nationalism, nietzsche and ressentiment€¦ · master morality (oligarchy and aristocracy)....
TRANSCRIPT
NATIONALISM, NIETZSCHE AND RESSENTIMENT
By
Őzden Sezgi Durgun
Submitted toCentral European University
Nationalism Studies Program
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Advisor: Professor Erica Benner
Budapest, Hungary
2004
2
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 4
A1. NIETZSCHE’S ACCOUNT AND TERMINOLOGY .................................................................................. 11
1.A) TWO TYPES OF RESSENTIMENT: MASTER AND SLAVE ............................................................................... 161.B) POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF MASTER AND SLAVE MORALITY.................................................................. 181. C) RESSENTIMENT AND TRIUMPH OF HERD MORALITY IN EUROPE ............................................................... 23
A2. NIETZSCHE AND DEUTSCHTUM............................................................................................................ 26
2.A) TWO TYPICAL PURSUITS: STÖCKER AND DÜHRING ................................................................................... 26
B. NIETZSCHE AND JUDENTUM.................................................................................................................... 43
1. RESSENTIMENT AND MORAL GENIE .............................................................................................................. 472. NATIONALISM, MODERNITY AND THE JEWRY............................................................................................... 512.A‘PHILOSOPHY OF NATIONAL LIFE’ ............................................................................................................... 54
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 59
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................................ 63
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks to all of my professors, especially to my advisor Erica Benner, herencouragement and comments aided me to formulate this thesis.Nationalism Department at Central European University, thank you for providing me theaccess to Jüdische Presse and the Zionist Journals.I would like to express my gratefulness to my colleagues and friends who aided methroughout my thesis writing process.
Özden Sezgi DurgunJune 7, 2004
4
Introduction
In this thesis you will find a discussion concerning Friedrich Nietzsche’s (1844-
1900) philosophy and its reception in Germany during the 1890’s until the
1930’s. Nietzsche’s life spanned the Bismarckian Era, whose reign was
characterized by the debate over ‘small/great politics’ (kleine / grosse Politik).
Among intellectuals Bismarck rule was discussed with respect to its
subordination of German nationalism in the service of a Prussian-led
Kleindeutschland and a Lutheran Prussian monarch.
In 1869, Nietzsche gave up Prussian citizenship and remained stateless for
the rest of his life. Before the 1890’s his name was not popular. The first
international feedback to his writings came from Morris Cohen (Georg
Brandes)1, a literary historian and critic from Denmark; Oscar Levy2 was the
first to translate Nietzsche into English, further helping to the spreading out
his ideas.
During the World War I, there was an increase in the sales of Nietzsche’s works;
it was compared to the sales of Goethe’s Faust and also New Testament. 150.000
copies of Zarathustra were distributed to troops. The Era of Weimar Right from
1 See. Brandes Georg (Moris Cohen), (1842-1927), lectures on Aristokratisk Radikalisme,1889,Copenhagen, quoted in Steven Aschheim, Nietzsche’s Legacy in Germany, 1890-1990,University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford, 1992, Ch.5.
2 Nietzsche, My sister and I. Translated and introduced by the Hebrew writer Oscar Levy. Theauthorship of this work and responsibility for the translation and editorship by Levy are underdispute. Cf. Saturday review of literature, Apr. 5 and May 24, 1952; Aufbau, May 30, 1952.
5
1918-1933 in the postwar climate, comprised over 550 clubs and 530 journals
where Nietzsche’s name appeared very frequently. 3
Having this historical background in mind, I will focus on the two competing
groups of intellectuals in Germany, namely Zionists and German nationalists
who employed Nietzsche’s philosophy in the formulation of their ideals of
Judentum and Deutschtum. By Deutschtum I refer to the spiritual and
physical unity of German ‘essence’, surfacing the popular German
nationalism, which later gave rise to a certain trend of a Pan-german and
völkish movement. The term Judentum denotes the ideal developed among
the intellectuals, who invested their efforts to unite the world Jewry. The
basic aim of this ideal was the spiritual as well as cultural unity of people and
the restoration of Zion, which would liberate the Jews from Diaspora.
Within this political and historical context, intellectuals from both sides were
engaged in a discussion, in which the name of Nietzsche played a major role.
Nietzsche’s philosophy of life, morality and ‘will to power’ became the
symbol of proactivism and was pronounced by each group as ‘will to
Deutschtum’ or as ‘will to Judentum’. This case provides the insights to read
Nietzsche’s genealogy as a competition of two moralities in Germany. Each
morality posits their own picture of Nietzsche. Throughout this study I will
try to demonstrate how and why both camps have two different -often
contradictory- pictures of his philosophy. In order pursue this aim, I will
introduce the main outlines of Nietzsche’s philosophy in the first chapter.
3 See Rektor P. Hoche, Nietzsche und der Deutsche Kampf, Zeitung fur Literatur, Kunstund Wissenschaft, V. 39.n.6, 12 March 1916. Quoted in Steven Aschheim, The NietzscheLegacy in Germany
6
The common denominator that makes the comparison of two national mind-
set possible is the fact that Nietzsche was not only a philosopher for these
intellectuals, he was also the name of ‘thinking otherwise’. Most
importantly, his vocabulary and style was capable of confronting the 19th
century loss of faith in God. His critique of contemporary Western culture,
his genealogical method combined with the glorification of heroic values in
Ancient Greek antiquity and his admiration of Pre-Socratic philosophy
appealed to a wide audience in Germany and in Europe.
At the first sight it seems paradoxical to employ Nietzsche’s philosophy in
formulation of national ideals because his account is incompatible with
nationalism. He attacks the spirituality of values, which is rooted in Judea-
Christian morality. This traditional morality contributes to the formation of
the mass movement, which he termed as the ‘herd morality’ and petite
nation-state politics in Europe. The herd morality is the manifestation of a
‘resentful state of mind’ that always desires to bring down ‘the powerful’. In
Nietzsche’s view, his age witnessed the loss of the cult of leaders as well as
master morality (oligarchy and aristocracy). Therefore he identifies a type of
‘slave revolt’ and the demonization of the power in all mass movements. The
overarching question in the present inquiry can be formulated in this way:
‘Given that Nietzsche’s account was contra-nationalism, what aspects of
Nietzsche’s philosophy resonate with the mind-set of Deutschtum and
Judentum. This question is going to be addressed in two separate chapters
(A2), (B).
7
The first chapter (A) of this study introduces Nietzsche’s account4 on ‘will to
power’ and its relation to his ‘genealogy of morality’. ‘In the first sub-
section (A.1.a) I will present the main lines of his argument on ‘power’, in
relation to the two basic typologies, namely master and slave. The two
typologies are characterized according to their type of existence; active or
reactive. This approach represents his general perception of human conduct
and politics as the struggle for power. In the next subsection I will proceed
with discussing how his view of power relates to his account of genealogy of
morality.
Nietzsche’s account of history as genealogical practice proposes a different
conception of past and future in which the conceptual transformations of
values recur in certain patterns. Philology seems to be his implicit guide in
the application of such method of analysis. This kind of approach to history
relates political transformations to the change of moral values. Under the
guidance of these conceptual transformations of values (good, bad, evil) he
develops a theory of ressentiment5. Nietzsche’s theory of ressentiment and
his project of ‘transvaluation of values’ in his Genealogie der Moral
introduces a concept of Lebensphilosophie characterized by the tension of
‘slave and master’, ‘powerful and weak. According this perspective it is
possible to define ‘slave morality’ as a pattern; every historical revolution
can be characterized by the fact that the ‘reactive existence’ is parasitic on
4 In the present work I will refer to Nietzsche’s works and I will use the following abbreviations:Beyond Good and Evil (BGE), On the Genealogy of Morality (GM), Anti-Christ (AC), Twilight ofIdols (TI)5 In this thesis I will follow Nietzsche’s usage of the French term Ressentiment. Manfred S.Frings (1998) in his introduction to Scheler’s book Ressentiment (1915) argues that Germanlanguage does not have a word for ressentiment, the use of this French word also in commonspeech. It is important to note that there is a nuance between the connotations of the Frenchterm and English term, where the former is lingering hate and the latter does not alwaysimply it that strongly.
8
active existence. Its fundamental moral implication is that ‘weak’ desires to
bring down the ‘powerful’ and invert their table of values by attaching them
opposite meanings.
The second section in the first chapter (A.2a) will discuss the two typical
perspectives on German politics with respect to Eugen Dühring (1833-1921)
and Adolf Stöcker (1835-1909). In this part I argue that Christian and Anti-
Christian pursuits of Deutschtum contribute to a better understanding of
Nietzsche’s account, which opposes not only to the Christian-Deutsch model
(Stöcker), but also non-Christian and Aryan Germanic ideology (Dühring).
However Nietzsche’s disagreement does not stem from his egalitarian
perspective of humanity, rather it stems from his contempt of ideals for mass
movements and herd morality. This section will provide the framework in
which we can situate Nietzsche’s critique of German culture and politics.
The chapter ‘Nietzsche and Deutschtum’ focuses on Stöcker’s and Dühring’s
models of Deutschtum that are later synthesized as ‘Germanic-Deutsch’ by
the ideologues of the Third Reich. In this way Nietzsche’s Übermensch,
which was a cult of power to create new values is transposed as the racial
and social symbol. The appropriation of his philosophy of power marks the
uses of Nietzsche by the ideology of National Socialism. Alfred Bäumler and
Rosenberg will be the main representative figures of the discussion here. The
ideologues of the Third Reich claim that in order to interpret and understand
Nietzsche in a full sense, one has to be committed to National Socialism.
In the second chapter (B) ‘Nietzsche and Judentum.’ I will discuss
Nietzsche’s reception in the Zionist journals, namely Ost und West, Die Welt,
9
Der Jude, Jüdisches Gemeindeblatt, Der Morgen, from the 1890’s until the
1930’s. Among different Zionist trends and arguments there is a clear tension
between the Nietzscheans and contra- Nietzscheans. Therefore I divide this
chapter into thematical subsections in which the ressentiment, moral Genie of
Jewish Volk, and ‘philosophy of life’ constitute the main subjects of debate. In
these journals, Nietzsche’s statements and aphorisms occupies a major place
of reference, especially in the conflict between the conservative generation
represented by the prominent figure Ac’had Ha’am6, and the younger
generation, Martin Buber 7and Micha Berdyczewski. 8
The moral Genie of Jewish Volk and ressentiment are found in almost every
article that refers to Nietzsche; by some authors it is considered as an
admiration for Jewish antiquity. Some interpret the ‘transvaluation of values’
as a creation by the Jewish Genie9. The positive interpretations of Nietzsche
consider his comments as an attribution to both Christian and Judaic morality
and emphasize that in the new era of modernity one has to create its own
moral sphere without cutting the ties with historical roots and ancient
tradition.
6 Ahad Ha-am (Asher Hirsch Ginsberg; 1856–1927), Hebrew essayist, thinker, and leader of HibbatZion movement (Love of Zion), the movement that constituted the intermediate link between theforerunners of Zionism in the middle of the 19th century and the beginnings of political Zionismassociated with Theodor Herzl and the First Zionist Congress in 1897. The relation of Ha'am andHerzl is complex, they were representing different kinds of ideals: Ha'am stresses the Not desJudentums ( distress of Judaism) whereas Herzl was concerned with the Judennot (the distress ofthe Jews and how to survive under antisemitic forces)
7 Martin Buber (1878-1965) - philosopher, story teller, pedagogue - was born in Vienna
8 Micha Josef Berdyczewski [later Bin Gorion] (1865-1921) was the first Hebrew writer living inBerlin to be revered in the world of German letters. He was born in Ukrainian Medzibezh (thehometown of the Ba’al Shem Tov) and was a descendant of a famous line of Hasidic rabbis. In1890, he moved to Germany where he combined Jewish and secular studies in essays, fiction,folklore anthologies and scholarship until his death in 1921.9 The meaning of this word here denotes the ‘creative power’.
10
The reconciliation of modern, secular universal values and the ancient idea
of chosenness also discussed in this context. For some authors the revival
and restoration of Zion goes hand in hand with the ethical universalism
propagated by French revolution. In that sense authors like Ac’had Ha’am,
the main opponent of Nietzscheanism, claims that the Jewish nation will be
the exemplary nation for whole humanity, they would exemplify how justice
will be established in their domain and this will be nation model for all. They
do not need to borrow any foreign ideal from Nietzsche’s Lebensphilosophie.
To sum up, my assumptions are the following:
1. Through an understanding of how and in what ways Nietzsche’s
philosophy is situated within German intellectual history, we can throw
some light on ‘Nietzsche the obscure’.
2. By examining the different understandings of Nietzsche, we can state the
political implications of his philosophy under the conditions
Bismarckian Era and Weimar Republic, which later gave rise to the
Third Reich.
3. . His philosophy constitutes one of the important areas where two national
projects and as well as two moralities confront each other.
11
A1. Nietzsche’s Account and Terminology10
In this chapter I introduce Nietzsche’s terminology and his philosophical account by
focusing mostly on his books, Zur Genealogie der Moral [1887]11, Jenseits von Gut
und Bose12 [1886], and Anti-Christ[1888]13. My aim is here to provide a philosophical
background of his thought and to present the significance of the terms within his own
framework.
Before introducing Nietzsche’s account I need to make two important remarks, firstly;
it is common among Nietzsche scholars to divide his philosophy into two periods; his
ideas on ‘metaphysics of will’ are taken as Pro- and Post-Schopenhauer. His Pro-and
contra-Wagnerian attitudes are taken also definitive of the debate over his anti-/philo-
Semitism. I think such divisions may be useful for the sake of understanding of his
thought and his own self-criticism14. But, in my study here, I don’t employ these
distinctions, they would only serve to blur the picture. With an eye to the continuities
as well as leaps within the body of Nietzsche's philosophical production I tend to see
his philosophy as a whole, which has some turning points, some continuities and
discontinuities.
