social practices may be reduced, but rather a plurality ofrelatively autonomous spaces that nevertheless stand in homologousrelationships to one another. The illusion of the complete autonomyand coherence of individual fields is repeatedly called into question bythose with an interest in subverting established definitions of intellec-


5/44

842tual activity.Examiningthe receptionof Nietzsche by the academicphilosophicalcommunitythus providesan illustrationof the ways inwhich invisibleboundariesbecome reinforced and policed by thosewith a vestedinterest nbeingdisinterested.

The structuralransformation f the philosophical ieldEvery philosophy also conceals a philosophy;everyopinionis also a hideout,everyword also amask. Nietzsche

Beyond Good and Evil9

The historyof NietzscheanthoughtamongFrench academicphiloso-pherscan be understoodby reference o the highlystructured paceofpower relationsconstituting he philosophicalfield, which itself mustbe explainedby a brief historyof Frenchphilosophyin general.Theteachingof academicphilosophy n Franceowes its shapeto the effortsof Victor Cousin(1792-1867), whose disciplescontrolledphilosophi-cal discoursethrough he end of thenineteenthcentury.Excludedfromthe universitycurriculumunderNapoleon I, in 1809 philosophywasre-institutedin its medieval categories of logic, metaphysics,andmorality.To these divisionsCousin addedin 1830 the subfieldsof psy-chologyand the historyof philosophy, nnovations hatwould remainintactuntil the suppressionof philosophyunder the Second Empire.Re-establishedonce again by Victor Duruy in 1863, academicphi-losophy would retain the fundamental tructureconferredby Cousin,and would remainlargely unchangeduntil the sweepingpedagogicalreformsof 1902.10The establishment f the ThirdRepublicpromptedthe government oreconsiderthe purpose of education. With the strugglebetween themonarchyandthe republica moot issueby theearly1870s, the relatedconflictbetween Catholicandrevolutionary rancewas stillverymuchalive,andfor the nextthirtyyearsthreatened o undermine he stabilityof the liberalrepublic.The primary ntellectualweaponof the liberalsagainstthe Catholics was rationalism,which appealedto manyin theintelligentsia.This elite proved too small a minorityupon which tofound a lastingpolitical regime,however,and,as the liberalsgraduallyadmitted, he social basisof liberalismhad to be expanded f theywereto persevere,an objectivemost fully realizedthroughthe wholesalerestructuringndexpansionof publiceducation.1


6/44

843Cast as the central discipline of the educational system by VictorDuruy,academicphilosophyrepresented tself not merelyas the con-science of all scientific and universityactivity,but as the decisiveagency for the promotion of public morality.Shaped by the long-standingconflictin Francebetweenthe CatholicChurchand the secu-lar thrustof the Enlightenment,his drivetowarda morale aiquewasdemonstrated ime and againby the most pivotalfigures n the historyof French academicphilosophy.The legacyleft by Victor Cousin,forexample, was not merely the institutional structure of nineteenth-centuryphilosophicalpedagogybut its ethical content as well. Whiledrawing upon a variety of intellectual traditions (hence, the name'eclecticism'),Cousin was most intrigued by the work of ImmanuelKant, which provided the foundation for French moral philosophythrough he endof thecentury.Cousinadoptedthepredicatesof Kant'smoral theory and fashioned them into a philosophythat, because itdepended upon ideal moral goals, was called "spiritualism."12 his neo-Kantianphilosophywas meant to bypassreligionby groundingmoral-ity on a purelyhumanbasis, contributingn no small manner to theChurch's ensure of Cousin'seffortsandthe eliminationof philosophyfrompubliceducationduring he SecondEmpire.Spiritualism nd the specterof Kant would dominate muchof Frenchacademicphilosophy throughthe First WorldWar,and was encour-aged significantlyby the efforts of CharlesRenouvier(1815-1903).While reformulating ertain aspects of the Cousinianheritage,after1871 Renouvierpressedto makemoralphilosophy hefoundationof abroad-basedand republicaneducationalsystem.To this end, Renou-vierfounded withhisassociateFrancoisPillonthejournalCritique hi-losophique in 1872 (which would later become LAnnee philoso-phique).13 y the turn of the century,however, he influenceof Renou-vier and his revued'ecole waned as academicssearchedfor broadermodes of expression.14Academicsin generalduring heThirdRepublicacceptedas an articleof faith thatthe progressof "science"was closely linked with the ad-vance of "democracy." s Ringernotes, the "reforms hat ultimatelybroughtFrench academicssignificant ncreases of income and statuswere the work, afterall, of a left liberalregimethat came closer to ademocracythan its predecessors."15Democracy and all specificallyrepublicanvalueshad to be founded upon rationalchoice, and there-foreupon science;hence the need to expungefromseriousphilosophi-caldiscoursealltaintof subjectiveandliterarydistortion.Although t is


7/44

844truethatspiritualism etained ts influenceon thephilosophical ield,anoticeabletrend towardspositivism,abettedby the efforts of SmileLittre,occurredamongacademicphilosophersduringthe 1890s that,ratherthannecessarilyunderminingneo-Kantianism, rovedto be itsmoralandpoliticalcomplement:both strandsmaintained hathuman-kind has and will continue to progresstoward the agreementof allpeople upon certainrationalprinciples primarily,hose upon whichRepublicannstitutionshadbeen based. The competitionbetweenneo-Kantiansand positivistscircumscribed,accordingto the logic of thephilosophicalfield, the space of acceptable philosophicaldiscoursewithin heconfines of theacademy.16Coexistent with the projectof securinga moral,cohesive, and well-orderedpublicspherewas the reductionof whattheFrenchcall indivi-dualisme.A legacyof the Enlightenment mphasison the use of indi-vidualreason,the exaltationof the individualego over and abovethesuperior nterestsof societywas eventhought o have causedthe Revo-lutionitself,andtherefore hreatened o disruptall futuresocialforma-tions. As a result, individualisme o this day carries the primarilynegativeconnotationsof theuncivil, heantisocial,andtheegoistic.17naddition,individualismewasperceivedas the causeof such socialdis-turbancesas anarchism,which manifested tselfduring he early1890sand culminatedwith the assassination f thepresidentof the Republic.Hence the popularepithetof the turnof the century,anarchie ntellec-tuelle, a conceptual disorder often invoked to discredit marginalwritersattempting o break into the sanctifiedcirclesof academe.Assuch, liberals and conservativesalikeperceiveda one-to-one correla-tion between intellectual individualismand social dissolution, andwould use thiscorrespondenceas an objectof critiqueand a rationaleforexclusion.French academicphilosophersat the turn of the centurydescribedtheirpast in negativeterms,stressing he intellectualrenaissance hatwas linked to the developmentof a republicaneducationalsystem.AlphonseDarlu noted how beforethe ThirdRepublic"thephilosophyof thelyceesandeven of the faculties endedto be literary."

[After 1870] little by little, in the classes, in the academic chairs, a new phi-losophy penetrated, which went to the heart of the problems of the present,and touched all things to the core.'8

FredericPaulhan ikewisecontrasted he contemporary cenewiththeprevioustwo decades,citing"thedisappearance f theformerschools,


8/44

845the calmer spirit of discussion, the diminutionof polemic, and thedecreaseof generaldiscussionswithoutcriticism osing any of its realefficiency."19he turn of the centurythus proveda "golden age"foracademicphilosophy,for under the Republic'seducationalreformsphilosophy professorsenjoyedincreasesin prestigeand income. Sig-nificantly he very profileof the philosopherhadchangeddramaticallytowardthe end of the century,with the enterprise tself becomingthebusiness of specialized professors.Before 1850, many philosophers,includingComte, Maine de Biran, and Renouvier,were "amateurs"who operatedoutside of theuniversity; et thedevelopmentof a liberalrepublicanpedagogyand the establishment f thephilosophyclassas arequirementduringthe final yearat the lycee conferred a new socialfunctionupon the professors.No longera groupof detached intellec-tuals circulatingamong the literati,professorsof philosophybecamethe executors of a distinct social mission: to educate Frenchyouth inthe republicanvirtues of reason,morality,and social responsibility.20This autodefinition ontributedgreatly o, andin fact dependedupon,thepolarizationof the intellectual ield betweenacademicsandgensdelettres, or much that was posited as a virtueof academia mpliedtherejectionof its literaryopposite.The acceptanceof thisratherheadysocialdutyhad a significant ffectupon the dynamicsof the philosophicalfield both inside and outsidethe classroom.Jean-Louis Fabiani notes the predominanceof themetaphorof "couronnement,"which abounded in the self-justifyingdiscourse of academicphilosophy:AlfredFouillee,for example,spokeof "thenecessity of crowningeducation,for students of all sections,with a year of serious philosophy," nd Alphonse Darlu defined thephilosophyclass as the "classwhichcrowns,whichperfectssecondaryeducation."21 he crowningpositionof philosophy n the lyc6ewas atonce a prize to be jealously guarded,a symbol of past academicstrugglesanda prefiguration f futureconflicts,as wellas a bold state-ment of the superiorityof philosophy n the hierarchyof publiceduca-tion. Regardlessof the truth of this vision, as Fabianiobserves, theessential fact is thatthe philosophers irmlybelieved in thishierarchy,the convictionof whichservedas a defensemechanism or the repro-ductionof thecorpsof universityphilosophers.The ThirdRepublicwas also the occasion for the emergenceof theacademicphilosophicalauthor,anintellectual ategory hatwasgreatlyfacilitatedby supportivepublishing irmsand the foundingof specifi-cally academicphilosophical ournals.While the publishinghouse of


