January 14, 2005
I'm still working on Sarah Kofman at the moment, in particular, her book Le Mepris des Juifs [Contempt for the Jews], in which she attempts to salvage Nietzsche from the interpretation of his work as proto-fascist, and, more importantly for Kofman, anti-Semitic. Kofman provides a 'survey' of Nietzsche's remarks about the Jews, and attempts to contextualise them in terms of the state of his identity, in relation to important figures in his life: his mother, his sister, and Wagner and Schopenhauer. She argues, roughly, that Nietzsche matured when he was able to renounce the anti-Semitic (amongst other things) attitudes of these 'forebears,' and finally came to identify himself as a Jew. As with many critics who rally to Nietzsche's defence against the nazi appropriation, Nietzsche's sister gets a bad rap in this book, and it appears that Nietzsche might not have suffered the maligning that he did, had it not been for his sister's presiding over his literary estate, controlling how his books were published, and publicising Nietzsche's work as proto-fascist.
My question to Kofman is, what is her stake in cleansing Nietzsche of the taint of nazism? I read her interpretation of Nietzsche as very much implicated in her own feelings of ambivalence regarding her 'Jewishness'. In the light of her Rue Ordener, Rue Labat (discussed in a previous post). Rue Ordener is an autobiographical account of the trauma she suffered during WWII, after her father had been taken to Auschwitz and she was divided between her mother and a gentile 'lady' who wanted to Christianise her--Kofman perhaps identified not only with Nietzsche's philosophical perspective, but also with his deep ambivalence regarding the Jews. In this respect, her cleansing of Nietzsche of any ambiguity regarding his position on the Jews, is also a cleansing of herself... And Elisabeth Nietzsche plays the part of the dupe, or 'scapegoat,' upon whose back their collective sins are heaped on their day of atonement.
I've also been reading an interesting collection of essays dealing with the relation of Nietzsche to nazism.
Daniel Conway presents an interesting argument, that Nietzsche's comments on the Jews must be read in the context of his cultural/political project of imperialism: that he saw the Jews as his raw material--or a 'leavening agent'--that would infuse Europe with the right starter-culture that would lead to a more expansive, imperial attitude. According to Conway, Nietzsche did not see the Jews as good in themselves--in fact, he saw them as
ultimately responsible for such world calamities as the "slave revolt in morality," the birth of Christianity, the fall of the Roman Empire, the decline of the Renaissance, the rise of the Protestant Reformation, and the outbreak of the French revolution... He goes so far as to propose "Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome" as his preferred "symbol" for the historical struggles that have collectively defined the identity and destiny of European civilization.
According to Conway, Nietzsche saw the Jews as a strong people, but was deeply suspicious, even fearful of them, and kept to the stereotypes in his understanding of them. The Jews are useful to Nietzsche only in so far as they collaborate with his plan to reform Europe, and this would require their assimilation into the European populace, and ultimately their end, as a 'people.'
Robert C. Holub also presents an interesting reading of what he calls "the Elisabeth Legend," with reference to the "Nietzsche Legend" that Elisabeth cultivated around Nietzsche. Holub's thesis is basically that, yes, Elisabeth did indulge in some small falsifications of Nietzsche's work--what amount to philological misdemeanors--but her influence on the Nazi appropriation of his works has been overstated, to the extent that Nietzschean scholars have conveniently been able to overlook the fascist potentiality of Nietzsche's texts altogether. Holub makes a case that the changes and omissions that Elisabeth made to letters and text do nothing to change the overall significance of his work: that her motive was most likely fairly domestic, that is, to exaggerate the closeness of their relationship, and to support her own animosities and prejudices regarding his other friends and acquaintances. As Holub points out, this is more of the order of exaggeration than falsification, as Nietzsche himself held these views at one time or another.
Although it may be grossly unfair to say that Nietzsche would have endorsed Hitler's platform--and indeed, he may even have vigorously opposed it in detail and spirit--it is important that Nietzscheans consider, and deal with, the elements of his text that can support a Nazi interpretation. It appears that a reluctance to get one's hands dirty drives the "Elisabeth legend", as well as the recuperation of Nietzsche as an advocate for the Jews... in a similar vein, what are we to make of images like this?:
|
Jo,
some quick comments. I reckon that I would dispute Conway's reading of Nietzsche as an imperialist. I would argue that Nietzsche rejected an expansive German nationalism (eg. that of Bismark) and saw himself as a good European.
In the post you write that Kofman's
That 'cleansing' is the work of a therapeutic philosophy working on the poisons(eg., traumas) that make us sick. Or another description, Pierre Hadot's Philosophy as a Way of Life which characterises ancient philosophy as primarily practical in its aims, not theoretical. Wisdom was not identified with knowledge of the whole, but with happiness or well-being, which was to be attained by bringing about the proper internal ordering of the soul. Isn't Kofman engaged in those sort of practices?
An account of trauma:
Kaufman's writing is a healing of her wounds, as a taking care of her wounded self.
Dunno about the Nietzsche as fascist stuff. Seems an abuse of philosophy to me by American liberals.You can be prejudiced against the Jews and not be a fascist. I'm not sure about the anti-Semitic stuff.
This is not to deny that Nietzsche's hands were not dirty. He was an arisocratic conservative who presumed that the many would slave in the factories to provide the economic surplus so that the noble free spirits could create a new culture and a new mode of valuation to overcome nihilism. That new mode of valuation was to affirm life not stunt or destroy it, as did Christianity.
Sure he detested democrats, liberals, feminists, socialists etc- he was a cultural warrior after all-- but that doesn't make him a fascist.
How come all this political stuff is returning. Is it an expression of the cultural wars in the American academy?