Secondly, I find it interesting to observe that Nietzsche debate in today’s political
philosophy is mostly informed by the ‘difficulty of categorizing’ his thought. This
10 For Nietzsche’s complete works in German edition I used Kritische Studien Ausgabe F.Nietzsche:Saemtliche Werke, Colli G. and Montinari M., Berlin, dtv/de Gruyter, 1988.11Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, (1887) Edited by Pearson K.A., Cambridge,
199412 Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Goof and Evil,(1886) translated by R. J. Hollingdale, Introduction byMichael Tanner, Penguin Books, April 200313 Friedrich Nietzsche , The Antichrist (1888) Trans.by Hollingdale R.J., Penguin Books, London,1968
14 See. Friedrich Nietzsche, [Die Geburt der Tragödie], Birth of Tragedy: An Attempt at Self-Criticism. First section of the Birth of Tragedy was added to the book many years after it first appeared,as the text makes clear. Nietzsche wrote this "Attempt at Self-Criticism" in 1886. The original text,written in 1870-71, begins with the Preface to Richard Wagner, the second major section.
12
‘difficulty’ seems to be taken for granted in many books on Nietzsche15; but why it is
considered to be so, is not explained. Instead of arguing how difficult his account is,
we need to return to the texts and contextualize his thought, only then it will become
clear why and in what ways his writings relate to each other.
Nietzsche’s philosophy is antagonistic to the metaphysical approach that grounds
moral principles in transcendental world. Instead, he proposes a foundation for
morality that lays emphasis on the “struggle of forces”, “vitalism”, “courage”
“physicality” and elaborates a bios16-oriented moral approach. In this way
“Lebensphilosophie” refers to Nietzsche’s idea of the struggle for survival and power,
which is usually perceived by many authors as a “national life ” (bios), compatible
with the morality and character of the German Volk (ethos17).
Another peculiarity of Nietzsche comes from his philosophy that introduces us the
concept of the ‘force’ (Die Kraft) which is the basic element in any process of
generation and degeneration in the world. His theory of ‘Will to power’ signifies a
different conception of ‘will’, which does not exercise power, rather it is power.
Hence, everything exists as different forms and quantum of will. In such a universe,
which recalls the Hobbesian state of nature in Leviathan (1660); everything changes
according to an instinctual principle of struggle. The element of ‘fear’, which is a
definitive feature of pre-political human being in Hobbes’ philosophy, is integral to
Nietzsche’s account of politics:
15 See. See. Ruth Abbey and Fredrick Appel, Domesticating Nietzsche: A Response To MarkWarren, Political Theory, Vol. 27, No. 1. (Feb. 1999), pp. 121-125. See for further discussion.Steven Aschheim, Nietzsche’s Legacy in Germany. See also, Keith, Ansell Pearson’sIntroduction in On the Genealogy of Morality, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994.
16 Within Nietzschean terminology in the Ancient Greek sense this term refers to ΒΙ’ΟΣ, (Bios) life,i.e. not animal life but a course of life, manner of living, livelihood.17 The ancient Greek term ethos written in two forms [Ηθος] and [έθος] the former refers morality andthe latter means custom or character. Here, both senses are applicable.
13
‘In losing our fear of man we have also lost our love for him, our respect for him, ourhope in him and even our will to be man’.18
Implicit to Nietzsche’s theory of the struggle of forces is the idea that if one loses this
instinctual ‘fear’, the moral evaluation ceases to be. It is an interesting point because it
shows how Nietzsche ties human psychology to morality. In that sense it is
compatible with Hobbes’ account of social contract, which is a result of fear and
‘egoistic’ process of seeking peace. In similar vein, Nietzsche’s view implies that
‘fear and power’ are the main objective elements that govern the need of establishing
moral systems. This idea can be illustrated in the following statement:
‘After the structure of the society is determined and secured against externaldangers, it is the fear of the neighbor which creates new perspectives of moralevaluation’19.
In this kind of world, the existence of a force depends on the features of other forces
with which it struggles20; dominant forces take successive possessions of things to
which they are directed. Thus, every phenomenon, every object is possessed by a
force. Since in every event there are successions of forces and these processes form a
network in which one cannot identify a starting point that can be called the sole
‘origin’, or a ‘cause’. Therefore, there are no absolute beings, no ‘completeness’ in
the world. This is the basic reason why Nietzsche chooses the term ‘genealogy’
instead of history. History, in the traditional sense assumes a progressive line in the
course of time, according to this understanding of time the cause and origin of things
assumed to be identical. Whereas from genealogical point of view there is no origin as
a single cause; rather it proposes multiple ‘origins’, that is, the struggle of the multiple
18 GM I, 12,19 BGE 20120 GM III, 8, 9,10
14
forces. Contrary to the conviction that going back to the origin would yield a more
“true state” of the thing, Nietzsche asserts that, the closer we get to the “origin”
(Ursprung) of things, the less possible it is for us to evaluate what we find:
“The realm of origins is the realm of radical insignificance, not of heightenedmeaningfulness.” 21.
This perspective suggest that there is no isolated, independent facts or entities ‘in
itself ‘ in this world, they are all interrelated and they stand in a hierarchical order.
This hierarchy is established in accordance with the degrees of the ‘will power’ (Wille
Zur Macht). It is not exercised on matter in general, but on another will. In
Nietzsche’s words: “ ‘will’ can operate only on ‘ will’ and not on ‘matter’ (Stoff)”.22
This seems to be one of the key points to understand Nietzsche’s perspective of world
history, human conduct, and the origins of morality. The world is portrayed as an
arena of constant struggle in which multiple factors cooperate or conflict, and in this
way, they determine the state of affairs. In this framework the ‘philosophy of life’, is
defined in terms of survival, the desire to be active, to dominate. Therefore in
Nietzsche’s view we see a revival of the cult of body, instinctual motivation of human
beings; the bodily settings, physicality gains more importance than the virtues such as
moderation, equilibrium and rationality.
While criticizing the pure ‘logical’ reasoning and causality as the governing principle
in the discipline of history, Nietzsche introduces a certain type of philological
reasoning that can be translated into philosophy as ‘genealogy’ of moral thought. He
is concerned with the ‘value of values, from which perspective they are posited.
Hence, Nietzsche’s critique uses genealogy as the method, which allows him to
discuss morality with respect to the threads between the different power struggles in
15
religion and politics. This dimension renders his account more receptive to the study
of values, what is known today as Axiology.
I should note that as a philologist Nietzsche combines philosophical studies with
classical studies especially Ancient Greek literature and Pre-Socratic thought. In Die
Geburt der Tragödie [1871] he examines the emergence of the Ancient Greek’s
desire for tragedy and pessimism which strangely coincides with the moments of
flourishing of Greek culture, body, soul and youth. On the other hand, Nietzsche
argues, if the case is reversed, the same question can be restated; ‘why during the
times of decline there is detectable sign of optimism, lust for rational understanding
and ‘scientific thought’ in Greek culture?’ Nietzsche’s view of tragedy challenges the
dominant view that ‘Greeks are ideal types as the people of the moderation (middle)’,
for Nietzsche they are the examples of joyous people even when they suffer. In
Ancient Greek culture and Pre-Socratic philosophy people can celebrate life as it is
(amour fati), without any hope or reward for future salvation as it is in Christianity.
When Nietzsche translates this case into the conditions of his own time, he finds the
following:
In spite of all "modern ideas" and the judgments of democratic taste, could the victoryof optimism, the developing hegemony of reasonableness, practical and theoreticalutilitarianism, as well as democracy itself (which occurs in the same period) perhapsbe a symptom of failing power, approaching old age, physiological exhaustion, allthese factors rather than pessimism? Was Epicurus an optimist for the very reasonthat he was suffering? We see that this book was burdened with an entire bundle ofdifficult questions. Let us add its most difficult question: What, from the point of viewof living, does morality mean?23
21 See TI, 4422 BGE, 3623 Friedrich Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy [1871] Sect 4.
16
Having this ideal type of Pre-Socratic morality in mind, Nietzsche compares the
moral evaluations of modern age with respect to the origins of Christianity and
Judaism. In his analysis he makes use of the two typologies, master and slave
morality, and differentiate their characteristics with respect to the ressentiment. In the
following section I will describe these typologies. I will present Nietzsche’s
philosophical account of morality and ressentiment and then proceed with its political
implications. But, before the section on ressentiment, the following points should be
taken into account:
• The way in which Nietzsche describes our current moral practices has a diverse
and complicated background, in which the instinct of ressentiment shapes the
moral evaluations in Master and Slave morality.
• According to Nietzsche, the genealogy of the phenomenon of guilt and bad
conscience resides in Judea-Christian Morality.
• Ascetic or life-denying practice actually transforms instinctual life into Herd
Morality.
1.a) Two Types of Ressentiment: Master and Slave
Nietzsche puts his genealogical viewpoint into practice through an analysis of the
Judeo-Christian morality. In this way, his theory regarding the relationship between
‘ressentiment, guilt, bad conscience’ merges with the theory of ‘struggle forces’. In
Nietzsche’s account of the will, the fundamental relation occurs between the
‘commanding will’ of the ruler and the ‘obeying will’ of the ruled, each type represent
two different patterns of moral evaluation. Here the mechanism of ‘ressentiment’
becomes manifest, respectively in two different ways, master and slave.
17
Master morality is characterized by its power to rule and its capability to posit values
in terms of ‘good and bad’. There is an active expression of an active mode of
existence; it discharges feelings immediately, and therefore in the master morality,
ressentiment is not accumulated, it does not ‘poison’ the mind. This type has the
capability of forgetting, therefore, it is incapable of forgiving24. This type is capable
of conceiving the notion of “good” in advance and spontaneously. Only then it
creates the notion of “bad”. So, it possesses the self-worth in itself, not in comparison
to ‘other’. It only confirms his goodness by looking at the ‘other’, which is evaluated
as ‘bad, simple, not praiseworthy’. The notion of ‘bad’ is a complementary notion
here, which only verifies the value of goodness of the noble. That is how the nexus
“good and bad” acquires its moral meaning in the noble method of valuation. 25.
However, in order to posit its self, the slave –type is destined to have an ‘other’. If
there were no other, this type would definitely create it. Because this type needs the
external stimuli in order to act at all; its action is basically reaction. The notion of the
“evil other” is the basic idea on which the slave constructs the counterpart, the ‘good
one –himself’. Therefore being ‘evil’ is the original/ actual deed of slave morality. 26
Ressentiment in this slavish type finds its actual existence, it leads to perceive every
powerful existence as enemy; everything enigmatic and secretive appeals to this
typology, and he is not able to forget anything.
Concerning the ressentiment in noble type of morality Nietzsche claims that it
generates a distorted view of ’ the ‘base’, or ‘weak’; a feeling of despise arises in
noble man; he distances himself from others. It is due to a ‘pathos of distance’, which
can be named as ‘alienation’, therefore the image of the despised person is always
24 GM, I, 1025 BGE, 260
18
distorted. From the eye of the powerful, the picture of the weak is always
exaggerated, caricatured. To put it in Nietzsche’s words, ‘it is a fundamental belief of
all aristocrats that the common people are all liars’. 27
In slave morality it is common to equate the powerful with the evil and danger,
whereas according to the master morality it is precisely the good person who arouses
fear and the bad man is simple, contemptible. Although ‘bad’ and ‘evil’ both seem to
be the opposite of the same concept of ‘good’, one should ask who is actively evil
form the point of view of the man of ressentiment; Nietzsche’s answer is the
following:
“ Precisely the “good” person of the other morality, the noble, powerful, dominatingman, but re-touched, re-interpreted and re-viewed through poisonous eye of theressentiment.” 28
1.b) Political Implications of Master and Slave Morality
Nietzsche’s treatise on morality in GM can be read as a political conflict-in his words
as a polemic- of the two moralities in Germany. The layers of the polemic are
furnished by the vocabulary in which religious and national categories were also
shifting meanings. Concerning the conflict of the two moralities I will state the
following points:
i) Nietzsche account of the origins of ‘good bad and evil’ claims that these
values acquired their contemporary meanings through the political struggle
between the Priestly Judea and Ancient Rome, in that context the Priestly
26 GM I, 11
27 BGE, 26028 GM I, 11, p. 24
19
Judea represents the ‘slave revolt’ against Roman aristocracy. But in
contemporary Europe, Nietzsche does not attribute it to the Jews; rather he
ascribes this reactive and resentful state of mind to the mass movements of
nationalism in Europe.
ii) This point acquires a special significance within the context of German
nationalism. German nationalist who advocate Christendom and Aryan
Deutschtum attribute Nietzschean master morality to themselves and associate
the reactive, slave type of morality with non-Germans, that is, with the Jews.
The Germanic-Aryan theory, which was formulated by Dühring, Wagner, and
Stöcker were in support of the creation of ancient noble history of
Germanness. But Nietzsche was criticizing this kind of ‘constructed nobility’,
which is claimed by nationalists to be originated from Teutonic knights,
medieval German merchants and Germanic tribes.