9/44

846Jean-BaptisteBailliereprovideda forum for manyacademicphiloso-phersand otherprofessional ntellectuals, he efforts of the publisherFelix Alcan helpedform the formalpublicimageof the universityphi-losopher. A normalienagregeand close friend of the psychologistTheodule Ribot and the historianGabrielMonod,Alcanpossessed thesametype of culturalcapitalas any philosopherof the epoch, and aspublisher permitted the universitairesto have a degree of influence overthe diffusionof theirideas throughout he intellectual ield. At Alcan,academic philosophers could contribute to the collection "Biblio-theque de philosophie contemporaine,"where a successful bookbecame an importantelementin the careerof the universityphiloso-pher.Above all,writerssoughtthe 'Alcan-effect,"whichconferred egi-timacy upon their scholarshipwithin the philosophicalfield, therebysituating hemfirmlyon the dominantpole of the intellectual ield andsecuringthe legitimacyof academicphilosophyon the broadersocialfield.22The accumulationof these distinctivesigns was requiredforthoseventuringo speakof philosophywithinthesphereof academe.Before 1876, there were no journalsdevotedexclusively o universityphilosophy; nsteadphilosopherswrote eitherfor revuesd'ecolesuch asRenouvier'sLAnnee philosophique,or for politico-literaryreviewssuchas the Revuedes deux mondes.Inresponseto thisneed,TheoduleRibot sharplycriticizedthe extra-universityraditionsof spiritualismand positivismas representedby RenouvierandLittre,and plannedajournalthatwould be non-sectarianand open to a varietyof philoso-phicalcurrents.Thus, La Revuephilosophiquewas founded in 1876,devoted to presenting"acomplete and exact accountof the currentphilosophicalmovement,"whichincluded,however,an importantpro-vision:

The Revue will only exclude articles from outside the philosophical move-ment, that is to say which, being devoted to doctrines already known, rejuve-nated only by a talent for literary exposition, will have nothing to teach thereaders.23

As Fabianiobserves,thisrestrictionwasimportantor the delimitationof the field of philosophicaldiscourse: he Revuephilosophiquewouldpublish only the works of authorssituatedwithin the philosophicalfield (thus emphasizingresearchand rigoras philosophicalnovelties),andwouldexcludethose of purely iterarywriters.As aninstrument fthe professionalizationof philosophy,then, the Revuewould use itsown discretionwhen decidingthe limits of the "philosophicalmove-ment," venthoughthisappellationcouldeasilyreferto a collectionofwritingsbroader hanthoseproducedbyphilosophesdeprofession.24


10/44

847By the early 1890s, a group of young academicphilosophers,ElieHalevy,Xavier Leon, and Leon Brunschvicg, ounded the Revuedemetaphysiquet de moraleas a vehiclefor theneo-spiritualism ndaca-demicrationalismhen emergingon the university ield. The founderspaid an ironic homage to the two existing philosophicalreviews:theRenouvierist Critiquephilosophique,they claimed, had played animportantrole but"today s secondary,"while the Revuephilosophiquefaithfullyreflected"in ts hospitableeclecticism the movementof phi-losophicalideas."This latterpraisewas only ironic, however,for thenew journal had something very differentin mind, something thatwould be morepurely"philosophical":

Here, we would like to do something else. In a more circumscribed frame-work, we would like to emphasize the properly so called philosophical doc-trines; we would like to leave the side of the special sciences, [which are]more or less neighbors of philosophy, to restore to public attention the gen-eral theories of thought and action from which it has turned away for aperiod and which have nevertheless always been, under the currently dis-credited name of metaphysics, the only source of rational beliefs.25

The eclectic Revuephilosophique hus becamesomewhatmarginalizedby the youngprofessorsof La Revuede metaphysique,herebyestab-lishing Kantian epistemology as the dominant pole of the field ofsanctionedphilosophy. n an articleon Germanphilosophy,J. Benrubinoted - perhaps with some reference to his own position - that "meta-physics is a problemfor man, a science for the Overman."26 y the1890s, then, the philosophical ield had been constitutedto structurethe legitimacyof its contentandconstituentsalongstrictlyprofessionalandscientific ines,andfeaturedmechanisms o ensuretheexclusionofthose who were not fit to participate n legitimatephilosophicaldis-course.This processof professionalizationervedas well to impose auniformityof academicperceptionwhich,whileinformedby the socialdynamicsof the philosophicalcorps, would greatlystructure ts per-ceptionof Nietzsche andthose who championedhisthought.

Philosophy and the literary field: A struggle of classificationsThe "journalist," the paper slave of the day,triumphs over the professor in all matters per-taining to culture. Nietzsche

The Birth of Tragedy27


11/44

848Of the highestpriorityfor these vessels of republican deals was theneed to combat the irrationalist,anti-intellectualist,nd individualistcurrents lowing rom theliteraryavant-garde thusformingone of thecrucialoppositionalaxes between the professeurand the homme delettres,between science and literature.28n fact, a majorsourceof thecontinuingautodefinitionof these academicsdependedupon the strictdescriptionof whatthey were not.Whilethe structureof the intellec-tual field itself became polarized along such rigid lines, the centraloppositionof concernhere is the disagreementbetween universitairesand ecrivains over the dominant definition of philosophy.Despiteattempts to ensure the professionalizationof the discipline, manyagentson theliterary ield wereveryinterested n philosophy,andliter-aryjournalstypicallyincluded a section of reviews of philosophicaltexts, often contributed by intellectualspursuingdouble-existenceswithin heliterary ealmandthe academic ield.Universityphilosophyfound an appreciativeaudienceamongthe cul-turallydominantpolitico-literaryournals,such as La Revuedes deuxmondes and La Revue bleue,which experienceda shift in emphasisfrom neo-Kantianspiritualismduring the 1880s to psychologyandsociology duringthe 1890s. This apparentproximityand unofficialaffiliationdid not represent,however,a spaceof peacefulreprieve romthestruggle orrecognition: niversityphilosophers endedto mark heboundariesof acceptablediscourse,especiallywhen it came to issuessomethatexternal o the field itselfbut aboutwhich,nevertheless, heyfelt most qualified o speak.Alphonse Darlu,for example,framedhiscomplaintregardinghe literarycriticFerdinandBrunetieren the spa-tial metaphorsof the field: "theliterarycritic of the Revuedes deuxmondes, he wrote,"progressivelynjoysmakingexcursions,one couldsay incursions,into the domain of social questions."29Perhaps inresponse,the noted criticImile Faguetarguedthat the concernwithgreatphilosophicalssuesis "notonlyparticularo philosophers,buttoall distinguishedminds at this moment,"after which, as an obviousaffrontto the autodefinitionof the mostly Dreyfusardphilosophicalcorps, he proceeded to laud the philosophicalcontributionsof suchanti-Dreyfusarditerarycritics as Brunetiere,Jules Lemaitre,and E.Melchior de Vogii.30 Even among the dominant literary reviews,therefore,the conflict between acceptablephilosophy and literatureremaineda sourceof tension,and often becamea battleoverintellec-tualpositions.


12/44

849The structurally ominated ournalsof the literaryavant-garde larifythe disjunctionbetween academicphilosophyand its literarycounter-part.While the Mercurede Franceand La Revueblancheindeed fea-tured philosophy sections, the numberof books reviewedremainedsmall and these were usuallycontributedby non-academiccommen-tators who often challenged he legitimacyof universityphilosophy. nthe case of the Mercure,or example, romthe 1890s through he FirstWorld War philosophical texts were reviewed primarilyby LouisWeber(anti-positivist),GeorgesPalante(anti-solidarist), nd JulesdeGaultier(anti-positivistand anti-Kantian),while La Revue blanche,closely associated with the anarchism of the early-1890s, featuredreviewsby suchopponentsof universityphilosophyas Leon Belugou,MauriceBarres,and CharlesPeguy.31As Fabiani and Ringer note, certain representativesof the literaryavant-gardehad been bitteropponents of universityphilosophy.Theprotagonistof PaulBourget'spsychologicalnovel Le Disciple(1889),for example,attributeshis moraldeviance to the influenceof his lyceephilosophy professor.After being employedas a tutorby an aristo-craticfamily,Robert Greslouseducesthe already-engaged aughterofthe house and,havingagreedto commitsuicidejointly,allows his loverto die alone. While awaitingtrial for her death, Greslou notifies hislyc6e professorAdrian Sixte that his teachingsindirectlyled to themoralaberrationsof his "disciple." ixte,whose philosophyis associ-ated with those of Kant, Herbert Spencer,Hippolyte Taine,ErnestRenan, Emile Littre,and the psychologistTheodule Ribot, assertedthatconcepts such as God and Good and Evil are mere conventions,for humanvolitionitself is determinedby natural aws.Hence againstthe "nihilistic"angersof scienceand"positivism," ourget argued orfreewillandreligious aith.32This conservative iteraryattack on the teachingof philosophy wasrearticulatedn 1897 in MauriceBarres'snovelLesDeracines; et herethe authorwidened his scope to cite the linksbetweenacademicphi-losophy and the ThirdRepublic.Seven youths from Nancy, Barres'stale begins, were profoundlyaffectedby the philosophyclass duringtheir last year at the lyc6e;yet only three of these young men wouldemergewith theirmoralhealth ntact.Theirphilosophyprofessor,PaulBouteiller,was anenthusiastof Kantianphilosophyaswellas theRadi-calRepublic,andcorruptedhis pupilsby instilling n thema desire forcosmopolitan intellectual distinction rather than pursuing usefulcareers n their own provinceof Lorraine.Thus"uprooted"romtheir


