Nietzsche’s Jenseits-199 continues.
“This
state is actually encountered in Europe today: I call it the moral hypocrisy of
those commanding. They know no other way to protect themselves against their
bad conscience than to pose as the executors of more ancient or higher commands
(of ancestors, of the Constitution, of right, of the laws, or even of God). Or
they even borrow herd maxims from the herd’s way of thinking, such as “first
servants of their people” or “instruments of the common weal.”
In Soviet Russia, government
officials used to be called, half-sarcastically, half-seriously, “servants of
the people.” I doubt that they will ever be called that again, not because of
the word’s implicit hypocrisy, but because of the strongly negative connotations
from its previous usage, even though the meaning is by no means off the mark.
“On
the other side, the herd man in Europe today gives himself the appearance of
being the only permissible kind of man, and he glorifies his attributes, which
make him tame, easy to get along with, and useful to the herd, as if they were
the truly human virtues: namely, public spirit, benevolence, consideration,
industriousness, moderation, modesty, indulgence ,and pity.”
Nietzsche has repeatedly
emphasized that these standards of a democratic society are exactly what he is
referring to, in his diatribe against the sickness of modern will. No wonder
then that the social standards of American society today are essentially the
same as the ones which he caricatures. The question still remains unanswered of
course as to why such soft social
values characteristic of both the capitalist and socialist societies, jointly
referred to as developed democratic societies, should be made fun of at
all, whereas their opposites, the malevolent, the inconsiderate, the
non-industrious, the immoderate, immodest, non-indulgent, and pitiless are to be
preferred. I do not approve of this idiosyncratic Nietzschean preoccupation
with barbarian virtues, not even as a reaction to the despicable vice of social
hypocrisy. I do not approve of Savonarola, of an overreaction, in place of a
reaction. That is why I want modern society to improve itself from the inside,
by enlightenment, not by a revolution, by civilized, not barbarian means. If
American society cannot heal itself, then the “surgeon” is already looming
large, and much closer than the horizon. The bin Laden outrage, if I may use
this name metaphorically, is ready to sweep America again within and without
her borders, and the Russians are going to watch from the sidelines, to see their
nemesis punished for her hubris, and Europe is also watching, secretly rooting
against the bully for the other guys, whoever they are, to come and beat the
bully up, and this is not a good solution, because much of it is only the
mindless, thoughtless, negative reaction of revenge, unbecoming the latest
generation of our esteemed Western civilization… No, I’d rather much prefer the
soft, sophisticated touch!
“In
those cases however, where one considers leaders and bellwethers indispensable,
people today make one attempt after another to add together clever herd men by
way of replacing commanders--- all parliamentary constitutions, have this
origin. Nevertheless, the appearance of one who commands unconditionally strikes
these herd-animal Europeans as an immense comfort and salvation from a
gradually intolerable pressure, as last attested in a prominent way by the
effect of Napoleon’s appearance… The history of Napoleon’s reception is almost
the history of the higher happiness, attained by this whole century in its most
valuable human beings and moments.”
I know for a fact that Russian
liberal nobility (even including Tsar Alexander I in their number) did welcome
the appearance of Napoleon with an exultation. Whether it was indeed the
instinct for emancipation from the dark-age legacy of the past, is hardly the
question. The right question would be: emancipation which way: toward liberal
democracy, which Nietzsche ridicules, or toward barbarism, which appears more
to the heart of this wishful thinker? Or, was it an inchoate, unspecified “will
to change,” come what may? Maybe the answer is like the emblematic life history
of Konstantin Pobedonostsev: a liberal democrat in his young years, growing up
into a conservative reactionary in his mature years? (As they used to say, if
you are young and conservative, you do not have a heart; if you are old and
liberal, you do not have a brain…) Maybe the whole Nietzschean concept of the
master race, the barbarian coming, the blond beast of prey at the gates, is a
telltale sign of a certain immaturity, characteristic of all young-age
idealism, but later--- sometimes much later--- maturing into something else?
…Is it at all possible that we may
have touched upon a Nietzsche secret here?
The End.
No comments:
Post a Comment