Concerning the point (ii) some authors argue that the prominent Aryan supremacists,
such as Renan, Dühring and Förster retaliated against Nietzsche’s Genealogy, and
distorted his theory of ressentiment in favor of German nationalism. Weaver
Santaniello29 states that ‘by attacking priestly Judea, Nietzsche is denigrating a certain
strand of Judaism that Christian anti-Semites claimed as their ancestor, which
allegedly professed the coming Messiah-as represented by Jesus Christ’. According to
Santaniello, Nietzsche praises contemporary Jewry and original Israel as the strongest
ancient tradition in the world; this explains why Nietzsche condemned Priestly Judea,
29 Weaver Santaniello, A post holocaust re- examination of Nietzsche and The Jews ,in Jacob
Golomb, ‘Nietzsche and Jewish Culture’, Routledge, London, NY, 1997 p.33
20
it was due to the fact that this strand of Priestly Judea was the source of Christian
morality. Similar views in support of this interpretation can be found in the
correspondences of Nietzsche’s and his close friend Franz Overbeck; Overbeck
remarks that Nietzsche’s position against Christianity is primarily founded in
antisemitism.30 It is an interesting debate, which may further illuminate Nietzsche’s
critique of both Christian and Aryan mythologies of Germanness, which I am going to
discuss in the section (A.2. a.)
Regarding the point (i) we should recall the first essay of GM, where Nietzsche refers
to the struggle between two moral traditions, Judea and Rome; that conflict marks an
historical turning point that Nietzsche calls the ‘slave revolt’. This revolt symbolized
the ressentiment of the slave and the desire to bring the aristocratic values upside
down; it was successful. This is how the values ‘good and bad’ have gained the new
reversed meanings and the former value replaced by ‘evil and latter acquired the
meaning of ‘good’. This triumph means that the dominant moral valuation shifted
from the master and to the slave morality see (1.a). However Nietzsche holds Priestly
Judea31 responsible for this reversal of values, not the Jews. In his view, the Judaic
morality was only a premise and Christianity was the conclusion: Therefore,
Nietzsche’s attribution of slave type of evaluation applies not only to Judaic morality
but also to Christian morality. Apparently, Nietzsche’s philosophical account acquires
a sensitive historical context in which he discusses the continuities between the Judaic
and Christian table of moral values. He argues:
30 Franz Overbeck, Kirchlexicon, Nietzsche und das Judentum, (Nachlass Basel A 232) in R. Braendle
and E. Stegen eds. F. Overbeck’s Unerledigte Anfragen an das Christendom, (Munich, 1988) Quotedin Steven Aschheim, ‘Nietzsche, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust’ , Jacob Golomb, Nietzsche andJewish Culture, Routledge, London, NY, 1997 p.3
31 See first chapter of GM, part 7 and compare BGE 195.
21
‘Here I barely touch upon the problem of the origin of Christianity. The first thingnecessary to its solution is this: that Christianity is to be understood only byexamining the soil from which it sprung -- it is not a reaction against Jewish instincts;it is their inevitable product; it is simply one more step in the awe-inspiring logic ofthe Jews. In the words of the Redeemer, "salvation is of the Jews." 32
To understand the religious mechanism behind traditional morality, it is also
necessary to note Nietzsche’s remarks in GM, where he argues that the everything
that preceded the order of rank in the population, triumphs, negotiations is mirrored in
the genealogical chaos of their gods, in the legends of ethnic battles’. In this sense
Nietzsche puts genealogy of Pre-Socratic morality in line with the ‘hierarchical rank
order’. This order resembles the polytheistic worldview. He asserts the following:
‘The progression of universal empires is always the progress to universal deities atthe same time: despotism, with its subjugation of the independent nobility, alwaysprepares the way for some sort of monotheism as well.’33
In connection with the points (i) and (ii), since Nietzsche defines monotheism as
aristocratic and despotic and bearing in mind that Judaism brought the monotheistic
divine order to the history of mankind, what makes Nietzsche to ascribe ressentiment
and slave revolt to the Priestly Judea?
The possible answer to this question is that Nietzsche sees continuity between these
moralities as well as a tension. This tension entails the reversal of the values and the
emergence of the value of ‘love’ out of ‘hate’, which brings back the Socratic virtues
such as ‘moderation’, ‘temperance’, protection of the ‘weak’, and the demonization of
the powerful. In Nietzsche’s mind Socratic morality, the emergence of monotheism,
the slave revolt of Priestly Judea and Christian morality are all aligned together; they
32 AC 2433 GM, 2, 20
22
all serve to the recurrence of slave morality in the form of mass movements, which
gives rise to the ‘small’ politics of nation state and the establishment of herd culture.
In the second essay of Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche concentrated mostly on the
Christian morality and psychological aspects of ressentiment, namely on bad
conscience, on suffering and the internalization of pain. He claims that there occurred
a change of ‘direction’ of the feeling of ressentiment in the Christian-moral culture,
where the type of ‘bad conscience’ is unable to relieve itself of its feeling of guilt
(Schuld). With the change of the direction of the ressentiment, the concept of
suffering acquires its internal meaning, it evolves into notion of sin and guilt:
‘The advent of Christian God, as the maximal god yet achieved, thus also broughtabout the greatest feeling of guilt on earth.’ 34
In Nietzsche’s view, the formation of the herd is the fundamental concern for the
political climate in Europe. The product of the herd is the guilty, but domesticated
man who is totally dependent on the system, who cannot take initiatives and unable to
legislate onto himself.
In the ancient civil law there was a relationship between a creditor and a debtor, now,
in the modern world this same relationship has been ‘moralized’. The moralization of
the ‘human animal’ occurred through the change of the notion of guilt. One owes to
the ancestors, to the state, to the parents, to the fatherland; it is a moral duty. This
concept of duty (Pflicht) combined with Judea-Christian conception of sin and guilt;
can be found as an internalized state of mind in the contemporary human subjects.
Important to the Genealogy is Nietzsche's conception that such a morality leads to
asceticism, which reproduces the slave type of existence, acquires defensive and
34 GM II, 20
23
reactive character. Finally it leads to the nihilism, which implies that there is no point
to human will and endeavor in this-wordly life.
Another point that should be stressed here is the fact that these master-slave
typologies do not exist necessarily as two distinct entities; they could exist in one and
the same person or in the same body of morality. Although the master and slave
morality seem to be the two basic types they rather denote a ‘state of mind’
(Denkweise), they may exist in one ‘soul’ attached to each other (angeknüpft).
Nietzsche warns us that ‘in all higher and more mixed cultures there may appear a
mediate form between the two moralities’35. In that sense it is also possible to read the
dynamics of master and slave morality as two forms of existence in one morality,
namely Judea-Christian, and the emerging nationalism(s) as the breeding of herd
morality in Europe, as an intermediary form between the two.
1. c) Ressentiment and Triumph of Herd Morality in Europe
Morality in Europe today is a herd morality, with the aid of the religion it iscultivated, the democratic movement is the heir of the Christian movement, acommunal pitying, new Buddhism, belief in the community as the savior, that is in theherd, in themselves.’36
Nietzsche was convinced that his age was endangered by nihilism. He interprets the
contemporary case in Europe as the unavoidable weakening of faith in Christian God;
this also goes hand in hand with the victory of atheism, and a nihilistic turning away
from existence. The faith in God is gradually replaced by herd instincts of obedience
that is propagated by institutional practices, ranging from schooling, law, social
prejudices, public opinion; this view signifies the loss of the ‘art of giving
35 BGE 9, 26036 BGE, 202
24
commands’. Nietzsche’s diagnosis suggests that there should always be a certain type
of ‘order of rank’, ‘hierarchy’ within the human collectives. But, the state of affairs in
Europe indicates the contrary; the order of rank is violated by the herd morality.
The progression of this instinct generates a dependent slave- type of commanders; the
governors who actually obey name themselves ‘servants of people’. This herd type of
collective existence does not allow the leader to posit its own morality; it demonizes
the charismatic leader and its valuations. The emergence of herd signifies the decline
of the ‘cult of leaders’ (with exception of Napoleon); the commanders are considered
to be the servants of the other servants:
‘…Moral hypocracy of those who command; they know no other method of protectingthemselves from their bad conscience than passing themselves off, as the executors ofolder or higher commands (ancestors, constitution or even of God), the herd valuesare; public-spiritedness, benevolence, consideration, industriousness, moderation,modesty, understanding and pity. Napoleon is the only exception that this century hasproduced.’ 37
His critique of herd applies to any system of morality generated by any mass
movement, such as the ‘Slave revolt’, ‘French revolution’, ‘and democratization’,
‘Reformation’, religious and the national movements in Europe38. He characterizes all
of these historical moments as manifestations of the ressentiment instincts. In relation
to the recurring patterns of ressentiment and by recalling the slave revolt of Priestly
Judea against Rome he argues:
‘Now, this is very remarkable: without doubt Rome has been conquered. It's true thatin the Renaissance there was a brilliant, incredible re-awakening of the classicalideal, the noble way of evaluating everything. Rome itself behaved like someonewho'd woken up from a coma induced by the pressure of the new Jewish Rome builtover it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called "the church." Butimmediately Judea triumphed again, thanks to that basically vulgar (German andEnglish) movement of resentment, which we call the Reformation, together with what
37 BGE, 19938 GM, I, 16
25
had to follow as a consequence, the re-establishment of the church, as well as the re-establishment of the old grave-like tranquillity of classical Rome.’39
On this note, we can argue that Nietzsche elaborates his account of ressentiment on
the basis of three interrelated phases of the’ victory of ressentiment’ that staged the
battle of ‘good and evil’ versus ‘good and bad’. In the first phase, the symbol of this
struggle were the Judea and Rome; during the period of Renaissance the classical
noble ideals of Rome re-awakened but it transformed into a Judaic Rome, as a result it
gradually gave birth to the Christian morality. And a third phase, the proletarian
movement in Germany and England combined with the Reformation and French
Revolution finally brought about the herd morality in Europe’. Although Nietzsche
does not attribute this typology to the German Volk in a special sense, Nietzsche’s
conception of herd morality and the theme of ‘Good Europeans’ became very fruitful
areas of reformulation of his ideas. Alfred Rosenberg40 argued that ‘today's good
Europeans were Germans because they were carrying out Nietzsche’s vision of
continental regeneration’. Another argument by Kurt Hildebrandt suggested that the
Germans should assume leadership in Europe and create it anew, they base their
argument on their conviction that ‘for Nietzsche modern nationalism is too
provincial. His vision of a great politics was far greater than that.’ 41
39 GM I, 16
40 Alfred Rosenberg, Friedrich Nietzsche, , Zentralverlag der National Sozialistische DeutscheArbeiter Partei, Munich 1944.
26
A2. Nietzsche and Deutschtum
2.a) Two Typical Pursuits: Stöcker and Dühring
Since the reception of Nietzsche with respect Deutschtum and Judentum entails an
understanding of the political climate of his time, it is inevitable to discuss how
Germanness is posited in relation to non-Germanness. I find it important to
differentiate between the two trends in Nietzsche’s Germany. The first trend argues
for the unity of the Germany under the spiritual guidance of Christianity; its main
representative is Adolf Stöcker the theologian and politician, -member of the
Reichstag between 1898-1908- the founder and the representative of Christlich-
Soziale Arbeiterpartei. The second trend represented by Eugen Dühring, the political
economist, known as the opponent of Bismarckian politics. Dühring’s conception of
Germany and Deutschtum connects to the notion of Nordic Spirit and Völkish ideals.
Adolf Stöcker supports the synthesis of the Christendom and Deutschtum that
excludes Jews from the picture. Dühring’s account opts for establishing linkages
between biological, anthropological and sociological categories. He does not
necessarily depending on ‘race theories’ but assumes some organic links between
Volk, Nation, Rasse, and Abstammung, which develops into spirituality and morality.
Adolf Stöcker argues that through nationalization of German Volk there will be a
revitalization of the whole life of the people (Volksleben); the revival of Christian
State depends on these conditions. In this way he combines the ‘responsibility’ for the
Deutschtum with the ‘duty’ of reaching the religious ideal, namely, Christendom42,
41 See. ‘ Der gute Europäer’ , Deutsches Almanach, (1930) p.151-165, Quoted in Steven Aschheim,The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany
42 In the original text in German: ‘Dabei muss freilich eine Erneuerung unseres ganzen Volkslebensstattfinden. Viel mehr als es geschah, müssen wir uns, auf unser Deutschtum und Christenthumbesinnen’ (A. Stöcker, 5,1.1880, p. 176 (p.157)
27
hence the national ideal stands for the religious ideal. He is known as the pastor and
state church leader, who sought to convert’ contemporary Jews, also by his distinction
of the ‘ noble’ Jews from ‘corrupt’ and scribal, rabbinical Judaism-original Israel.
Eugen Dühring was the radical representative of the atheist anti-Christian tendency
during the 1880’s. As a member of the ‘Executive Committee of the Peoples Will’
Dühring is well known by his discourses on the establishment of the doctrine of
punishment, inspired by Mill’s Utilitarianism (1863). His views on morality are based
on the notion of equal wills that should abstain from hurting each other; for him this is
the ground of ethics. Although he seems to advocate the value of equality, he is also
well known by his declarations that considers Jews as morally inferior. In his
discourses the use of the term Rassenmoral mainly addressed the Jews. The main
implication of this term is ‘Jewish religion is a religion of the race’, in similar vein,
‘the Jewish morality is a morality of the race’. (‘Die Judenreligion ist eine
Rassenreligion, wie die Judenmoral eine Rassenmoral.)