13/44

850"soil"and "milieu"hey moved to Paris,wherefour succumb to vice,dishonesty, heft,andevenmurderas a resultof theirfaultymoraledu-cation.In an importantessay on this novel, the conservativeamateurphilosopherJules de Gaultier stressedhow "Le Kantismeunder theformof moralitys nothingother than a religion .. an attitudeof utilityfor a socialgroupwhich s not ourown."33It is apparent, hen,thatmanyon the literary ield resentedthe mono-poly of academics over the established definitionof philosophy,andsoughtto subvert his dominancewhenpossible: hisis aptly llustratedby the surveysconducted by the Mercurede France on the Germaninfluence n France.The firstenquete,conductedby AlfredVallette n1895, featuredresponses by twenty-fournotableFrenchwritersfromacrossthe intellectual ield,thoughclearlythemajorityhailedfromtheliterarysphere.34Whenreproducinghis survey n 1902 JacquesMor-land(who, incidentally,was an admirerof Nietzsche)greatlyexpandedthe base of contributorsbeyond the literaryfield, and even dividedthemroughlyalong disciplinaryines as he perceived hem.Significant-ly, Morland made no distinction between professionaland amateurphilosophers,groupingboth under the rubric"Philosophie,Littera-ture,"husreinforcingheproximityandinherentrelation,as perceivedby agentson the literary ield, of the two spheres.Here one finds theopinions of committed litterateurs nd opponents of the Universitysuch as Barres,Leon Daudet, and Pierre Lasserreappearingnext tosuch consecrated academics as Alfred Binet, Alfred Espinas, andAlfredFouillee.In additionto the inclusionof suchpolaropposites inthe enqueteone finds several intellectualswho straddled he fields ofliterature and the academy, those writers like Jules de Gaultier,Georges Palante,and Louis Weberwho functionedon the nebulousand often arbitrarily-invoked erimeter between the two warringcamps.35Much to the chagrinof the philosophyprofessors, hen,Mor-land blurredthe distinctionbetween literatureand philosophyalto-gether,a gesturethatpartlyillustrates he ways in which the ideas ofNietzsche could be accepted on the literaryfield as philosophy andrejectedbytheacademicsasmere literature.Severalrepresentatives f the literaryavant-gardeused this surveyasan opportunity o blast the dominantKantianparadigmn Frenchaca-demic philosophy,and to laud the growing nfluenceof Nietzsche onthe intellectualfield.36According to Jules de Gaultier,"against heGermaninfluence of Kant,we must accept the GermaninfluenceofNietzscheas sovereignlyefficaciousandbeneficial."37 emyde Gour-


14/44

851mont declaredwith obvious pleasurethat"[f]orphilosophy, he influ-ence of Kant declines;that of Nietzsche augments.... Thus our phi-losophy,German since Kant,will no doubt remain GermanthankstoNietzsche."

But les nietzscheensdo not seem to have the servilespiritof the Kantians;Beyond Good and Evil is for them less a gospel than an introduction ofuturegospels,multifarious nd bold in its contradictions.Understoodcor-rectly,Nietzsche s a principleof libertyandintellectual oyalty.The categor-ical imperativeof Kanthas made of philosophyfor one hundredyearstheservantof Christianity; esides,we teachidenticalmoral truthsn the lyceesand seminars.38

Againstthis attackfrom the literary ield, two academicphilosophersalso raised the subjectof Nietzsche.For FredericPaulhan,"Nietzscheis todayin the processof becominginfluential,and thiswill not be anevil if we know how to make his ideas serveus."39Th6oduleRibot,theeditor of La Revue philosophique,was less charitable:"Nietzsche,whose influence on contemporariess verygreat,can [only]withdiffi-cultycountas a Germangenius:moreoverhe is rathera penseur hanasystematique."40Whenconsidering hepowerrelationsof theintellectual ield, however,it is apparent his enqueteoperatedon a secondand morefundamentallevel,forthe actualresultsare less illuminatinghantheclassification fthose called upon to judge. Although it is temptingto accept thistaxonomyat face-valueandconclude thattheliterary ield wasgeneral-ly a more open-mindedand inclusivecommunityof free intellectuals,such an assessment is only possible if one accepts the illusion of theliterary ield itself. Ever awareof the dominanceof academicson thefield,thesewritersemployedthisclassificationof intellectualsn orderto take advantageof the prestigeand culturalcapitalof the universi-tairesby levellingthe science/literaturedistinction thuselevating hestatusof literaryopinionto that of theacademic,and evenreducing hestatusof the academicto the literary maintaininghroughout he illu-sion of inclusivenessand freedom of the literary ield. If the space ofculturalproduction s to be conceived as thefieldof positionsof powerrelations among intellectualscompeting for culturallegitimacy,the1902 enquetemaybe seen as a subversionor effacement fora time,atleast)of the hithertoacceptedstructureof the intellectual ield. Indivi-dualspossessingvastlydifferentpositionson the actual ield of intellec-tualactivityappearnext to each otheronlyby virtue of the apparentlyobjectiveand scientificgestureof alphabeticalorder. The academicphilosopherFredericPaulhan husappearedbetween the amateurphi-


15/44

852losopher/sociologistGeorgesPalante and the spiritualistwriter Jose-phin Peladan,while under the heading of "Sciences" he freelancecrowdpsychologistGustaveLe Bon appearedbetween C. A. Laisant,examinateura l'EfcolePolytechnique,and Edmond Perrier,directeurdu Museum d'HistoireNaturelle.This strategy s even more obviousgiven the inclusion of the poet and essayistHenri Mazel, who hadrecentlypublisheda workentitledLa Synergieociale,alongsidePEmileDurkheim and Charles Gide under the category of "Sociologieeteconomie politique."This enquete,then, directed and published bymembersof theliteraryavant-garde,wasa boldassertion inthe faceofthe culturallydominantacademics)of the rightof the dominatedclassof ecrivainso posit legitimate udgmentsof the intellectual ield.Itwasat once a recognitionof the legitimacyof the gameof culturalproduc-tion anda reminderof the literati's ight o participaten it.It is not surprisinghat academicphilosophersgenerallydid not solicitthe opinionsof those intellectualsoccupyingpositionswithinthe liter-ary realm when conducting specifically philosophical(and thereforeinternal)enquetes;nor did writers and poets typicallycall upon aca-demicswhenconductingopinionpolls of a specifically iterarynature.As Fabianidemonstrates,academicphilosophers endedto transformall disciplinarydebates into a simple choice: one was either for oragainst"philosophy" s they definedit.41Aside from this apparentlysimple provision,most academicssawthemselvesas participatingn afield of free inquiry:"thereare no longercompactschools,"Paulhanremarkedin 1900, "but sympathetic groups."42The psychologistAlfredBinet conducted a surveyof the academicphilosophicalcom-munity n 1908 that llustratedhepersistenceof the above-citedoppo-sitionsbetweenliteratureand theuniversity.Accordingto Binet's ind-ingsmanyprofessorsnoted a sharpdeclineof metaphysics n favorofthe ascendent positivist method. Generally, they observed that theteachingof philosophyhad become"less iterary" nd"more cientific"as it becamefor students "apreparation or life."43And yet one maydiscernthe presenceof an illusionthat had hithertooperatedon theliterary ield,namely, hat of the intellectual reedomof theprofessors."What trikesme,"noted one respondent,"isthat at thismomentthereis no academicorthodoxy... the most diversesystems are represent-ed."44Anotherechoed thissentiment:

The exposition of ideas is less dogmatic, the professor has more liberty, thereis no State philosophy anymore, and the educative function of philosophy isof greater interest.45


16/44

853This themeof intellectual reedom was a foundingmythof republicanphilosophy, he result of the autonomizationof the philosophical ieldas it became, accordingto Fabiani,the site of "competition or themonopolyof the legitimatedefinitionof philosophicalactivity."46ntothe midstof this long-standing truggleenteredthe ideas of Nietzsche,whichposed a significant hallenge o establishedmodesof philosophi-calthinking.

Classifications nd constructionsNietzscheanismhasbeensubjected o the same testas Hegelianism.And no doubthere andtherephi-losophical themes have served especially as pre-texts to cover up a new offensiveon the part ofbarbarism. LeonBrunschvicg47The madness of Nietzsche is an argumentneitheragainst his literarygenius nor his philosophicalgenius.The philosophers, he eternalprofessorsofphilosophy, coffedatbySchopenhauer ndTaine,concede the firstpoint,but notthe second.Remyde Gourmont48

The tacit classificatory ystem of Frenchacademicphilosophy,moti-vatedas muchbythedifferential elationships onductedwiththe liter-aryfield as by the need to preserveandreproduce he corps of profes-sional philosophers, prefiguredthe manner in which the ideas ofNietzschewould be received and appropriated.t will be shownthat,giventhepowerconditionsandspecificlogicof the philosophical ield,Nietzsche was never an epistemologicalobject given in any definitesense to academicphilosophers.On the contrary,t was necessarytoconstructNietzscheas an objectof inquiry n order to makehimfunc-tion strategicallyon the field of discourse.This is not to assert thatNietzsche was for these professorsa purelyimaginary igure;rather,given the social tension between writers and scholars,Nietzschewasperceivedby academicphilosophersas alreadybearing he markof theliteraryavant-garde.Nietzsche'sown iconoclasticpoetic language- astylisticassaultupon acceptablephilosophicalwriting- only height-ened the generalassociation of the philosopherwith the avant-garde.An academicappraisalof Nietzsche thereforeusuallycarried an im-plicit and supplementary ocial commentaryon the state of the intel-lectual world.49


