Review of NIETZSCHE, FEMINISM & POLITICAL THEORY edited by PAUL PATTON

Review by John Mann

Nietzsche has had many admirers, but few - if any - real followers who have accepted all his teachings.

The reason for this difficulty is clear. There are two sides to Nietzsche which appear almost irreconcilable: as a radical he is a romantic adventurer, writing powerful modern myths and aphorisms challenging all authorities with his "Death of God" doctrine that there is no more centre, no more ground for truth, no more "real"; yet as a conservative he appears misogynistic, militaristic, aristocratic and elitist. The Nazis obviously found the latter teachings useful and ignored the radical Nietzsche, yet throughout the twentieth century Nietzsche's radical philosophy has appealed to socialists, existentialists, theologians and now increasingly feminists - all of whom are confronted with Nietzsche's explicit rejection of their teachings.

All of the articles in this book recognise the difficulty of Nietzsche's misogynism, quoting the passage from Thus Spoke Zarathustra "if you are visiting women do not forget your whip" (the book's cover interestingly contrasts this by showing the infamous photo of Nietzsche being whipped by a woman), and respond to it generally in three ways.

Firstly some view it as an error that can be overlooked. The problem is accepted, then it is argued that we shouldn't let the nasty bits of Nietzsche stop us from appreciating his genuine insights. Secondly it is argued that Nietzsche's content is irrelevant - it is not what he said but how he said it. Thirdly some psychoanalyse Nietzsche, asking why he felt this way towards women - surely not an example of Nietzschian ressentiment ?

These are all valid responses and the articles themselves provide many valuable discussions of Nietzschian themes - in particular of Nietzche's metaphors and symbols (Frances Oppel's article Irgaray with Nietzsche and Cathryn Vasseleu's Not Drowning, Sailing stand out here), however they fail to examine the philosophical relationship between the radical and conservative Nietzsche.

Surely it is because Nietzsche analysed the world as foundationless and without gravity that he proposed the aristocratic and authoritarian "Superman" - the only person whose values could survive in such a valueless world. It is up to those who disagree with his conservatism to show that these conclusions do not follow from his radical analysis.

So let us now turn to his analysis. The idea that the Death of God (loss of belief in the transcendent) results in a revaluation of all values has found a following throughout this century, but particularly since the collapse of Marxism Nietzsche has been the major figure in continental philosophy. In the 1970s the post-structuralists cited Nietzsche as a major influence and he has continued to retain this importance amongst postmodernists and deconstructionists in the 1980s. Such an importance I predict will not last.

Nietzsche suits the mood of modernist alienation - those who are searching for something else, who find the old certainties (whether Marxism, the Market or God) are no more, and feel themselves upon a "sea" of uncertainty. Yet his response, whilst artistically exhilarating, is not political theory (supposedly the third angle of this book).

Politics is at least about empirical data - a politically correct society does not depend on interpretations of interpretations, but simple statistical fact: what are the statistics for childcare facilities, for domestic violence, for poverty, crime, unemployment, environmental pollution? Political debate today needs to be about presenting options, debating societies values and requirements, looking at trends, opportunities and threats. The problem I have with Nietzschian "political theory" is that it does none of these things.

By all means debate Nietzsche's philosophy, his art and his spirituality - but don't call it politics.