His theory of equal wills can be seen in relation to his critical statements concerning
the idea of ‘chosenness’. He claims that ‘the chosen people will finally claim chosen
rights’. (Das auserwählte Volk will schliesslich auch immer auserwählte Rechte
haben’) 43 He is also concerned that gradually there is going to be a monopoly in
Germany, which would be dominated by the Jews, the ‘chosen people’.44
In Dühring’s view, the term Nation denotes the embodiment of the ‘awareness’ of
national and racial consciousness. Therefore national character is taken as the
43 See also Dühring’s Die Judenfrage als Rassen-Sitten-und Culturfrage, Karlsruhe, Leizig 1881;Verlag von H. Reuther. )44 In the original text in German: ‘Da nun der Advokatenstand von Juden wimmelt, so wird bald dasauserwählteVolk den Gerechtigkeitbeistand ganz in Händen haben und dafür Monopolpreise machen’
28
manifestation of Rassencharacter and Volkscharachter. The characteristics of
Stammung and religion are considered to be linked through cultivation of the
members through breeding (Blutmischung), consciousness, and acculturation. It
follows from his account that the criteria of biological membership and religious
membership mutually resemble each other.45 In his understanding, Volk represents the
general will in line of those interests, which are constitutive of national unity and
togetherness. His ideal picture of Germanic Volk is not necessarily religious. Instead
of Christendom he pays tribute to ‘German essence’ as the ‘Nordic spirit’.
There are many points in Nietzsche’s writings, addressed to both Stöcker and
Dühring. In Genealogy of Morality Nietzsche refers to Dühring and to the Aryan
myth, (in Nachlass 1884) he regards him as representative of the herd animal. He
comments on Dühring’s Value of Life as an attempt to search for the origin of justice
in the sphere of ressentiment46 and refers to his view as the one, which finds ‘the seat
of justice in the territory of reactive sentiment’. According to Nietzsche the last
territory to be conquered by the spirit of justice is that of reactive sentiment:
“Therefore the ‘just and unjust’ only start from the moment when a legal system is setup, (and not as Dühring says from the moment when the injury is done)”. 47
Nietzsche claims that Dühring’s notion of equal wills informed by the system of law
conceived as sovereign and general, is not a mediator for use in the fights between
Ouoted in Christoph Cobet, Der Wortschatz des Antisemitismus in der Bismarckzeit, MunchnerGermanistike Beiträge, Band 11,published. by Werner Betz, Hermann Kunish, Wilhelm Fink Verlag,1973
45 For further information about the vocabulary of Antisemitism, see Christoph Cobet, Der Wortschatzdes Antisemitismus in der Bismarckzeit, Munchner Germanistike Beiträge, and Band 11, published. byWerner Betz, Hermann Kunish, Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 197346 GM II, 11, see also Nietzsche’s reference to Dühring equal wills theory, Zarathustra III, On old andnew tablets, compare with BGE 259.
47 GM 2, 11
29
units of power but as a means against fighting in general. From the perspective of
Nietzsche’s theory of force and will to power, ‘to consider every other will as equal’,
is contra-life, it is a path to nothingness. It seems like his discomfort with Dühring
mainly stems from Nietzsche’s peculiar conception of ‘will’ and also his critique of
the ethics of equality. He considers this unification as a product of herd morality,
abolishing of the difference (order of rank), and the formation of a tamed, uniform
typology of man.
The fact that Nietzsche’s view is not compatible with the typical pursuits of
Deutschtum in both Christian and non-Christian demonstrates the fact that Nietzsche
does not only criticize Judea-Christian morality but also to the non-Christian values
(Dühring).
I would also add to the above-mentioned points that the antagonism between
Nietzsche and these two types of national thought does not only stem from the
‘national movement’, it is only an implication of their disagreement. The main
incompatibility between Stöcker and Nietzsche is due to Nietzsche’s attacks on
Christianity as a contemporary pattern of slave morality, as the religion of the ‘weak’.
Furthermore, the Christian-German synthesis would be a double formulation of slave
and herd morality for Nietzsche. In this sense, Stöcker represents the breeding of a
‘German man’ with an ascetic morality and nihilism, whose members dream of an
other world of salvation and reward; they are instinctually pacified and domesticated.
In his letter to Peter Gast, (20 June 1888), Nietzsche says that ‘after the death of
Friedrich II, the age of Stöcker has begun’, and he adds that from now on ‘his own
writings on will to power will be suppressed in Germany’.
Dühring’s notion of ‘equality of will’ is unacceptable in Nietzsche’s account because
of two reasons, firstly in Mills’ account, the origin of the moral value ‘good’ is
30
correlated with ‘usefulness’. This usefulness is valued due the ‘common good for the
majority’, which Nietzsche strongly opposes. Secondly, the ‘equality of the will’
contradicts Nietzsche’s fundamental approach to ‘life’ as a struggle between the
commanding and obeying will. Concerning the first point there is enough evidence to
argue that Nietzsche does not favor the rule of majority and advocates the order of
rank in terms of moral values. The second point is interrelated with the first one;
Nietzsche’s position regarding the struggle between obeying and commanding wills
does not hold the powerful and the weak as equal:
‘Something, for example, that has an apparent value with respect to the longestpossible capacity for survival of a race (or for an increase in its power to adapt to acertain climate or for the preservation of the greatest number) has nothing like thesame value, if the issue is one of developing a stronger type. The well being of themajority and the well being of the fewest are opposing viewpoints for values. We willleave it to the naïveté of English biologists to take the first as the one of inherentlyhigher value. All the sciences from now on have to advance the future work of thephilosopher, understanding this task as solving the problem of value, determining therank order of values. 48‘
It is interesting to observe that in both Christian and non-Christian accounts of
Deutschtum, there is an attempt to construct an overarching unifying principle; in
Stöcker’s approach it is religion (Christianity), in Dühring the same function is
assigned to race (Nordic Spirit). It is interesting to see later in the Third Reich that the
two pursuits of Deutschtum find a common denominator with regard to the ‘other’,
that is, Judentum. It is possible to claim that the growing anti-Jewish sentiments in
Germany may have led to the unification of the two elements, namely Christianity and
Nordic Race. In this way, the synthesis of the two elements also gave rise to the
interchangeability of meanings of the race, religion and morality: Rassenreligion and
Rassenmoral. If I may further elaborate this argument, it seems that this unification
48 GM I, 17, see note
31
(Germanness) in response to the ‘other’ constitutes a perfect illustration of national
identity-formation on the basis of negation. On this basis, it is possible to argue
further that the reactive formulation German selfhood describes the typology, what
Nietzsche calls the ‘man of ressentiment’ of slave morality. In this slave morality,
selfhood is constructed in response to the other, it needs ‘the other’ to assert the moral
value of the self. In this sense, Nietzsche’s theory mirrors the nature of German
nationalism.
Moreover with this aspect, the relation between Nietzsche and Deutschtum gains a
crucial dimension. The theory of ressentiment, if taken as an insight, helps to
understand the reactive formation of Germanness as a resentful identification through
the negation the strong inherited Jewish identity. This point would also throw some
light on the complex problem of the nazification of Nietzsche. I will combine this
argument with Santaniello’s statement49 that Nazis did not misunderstand Nietzsche,
nor did they selectively misappropriated his writings; they understood him very well.
Since Nietzsche’s writings provide insights into German national psyche, the reality
in his insights had to be suppressed and tamed. This is the basic reason why
Santaniello considers Nietzsche’s writings crucial for the studies of antisemitism and
European history. If we look from Santaniello’s perspective, then the popularization
of Nietzsche as a national figure despite his anti-German statements does not seem
paradoxical anymore.
49 Weaver Santaniello, A post holocaust re- examination of Nietzsche and The Jews.
32
2.b) From ‘Anti –German’ towards the ‘Germanic-Deutsch’
During the 1890’s some critics foreshadowed Nietzsche’s anti –Christian arguments
as a propagation of immoralism and his last years of insanity was used as an evidence
of his ‘unsound’ arguments. This kind of reception of Nietzsche among German
nationalist could be viewed under the light of Nietzsche’s comparison between
German and Jewish Volk in terms of the question of national selfhood and its
derivation from the past. Nietzsche’s arguments adamantly highlights the gap between
the ‘becoming’ of the German Volk and historical rooted ‘being’ of Jewish Volk;
‘But the Jews are undoubtedly the strongest, most tenacious, and purest race nowliving in Europe. They understand how to assert themselves even under the worstconditions (better even than under favorable conditions), as a result of certain virtueswhich today people might like to stamp as vices—thanks, above all, to a resolute faithwhich has no need to feel shame when confronted by “modern ideas.” They alwayschange, when they change, only in the way the Russian empire carries out itsconquests, as an empire that has time and was not born yesterday—that is, accordingto the basic principle “as slowly as possible.”50
In comparison, Nietzsche’s comments on ‘German man’ clearly expresses his critical
view concerning the invention such ‘Germanness’. He argues the following:
“In himself, the German man is nothing—he is becoming something, he “isdeveloping himself.” Hence, “developing” is the essential German discovery andinvention in the great realm of philosophical formulas, a governing idea which, alongwith German beer and German music, is working to Germanize all Europe. 51”
From these comparison between the Germanness and the Jewishness we can deduce
the political picture that Nietzsche has in mind. His general view of the Realpolitik in
contemporary Europe portrays the process of nation building in Europe as the struggle
50 BGE, 251
51 BGE part 8, 244
33
of forces. This conflict should not be viewed only in terms of War of nations but also
a conflict of ‘imagined’ past, ‘national pride’ and an ‘idealized’ future. The rhetoric
employed by the nationalists, such as the ‘rebirth’ or ‘regeneration’ and
‘degeneration’ makes it possible to view the continuity the past and future of the
nation as a substantial whole. Otherwise the category of national identifications
would sound as an ‘fictive selfhood’, which would imply something unreal, fake and
groundless. If it is understood in this sense, namely in terms of becoming but not
being, then this construct cannot be secured, it may easily be destroyed and transform
into something else. Therefore Nietzsche describes the struggle of nations in terms of
their competition and their striving for the cultural, spiritual or physiological
germination in the history of humanity. In this respect the most envied cultural unit
would be the Jews. Nietzsche formulates his understanding of nation in the following
way:
What we nowadays call a “nation” in Europe is essentially more a res facta[something made] than a res nata [something born] (indeed sometimes it looksconfusingly like a res ficta et picta [something made up and unreal]—in any casesomething developing, young, easily adjusted, not yet a race, to say nothing of aereperennius [more enduring than bronze], as is the Jewish type. But these “nations”should be very wary of every hotheaded competition and enmity! 52
The tension between Nietzsche’ philosophy and Deutschtum lies in Nietzsche’s
comparison of res nata [something born] a res ficta et picta [something made up and
unreal]. Since something born (res nata) is assumed to be substantial and valuable, in
the eye of ‘something developing’ (res picta/ficta) it would attract ressentiment
Therefore, in the case of Germanness, this ressentiment is observable in the national
rhetoric, which signifies the ‘re-birth’ of the nation and the awakening of an already
existing ‘German essence’.
52 BGE 251, part 8. See Peoples and Fatherlands (Völker und Vaterländer)
34
Nietzsche was associated with Wagner’s circle during 1869-76. After the break with
Wagner he wrote a Human All to Human (1878-1880) which contains most of his
political thoughts on German history and Politics. Wagner’s picture concerning
‘Germanness’ is opposed to Nietzsche’s. Hannu Salmi’s book53, it is argued that for
Wagner, the German ideal represents the unified Germany in 1871.On this issue
Wagner’s national rhetoric of ‘rebirth’ is worth quoting:
‘The birth of the new German spirit brought with it the rebirth of the German people:the German War of Liberation of 1813, 1814 and 1815 suddenly familiarized us withthis people54.
In Wagner’s view Deutschtum is the ideal model for the concordance between the
new German spirit objectified in German people. The political and the cultural
realities have to establish a harmony in a way that it should raise the cultural
consciousness of German people and reach to the heights of national Spirit
(Volksgeist) which is the unifying element of Deutschtum and National State.55 Like
most intellectuals of the time, Wagner consults philological evidence, and claims that
the word "deutsch" is also found in the verb "deuten" (to make plain): thus "deutsch"
is what is plain to us, the familiar, that which was inherited from our fathers and
springs from our very own soil. 56
53 For a Detailed Account on Wagner and Nationalism, see Hannu Salmi’s, Imagined Germany, PeterLang Publishing, inc. New York, 1999. Salmi’s work is based on the question of B. Anderson’s‘Imagined Communities, it is applies to the case of Wagner’s utopia about Germany.54 Briefwechsel: König Ludwig II. und Richard Wagner. Bearbeitet von Otto Strobel. 5 Bde. Karlsruhe1936–39, IV, 9. See H. Salmi Imagined Germany.55 Was ist deutsch? Wagner’s article published in Bayreuther Blätter, PW IV, 155-156. Ouoted in H.Salmi Imagined Germany.56 Italics are mine. See Richard Wagner's Prose Works. Translated by William Ashton Ellis. 8 Vols.London 1893–99. (reprinted 1993–95 by the University of Nebraska Press, p. 152.)
35
But, Nietzsche insists on the res ficta nature of Germanness throughout his later
writings: ‘there is hardly any idea linking the old Germanic tribes and we Germans,
let alone any blood relationship’57.
The above mentioned remarks clarify the tensions between Nietzsche and the circle of
intellectuals advocating German nationalism. As a result, the more Nietzsche’s
account magnifies the ‘invented nature of Germanness’, the more his image becomes
Germanized. Presumably this is why Nietzsche’s image in German popular culture
could not escape from the process of ‘nationalization’. The authors who are inspired
from this image, conceived him the national figure, who ‘dares’ to judge and question
the ‘German essence and Deutschtum.