17/44

854In the previous pages, I havesketched the parametersof Frenchphi-losophical discourse as it was structuredbefore the introductionofNietzsche,a schemathat illustrates he variouslevels of the game ofculturalproductionandthe numerous ntellectual,professional, ocial,and political stakes involved.In this section, I map the field of phi-losophicaldiscourseon Nietzsche as it was articulatedbyits mostcele-bratedrepresentatives ndby lesser-knownacademicsof the time.Byrestrictingthe analysis to those philosophersoperating within therepublicanuniversity, do not treat the numerous neo-Thomistphi-losopherswho,becausetheywereclerical,weregenerallyexcluded(orexcluded themselves)from the modern republicanacademy.Hence,while Catholicphilosophers clearlyrejectedthe works of Nietzsche,they did so from a very differentposition in the intellectualfield. Inaddition,while some mightrightlynote the challenge hatHenriBerg-son posed to the hegemonyof neo-Kantianphilosophyin France,itmustbe stressedthatBergsonnever undermined he reigningethos ofphilosophical professionalism.As Fabiani and R. C. Grogin haveshown,Bergsonwas embarrassedby the popularityof his philosophyin the literary ield and feared thatpopularsuccess mightunderminehis credibilityn the philosophicalcommunity.Givenhis allegiancetoacademia,t is understandablehatBergsonwouldmakefew referencesto Nietzsche,who had alreadybeen stigmatizedby being associatedwith theliterary ealm.50At times silenceand the curious omissionsin discourseexplainmuchmore than speech, and the relative silence of academicphilosophersconcerningNietzsche duringthe 1890s certainlyaffordsinsightintothe implicit classifications at work. From 1891 through 1898Nietzsche, having earned the laurels of many essayists and poets,seemedto be the expressedpropertyof the avant-garderactionof theliteraryworld.For example,HenriLichtenberger'sLa PhilosophiedeNietzsche,whichappeared n 1898 and was the first serious study ofthe philosopherto be published n France,was writtenby a professorof German iterature,not by a philosopher.51he reviewsof this studyin academicphilosophical ournalshighlight his conflictof classifica-tion. For example, the Revue philosophique had been reviewingGermanstudiesof Nietzschesince 1892, most of whichwerewrittenby the academicLucien Arreat;yet Lichtenberger'sext apparentlyrequiredspecial treatment, or the reviewwas contributed nsteadbyLouis Weber,an independentwriterworkingfor both academicandliteraryjournals.In short, the writingsof (and even writingsabout)Nietzschecould not be considered"philosophy"n the acceptedaca-


18/44

855demic sense of the term;hence between 1891 and 1918 neitherof thetwo primaryphilosophical ournalsof the day,La Revuede mctaphy-sique et de morale and La Revue philosophique, featured reviews ofNietzsche'stexts, even though they had been translated nto Frenchsince 1898 and had been distributedfor review to both journals.52Thereexisted, however,a curiousambiguityon the partof these peri-odicals regarding he case of Nietzsche.Although refusingto dignifyhis texts as legitimatephilosophyby reviewing hem,bothjournalsdidreviewotherscholars'studiesof Nietzsche,thus accordinghim partialadmittanceto the field. Yet even the accordanceof marginalstatusfunctionedas aninstrument f the fielditself.53Thelogicof classificatory hought,Bourdieusuggests,allows ndividualagentsto perceivethemselvesas collectivepersons speakingwith thefull authorityof the group, while simultaneouslyattributing o eachcompetitortotal responsibility or the transgressionsof the opposingcamp.54Thereforeboth Nietzsche and his literarychampions- com-petitorswith academicson the intellectual ield- weresubjected o thehierarchyof epithetsof the philosophicalfield, and became investedwith all the sins of the literati, he infidelsof the academicuniverse.AsBourdieuexplains hisphenomenon:

Social subjects,classifiedby theirclassifications,distinguish hemselvesbythe distinctionsthey make between the beautiful and the ugly,the distin-guishedand thevulgar,n whichtheirposition n the objectiveclassificationsis expressedor betrayed.55The universitaires, ossessing sufficientculturalcapital to maintaintheir social dominance,presentedthemselvesas a class diametricallyopposed to the dominated itterateurs,husreproducingn the spaceofintellectual ife and in culturalterms the class structureof the socialworld. The brief classificatoryepithetsprefacingmanydiscussions ofNietzsche functioned within the highly structuredsign-system ofFrenchacademic ife:invariablyhe was introduced/stigmatizeds the"poete-philosophe"r the "ecrivain t philosophe,"56husimmediatelyreinforcing he predominanceof literary overphilosophical)qualitiesin hiswork andthereby irmlysituatinghimwithintheliterary ectorofthe intellectual ield. The non-academicLouisWeberobservedthattheworks of Nietzsche did not belong within "thespace [cadre]of therubric philosophy'...Nietzsche is too muchthe litterateurnd poet tobe studied as a purephilosopher."57WithNietzsche,anotherreviewerclaimed,"theecrivain s so brilliant, he poet is so rich,that one doesnot perceive the inanity of the philosopher.That is the danger."58


19/44

856Above all,a definitehierarchywasestablishedandperceived or thosewho daredspeakof Nietzsche,as Alfred Lambertnoted,between theopinionsof the vulgaire t thebottomand thepenseursconsacresatthetop.59Through uchexclusionary estures,philosophersreaffirmed heir soli-daritywith the professorialcorps againstperceived encroachmentsfrom the literarysphere.Accordingto Louis Weber, he earlyFrenchcuriosityfor Nietzschehad "manifestedtself with intensity n literarymilieuxmorefor the moralistand ecrivain han for the philosopher."60For these reasons,then,"Nietzsche s in debt to his first vulgarisateursfor havingrapidlyacquireda celebritywhichrarelyovertakes .. purephilosophers."61A critic for the Revue de metaphysique et de moraleassured readers that Nietzschean thought would "not seduce phi-losophesdeprofession" s it hadswept awaypoets and novelistsduringthe 1890s.62ForAlfredFouillee,Nietzsche'ssuccess "wasatfirsta truescandal for many a philosophe de profession,"63yet the seduction ofpoetry alwaysprevailedover that of more seriousthought:"hasnot thepoet often had more influencethan the pure metaphysicianover themovementof social and moral deas?"64

Aphorisms[suchas Nietzsche's] uit a publicwhich has neither he time northe means to fathomanything,and which entrusts tselfwillingly o sibyllinesheets, above all if they are poetic to the point of appearing nspired.Thesame absence of reasoningand of exactproofbestows on the negatingdog-matisman air of authoritywhich forcesupon the mob some half-informed,litterateurs,poets,musicians,amateurs f alltypes.65

To the thoughtof Nietzsche,Fouilleejuxtaposedthat of his nephewJean-MarieGuyau,who "wasmoreproperlya philosopherand theo-retician."Playing upon the common classificationof Nietzsche as a"po&te-philosophe,"ouill6edeliberatelyportrayedGuyauas a "phi-losophe-poete."66Ibelievethathe [Guyau]would havebeen righttoraisehimselfagainsta fascinationwith Nietzscheanperversityandfero-citywhich s onlya capriceof fashion[lamode]amongsome litterateursand amateurs."67In all of thesedescriptions,academicphilosophersdistinguishedhem-selves not only fromNietzsche,but from an entire sectorof the intel-lectualfield thatconsistentlygainedsocial successthroughanenlargedreadership.n thisvery specifically-definedield of discoursewithcol-lectivelyheld ideals of science,morality, ndcareer, t is no wonderthatthefigureof Nietzschepresenteda threat o the philosophicalcommu-


20/44

857nity; hence the need to bring the table of values to bear against whoeverthreatened to break it. In the first article on Nietzsche to appear in LaRevue de metaphysique et de morale, Charles le Verrier enunciated theproblem of classifying Nietzsche: "In no sense can one say that he pro-fessed philosophy: he occupied no chair and hardly cared to constructa system."68Failing these two apparent requirements for acceptablephilosophy, there were several other factors serving to discourage fur-ther the naive acceptance of Nietzsche into the fold. "He despisedmany things and many people," Verrier explained, "but no one morethan these 'philosophers of the writing table,' who press themselves tothought upon the invitation of their bureaucratic requirements [neces-saires de bureau]."69Not only did Nietzsche himself possess none of theacademic traits necessary for the formulation of true philosophy, but hescorned those very professionals who had them. Most academicaccounts of Nietzsche therefore appear as defense mechanisms servingto protect and reproduce the corps by rearticulating the hierarchicalstructure of the intellectual field; hence the need to frame analyses ofthe thinker in the oppositional and hierarchical terms of consecration/vulgarity and purity/impurity, all mere restatements of the more funda-mental division between literary and academic modes of thought.The philosopher Lucien Arr6at often employed physical metaphorswhen speaking of the ideas of Nietzsche, all of which imply definitepreconceived notions of the normal and the grotesque in philosophicaldiscourse. On several occasions, for example, Arr6at referred toNietzsche's Overman as a "monster,"or as a debased wretch in need ofa nurse.70 The procedure of "this renowned and unfortunate thinker,"he noted elsewhere, "always consisted in pushing a precise idea to adegree of exaggeration which deforms it."71 The presentation ofNietzschean thought as monstrosity and deformity aptly describes therelation of Nietzsche to the self-image of French philosophers: as anentity incommensurable to the existing taxonomy, he transgressed theboundary between the thinkable and the unthinkable. Both ecrivainand philosophe, Nietzsche the thinker was a veritable mutant on thephilosophical field, identified as such by the purportedly "pure"gaze ofprofessional philosophy.The totality of classificatory thought employed against Nietzscheserved at once to classify/construct him as object as well as to classifyimplicitly the classifiers. The image that emerges for us of the corps ofprofessional philosophers is that of a social elite or, more properly, of aquasi-religious community. Above all, these professors saw themselves


