The Advantages and Disadvantages of Nietzsche for Critical Sociology

The essays collected in this special issue of Critical Sociology are arranged as a dialogue about how or why to situate the work of Friedrich Nietzsche in the field of Sociology. Does Nietzsche belong in the canon of social theory, and what, if anything, does his work offer critical sociologists in particular? What might Nietzsche’s thought offer to Marxists, feminists, critical race and queer theorists in light of his allegedly reactionary politics? Is Nietzsche friend or foe for those of us who identify as critical sociologists?

Answers to these questions of course depend upon how we interpret Nietzsche’s texts. In addition, we contend that the answer to such questions depends upon how we define our discipline. If we consider sociology a social science, then perhaps we can and should leave Nietzsche for the humanities, since as a science we are concerned with statements about the world that can be verified or falsified. This has been the position of conventional sociologists trained in the U.S.; Nietzsche is more or less ignored by professional sociologists in spite of the fact that the work of Max Weber – who considered Nietzsche and Marx to be the most influential and important thinkers for his own work – has enjoyed a certain hegemony among these same American sociologists. This first position is perhaps less of an issue for readers of this journal who are familiar with the critique of positivism. What remains is the question of if and how to situate Nietzsche in relation to critical sociology.

The spark of inspiration for this special issue on Nietzsche came from two very important essays on the French Nietzschean theorist Georges Bataille, written by Ishay Landa (2015a, 2015b) and published in this journal (Vol. 41, 4–5 and Vol. 41, 7–8). Bataille was an important influence on Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze who are perhaps the most influential “Left-Nietzscheans” in the 20th century outside of the Frankfurt School. Along with Henri Lefebvre, Bataille was the key Marxist intellectual in France who sought to defend Nietzsche against the interpretations of György Lukács, who read Nietzsche as a reactionary. There is not the space here to delve into that debate, but we do recommend that our readers consult the essays by Landa to supplement this special issue, because in some ways, Landa’s critique of Bataille is a revival of Lukács’s critique of Nietzsche. The question remains: what to do about Nietzsche on the Left?

If we read Nietzsche as a reactionary, then as critical sociologists we would read him in order to sharpen our own position against the other side, so to speak. On the other hand, if we read Nietzsche as a critic of bourgeois culture, then his work becomes an important complement to the traditional Marxist critique of political economy which has suffered, historically, from a lack of sufficient attention to questions about culture. This was the position of the Frankfurt School, including Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Ernst Bloch, of whom the latter two were perhaps the most ardent defenders of Nietzsche against the criticisms waged by Lukács. The most well-known heir to the Frankfurt School, Jürgen Habermas, has committed a patricide of sorts against Adorno by seeking to steer historical materialism away from Nietzsche by claiming that Nietzsche and his followers among the post-structuralists must be understood as “neo-conservatives” and, therefore, must remain unwelcome in the house of Critical Theory. The essays published here represent a continuation of the conversation amongst critical theorists concerning the proper response to the thought of Nietzsche.

It is time for sociologists in the U.S. to catch up with other sociologists globally, as well as with our colleagues in neighboring disciplines like Political Science who do read Nietzsche as part of their professional training. We organized this special issue to go back to the source of the “Left-Nietzschean” debate in the work of Nietzsche himself. Among the eight articles published here you will find a range of interpretations. The essays by Michael Roberts and Tim Berard and Jim Meeker are perhaps the most affirmative of Nietzsche. Berard and Meeker provide an analysis of hip-hop culture as a means to demonstrate not only how Nietzsche’s work can inform empirical research, but also how Nietzsche is a provocative complement to the work of Pierre Bourdieu. The essays by Roberts seek to provide a critique of conventional sociology by contrasting Nietzsche’s aestheticism to Durkheim’s asceticism while finding common ground between Marx and Nietzsche on the labor question.

In the middle, so to speak, are the essays by Christine Payne, C. Heike Schotten, and Gary Yeritsian. For these authors, although Nietzsche himself was a conservative, his work nonetheless yields important elements for a critical sociology. The move here is to bracket Nietzsche’s own political views, since the main issue is not Nietzsche’s own political sensibilities. Rather, the issue is how the critical sociologists can use Nietzsche’s thought for their own ends. Schotten argues that Nietzsche’s critique of morality is a key ingredient for queer theory and for critical theory more generally. Payne argues that Nietzsche’s understanding of epistemology provides a useful intervention into Marxist critiques of ideology. Yeritsian’s essay looks at the influence of Nietzsche on the Left, including the anarchist tradition and the student movements of the 1960s.

The essays by Jan Rehmann and Ishay Landa are the most critical of Nietzsche. Landa juxtaposes Nietzsche’s “last human” with Marx’s “social individual” to bring into sharp relief Nietzsche’s conservative sensibilities. Rehmann provides a second juxtaposition between the use of “power” in Nietzsche and Spinoza; the tendency among many critical theorists to conflate these concepts deflects attention away from the anti-democratic thrust of Nietzsche’s will-to-power. For Landa and Rehmann, we should read Nietzsche as a most sophisticated opponent of the aims of critical sociology in order to sharpen and improve our own positions on the Left. For them, attempts to bracket Nietzsche’s own politics are untenable, and it remains the case that his theoretical interventions are incompatible with critical sociology.

We end our special issue with a commentary by Stanley Aronowitz who provides historical context on the question of “Left-Nietzscheanism” in social theory more broadly.