Gottfried Benn (1886-1956), who was a specialist in philosophy and medicine,
describes Nietzsche’s influence on his generation in a very romantic way:
‘ …His treacherous, tempestuous, lightning manner, his feverish diction, his rejectionof all idylls and all general principles, his postulation of a psychology of instinctualbehavior as a dialectic-‘knowledge as affect’ all of psychoanalysis and Existentialism.They were all his achievements. As it is becoming clear, he is the great giant of thepost Goethean era.’58
Oswald Spengler59 describes this period as ‘an age that does not tolerate other-worldly
ideals’. He argues that people have to ‘learn to act as real history wants us to act’,
otherwise the existence of people is at stake. He underlines the need of a structure, a
new form which ‘does not merely console in difficult situations, but helps one get one
57 GM I, 11
58 G. Benn, Nietzsche: Nach Fünfzig Jahren’ in Gesammelte Werke, vol.1 ed. Dieter Wellershoff(Stuttgart, 1962) Transl. In Roy F. Allen, Lierary Life in german Expressionism and the Berlin Circles,(Ann Arbour, Michigan Univ, Research Press, 1983) p.26. See Further discussion in Steven Aschheim,Nietzsche Legacy in Germany.59 See. Oswald Spengler, (1880-1936) Culture Historian, he is known mostly with his work Untergangdes Abendlandes (1918-1922) and the method of Morphology, which resembles Nietzscheangenealogical history of cultures. See. Nietzsche and His Century, his Selected Essays (1924)translated by Donald O. White, Chicago: Gateway 1967, pp.196-197
36
out of them’; in Spengler’s view this kind of hard wisdom made its first appearance in
German thought with Nietzsche.
During the 1890’s-1914’s, his thematic and rhetoric was affecting the discourse of
youth and intellectuals such as Rudolf Pannwitz60 (1881–1969), Karl Löwith (1897-
1973) 61, Heinrich Rickert (1863-1936)62. According to these authors Nietzsche is the
most quintessential German of his time, his works can only be understood through by
German people, his books especially Zarathustra, is an untranslatable, enigmatic
German poem.
There is a clear tendency among the German nationalist thinkers that ‘being German’
is a necessary qualification for achieving a true understanding of Nietzsche. This
tendency sometimes developed into the racial conception by Heinrich Mann’s (1871-
1950) where he portrays Übermensch as a ‘social race symbol’63. Moreover, Franz
Haiser64 not only asserts that Germanness is a precondition for understanding what
Nietzsche really meant, but he employs Nietzsche’s master morality for the
articulation of the anti-Jewish sentiments. His book on the ‘Jewish question’ from the
point of view of ‘Master Morality’ illustrates this case clearly. Later in the 1930’s
Alfred Rosenberg and many other Nazi ideologues were to claim the same kind of
precondition for the proper reading of Nietzsche, which is formulated as: ‘only in our
time, a true appreciation of Nietzsche is possible65’. In this sense it is natural for the
Nazis to argue that ‘true Nietzsche’ re-touched by Nazism would reveal only to the
committed national socialists.
60 Rudolf Pannwitz, Einführung in Nietzsche, (München-Feldafing: Hans Cral, 1920)61 Löwith, Mein Leben in Deutschland vor und Nach 1933, Stuttgart, J.b. Metzlersche, 198662 See Rickert, Die Philosophie des Lebens. In Krummel, Nietzsche und der deutsche Geist, vol.163 Heinrich Mann, ‘Zum Verstandnis ä, Das Zwangzigste Jahrhundert , 6 (1896), 246, 245-251. Outedin Aschheim, Nietzsche Legacy64 Haiser, Franz: Die Judenfrage vom Standpunkt der Herrenmoral: Leipzig: Weicher 1926.
65 See. Rosenberg, , Friedrich Nietzsche, Munich, Zentralverlag der National Sozialistische DeutscheArbeiter Partei, 1944.
37
I consider the Nazi readings not only an imposition on Nietzsche’s writings but also
on his readers. This gives an idea of the inclusive/exclusive mind-set, which repose
the intellectual public figures by the process of nationalization. The supression of
Nietzsche’s diagnosis of being and becoming is visible both to pre-Nazi and Nazi
grasp of him with respect to constant emphasis on the redefinion of Nietzsche as
German philosopher.
To overcome this problem of identity in the making, the intellectuals invested their
efforts to find a common denominator for both Deutsch and Germanic. The former
signifies the Roman and Christian identification with German and the latter denotes
the soldierly ethos of the warrior, freedom loving type of Nordic man (see A. 2. a.
Stöcker and Dühring). In Nazi period these concepts are unified in terms of the
authentication of Germans (Deutsch-Germanische Menschheit) as a future category
which is rooted in the past. This synthesis marks the ending point for the German
nationalist’s longing for the ‘discovery’ of the ancient roots. Finally, with the
combination of Christian and non-Christian elements of Deutschtum gave birth to an
historical identity. The atmosphere of World War I helped to deepen the use of
Nietzsche’s theory of struggle, strength and power in national rhetoric. Zarathustra
became the name of celebration of new heroism, warrior culture, overcoming
traditional morality.
As a result, Nietzsche as a national figure was assumed important in the official
cultural program during the Third Reich. There are certain figures that I would like to
consider: Alfred Bäumler and Alfred Rosenberg (1893-1946). They both have a
strong role in the incorporation of Nietzschean philosophy into the Nazi ideology. By
38
1931 Alfred Bäumler was the most important Nietzsche scholar in the University of
Berlin. He interprets Nietzsche’s philosophy as a turn from rational thinking:
‘Consciousness is only a tool, a detail in the totality of life. In opposition to thephilosophy of the conscious, Nietzsche asserts the aristocracy of nature. But forthousands of years a life-weary morality has opposed the aristocracy of the strongand healthy. Like National Socialism, Nietzsche sees in the state, in society, the "greatmandatary of life," responsible for each life's failure to life itself.’ 66
He praises Nietzsche as the heroic realist, vitalist ethos of struggle, and his critique
Christianity as a ‘problem’. Bäumler incorporates Nietzsche’s will to power in
contemporary politics and align it with the racial theories.
"The species requires the extinction of the misfits, weaklings, and degenerates: butChristianity as a conserving force appeals especially to them." Here we encounter thebasic contradiction: whether one proceeds from a natural life context or from anequality of individual souls before God. Ultimately the ideal of democratic equalityrests upon the latter assumption. The former contains the foundations of a new policy.It takes unexcelled boldness to base a state upon the race. A new order of things is thenatural consequence. It is this order, which Nietzsche undertook to establish inopposition to the existing one.
In this sense Alfred Bäumler, who is the Third Reich’s Nietzsche-authority67,
constitutes the best example how ‘high’ philosophy and the broad social concept of
‘power’, ‘nature’ and ‘positivism’ can be put adjacent to political policies.
Bäumler’s account conceptualized Nietzschean notion of the ‘will to power’ in
parallel to national socialist ideology. In this way he makes Nietzsche’s view of
struggle into a movement of ‘power to destroy’ which would fit into a coherent and
organic unity correlated with the theories of ‘blood’, ‘race’, ‘Führer’, ‘order’, ‘state’,
‘empire’, ‘Teutonicness’, ‘struggle’. Bäumler seems be convinced by the
reconciliation of the Nazi ideology with a certain philosophy of life that resembles
66 Bäumler, Studien zur deutschen Geistesgeschichte (Berlin: Junker und Duennhaupt Verlag, 1937),pp. 283-285 and 288-294.
67 See Aschheim, The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990, Chapter 8. p.234
39
‘organism’ and ‘nature’. This approach is detectable concerning his views on the
racial structure of human organism generalized to the nation and society as Volk. The
main idea was, ‘ to regenerate things, one has to control and initiate the power, which
is capable of chucking out the degenerated parts of the whole’. Alfred Bäumler’s
organic approach to human collectives proposes ‘a reality’, which lies beneath the
apparent world of consciousness. This world is not that of chaos, but that of the well-
arranged world of the will to power.” Due to its substantive characteristics, the
political evaluation of reality inevitably entails a conception of order, superimposed
on history, politics, science and the individual.
The similar approach translated into Aesthetics and Politics in Alfred Rosenberg’s
writings. From 1933-1945 Rosenberg worked as foreign affairs secretary of the party
during the Third Reich; also he was the editor of the National Sozialistische Deutsche
Arbeiters Partei -organ Völkischer Beobachter. His writings are considered among
the most important contributions to the Nazi ideology.
Rosenberg inspired by Nietzsche’s idea that ‘objectivity and justice do not have
anything in common’. On the basis of Nietzsche’s genealogical perspective he views
history writing not as a neutral discipline but as an ‘evaluation’. Therefore he assumes
that the relation between ‘life’ and ‘politics’ cannot be solved by means of rationality,
causality and argumentation 68. It requires a spiritual dedication to the re-structuring
of the life and must serve to the re-birth of values. His thoughts are in favor of the
approach, which connects philosophy of Race (Rassenphilosophie) and the State-
building (Staatsaufbau).
68 See Alfred Rosenberg, Nation Im Widerspruch (S. 149)’: Leben und Politik ist also nicht Debatte amgrünen Tisch über ‘rationale Zweckmäßigkeiten’ weltwirtschaftlicher oder universalistischer Art,sondern Ringen um Charakterwerte gegen Charakterlosigkeit von Seelengestalt gegen feindliche Formoder gestaltenloses Chaos.
40
His books Der Mythus des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts and on Nietzsche69 combined
anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and neo-pagan elements (1930), and distinguishes
himself as the foremost anti-Bolshevik among the others70. He sees a breeding of
‘German philosopher-warrior’ in Nietzsche, whose philosophy is the political combat
between two principles: German Nationhood versus Bolshevist Jewry.
Bäumler and Rosenberg’s representation of Nietzsche entails how Nazi ideology takes
over the Nietzschean concepts. But they were not the only influential leading figures
of the time; there were many others who appropriated Nietzschean phrases, for
instance in H. Specht71 we find the assertion that Nietzschean philosophy could be
applied to the area of law.
According to Specht the legal code that would be based on Nietzsche’s philosophy -
not on the Christian-Jewish values - would restore the conduct of ‘human life’. The
Christian assumption superimposes a notion of guilt on human existence in the world,
whereas in Nietzsche there is a ‘innocence of being’ (Unschuld Des Daseins). Since
the idea of punishment exists in Nietzsche’s aristocratic system of the leaders and led,
this would serve to the desire to improve the state of being, to create higher beings.
Another example is Kurt Kassler’s writings on Nietzsche, Law and Biology72. Kassler
asserts that law should be a dynamic instrument, it should flow from healthy, Völkish
life. Kassler claims that Nietzsche was right in his critique of equal wills, the weak
and strong should not have the equal rights.(Compare 2.a, Dühring and Nietzsche on
justice and equality).
69 A. Rosenberg, Friedrich Nietzsche, Munich, Zentralverlag der National Sozialistische DeutscheArbeiter Partei, 1944.70 See his memoirs (tr. 1949) and his Selected Writings, ed. by R. Pois (1970); R. Cecil, The Myth of theMaster Race: Alfred Rosenberg and Nazi Ideology (1972).
71 See. H. Specht. Nietzsche’s Antropologie und das Strafrecht, f ü r Kriminalbiologie; 30, n.1. 1939.
41
It is probable that the growing popularization of Nietzsche’s his terms like ‘amour
fati’ and Übermensch coincided with the ‘saturation’ of the desires to define historical
German identity, which objectified in theories of the Aryan supremacy. Nietzsche’s
aphorisms ‘become who you are’ are conceived in a way that it would imply ‘one
should not try to become better than what one is’. This perspective assumed a ‘duty’
to preserve what one is. Paradoxically, the powerful and strong is valued as something
‘sensitive’, fragile and rare. In the Nazi ideology this corresponds to the re-creation
and development the ‘strong’ parts (Aryan) and to exclude the ‘weak ‘parts (Jewish).
On the political level, the idea of providing equal rights for every human being
irrespective of their relative state of beings is assumed to be a dangerous policy,
because it might cause degeneration and weakening of the ‘powerful’. This constructs
a new perception of ‘sacredness’ replacing ‘spirituality’. This new perception of ‘the
sacredness of power and physicality’ goes hand in hand with organic view of nature
and society, cult of body, race and blood. This perspective fused with Nietzsche’s
Lebensphilosophie that seems to be defining the post-religious, post-democratic and
even post-modern social order.
To sum up, in this chapter I attempted to illustrate Nietzsche’s reception by German
nationalist ideology. His appeal ranges from various types of ideals of Deutschtum to
the National socialist worldview. As a result I have identified a three important points:
• In the context of German nation building, Nietzsche’s comparison between the
German ‘becoming’ and Jewish ‘being’ are ignored; his image is constantly
conceived as the rebellious figure that would put an end to the old values and
furnish the German ethos with a new table of values. This ethos was contra-
nihilism, and it is interpreted as the celebration of the this-worldly life, the
72 See. Kassler. Nietzsche und das Recht, Munich, Ernst Reinhardt, 1941.
42
discharge of instincts and passions. His genealogy was perceived as a new relation
to history, which serves to posit multiple origins of one Volk because it was
suggested a recurring pattern that promises a future without cutting the ties with
the past. (See. 2.b. Spengler)
• Concerning master and slave type of morality, Nietzsche characterized genealogy
of values in terms of the poisonous ressentiment and reactive slave morality,
which led to favor activism instead of being reactive. But in fact, the congregation
of two separate pursuits of Deutschtum, against Jewishness gradually served to
postulation of a resentful German selfhood in reaction the Jewish ‘other’.
• Nazi ideology fortified the articulation this reactive selfhood and unified
Deutschtum under principle of antisemitism on the official level. The Nazi reading
of Nietzsche magnified the themes of will to power and highlighted the discovery
of the body. This dichotomy is channeled into a direction of Völkish ideals that
would collectivize the soldierly ethos. Nietzsche’s critique of traditional/religious
morality and Deutschtum was seen as a philosophy of a new life, that would serve
to the re-birth of German essence.