21/44

858as immune to the fashions and "seductions" f the literaryfield, pri-marily,as 1mile Durkheim claimed, because of "theirprofessionalhabits:"

Accustomedbythepracticeof scientificmethodto reserve heir udgment osuch a degreethat they do not feel enlightened, t is natural hat they suc-cumb ess easilyto theraptures f therabbleor theprestigeof authority.72Suchintellectualsweretrainedto maintain he purityof theirgaze, orat least the collectiveillusion of the pureacademicgaze,in the face ofwhattheydesignatedas thenaivegazeof the literary phere.By articu-latingthe ideologyof the puregaze,academicseffected a socialbreakwith their iteraryother.73The word"vulgaire,"epeatedlyemployedtoevaluate Nietzsche'sliterarycommentators,pertainedto the "com-mon," o "classeswithno distinction,"o "thatwhich is withoutdistinc-tion."Fouilleeeven spoke of the "mob"of Nietzsche'sartisticsympa-thizers,thus augmenting he social qualities mplicitlyattached o phi-losophicalactivity.An exampleoffered to clarify he definitionof "vul-garisateurs" xpressedthe oppositionalstrategyof academicclassifica-tion: "Lessavantsne sont pas des vulgarisateurs."74y contrast, o be"consacre" t the turn of the centurycarriedexplicitreligiousconnota-tions, such as "thatoverwhichthe priesthas pronouncedsacramentalwords."The verb"consacrer"urtherdemonstrates he quasi-mysticalimplicationsof philosophicalclassification: to rendersacred,respect-able,honorable."75 hese religiousmetaphorswere used not merely nthe case of Nietzsche commentaries,but to characterize he generalrelation of academicphilosophersto the uninitiated:did not Darluhimselfnote on one occasion how inaccessible the writingsof Kanttended to be for "lessprofanes"?76n short,the classificationsof phi-losophesdeprofession ffectivelydemonstrated hedegreeto which theautodefinitionof the universityfield could enter into philosophicalanalyses:by condemningNietzsche and othersin social, cultural,andeven religiousterms,academicphilosopherswere able to consecratethemselvesas possessing the monopoly of legitimatenominationofphilosophicaldiscourse.At the momentthat theseprofessorshoped toestablisha moralelaiquein Francethey establishedthemselvesas asacredly ecularphilosophicalclergy.The logicof thephilosophical ielddemanded hatthose ordainedwiththe right to speak of philosophy be co-optedby the field itself. AsBourdieuwrites:


22/44

859What the co-optationtechniquemust discover... is not knowledge,not apackageof scientificknowledge,butskillor,moreexactly, he art of applyingknowledge,and applying t aptlyin practice,which is inseparable rom anoverallmannerof acting,or living, nseparableroma habitus.77

In short, being an academicphilosopherentailed the investmentofthe person in a relationof trust with the professionalcorps, which iswhy the attainmentof culturalconsecration s often experiencedas asort of ontological promotionafterwhich one reflectsonly withscornupon his or her former self.78A central strategyof academiccom-mentaryon Nietzschewas to (re)constructhis life in a certainfashion,to examine his dispositions in order to constitute/exposehim as aspecifically iterary ubjectand to illustratehis marginalpositionvis-a-vis establishedphilosophy.Whereasthe ideas of thinkers uch as Kantor Comte mightbe considered withoutreferencesto the biographicalfactorsof theirphilosophy, he "Nietzsche" roducedby philosophicaldiscoursewas first and foremost an ecrivainwhose lived experienceswereinseparablerom hiswritings hence the rhetorical onventionofappendingbiographicalsigns to many commentarieson his thought.This strategy s evidentin one of the few publishedremarksmadebythepsychologistAlfredBineton Nietzsche:

Since our Annee [psychologique]as until now never had the occasion tospeakof Nietzsche,we think t interesting o reproduce or ourreaders,afterFouillee,some citations rom thissingularauthor.... These citationscangivean idea of the mannerof Nietzsche,his conductof affirmation, is immensepride, his incoherence and the beauty of his lyricism [emphasisin ori-ginalj."79

Bourdieunotes how the mannerof using symbolic goods constitutesadefinite markerof class, and is a key weapon in strategiesof distinc-tion.80Binet thoughtthat these aphorisms,which had served Fouilleewell in discreditingheGerman,would offerhis readers nsight nto thespace of Nietzsche's ifestyleand personality.Not only was the readerto be apprisedof the soul of Nietzsche, againstwhich his writingswould emerge as its troubled and poetic expression;Binet even in-voked the entire comportmentof Nietzsche, which was less the de-meanor of an isolatedindividual hanthatof the entire classof literaryproducerswith whichNietzsche wasidentified.While thisbiographical trategyhad often been used withinthe literaryavant-gardeo elicit sympathy or and complicitywith the German, tfunctionedamong academicsin the opposite manner: o underscore


23/44

860once again (through the mechanism of academic distinction)Nietzsche's nherentotherness and to render his work suspect in theeyes of academic philosophers.This perhaps explains the positivereception of Daniel Halevy's La Vie de FredericNietzsche(1909),whichonlybolsteredwhatmanyacademicphilosophersweresayingallalong.As one reviewerwroteof Halevy'sbiography:

Nietzscheanthoughthas nothing systematicabout it; it is made of presen-timents, ntuitionsandenthusiasms, ndthe truths hat he brings o lightarenot the laboriousresultof methodicalmeditationsnor of anywork of exca-vationandundermining roundclearlydefinedconcepts.8UnderstandingNietzsche'sthoughtthereforerequiredone "toreplacethe thought nto the man who created t" n order to learnof the "inte-rior drama which was his life."82Halevy'sbiographywas thereforeacceptablebecauseit treatedNietzsche as a literary ubjectwhoseper-sonal andpsychological rialsfound concreteexpression n his writtenwork.Thisbiographical trategy n Nietzschescholarshiphad found aprecedent nLichtenberger'study:

But beforestudying he doctrineof Nietzsche, t is importantas well to seeclearlythat it is, by the confession of the author, ess a totalityof abstracttruthsandof universal ignificance han the livingreflectionof an individualcharacter, f avery particular atural emperament,he sincereandpassion-ate confessionof a soulof rareessence.83As a professorof German iteratureat the Universitede Nancy (andlaterat the Sorbonne),LichtenbergernvokedNietzsche'sbiography na manner hat wasconsistentwith his view of the authoras a litterateur.Even Louis Weber noted that Nietzsche has "acomplex personality.Philosophicalaptitudesand moral tendenciescombinein him with apoet's and artist'stemperament."84 nd, accordingto anothercom-mentator"allhis life is one longcombatagainstexternalnature,againstothermen,andagainsthimself."85As is the case withhistoricalaccounts,the historyof a thinker'sife isavailableonly in fragments,which are selected,organized,and linkedtogetherbya rhetorical and seam-concealing) trategy ulfilling pecialfunctionson the discursive ield.86Such was the case with all the ver-sions of Nietzsche's ife circulating t the turnof the century virtuallyeveryrecounteddetailwas apprehendedwithina specificconceptualfield,be it thatof theavant-garde r theacademy.Yetgiventheculturalconsecrationof the university,he accountsposited by academicscar-rieda greaterdegreeof legitimacy hanthosewrittenbyrepresentatives


24/44

861of the literaryworld. A memberof the generalpublic searching or abrief, authoritativeand objectiveaccount of Nietzsche and his workwouldundoubtedly oregothe biasesof literaryaccounts nfavorof themore consecrated and "pure"encyclopedia. That is why the firstFrench encyclopediaentry on Nietzsche deserves special attention:contributedby Ren6 Berthelot,a young philosophy professorat theUniversityof Brussels and son of the distinguishedchemist,MarcelinBerthelot,87hisessayin La Grandeencyclopediewas less an objectiveaccount of Nietzsche'sthoughtthan a demonstrationof the objectivepower relations of fin-de-siecleintellectuallife, which would never-theless be perceived as an institutionallyapprovedand persuasiveaccountof thephilosopher."Thehistoryof his life and that of his ideasare inseparable,"Berthelotposited at the outset;the moral ideal heproclaimedwas "nothingotherthan the exaggeratedmageof his owncharacter."88ote the dramaticdifferencebetween this introductionand the one that Emile Boutrouxwrote for Kant:"ThephilosophyofKant is one of the most considerableacts in the historyof the humanspirit."89 similarsentimentappearsin the entryon Comte,"one ofthe most profoundthinkersand the most originalphilosopherof thecentury."90 he philosophicalportraitsthat appearedin La Grandeencyclopediehus expressedthe structureof the field itself,which wasdominatedby both idealismand positivism,and tacitlyindicatedtheboundarybetween egitimateandillegitimatephilosophicalactivity.91For Berthelot,the matureworks of Nietzsche were foreshadowed nthe circumstances f his childhood:"Theadmirations ndworks of hisyouthforetelland alreadyexplainhis futuretheories. At fifteenyearshisfavoritepoetwasHolderlin, hefriendof Goetheand of Herder, heintimate of Schellingand Hegel."92The implicationhere was of thegroundednessof Nietzsche in the literaryrealm- especiallyroman-ticism - from an early age, a condition from which he never fullyemerged. Marcel Drouin, a normalien agrege de philosophie and futureco-founderof the Nouvellerevuerancaise, orrectly dentified hisphi-losophical strategyin 1900: "A more delicate means of belittlingNietzscheand of arrestinghis influence,"Drouin observed,"isto de-clare hima poet.... I fearthatM. Ren6Berthelotfavorsthisthesis a bitby insistingon the real affinitiesof Nietzsche with the romantics."93Alfred Fouill6e also invoked Nietzsche'sbiography,and emphasizedthe vanityhe displayedat an earlyage:"Hebelievedhe was of a supe-riorrace,of a Slavicrace,as if the Slavshadbeen superiorandas if hehad been a Slav himself And all his life this pure-bloodedGermanpridedhimselfon not beingGerman."94


