Nietzsche on Authority and the State
I have never known anyone whom, judged in the most universal way, I have felt as an authority; at the same time, I have a deep need for such a person - Nietzsche
Postmodern interpretations of Nietzsche emphasize his aversion towards authority. His work is seen as seeking to deconstruct the metaphysical foundations of authority and devoted mainly to personal emancipation and individual self-creation. For Michel Foucault, Nietzsche is the precursor of a philosophy of disparity, dispersion and difference, a philosophy that undermines unity and stability, ontological bulwarks that support the claims of authority. According to Foucault, Nietzschean genealogy “disturbs what was previously considered immobile; it fragments what was thought unified."
The historical sense proper to genealogy dissolves the metaphysical and supra-historical; it consists of “the acuity of a glance that distinguishes, separates, and disperses...– the kind of dissociating view... capable of shattering the unity of man’s being through which it was thought that he could extend his sovereignty to the events of the past."
Nietzsche privileges freedom understood as change and dispersion, and dissolves the unity and stability demanded by authority. Alan Schrift, in agreement with Foucault, writes that the “question of authority and its legitimation is a central issue in Nietzsche's writings... Whether he is dismantling the authority of the moral-theological tradition, deconstructing the authority of God, or excising the hidden metaphysical authority within language, Nietzsche's refusal to legitimate any figure of authority remains constant”.
Similarly, Richard Rorty associates Nietzsche with Kierkegaard, Baudelaire and Proust, and considers him to be an exemplary liberal ironist. He acknowledges that he sponsors a determinate political vision which is “clearly anti-liberal.” But Nietzsche’s anti-liberalism is “adventitious and idiosyncratic,” and his ideal of self-creativity does not translate into social policy. Nietzsche, a free spirit, preaches abstention from politics and utopian individualism...
In this essay I challenge the anti-authoritarian understanding of Nietzsche by showing that his refusal to grant legitimacy to the state refers only to the modern state. He is critical of the normative authority demanded by the liberal state, an authority based on antecedent consensus...A more balanced view is expressed by Don Dombowsky: “Nietzsche does not reject all states or political constitutions, rather he rejects the democratic and socialist states... He praises, for example, the Greek state, the Roman state, the military (Bonapartist) state and his contemporary Russian state (under Tsar Alexander III)..At the same time, he grants legitimacy to non-normative authority, either charismatic or traditional, like the one held by the aristocratic states of antiquity, and by modern strong commanders like Napoleon..
Read more: http://www2.swgc.mun.ca/animus/Articles/Volume%2014/3_Cristi.pdf
Postmodern interpretations of Nietzsche emphasize his aversion towards authority. His work is seen as seeking to deconstruct the metaphysical foundations of authority and devoted mainly to personal emancipation and individual self-creation. For Michel Foucault, Nietzsche is the precursor of a philosophy of disparity, dispersion and difference, a philosophy that undermines unity and stability, ontological bulwarks that support the claims of authority. According to Foucault, Nietzschean genealogy “disturbs what was previously considered immobile; it fragments what was thought unified."
The historical sense proper to genealogy dissolves the metaphysical and supra-historical; it consists of “the acuity of a glance that distinguishes, separates, and disperses...– the kind of dissociating view... capable of shattering the unity of man’s being through which it was thought that he could extend his sovereignty to the events of the past."
Nietzsche privileges freedom understood as change and dispersion, and dissolves the unity and stability demanded by authority. Alan Schrift, in agreement with Foucault, writes that the “question of authority and its legitimation is a central issue in Nietzsche's writings... Whether he is dismantling the authority of the moral-theological tradition, deconstructing the authority of God, or excising the hidden metaphysical authority within language, Nietzsche's refusal to legitimate any figure of authority remains constant”.
Similarly, Richard Rorty associates Nietzsche with Kierkegaard, Baudelaire and Proust, and considers him to be an exemplary liberal ironist. He acknowledges that he sponsors a determinate political vision which is “clearly anti-liberal.” But Nietzsche’s anti-liberalism is “adventitious and idiosyncratic,” and his ideal of self-creativity does not translate into social policy. Nietzsche, a free spirit, preaches abstention from politics and utopian individualism...
In this essay I challenge the anti-authoritarian understanding of Nietzsche by showing that his refusal to grant legitimacy to the state refers only to the modern state. He is critical of the normative authority demanded by the liberal state, an authority based on antecedent consensus...A more balanced view is expressed by Don Dombowsky: “Nietzsche does not reject all states or political constitutions, rather he rejects the democratic and socialist states... He praises, for example, the Greek state, the Roman state, the military (Bonapartist) state and his contemporary Russian state (under Tsar Alexander III)..At the same time, he grants legitimacy to non-normative authority, either charismatic or traditional, like the one held by the aristocratic states of antiquity, and by modern strong commanders like Napoleon..
Read more: http://www2.swgc.mun.ca/animus/Articles/Volume%2014/3_Cristi.pdf