In the second chapter, you will find the Nietzschean themes that resonate with Zionist
ideals during the 1890’s and beyond.
43
B. Nietzsche and Judentum
In this chapter I will discuss the relationship between Nietzsche’s philosophy and
Judentum. Studies on Nietzsche’s reception suggest that Nietzsche had a substantial
influence on Hebrew writers, namely Martin Buber and M. J. Berdyczewski and this
influence strictly criticized by Ac'had Ha’am. I will structure the discussion according
to the themes recurring in the essays, which are published mostly by German speaking
Jewish intellectuals. The journals that I examined for this purpose are from the
1890’s until the 1930’s, namely, Ost und West, Die Welt, Der Jude, Jüdisches
Gemeindeblatt, Der Morgen.
Before I present discussion in these journals I will also refer to the recent studies
which throw some light on Nietzsche’s reception in the intellectual history of Zionist
thought. Recent scholarship on Nietzsche and Judentum suggests that a re-evaluation
of Nietzsche on the basis of the antisemitic or philosemitic is necessary. Scholars like
Henning Ottmann73, propose that there are some reasons to discuss racist elements in
Nietzsche’s biologism, but there are no reasons to construe his account as anti-
Semitic. Yirmiyahu Yovel’s account74 suggests that Nietzsche’s arguments on
Judaism and Jews cannot be appropriated as a legitimate ground for hostility against
Jewish morality and culture. According to Yovel, Nietzsche's true target was
Christianity. The articles in Jacob Golomb’s Nietzsche and Jewish Culture, especially
Weaver Santaniello’s provided new dimensions of the concerning Christendom and
73 Ottman. Philosophie und Politik bei Nietzsche, Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1987. The Chapter on Anti-Antisemitismus (p.249) is useful for the discussion. See also Golomb, J. and Wistrich, R. S. Nietzsche,Godfather of Fascism? : On the Uses and Abuses of a Philosophy, 2002 and Nietzsche and Jewishculture / edited by Jacob Golomb. London; New York: Routledge, 1997.
44
Judaism and Nietzsche; as I have discussed in the section (A.2.a) he claims that Nazis
did not misunderstood Nietzsche they deliberately distorted his writings because he
was actually attacking their ideals.
Steven E. Aschheim75’ approaches the debate from a broader perspective; I find his
account very illuminating for the purpose of going beyond this controversy and see
the various dynamics of Nietzsche’s reception in Germany during 1890s and 1930’s.
Aschheim discusses Nietzsche’s reception by Zionist thinkers and their motivation to
adapt his philosophy into Jewish thought. But, his approach opts for the view that the
multiple, often opposite representations of Nietzsche is irreducible to a political
direction or position.
While presenting my research on Judentum and Nietzsche, I will take all of the above-
mentioned positions (Yovel, Ottman, Aschheim, Golomb) into account. My inquiry in
this section is motivated by the following question, ‘what did the Zionist reading of
Nietzsche entail during the 1890’s in Germany and how did it evolve towards the
1930’s’.
Although the contributors of these journals are representatives for both a cultural and
political Zionism it seems that Nietzsche’s philosophy was more discussed among the
cultural Zionists. The journal called Die Welt is founded by Theodor Herzl (1860-
1904), who is also well known as the founder of political Zionism. Die Welt was
published weekly between the years 1897-1914 in Vienna and Köln, its circulation
was from 3000 to 10.000 copies; another journal founded by Martin Buber is called
Der Jude, published monthly between 1916-1928, in Berlin and Vienna; its
circulation was between 3.000 to 5.000 copies. Der Jude was a forum for
74 Yovel, Yirmiyahu. ‘Sublimity and Ressentiment; Hegel, Nietzsche, and the Jews’. Jewish SocialStudies 3, 3 (1997) pp. 1-25.75 See S. Ascheim’s works The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany, 1890-1990, (1992) and Culture andCatastrophe (1996)
45
philosophical, spiritual and cultural debates. The founder of the journal Buber is
known as a figure who advocated the Jewish Renaissance and whose cultural and
educational understanding of Zionism conflicted with Theodor Herzl's political
Zionism. Another journal that contributed to the vision of the Jewish renaissance was
Ost und West, published monthly in Berlin from 1901 until 1923. Its founders were a
group of prominent Jewish intellectuals (Davis Trietsch, Leo Winz) who compared
the Western and Eastern Jewry in terms of the problems assimilation and cultural
differences.
In these journals there is a recurring controversy of modernity, morality and the
philosophy of Judentum. Nietzsche seems to operate here as the catalyst of the
discussion. I observed that Nietzsche’s thought is interpreted by Zionist thinkers in
peculiar way and this entails both a reformulation of his philosophy and a re-
articulation of the national ideal for Jewry.
Concerning the general profile of the reception, I can identify three groups of authors:
In the first place there is a clear trend among Zionist authors who directly refer or cite
Nietzsche and reinterpret him in their own framework (i.e. M. Berdychewzki, M.
Buber, N. Kriegsmann, J. Lewkowitz76, I. Reichert77). Secondly, there are critics of
Nietzsche i.e Ac’had Ha’am, who challenges the adoption of a ‘foreign philosophy’
76 Lewkowitz, Albert (1883–1954), philosophical and pedagogical writer and scholar. Philosopher ofreligion and of Judaism in particular, devoting special studies to the relationship to Judaism of suchphilosophers as Spinoza and Kant.
77 Reichert, Israel (1891–1975), Israel botanist and agricultural scientist. Born in Ozorkow, RussianPoland, he went to Palestine in 1908 and worked first as a laborer and then as a natural history teacher.He went back to Europe to study biology and plant pathology, returning to Palestine in 1921 toorganize the plant pathology department at the newly formed Agricultural Experiment Station. In 1938he was a co-founder of the Palestine Journal of Botany. In 1955 he received the Israel Prize for naturalsciences.
46
into Jewish culture. In that sense Ha’am’s critique78 does not directly address
Nietzsche but Nietzschean trend, namely M. Berdychewski, Buber and E. Müller79.
There are also authors who directly criticize Nietzsche’s philosophy and object
Nietzsche’s attribution of ressentiment to Preistly Judea i.e. Coralnik80.
The above mentioned authors engage in polemics on the basis their conceptions of
Nietzsche and the ‘right’ way to revitalize Jewish culture and morality. The most
salient of these discussions is the famous Ac'had Ha 'am versus Berdyczewski debate,
which appeared in Ha-Shilo'ah (1897). Stimulated by his opposition to both Ac’had
Ha'am and Herzl, and encouraged by some Hebrew writers, Berdyczewski published
many articles in the leading Hebrew journals, calling for a Nietzschean transvaluation
of values in Judaism. In Germany, Berdyczewski's revolutionary ideas were
developed under the impact of his studies in philosophy. His rebellious attitude the
supported by the young Zionists. Ha’am’s critique of this rebellious attitude was well
aware that world Jewry has to cope with the preservation of their spirituality and
communal identity. Since Judentum primarily represents the spiritual unity of moral
values that ties the individual member to the collective, its fortification must be the
precondition for the maintenance of Jewishness as such. This is the key point where
also the debate over Nietzsche’s reception emerges.
I will structure the discussion according to the following basic themes :
78 Ha’am, Nietzschanismus und Judentum (1)Ost und West , Heft 3, March (1902), pp. 145-152.Nietzscheanismus und Judentum (2), April 1902, pp. 241-252. Both are translated from Hebrew intoGerman by J. Friedländer. Interestingly, Friedländer also remarks that he does not agree with most ofthe conclusions that Ha’am draws in both articles.79 See Ernst Müller, (1900) Gedanken Über Nietzsche und Sein Verhältnis Zu den Juden Die Welt,Heft 40, 5.10., p.4-580 Coralnik, Abraham (1883–1937), Yiddish essayist and literary critic. Coralnik, born in the Ukraine,studied at the universities of Kiev, Florence, Berlin, Bonn, and Vienna. Coralnik's interest in Zionismled to his appointment as editor of the Viennese Zionist organ, Die Welt, in 1904. He also editedperiodicals in Agram (now Zagreb-Croatia) and Czernowitz (now Ukraine), and served ascorrespondent for German and Russian newspapers in Rome, Berlin, and Copenhagen.
47
• Ressentiment and Moral Genie of the Jews
• Nationalism, Modernity and Jewry
• Philosophy of ‘National Life’
Nietzsche’s critique of the Judaic and Christian morality and the political climate in
Europe seem to have fostered the need for a ‘new’ national morality for Judentum. In
the light of Hans Kohn’s view81, it can be stated that the urge to find a new basis for
philosophy of ‘life’, other than ‘nihilism’ may have led the cultural critics to refer
Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s thinking represents the ‘grey consciousness’, some kind of
tragic awareness, yet the Dionysian aspect of his thought favors ‘this wordly-life’, and
his philosophy also symbolizes hope for the future. For the Zionist ideals ‘Nietzsche’
represents the ‘overcoming’, creativity and the recognition of life as struggle.
The way Nietzsche describes the herd morality in European culture and attributes the
roots of the feeling of ressentiment to ‘Priestly Judea’ became the main concern for
the Intellectuals. Some authors linked their reading of ‘master and slave typology’ to
the relation between Europe and Jewry, and most of them discussed what Nietzsche
termed as the ‘moral Genie of Jewish people’.
1. Ressentiment and Moral Genie
In the introductory chapter I have mentioned Nietzsche’s account in GM, where he
holds Judaic Priests responsible for the emergence of ‘man of ressentiment’. The
controversy regarding ‘slave revolt’ and ressentiment demonstrates a special concern
concerning the reception of Nietzsche. He is considered as the philosopher who is
81 Hans Kohn, Nationalismus , in the journal founded by M. Buber in 1916, Der Jude Heft 11, (1921-1922),p.674-686
48
able to confront the problem of the origin of moral values in both Christian and
Jewish tradition.
One group of authors consider this view as a historical remark related to the moral
Genie of Jewish people. It signifies the ‘transvaluation of values’ concerning the
reversal of ‘good and bad’ by ‘evil and good’, which dates back to the conflict in
Ancient Rome and Judaism. In this sense, the early writings on ressentiment and slave
revolt -by authors such as Norbert Kriegsmann, Ernst Müller, Augusta Steinberg-
propose a balanced interpretation of Nietzsche’s account. The common idea among
these authors is that ancient Judaic people were slave-Volk, ‘das Volk des
Ressentiment’ par excellence, but they were also the mother of Christianity, where
God stands as the powerful protector of the ‘weak’. The continuity of Judea-Christian
morality suggests that Nietzsche’s portrayal of ressentiment addressed both
Christianity and Judaism. Ernst Müller quotes Nietzsche’s famous phrase in Fröhliche
Wissenschaft82; that ‘a great figure like Jesus Christ could only grow on Jewish soil.’83
Kriegsmann argues that the slave revolt was inevitable: to ‘rebel’ means not to desire
to be ‘slave’ anymore, this is a manifestation of strength, even a confirmation of a
Nietzschean ‘will to power’. It is due to the peculiarity of Jews in history, it is due to
their being ‘chosen’; they have the moral Genie which the other Völker lack. This
Genie denotes ‘transvaluation of values’ in morality (Umkehrung der Werte), where
“poor, weak” transformed conceptually and gained a new meaning, namely ‘holy,
friendly’.
82 See F.Nietzsche: Sämtliche Werke, Colli G. and Montinari M., Berlin, dtv/de Gruyter, 1988. Band 3,sections 134-137,.p.487
83 ibid. p. 137. ‘Im Gleichniss gesprochen: Ein jesus Christus war nur in einer jüdischen landschaftmöglich-...in einer solchenüber der fortwährend die düstere und erhabene GewitterVolke deszürnenden Jehovah hieng.’
49
Augusta Steinberg’s contribution84 to this discussion is important in the sense that he
suggests that Judeo-Christian continuity proves that a religion of “sublime hate” and
ressentiment gave birth to a belief in ‘Love’ and tolerance. Interestingly, on this basis
he asserts that this revolt and the transvaluation of values’ are the historical roots of
democracy. His reading of Nietzsche based on the idea that the new table of values
marked the Siege of Judaic morality. They triumphed over the aristocratic values of
the Greeks and Romans. This revolt successfully replaced the old aristocratic order
with a new table of values, which is compatible with modern democratic values:85
After this Siege the weak is considered the ‘good’, which needs to be protected and
the powerful is evil, must be under control.
I would argue the first part of the Steinberg’s argument is very much in line with
Nietzsche’s view, since Nietzsche considers ressentiment as the historical pattern
recurring in the contemporary democratic movements in Europe. (See A.1.b) But the
key point is Nietzsche does not favor these movements, he criticizes them as the
elimination of order of rank, hierarchy and condemns the creation of the uniformity
within the herd morality. Without recognizing this aspect of Nietzsche’s thought,
Steinberg bases this view on Nietzsche and asserts that Judäa falsified the
psychological, moral and the legal origins of fundamental values and challenged
aristocracy.
84 Augusta Steinberg, Nietzsche und das Judentum, Ost und West, , Heft 8, August, (1903) p.547-556
85 ibid. p.553. Compare. Nietzsche’s GM.“ Die Elenden sind allein die Guten, die
Armen,Ohnmächtigen, Niedrigen sind alle Guten, die Leidenden, Entbehrenden, Kranken, Hässlichen,sind auch die einzig Frommen, die einzig Gottseligen, für sie allein gibt es Seligkeit,-dagegen ihrVornehmen und Gewaltigen, ihr seid in alle Ewigkeit die Bösen, die Grausamen, die Lüsternen, dieUnersättlicehn, die Gottlosen, ihr werdet auch ewig die Unseligen, Verfluchten und Verdammten sein”.