25/44

862The son of a pastorfrom the Prussiancountryside,he imagined hathe de-scendedfrom an old noble Polishfamilyof the nameof Nietzkywhereas hissisterhasherselfremarked) e hadnot one dropof Polishblood in his veins;since them,his imaginarySlavismbecame a fixed idea and an idee-force: eendedby thinkingandactingunder heempireof thisidea.95

The neo-KantianFrancoisPillon even appealedto Nietzsche'sfrag-mentedsoul,which he claimedmadeit virtuallympossibleto producedisciples:"howcan onefaireecole when one haspassedhis lifewantingto satisfy wo of the mostantagonisticpassionswhichhaveever divideda thinker's soul: that of truth, and ... eccentricity?"96Telling he taleof Nietzsche's ife necessarily nvokedthe space of aca-demic lifestyles, which only reinforced the negative view of theGerman.That Nietzsche was a professorof philologyat Basel drewhim into the habitusof academics n general- here wasnot merelyanindependentwriterbut a fellow memberof the academy,anotheroneof the faithful eadinga respectable ifestyle.As LionelDauriacnotedin his review of Hal6vy'sbiography,however,Nietzschesufferedcon-stantlyfrom professionalisolation:"hisphilologistcolleagues madehimfeel a bit too often andperhapsalso too cruellythathe wasnot oftheir species [espece]"97Berthelot noted that from 1869 to 1876Nietzsche lived "thetranquil ife of a universityprofessor."98 et, de-spite his professionalexclusion,his resignation romhis post at Baselrenderedthe German even more suspect. While Berthelot stressedNietzsche'sdeclininghealth as the chief factor in his resignation,ananonymousreviewerat the Revuede metaphysiquet de moralesug-gestedother considerations:

Despitethe brilliant uccessesof his debut andpeaceful uture hathis chairat Basel seemed to offer the young professor,his restless ardor,his vastcuriosityandperhapsalsothe firstblowsof themaladydidnotpermithimtocontent himself with the honorable satisfactions of a universitycareer [empha-sisadded].99

The logic of the academic ieldprovided or its own reproduction, ndthereforepreserved he imageof the professor's ifestyleas a spaceoftranquility,restige,honor,andevenholiness,allof whichreinforce hequasi-religiousmetaphorsdiscussed above.One could thereforefindwithinthe circumstancesof Nietzsche'slife a varietyof reasons forexclusion.That Nietzsche had once been an academicperhaps ren-dered him, accordingto the logic of the philosophicalfield, a muchgreater hreat han a writermorefirmlyandconsistentlyentrenchedn


26/44

863the field of literature.His subsequentdeparture romthe academy,anunpardonableransgression,ffectively inalized hebreach.An enemy of the people: The immoralist and the crisis of Frenchphilosophy

Whetherwe immoralistsare harmingvirtue?Justas littleas anarchistsharmprinces.Onlysince thelatterare shot at do they againsit securelyon theirthrones. Moral: Morality must be shot at. NietzscheTwilightof the Idols 00

Despite the exuberanceand purportedintellectual freedom accom-panying the renaissanceof philosophy during the Third Republic,manyacademicsexpresseda deep concern for the crisis of theirdisci-plineat the turn of the century.Fabianicites threeprinciplesources ofthisnotion of crisis.First,whileunderthe classicalcurriculum he phi-losophy class remained he pinnacleof secondaryeducation,after theRibot reformsof 1902 this place was lost to the sciences, especiallymathematics.Therefore,after 1902 philosophyhad slippedfrom thesummitto the marginsof nationaleducation.Second, many philoso-phersperceivedambiguityn the publicimageof theirdiscipline:whilesome members of the larger society renewed their interest in theCatholicheritageof spiritualism,manyothersexpresseda conservativereactionagainst he criticaledges of universityphilosophy.Finally, herise of the positivesciencesand the stress on empiricalresearchposedproblems,especiallywhen it crossed into territory raditionallycon-trolledbyphilosophy.Given these institutionaland intellectualblows, then, one discerns areaction nfin-de-sieclephilosophicaldiscourse,a sustainedattempt oreassert he value,integrity,and prestigeof the disciplineon the intel-lectualfield by citingthe existence of a contemporarymoralcrisis. Itwas believedthat his malaise,whichwas linked to the DreyfusAffair,could be counteredonly by a return o more academicmodes of phi-losophical thinking.The French governmentwas also deeply con-cerned about public morality, which it claimed to protect through thecontrolof culturalgoods:throughout hehistoryof theThirdRepublic,sixty-twopercentof all cases of censorshipwere the resultof apparentchallengesto the moralorder.101his moralcrisis also coincided withthe transformation f the role of the university ntellectualduringthe


27/44

8641890s to a position of activepolitical engagement what Durkheimcalled "thestrictduty [of ecrivainset savants] o participate n publiclife."102Hence the proliferationof lectures,articles,and books pro-moting republicanphilosophy and morality.During a lecture serieson "Moralesociale" at the College Libre des Sciences Sociales, forexample, Emile Boutroux noted that ensuringsocial solidarityde-pended upon "educationof judgmentand will, diminutionof egoismand false personality,progressof justice and of fraternity n humansocieties."103

No one raises,no one has the right o raise children or themselves;not eventhe father.We raisethem for the preservation nd the progressof humanity,for society and country, or the accomplishmentof the duties whichawaitthem n life.104To Marcel Bernes, professor of philosophy at the Lycee Louis LeGrand,observationof the present showed only "moral ndifference,moralanarchy,"ices thatwere to be eradicatedat anycost.105Havingestablished he symptomsof the moralcrisis,then,a logicalcourseofactionwouldbe to isolateandexpunge hegerm tself.A centralstrategy n the philosophers'mission to regaintheirwaningimage was a shift in philosophicaldiscourse on Nietzsche:whereasduring he 1890s it waspermissibleeitherto ignorehimor dismisshimas a mere litterateur,ncreasingly fter1898 Nietzschewas specifiedasa majorcauseof contemporaryndividualism,mmoralism,and"intel-lectual anarchy."The latter epithet may be traced as far back asAugusteComte,who explained hat"thegreatmoralandpoliticalcrisisof our presentsociety is the result, n the finalanalysis,of intellectualanarchy.Ourmostdeadlydiseaseis the profounddivergenceof mindswith regardto all the fundamentalmaximswhose fixity is the primeconditionof a truesocial order."106in-de-siecleFrenchphilosophersappealedto the sameconcernfor socialorderin their denunciationofNietzsche.This rhetoricalshift graduallyunfoldedduringthe 1890s,andis well illustratedby LucienArr6at's eriesof book reviewsfor LaRevuephilosophique.Arrdat'sirstreviewin 1892 did little to inspirethe interestof his colleagues n the little-knownGerman: or Nietzsche"nothings true,all is permitted....The placeof the 'blondebeast', er-rible andbrave Altruism s a word devoidof meaning.An end to pity:harden yourself "107 he existence of such ideas is not surprising,Arr6atconcluded:


28/44

865[They ndicate]a necessaryreactionagainst he debasementof manandthetriumphof mediocrity,that one would sometimes say is the secret andunspokenpassionof socialismanddemocracy.108

By 1893, Arreat's vocabulary had changed considerably: as Nietzschewas becoming more popular among the literary avant-garde it wasnecessary to activate the logic of difference so characteristic of intellec-tual struggles. Of Wilhelm Weigland, author of FriedrichNietzsche: Einpsychologischer Versuch,Arreat noted significantly that "[t]hiscritic is apoet," a shrill warning to his readers of Wiegland's position vis-a-visacademe. Nietzsche himself was now described as "agenuine ecrivain"rather than a philosopher:

It is not necessary,and it does not suffice,to be a philosopherand to refutewith serious reasons the glitteringtirades and dogmatic opinions of thisparadoxicalecrivain; t is necessaryto be a psychologistand an artist tospeakexpedientlyof him."19Arr6at's terms clearly excluded the works of Nietzsche at an early datefrom ever being considered seriously as true philosophy; yet at thispoint his remarks betray little concern for the moral and social implica-tions of Nietzsche's thought.By 1894, Arreat noted with dismay the steady increase of German andItalian scholarship devoted to Nietzsche: "This literature becomes a bitcumbersome, and it does not seem to me that the importance of thehero justifies it."110When Rudolf Steiner, the father of anthroposophyand an associate of the Nietzsche-Archiv, presented a serious study ofNietzsche, Arr6at's response expressed the alignments of the field andthe primacy of academic classification: "The literary qualities of theecrivain have hidden from him the flaws in [Nietzsche's] logic and theincoherence of his thought.... His superior man, his Ubermensch,remains an incomprehensible monster.""' By the end of the century,Arr6at, who had previously been content to dismiss Nietzsche as amere dilettante, began to portray him as a public menace. Arr6at noted,among the ranks of the Dreyfusards, a significant number ofNietzscheans: "Nietzsche appeared, in effect, to supply new and livingformulas to the elegant anarchism of the 'intellectuals.'"12 As intellec-tuals divided themselves along lines of fracture established for nearly adecade, Arr6at declared the malignant influence of the German onFrench morality: "Nietzsche has awakened some disciples, he hasjumbled up some minds."