50
Ac’had Ha’am attacks Nietzsche’s ressentiment from a different view; he reads the
whole typology of master and slave as an Aryan -German interpretation of moral
history. Nietzsche’s philosophy is based on the Aryan elements, on the enhancement
of man, who always desires to be more powerful; this type of man does not “care”
about weak. In Ha’am’s view Nietzsche’s typologies serve only to a destruction of
traditional/religious morality. Ha’am refers to the Nietzsche’s usage of ‘Genie of
Jewish Volk’86 and notes that the moral Genie that belongs to Jewish tradition proves
that even in ancient times Jews have always been self conscious about it87.Although
Ha’am admits that there is some truth in Nietzsche’s attribution the moral Genie to
Jewry, he adds that Jews do not owe this point to Nietzsche’s thought. The source of
this moral Genie is the consciousness of being chosen, therefore one does not need
Nietzsche’s genealogy to be aware of this fact.
Kriegsmann’s view is in line with Ha’am to the extent he admits that the Jewish
religion has the deepest roots their historical consciousness, it is not becoming a
nation it is just transforming itself. But he diverges from Ha’am’s view by grounding
this interpretation on the conceptual scheme of Nietzsche’s distinction between
ruler/ruled, passive/active, and master/slave morality. On that basis, in analogy to the
two kinds of Genie Kriegsmann elaborates his own argument on the hereditary art of
commanding and obeying. The first one wills to impregnate and dominate
(herrsüchtig, zeugt und zeugen will); the other one gets the offspring (befructen lasst
and gebiert) 88. He uses Nietzsche’s distinction of the “dominant and recessive” types
of Kulturvölker and argues that Jewish moral evaluation belongs to the first type
(Gattung), which acts like an organizing principle for the Ferment of the highest
86 Ibid. Ha’am’s refers to Nietzsche (Zur Genealogie der Moral, Leipzig, 1899, p.335)87 In German: ‘das Volk des Selbsterkenntnis” and “sich dieses seines Vorrangs über die umgebendenVölker bewusst geworden ist’
51
stream of thoughts in the world. Such capacity of the Judentum owes its endurance to
the “resolute Faith”; - Kriegsmann formulates it in Nietzsche’s words-,89 which does
not need to be ashamed before “modern ideas”.
According to him Nietzche’s master and slave typologies resemble the different
types of Genie, like male and female; although they misunderstand each other, they
make the each other’s existence complete. In this context, he applies Nietzsche’s
typologies to the complex relation between the Jews and Europeans. He remarks that
Europe must be grateful to Jews both for the creation of moral values “good and evil”,
for the ‘great style’ in morality and the whole “romantic of moral questions”.
2. Nationalism, Modernity and The Jewry
Concerning the relation between Europe and the Jewry it is very common to adapt
Nietzsche’s famous motto: ‘whatever does not kill you makes you stronger’90. ‘Jews
are not ashamed of their faith in this modern age’ is also one of the most popular
Nietzsche quotes in these articles. These quotes usually furnish the emphasis on
necessity of strengthening and unification of East and West European Jewry. The
comparison between Eastern and Western part of Europe and the differences between
living conditions of the Jews constitute the subject matter of many articles.
Regarding the conception nationalism and modernity in Europe, Hans Kohn91 argues
that the dynamics of the age of nationalization of Völker hardens the conditions under
which Jews live. Compared to the other Völker, Jewish people had had a deeper
feeling of homelessness for ages and also they come from a very long tradition of
sensibility for Ethical Life (Sittlichkeit) which stands in tension with the new
89 Compare BGE, 25190 BGE, 251
52
conditions of modernity and nationalism. The contemporary Zeitgeist was forcing
people to be more self-conscious; therefore a new enlightenment was felt to be
necessary. On this basis he concludes that Nietzsche was the only philosopher who is
conscious of the gradual decline of the old order and capable of suggesting a new start
with his philosophy of ‘activism’.
There is an agreement among the authors concerning the necessities of the unification
as well as the revival of the cultural and moral ideals. In Coralnik’s article92 we find
this urge for revival:
‘As it is frequently pronounced that every culture has the right to be called KulturVolkpar excellence, hence, Jewish culture has this right too, like other national cultures(French, English, Italian, Russian, Polish, German).’
Self-consciousness (Sichbewusstseinwerden) is the necessary condition for the
revival, which means the ‘national awakening’. This revival is discussed on the
assumption that the consciousness of the Jewish Volk does not need any revival, all
they need is the power to transform the awareness of being chosen into a national
consciousness. Especially Steinberg and Kreigsman are rather of the opinion that the
other Völker would be willing to come to Jewish Nation. This Volk has the strongest
holy book and the purest wisdom (Spinoza), the noble men (Christus) and it deserves
a special place among other Völker. By referring to Morgenröte93, Steinberg
emphasizes that in the eye of Nietzsche, Jews are the candidates for the rule over the
others (Herrschaft). Their task is to leave their mark on the European Culture.
91 See Hans Kohn, Nationalismus , this article is dedicated to Martin Buber, Der Jude Heft 11, (1921-1922),pp.674-68692 J. Coralnik , Das Jüdische Kulturproblem Und Die Moderne in Ost und West, May, (1904), JahrgangIV, Heft 5.93 Steinberg quotes to the following passage in Morgenröte: “ Dann wenn die Juden auf solcheEdelsteine und goldene Gefässe als ihr Werk hinzuweisen haben, wie sie die europäischen Völkerkürzerer und weniger tiefer Erfahrung nicht hervorzubringen vermögen und vermochten, wenn Israelseine ewige Rache in eine ewige Segnung Europas verwandelt haben wird: dann wird jener siebentetag wieder einmal da sein, an dem der alte Judengott sich seiner selber, Schöpfung, und seinsauserwählten Volkes freuen darf,-und wir Alle, Alle wollen uns mit ihm freuen!”
53
The Nietzschean theme of ‘overcoming’ is employed in the attempts creating a new
‘space’ for the reconciliation of old and new forms of existence, this is expressed in
terms of the tension between modernity and tradition. The outline of this debate is
informed by the re-organisation of the politics along modernist lines; that means, the
formation of national State and cultural and political units. Under these conditions,
there appears a need to renovate Judentum. Coralnik suggests that the contemporary
so-called question between Judentum versus Modernity is not a real problem. The old
Judentum is dead; but out of its ashes a re-birth will occur. Coralnik makes
distinction between dogmatic and non-dogmatic Judentum and claims that the latter is
capable of absorbing modernity; this is the Judentum that which has to ‘overcome’
itself.
Coralnik’s point is a crucial because it implies a need for a new Judentum, which will
not be a religion any more, but it will be multi-sided, comprehensive, progressive
culture. He addresses the problem of liberation from Diaspora-dasein and underlines
the necessity of the independence and freedom of Jewish Volk, his ideal formulation
of political structure is one of nation-state where there is unity of language, one
healthy Kultur, and material life (Zivilisation). It is interesting to note that in
Coralnik’s account moral aspect of such an ideal resembles Nietzschean typology of
‘master’; he argues that in order to become a member of master-morality94, strength,
liberty and power is needed.
94 ibid. p.301 ‘Ein Knecht kann sich nicht zur Herrenmoral bekennen.’
54
2.a. ‘Philosophy of National Life’
Nietzsche’s Lebensphilosophie there is a certain vision of ‘life’, in which different
sorts of power struggles take place. By certain Zionist authors Nietzschean type of
activism is received as a motivating factor; Nietzsche in this sense is associated with
the Fichtean type of self-positing act, which would lead to a formulation of the
national self-consciousness, realized through action. This type of consciousness is
assumed to claim its own permanent, continious ground through labor and activity. In
this way Nietzsche’s Lebensphilosphie does not only furnish the spiritual and cultural
ideals but it also inspires the practical pursuits of Zionist activists in Palestine. Israel
Reichert’s article Tat und Arbeit95 that is dedicated to “Hapoel Hazair” 96 represents
this trend.
In this article we find a Nietzschean definition of Zionism as an awakening of the
‘will to do’ (Tatwillen) .97 Reichert argues that this ‘will’ motivates people to
overcome the passive Galuth-life (Galuthleben), lead them to make decisions and take
action for nation (National Arbeit). On this point Reichert refers to Fichte98 that the
95 See I. Reichert. Tat und Arbeit, in Der Jude, Jg. 2, (1917), Nr. 12, pp. 771-772
96 It is a Jewish workers organization founded in 1907 - Jüdische Arbeitsorganisation in Palestine. AsReichert notes, in 1917: ‘today there are 14.000 Jewish colonizers and about a thousand of Jewishworkers in Palestine’.
97 Reichert’ has the following quote Nietzsche, see article’s epigraph:
‘Abseits vom Markte und Ruhme begiebt sich alles Grosse.
Abseits vom Markte und Ruhmewohnten von je die Erfinder neure Werte.’
98 Ibid. p.771 Here I should note that this reference can be seen as a manifestation of a shift in the stateof mind of the modern Jewish mind: from a Cartesian motto ‘I think therefore I exist’ to the Fichteanmotto ‘I posit my self as active’, I exist’. Combining Fichte and Nietzsche here seems to be also as aninteresting synthesis, this attempt of reconciliation marks the selective use their philosophies on'national will', 'power' and 'action'.
55
existence in the world does not mean self-inspection, man exists via his activity:99 The
word Tat, which can be translated as ‘deed’ or activity occupies a central place in
Reichert’s view; he interprets this as a purposeful activity for a ‘national ideal’. The
fundamental claim here is that the bridge between ideal and real world can only be
built through deed, not by discourse, as Reichert’s says:’ War has put an end to the
great theoretical ideals, the struggle of words is over’.
As I have noted in the introduction, among the leading Jewish intellectuals, Martin
Buber and Micha Berdycwevski 100 are the most well known figures who were the
deeply influenced by Nietzschean philosophy of life. Buber is considered to be the
first to introduce Nietzschean vocabulary to the Zionist political discourse.101 For
Buber, Nietzsche was an embodiment of a new vision of a life for human being, he
was the heroic figure who ‘created’ and surpassed himself. Buber clearly notes that
‘Nietzsche is the forerunner (Wegbereiter) the one who prepared the most promising
path for the Jewish Renaissance with its ideas of creating a new life, new sentiment
for the existence Weltgefühl 102 :
99 Nicht zum müssigen Beschauen und Betrachten deiner selbst oder zum Brüten über andächtigeEmpfindungen – nein, zum Handeln bist du da.”Reichert probably refers to Fichte’s work :See Fichte (1762-1814), J.G Grundlage des der Naturrechts nach Prinzipien der Wissenschaftslehre(1796/97)
100 Berdyczewski’s book in Hebrew “Al em haderech”, translated and published in Warsaw (1899). Hisstyle and themes resemble Nietzsche’s Zarathustra.
101 See. P.Mendes-Flohr, Zarathustra’s Apostle, in Nietzsche and Jewish Culture, (ed.) Jacob Golomb,Routledge, London and New York, 1997, p.234 See also. Buber’s articles Die Kunst im Leben,December 1900,p.12-13, the first German essay in Herzl’s magazine. Buber, Jüdische Renaissance, inOst und West, Jan 1901, See also Jüdische Bewegung , Ost und West, Jan 1901. In this essay Buberargues that the restoration of Zion resembles the rebirth in the soul of the Jew. The idea of the rebirthof a new man, a new type of Jew is gradually emerging. See also Buber’s Renaissance and Bewegung,in Gesammelte Aufsätze und Ansprachen, first series 1900-1914 Bewegung 1903, Berlin, JüdischerVerlag, 1926, p.716.See also Nathan Birnbaum,( Matthias Acher) 1864-1937, Die Jüdische
56
‘Transvaluation of all aspects… the life of the people to its depths and veryfoundations. It must touch the soul. We must unlock the vital powers of the nation andlet loose its fettered instincts. 103
It is manifest that Buber’s account recalls Nietzsche’s rhetoric, however as I noted in
the introductory section to this chapter, Ha’am has certain objections to this “new”
vocabulary that would dominate the contemporary Zionist literature.
Ha’am holds the view that Nietzsche, the formal educator of the Zionist youth is false
hero. Lebensphilosophie misleads the young Zionist intellectuals in many ways; they
try to transpose and furnish it with Jewish content, irrespective of the sensitivities and
particular nature of Jewish culture in comparison to German culture. Ha’am’s
argument contra-Nietzsche is also supported by other thinkers such as Sigbert
Feuchtwanger. The contra-Nietzscheanism stems from the worry that the cultivated
members of the Jewish national community are more interested in foreign problems
than their own. They engage in solving deep philosophical and political problems
about the European and the German Dasein. They are passionately involved in
reading Nietzsche, Eucken, Nauman, Carlyle, Emerson. These faithful readers of
Nietzsche do not feel their own unique problematic of the Jewish existence.
Feuchwanger104 makes the tension between the two sides more apparent. He argues
that Ac'had Ha'am’s writings on Jewish way of life and Weltanschauung is a
crystallization of a rare combination of Eastern Jewish wisdom and European
Bildung’. Ha’am accounts for the problems of Jewish philosophy, history, politics. He
Renaissance Bewegung, in Ost und West, 2, 1902, p. 584, Birnbaum claims that the regeneration oflanguage and cultural transformations also a search for the Jewish self.102 See Buber Ein Wort über Nietzsche und die Lebenswerte’ Die Kunst im Leben, (1) Dec. 1900.103 See Zionistische Politik (1903) in Jüdische bewegung1903, first Series, Gesammelte Aufsätze undAnsprachen, first series 1900-1914.104See Dr. Sigbert Feuchtwanger, Achad Haam , in Neue Jüdische Monatshefte, Jahrgang 1, nr. 6,München, 1916, pp. 174-176
57
encounters the problem of modernity and science and its reconciliation with
spirituality and history. Feuchtwanger portrays Ha’am in the following way:
He is conservative but not orthodox, he supports development but he is againstwestern liberal reforms. He is for the re-settlement in Palestine, but he is not a Zionistin the sense of party politics. He is for the emancipation and equal rights but he iscautious about assimilation
The clear message of Feuchtwanger is that Ha’am should be the moral guide for the
problems concerning the Jewish culture, modernity and nationalism, not Nietzsche. In
response, the supporters 105of Berdyczewski and Buber continuously stress the point
that they do not replicate Nietzsche’s ideas, but interpreting his Lebensphilosophie.
Hirsch argues that Berdyczewski was not a mere follower but he had similar
tendencies, like Nietzsche his reputation within the intellectual circle is Kulturkritiker.
His voice is the voice of conscience. According to Hirsch, Berdyczewski ‘s work “Al
em haderech”, is significant in its various aspects; the primary significance is that it
was published when Nietzsche was still alive, but his work was not yet popularized in
Germany. Hirsch also notes that ‘at that time Germany was celebrating the age of
materialism and Häckel was their Apostel’. This is an clear point against Ha’am and
Feuchtwänger that Jewish intellectual are more inspired by Nietzsche’s works and
they are the ones who spread his thoughts to the world. Moreover, they do not merely
follow him but take this offer of ‘thinking otherwise’.
The controversy between Ha’am’s conservatism and the young Nietzscheans seems to
be rooted in their approach to Jewish culture and philosophy of life . On the
conservative side, Ha’am’s conception of Judentum is not open to any world view, in
105 See. Leo Hirsch’s article Friedrich Nietzsche und der Jüdische Geist, Der Morgen, Heft 4, Juli
(1934), p.187-190
58
this sense he is promoting the idea that the Jewish culture must create its own paths of
philosophical thought. Coralnik and Feuchtwänger also agrees with Ha’am that there
is no need to borrow external ideal or a philosophical theory from German
philosophy. The duty of the Jewish Volk is to reach the ‘higher’ type (jüdische
Goethes, Michelangelos) and cultivate their own philosophical mind. Whereas
Berdyczewski and Buber’s generation do not approach the problem in the same way.
They do not differentiate between internal and foreign sources of thought/inspiration.
They think that they can adopt a worldview, which may not necessarily stem the
Jewish culture. Nietzsche’s Lebensphilosophie represents a way for reconciliation of
aesthetics, poetry with life and activity. The adoption of such a view would serve to
the general aim of revival of the culture in the form of the Jewish Renaissance. This is
the preparation for a new vision of the modern ethos of the community.
Specifically, the difference of the vision between the two trends between Buber and
Ha’am106 lies in their approach to ‘Jewish culture’. For Ha’am ‘Jewish culture’
denotes language, literature, governing ideas, whereas in Buber’s view ‘Jewish
culture’ is the realm of inner aesthetic, spiritual sensibility. Therefore for Buber,
Kulturpolitik is a preparation of the Jews for the vision of political and social
transformation of their aesthetic and spiritual sensibility. Buber’s view adopts
Nietzsche’s perspective as a combination of poetry and philosophy, especially his
moral views proposes a Typus of a higher man, a future goal. However Ha’am
considers the same ideas as a process of struggle of forces for existence (Kampf ums
Dasein) belonging to the Aryan Typus .
As a result, concerning two main trends, pro-Nietzschean (Buber, Berdycewzski,
Reichert, Hirsch,) and contra- Nietzschean (Ha’am, Feuchtwanger, to some extent
106 Haam: ‘transvaluation of values’ 1898, in Nationalism and the Jewish Ethic, into. Hans Kohn, NY,Schoken, 1962, pp.165-187
59
Coralnik107) I can state that both sides agree that a re-thinking and re-building of
traditional life is necessary. But the means they choose to this end differ. Ha’am’s
type of conservatism attacks Nietzschean Zionist youth by claiming that they ignore
the ethical mission and chosenness; Nietzschean Zionists think that his philosophy
would “to give structure to Jewish life”, but Nietzsche’s pupils always read more
than what their teacher says.
Conclusion
In this thesis I examined the outlines of Nietzsche’s philosophy and its political
implications with regard to the two intellectual mind-sets of national thinking. My
first aim was to demonstrate that, it is possible to locate Nietzsche’s account in its
historical and philosophical context of nationalism. As a result, in Nietzsche’s
thought, I see a projection of the Hobbesian view of human nature also inspired of the
Machiavellian idea of leadership beyond traditional morality. From this perspective, it
is apparent that his political standpoint favors not only the creation of a new morality
but the revival of the ancient cult of leaders. Nietzsche’s ‘aristocratic radicalism’108
and his glorification of Pre-Socratic spirit have been a controversial subject among
scholars. According to Santaniello109, his aristocratic radicalism was also a logical
outcome which arouse from opposing the dominant political ideologies of his time,
such in socialist, democratic, Lutheran forms of nationalism based on the masses. I
argue that this attitude cannot be explained only by the Zeitgeist, we should also take
107 Coralnik does not share Ha’am’s view that cultural unity is sufficient for national unity108 For contemporary discussion, See Detwiler B., Nietzsche and The Politics of AristocraticRadicalism, University of Chicago Press, 1990
109 Weaver Santaniello, A post holocaust re- examination of Nietzsche and The Jews ,in Jacob
Golomb, ‘Nietzsche and Jewish Culture’, Routledge, London, NY, 1997
60
Nietzsche’s view of human nature into consideration. His arguments about human
body and soul diverge from other philosophers who advocate either dualistic or
monistic viewpoints110. In his account there is a clear expression of this view: ‘our
organism is arranged as an oligarchy’111.
On this basis I claim that Nietzsche takes a political position with respect to the
master or slave type of morality, which can be explained by his account of the
multiplicity of forces dwelling within human body. This multiplicity of forces
are linked to his view of society through the glorification of power and struggle
for domination. Therefore the political implications of his account of ‘power
and multiplicity of forces’ brings about an idealized Pre-Socratic vision and the
oligarchic political structure112 merged with a sense of an aristocratic type of
master morality. In Nietzsche’s view, this oligarchic structure denotes the type of
leadership who posseses the art of commanding and who is able to exercise
power in a noble way. The virtues of this kind of elite is comparable to the
Olympic Gods of Greek antiquity that are bestowed with a warrior ethos, which
makes them free from the notion of guilt. Instead of demonizing the power as
dangerous and evil they deeply respect their enemies and dignify their fights.
110 For further discussion concerning ‘Dualism and Monism’, ‘Mind-Bod’y see the representativephilosophers, respectively René Descartes (1596-1650) Meditations and Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) Ethics, Part II,translated by R.H.M. Elwes from Latin in 1888.111 GM, II.1, see also GM, I. 16
112 I am using here the classical definition of oligarchy, as given for example by Aristotle, thegovernment by a powerful few, compared with both aristocracy and democracy. From this perspective,the major distinction between oligarchy and aristocracy is that the latter is defined as the rule by a fewchosen, for their virtue and ruling for the general good. Whereas in democracy is the governing elitecompete with each other, gaining power by winning public support.
61
It seems that German nationalism highlighted the Lyricism, warrior ethics and
genealogy in Nietzsche. In order to posit Germanness as an inherited national
identity they construct the genealogical ties between the Germanic tribes which
would build the connection of the German nation with the ancient history
However they ignored that this attitude conflicts Nietzsche’s view of
Germanness.
Especially his comparison between the historic Jewish essence and the ‘German
nation in the making’ is disregarded by German nationalist. The significance of
this ressentiment attributed to Priestly Judae by Nietzsche gains a different
meaning in the context German nationalism. First, as a mechanism, ressentiment
actually constitutes the moral basis of action / reaction, where the two types of
ideology (Deutschtum / Christendom) unified in reaction to Jewishness.
Secondly, Nietzsche commentators among German nationalists either ignored
his notion of ressentiment, or they falsely attributed to the Jews in Europe.
In this way, Nietzsche’s prediction that the historically rooted identity of the
Jews in the age of nationalism would nourish antisemitism, verified under the
rule of Nazi ideology. In this sense Nietzsche’s theory of resentment provides
crucial insights for the resentful psyche in the postulation of Deutschtum, which
later contributed to Nazification of Nietzsche’s philosophy.
Under the guidance of arguments discussed in the chapters A and B, I will
conclude with the following analysis:
• Concerning the contributors to Deutschtum or Judentum, it is common to
redefine Nietzsche’s philosophy. In that sense the Jewish intellectuals
portray a libertarian, internationalist and philosemitic Nietzsche, but they
62
ignore his views in favor of the aristocratic morality, oligarchic structure
and the cult of ‘power’; his comments on the history Jewish tradition are
appropriately foreshadowed and interpreted as an evidence for the
authentication of Moral Genie of Jewish Volk.. His critique of Priestly Judea
and Christianity received by some Jewish intellectuals as the genealogical
account of the concept of ‘Love’ and tolerance -and even the root of
democracy- which grew out of ‘Hate’. (See. Chapter B.1).
• In Ha’am’s view Nietzcshe’s theory is the quintessential endemic sickness
of the age, whereas Nietzschean Zionist (Buber, Berdychewski) claim that
Nietzsche is a crystallization of the tragedy of the modern age, yet his
teaching promises a possibility of regeneration of Jewish cultural life. The
reason for this conflict seems to be the different perceptions of the question
of modernization. Since Nietzsche was a critic of culture and religion his
account functioned like a catalyst between the conservative and young
generation of Zionists.
63
Bibliography
1. Nietzsche, F.: Kritische Studienausgabe (KSA) in 15 Einzelbanden,
(ed.) Giorgio Colli and ä Montinari (Hg.) Berlin, DTV /de Gruyter:
Sämtliche Werke, 1988: KSA 5, [On the Genealogy of Morality 1887]
and [,Beyond Good and Evil 1886]
2. F.Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, (1887) Edited by Pearson K.A.,
Cambridge, 1994
3. F.Nietzsche The Will to Power, (1883-1888), Edited by Kaufmann W.,
Vintage Books, NY, 1968
4. F.Nietzsche The Antichrist (1888), Trans.by Hollingdale R.J., Penguin Books,
London, 1968
5. Jacob Golomb, ‘Nietzsche and Jewish Culture’, Routledge, London, NY, 1997
6. Deleuze G. Nietzsche & Philosophy, Trans. Tomlinson H., Athlone Press,
London, 1983
7. Steven E. Aschheim The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany, 1890-
1990,University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford,
1992
8. Ottmann, Henning. Philosophie und Politik bei Nietzsche, Berlin: W. de
Gruyter, 1987.
9. Golomb, J. and Wistrich, R. S. Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism? : On the
Uses and Abuses of a Philosophy, 2002 and Nietzsche and Jewish culture /
edited by Jacob Golomb. London; New York: Routledge, 1997.
64
10. Alfred Bäumler: Friedrich Nietzscheder Philosoph und der Politiker.
Leipzig, Reclam, 1931
11. Detwiler B., Nietzsche and The Politics of Aristocratic Radicalism, University
of Chicago Press, 1990
12. Yovel, Yirmiyahu. ‘Sublimity and Ressentiment; Hegel, Nietzsche, and the
Jews’. Jewish Social Studies 3,3 (1997) 1-25.
CORRESPONDANCES
13. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, 1844-1900. Nietzsche in seinen Briefen und
Berichten der Zeitgenossen; die Lebensgeschichte in Dokumenten. Hrsg. von
Alfred Bäumler. Leipzig, A. Kroner, 1932.
14. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, 1844-1900. Selected letters of Friedrich
Nietzsche. Edited and translated by Christopher Middleton. Chicago, 1969
JOURNALS
Source: Jüdische Presse gGmbH
Redaktion: Judith Hart, Dr. phil. Christian Böhme Tobias Kaufmann, Detlef
David Kauschke, Heidelind Sobotka, Michael Wuliger
1. Jüdisches Gemeindeblatt, Verlag Das Judische Gemeindeblatt for the
Israelitische Gemeinde Frankfurt am Main
2. Ost und West, monthly journal Organ of Deutschen Conferenz-Gemeinschaft
der Alliance Israélite Universelle, published from 1901 until 1923 (Berlin).
65
Hg. von Davis Trietsch, Leo Winz. Redaktion: M. A. Klausner, E. Jacoby,
Hans Spangenberg, Dr. Marcus
3. Die Welt, Founded by Theodor Herzl, published between 1897 und 1914
(Vienna/Köln) Hg. von Paul Naschauer, Berthold Feiwel, A.H. Reich,
Leopold Kahn, Julius Uprimay, Siegmund Werner, Nahum Sokolow, Isidor
Schalit, Erwin Rosenberger, Isidor Marmorek, Jacob Klatzkin, Martin Buber
Redaktion: S. R. Landau, Siegmund Werner, Erwin Rosenberger, Berthold
Feiwel, A. H. Reich, Julius Uprimay, A. Coralnik, Julius Berger, Moritz Zobel
4. Der Jude, Hg. von Martin Buber, published between 1916-1928
Redaktion: Max Mayer, M. Präger, Gustav Krojanker, Ernst Simon, Siegmund
Kaznelson
5. Der Morgen, founded by Julius Goldstein, Darmstadt published between
1925-1938, Philo Verlag in Berlin.