29/44

866His conceptionof the strongindividual,his theoryof a "mastermorality"opposed to that of the "slaves," re striking enough, and in part preciseenough,to captivateattentionand summoncontroversy.Howfrivolous heyalwaysappear,when one presses and pushes them to their final conse-quences How they are above all a ridiculousweaponin feeble hands TheOverman, las s still awretchedman nneed of a sicknurse.113

In short,the triplethreatof anarchism,ndividualism, ndimmoralismbecame attributed o Nietzsche at the end of the century, hus coin-ciding with the publication of Nietzsche's works in French andthe aforementionedcrises on the philosophical,social, and politicalfields.By 1899, Arreat'svoice mingledwith othersin the collectivecondem-nation of Nietzsche as the architectof contemporarydespair.TheSoci6etFrancaisede Philosophie, n its collectivelycompiled"Vocabu-laire techniqueet critiquede la philosophie,"explicitlyand officiallyidentified"immoralism"s the doctrineof Nietzsche.l14Afterthe deathof the German n 1900, La Revue de metaphysiquet de moraleevenpublisheda substantialobituary or the philosopherwhose workstheyhadrefused o review.Functioningprimarily s a warning, heonlysor-row conveyedin this elegy from universityphilosopherswas for thefuture:

He hasjustdied;and,deprivedof reason or elevenyears, n the elevenyearssince he had disappeared rom life, he alreadyhas a posterity.... In all ofEurope he has found philosophers o appreciatehim, literarypeople [deslettres] o relishhim, fanaticsto exalthim.... He developed,with the mostabsolute ogicalrigor, hisphilosophyof theillogical, hisirrationalism...15Clearly pursuinga different but related strategy,La Revuephiloso-phique barelymentionedNietzsche'spassing,affordinghim only threematter-of-factlines.116The Renouvierist Annee philosophique hadremainedsilenton the subjectof Nietzschethroughout he 1890s;yetin 1899 FrancoisPillonalso articulatedhe new discourseon the phi-losopher:

[Nietzsche is] the philosopher who boldly systematized anarchismandimmoralismdeducedfrom radical ndividualism nd absolutedeterminism;[heis] the poet who enlivensfrom his vigorousand passionate maginationthethoughtof thephilosopher emphasisn original].117

CharlesRenouvierhimself, two days before his death in 1903, toldhis disciple and friend Louis Prat that the vogue for Nietzsche was"the delusion of grandeurs erected into a system by a madman.


30/44

867This fashion will pass in its turn."118 nother reviewernoted howNietzscheanthoughtunderminedall forms of conventionalmorality,"Christian, rotestant,andKantian."'19he rejectionof Kantwasdeci-siveforAlphonseDarlu: n Nietzsche"[t]heres neithertruthnorgoodin itself. It is upon intellectual and moral nihilism that he raised hisflamboyantdoctrine."120 antianmorality, meaning the moralityofDuty,"wroteLionelDauriacin 1906, "hasnever been less in favor.Itsdecline is even one of the dominanttraitsof the contemporarymoralcrisis."121hosewho hadgivenbirthto thiscrisis,Dauriacpointedout,were not only young philosophersbut "ecrivains,artists,and also,becauseit is necessaryto use fashionablewords,some aesthetes"whohaveconsistentlyturnedto alternative ourcesof actionand contem-plation.

[I]n the contemporary crisis, one seems disposed to practice radicalmethods, those that one could call methods of la tabula rasa. One would voidthe moral consciousness of the present time.... A crusade against the doc-trine of sin, a crusade against belief in the categorical imperative; a crusadeagainst all which in the matter of our moral consciousness descends or seemsto descend, in a straight or oblique line, from a Jewish or Christian source[:]such is the triple character of the contemporary movement. Who are thecommanders of the crusade? The army which follows them knows barely anybut one: Nietzsche.122

No philosopherever elaboratedon the constituentsof this "army" fNietzscheansexcept to say that they were primarily rom the artisticsphere,a long-time argetof academic rethroughout he ThirdRepub-lic.'23Although the shift in philosophicaland literarydiscourse onNietzschecoincided withtheDreyfusAffair, he event itself was trans-lated into the logic of the philosophical ield.Indeed,perhapsthe con-servative critic FerdinandBrunetierehad initiated this discoursebyblastingthe intellectuels or their pretensionsof being a noble class,"thepretensionof raisingwriters,scientists,professors,and philoso-phersto the rank of supermen."'24ome months laterhe repeatedhisattack n similarterms,claimingthat the "Manifestedes intellectuels"was nothing other than individualismeand egoism. They see them-selves as "the'Overman' f Nietzsche,or againas 'theenemyof laws'[ofMauriceBarres]":

I am only saying that it will be necessary to see, when intellectualism andindividualism occur to this degree of self-infatuation, they quite simply are orwill become anarchy.125


31/44


32/44

869deux mondes,which had throughout he 1890s provenan enemy ofNietzscheby carryinghe criticalcommentariesof Teodorde Wyzewa,Victor Cherbuliez,and 1douard Schure.Positioned on the literaryfield and yet recognizedas an ally of academicphilosophy,Fouilleestrategically elected a periodicalthataddressedthe culturaland aca-demic elite. Second, Fouillee had his Nietzscheet l'immoralisme,ikemost of his texts,publishedat Alcan,thusensuring he imageof legiti-macythat the publishinghouse conferred.Thusmaking ull use of thesymboliccapitalavailable o him,Fouilleeinitiatedhis protractedandbitteroffensiveagainst 'immoraliste.Fouilleesaw Nietzsche'saristocratic thicas a "signof the times.... Thefaithfulof the order of Nietzschepromiseus nothingless than a newculture founded on anti-Christianculture."130hroughoutthis textFouillee selected the most graphicexamples of Nietzsche'selitism,cruelty,nihilism,and hatredfor all formsof socialism,equality,ustice,democracy,andscience,thosevaluesuponwhichthe liberalrepublicand academicphilosophy- stood. Far frombeing"'valuesof annihila-tion,"'Fouilleeprotested, hese republicandealsof "justiceandequal-ity of rights are the true conditions of power and progress."31Nietzsche's superior individual,according to many French critics,appearedas a culturalnomad with virtuallyno ties to civilization.Nietzsche's dealindividual,Arreathadmentionedelsewhere,canonlybe supposed"withoutheredity,withouteducation,withoutfamily,andwithoutcountry."132Fouill6earticulateda similarsentimentwhencrit-icizingthose "anarchists nd libertarians"who rejectedthe idea of thenation:

"We others without country " cries Nietzsche. In other words: We other beeswithout hive, ants without anthill, individuals without speech, withoutscience, without arts, without manners, men without humanity.'33All in all, Fouillee'sstudy of Nietzsche expressedthe needs of manyacademicphilosophersduring hiscriticalperiodof theirprofessionbydemonstrating ow desperately he publicneededtheirinterventionorestorerepublicanmorality.These philosophersbolsteredthemselvesagainst the crisis they perceived in their discipline by maligningNietzsche,a convenientsymbolof the literarydistortionof legitimateandpurephilosophicalactivity.


33/44

870Conclusion: Voices from the marginsDespite the apparentacademicrejectionof Nietzsche, after 1905 itbecamemuch more acceptableto accord the Germanmarginal tatuswithin acceptable academic discourse. Yet in most cases this wasdemonstrated nly byindividualswhowere themselves omewhatmar-ginalto the philosophical ield.For example,the academicswho criti-cized Fouillee'sdecisivecondemnationof Nietzsche,notablyGeorgesPalante,Julesde Gaultier,and CharlesAndler,did so frompositionsthatwere eithermarginalor external o the field.Palante,a philosophyprofessor at a provincial lycee who actively integratedNietzscheanthemes into his social philosophywas only an agregede philosophiewho often wrote for avant-garde iteraryreviews in addition to LaRevuephilosophique.His colleagueJulesde Gaultier,who neitherheldnor soughtan academicpost, also contributedessayson NietzschetoLa Revuephilosophiqueand publishedseveralimportantstudies onthe philosopherafter 1900.134The Germanscholar CharlesAndlerhadoriginallywishedto pursuea career n academicphilosophy;yethetwice failed his agregationde philosophiein 1887 and 1888 due todisagreementswithhisjury,who foundhim muchtoo "intoxicatedwithmetaphysicsfrom across the Rhine."Undaunted,Andler turned hisattentionto German literatureand would ultimatelybe appointedtothe Sorbonne.Withhis initialcareerplansblockedbythephilosophicalestablishment,t is not surprisinghatAndler wouldproduceanimpor-tantsix-volumestudyof the thinkerwhose ideas were deemed illegiti-mate by that institution.135inally two other agregesde philosophierejected hehegemonyof Kantianphilosophy n favorof Nietzsche,butwere forced to do so from positions within the literaryavant-garde:PierreLasserre,a keycollaboratoron the royalistAction rancaise,andMarcelDrouin,a normalienstudentof Andler who helped form LaNouvelle revuefranpaisein 1909.In additionto suchphilosophicaldeviants,some professorswerewill-ing to direct theses and even deliver lectures on the philosopher.Between 1904 and 1913, for example, four doctoral dissertations(threeat Paris andone at Montpellier)werecompletedand at leastsixpubliclectureswere offeredby academicphilosopherson Nietzsche'sthought.136While conferences on Nietzsche had been conductedaround 1900 by such litterateurs s Henri Albert and Teodor deWyzewa,publiclecturesby academicswere certainlymuchless com-mon.Held at the universitiesof Caen,Dijon,Poitiers,Lausanne,Paris,and Aix-Marseille,the open nature of these lectures surely under-


34/44

871scored the popular and literary nature of Nietzsche's primary reader-ship. In addition, the fact that several of these speakers were charges decours rather than professors suggests once again the marginality andjunior status of such academics. It is also unclear how many of theselectures were, like Georges Dwelshauvers's 1908 series at the EVcoledes Hautes Etudes Sociales, further opportunities to discourage inter-est in the German.137One respondent to Binet's 1908 enquete notedthe influence of contemporary moral concerns on the teaching of phi-losophy: "Icannot imagine ... a course on morality where one does notdiscuss the communism of Plato, where one ignores the contemporaryworkers movement, where one struggles [s'escrime] against Protagoras,and where one does not even cite Nietzsche."138This marginal integration of Nietzsche into the French philosophicalcurriculum hardly signalled a canonization of the troublesome thinker.Indeed, because his ideas were apparently inspiring German aggres-sion, Nietzsche was often represented as a veritable threat to nationalsecurity, an image that seemed justified by the actual outbreak of hostil-ities in 1914.139Without a doubt, Nietzsche would still be taught at theEcole Normale Sup6rieure after the First World War; yet one suchseminar, presented by the neo-Kantian Leon Brunschvicg in 1928, wasprovocatively entitled: "Nietzsche - was he a philosopher?"140On thecontrary, those philosophers who openly embraced Nietzsche intwentieth-century France were generally themselves marginal to theacademic mainstream. Jean-Paul Sartre, Paul Nizan, Jean Wahl, andHenri Lefebvre, for example, were all committed opponents of thereign of Bergsonism and Kantianism in academic philosophy, and werequite instrumental in the introduction of alternative philosophicalmodels, especially Husserl, Hegel, and Marx, during the 1930s.Indeed, Sartre had clearly effected a revolution against Kantianism byblurring the boundary between literary philosophy and philosophicalliterature, a transformation of the philosophical field that undoubtedlyfacilitated the entry of more stylistically unorthodox philosophers inyears to come.141Nevertheless, while the rigidity of acceptable philosophical discoursein France apparently weakened during the twentieth century, prac-titioners of more "literary" styles of philosophy have generally beenwithout significant power within the university field. Philosophers suchas Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, and Jacques Derrida - all of whomhad embraced facets of Nietzsche's philosophy - for years occupiedrelatively marginal positions in mainstream academic life despite their


35/44

872considerable cultural success in France and North America. AsBourdieuwritesof hiscontemporaries:In their relationswith the philosophicalhighpriestsof the Sorbonne,who,like mostof them,areproductsof the'great ay seminary',he Icole NormaleSuperieure,whichis the apexof the whole academichierarchy, hey appearlike religiousheretics, or, in otherwords,rather ike freelance ntellectualsinstalledwithinthe university ystemitself, or to venturea Derrideanpun,encampedon themarginsor in the marginalia f an academicempirethreat-ened on all sides by barbarian nvasions(thatis, of course, as seen by thedominant raction).l42Surelysuchmarginalizationwas not due exclusively o the advocacyofNietzscheanphilosophy,but rather to an entireapproachto philoso-phical activity that, like that of Nietzsche, deviated from the phi-losophicalnorm.In short,one cannot concludefromthe gradual nte-grationof Nietzscheinto the philosophicalcurriculum fter 1908 thathis thoughtwasbecoming partof the canon of acceptablephilosophi-calexemplars. nstead,one mightsaythatthe invisible ine which at theturnof the centurywas meantto protectthe philosophicalcorps fromexternalliterary ncursionsreappeared ater within the philosophicalcommunity tselfto dividehierarchicallyhe orthodoxand the hetero-dox.In conclusion,the effortsof most mainstreamFrenchphilosophersatthe turnof the centuryensuredthe marginality f Nietzscheand,whenpossible,of those who daredto speak of him as a legitimatephiloso-pher.The classification ystemof academicphilosophers unctionedasan exclusionarymechanism n the continuingmissionto reproduce hecorps of the profession,a standarddevice that necessitatedthe con-structionof Nietzsche as an object of inquiryand of derision. Theobjectthusproducedwouldin turnserve as a rationale orits ownmar-ginalization swell as for theexclusionof its admirers.Throughout hiscriticalperiod of the discipline,few would recognizethe powerrela-tions embeddedin theirknowledgeor,aboveall, the representation fthe object they wereobligedto destroyin orderto presentan "objec-tive"philosophicaldiscourseon Nietzsche.

AcknowledgmentsI would like to acknowledge he helpfulcommentaryand suggestionsmadeby GeorgG. Iggers,FritzRinger,JonathanDewald,AlanSchrift,AndrewHewitt,and JohnJosephin this essay.I havealso benefitted


36/44

873from the suggestionsof those in attendanceat the SUNY/Buffalo andWesternNew YorkHistoryColloquium,8 April 1994. Finally, thankthe Editorsof Theoryand Society or their carefulcritiqueof the orig-inalmanuscript.While I havetakenseriouslythe insightful uggestionsmadeby these individuals, or a number of reasonsI was not able toincorporateall of them into thepresentarticle.Notes

1. Friedrich Nietzsche, TheAntichrist in The Portable Nietzsche, trans. Walter Kauf-mann (New York: Viking Press, 1954), 579.2. Christophe Charle, Naissance des "intellectuels,"1880-1900 (Paris: Minuit, 1990),82-84,105-116.3. Thepropagation f Nietzsche's houghtbetween 1892 and 1898 was effectedpri-marily by the young writers of the literary avant-garde, who would publish thecomplete works of the philosopher in French. That many of these youngNietzsche enthusiasts, such as Daniel Halevy, Fernand Gregh, Robert Dreyfus,Andre Gide, Henri Gh6on, and Marcel Drouin, would become Dreyfusards sug-gests the inadequacy of those interpretive schemas that have made of Nietzschean essentially right-wing thinker. On the contrary, research indicates a markedcorrespondence between social/literary position and the propensity to embraceor reject Nietzsche before 1899. Cf. Charle, Naissance, 97-137; Christopher E.Forth, "Nietzsche, decadence and regeneration in France, 1891-95" Journal ofthe History of Ideas 54 (January 1993): 97-117.4. Throughout this essay, the word "objective" is employed in regard to social rela-tions that do not spring from the conscious intentions of a subject.5. Cf. Pierre Bourdieu, "Intellectual field and creative project," Social Science Infor-mation 8 (1969): 89-119; Homo Academicus (Stanford University Press, 1988);Les Regles de I'art (Paris: Seuil, 1992). Several scholars have applied this sociol-ogy to the intellectual life of late nineteenth-century France. Cf. Jean-LouisFabiani, Les philosophes de la republique (Paris: Minuit, 1988); ChristopheCharle, Naissance; Fritz Ringer, Fields of Knowledge: French Academic Culture inComparative Perspective, 1890-1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1992). With this project, I hope to provide an alternative to the standard but nowdated study of Genevieve Bianquis, entitled Nietzsche en France (Paris: Alcan,1929). In this work, Bianquis presents a catalog of the various interpretations ofNietzsche from the 1890s to the 1920s without a contextual analysis of theirconditions of possibility. Moreover, aside from occasional references to EfmileFaguet, Charles Andler, Henri Lichtenberger, Georges Palante, and Jules deGaultier, Bianquis says little about the implications of Nietzschean philosophy forFrench academia.

6. Bourdieu, Les Regles de I'art,243.7. Bourdieu, Homo Academicus, 24.8. Jay, Theoryand Society 19 (June 1990), 316.9. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil in Basic Writings (New York: The ModernLibrary, 1968), 419.10. Jean-Louis Fabiani, "Les programmes, les hommes, et les oeuvres: professeurs dephilosophie en classe et en ville au tournant du si&cle,"Actes de la recherche en


37/44

874sciences ociales 47-48 (1983):4. On the influenceof VictorCousin,see Alan B.Spitzer, TheFrench Generationof 1820 (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1987,) 71-96.11. WilliamLogue, FromPhilosophy o Sociology:The Evolutionof FrenchLiberal-ism,1870-1914(Dekalb,IL:Northern llinoisUniversityPress,1983), 74-75, 77.12. PhyllisStock-Morton,MoralEducationor a SecularSociety:TheDevelopment fMoraleLaique in NineteenthCenturyFrance(Albany:StateUniversityof NewYorkPress,1988), 33, 34.13. FrancoisPillon hadinitiallypublishedL'Anniephilosophiquen 1868 and 1869,which,afterbeing replacedby Renouvier'sCritique hilosophique n 1872, wasresurrected n 1891. In addition,Pillon was cited as the primaryphilosophicalreviewer or the second supplement o PierreLarousse'sGranddictionnaireuni-verselduXIXesiecle,suggestinghis authority o shapeanddefineacademicphi-losophy in the early 1890s. Cf. PhilippeBesnard, editor,"The'Annie sociolo-gique'team" n TheSociologicalDomain:TheDurkheimians nd theFoundingofFrenchSociology (New York: CambridgeUniversityPress, 1983), 14; Stock-Morton, 59, 85-86; "Aulecteur,"Granddictionnaireuniverseldu XIXe siecle:deuxieme upplement Paris:Administration u Granddictionnaireuniversel,n.d.[1890?]),17: 2022; WilliamLogue, CharlesRenouvier Baton Rouge

forth-prejudices philosophers nietzsche france.pdf

Documents