Nietzsche's Machiavellian Politics, and: Political Writings of Friedrich Nietzsche (review)

Paul F. Glenn

The Journal of Nietzsche Studies, Issue 41, Spring 2011, pp. 129-131 (Article) Published by Penn State University Press DOI: 10.1353/nie.2011.0008

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/nie/summary/v041/41.glenn.html

Access provided by The University Of Texas at Austin, General Libraries (26 Mar 2014 01:51 GMT)

BOOK REVIEWS

129

the accuracy of Nietzsches interpretation of Kant, the coherence of a perspectival objectivity, and the possibility of an intrinsic relationality. It is, however, precisely for placing us in a position to examine these issues more closely that we may value Doyles work most. Winthrop University oakesm@winthrop.edu

NOTE
1. Throughout Nietzsche on Epistemology and Metaphysics, Doyle makes knowledgeable reference to and use of related contemporary discussion, calling upon the work of such figures as Donald Davidson, David Lewis, and Peter Strawson. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that Doyle here fails to mention Hilary Putnam, with whose work the terms internal realism and metaphysical realism are most closely associated.

Don Dombowsky. Nietzsches Machiavellian Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. 256 pp. ISBN 1-4039-3367-7. Cloth, $90.00. Frank Cameron and Don Dombowsky, eds. Political Writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. 288 pp. ISBN 978-0-230-53773-6. Cloth, $100.00.

PAUL F. GLENN
The debate over Nietzsches political teachingwhether he had one and if so, what it wasshows no sign of abating, despite a great deal of scholarly exchange on the topic over the last few decades. Don Dombowsky has participated in this debate over the last few years with the publication of two books: an argument for a political reading of Nietzsche (Nietzsches Machiavellian Politics) and (with Frank Cameron) an edited volume collecting Nietzsches political writings throughout his career (Political Writings of Friedrich Nietzsche). I will address the books in order. In Nietzsches Machiavellian Politics, Dombowsky approaches Nietzsche with a distinct argument; he wishes to emphasize the political context of Nietzsches own time and how Nietzsche fit into this context: The principal imperative guiding this study, conversely, is to situate Nietzsches political thought in relation to the political issues, critiques, and movements of his own period (1). As Dombowsky points out, Peter Bergmanns Nietzsche, The Last Antipolitical German is one of the few other works to address this matter in detail, so there is ample room for such research. To this end, Dombowsky points to Nietzsches frequent mention (often in asides) of Bismarck, the Kulturkampf, and other issues of the late nineteenth century. But he also seeks to connect Nietzsche with intellectual movements of his time, such as neo-Machiavellian elite theory. On top of this, Dombowsky strongly criticizes postmodern and radical liberal interpretations of Nietzsche and contends that Nietzsche subscribes to Machiavellis political teachings, combining force with fraud. Dombowsky begins by making the case that for Nietzsche, morality is reducible to politics, making him a thoroughly political thinker. Dombowsky extends this idea by claiming that all of Nietzsches key philosophical ideas fit into this political view; indeed, we cannot escape Nietzsches politics, even if we choose to focus solely on his views on, for example, aesthetics or epistemology. Part and parcel of Nietzsches political views is his profoundly antiegalitarian sentiment: his emphasis on agonism and order of rank and his project of the revaluation of values are fundamentally elitist. Dombowsky makes his case strongly here (although I am predisposed to agree with this

JOURNAL OF NIETZSCHE STUDIES, Issue 41, 2011. Copyright 2011 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

130

BOOK REVIEWS

part of his interpretation): he offers extensive textual support for his argument and cogently fits the parts of Nietzsches philosophy together. In the next chapter, Dombowsky takes on what he calls the radical liberal reading of Nietzsche. This view, put forward by scholars such as Mark Warren, William Connolly, and Lawrence Hatab, argues that Nietzsches philosophical teachings are incompatible with his antidemocratic political views. Instead, the argument goes, Nietzsches moral and epistemological teachings lend themselves to a postmodern theory of democracy: if no view is privileged, then all are equal, and none can legitimately suppress others. Dombowsky argues that this view is flat-out wrong, and it is here that he makes perhaps the best argument of the book. Nietzsches elitist views are inextricably linked to his epistemology and ontology. Not all perspectives are equal. Nietzsches agonism implies a lack of equality because will to power involves the strong dominating the weak. Again, I am predisposed to accept this interpretation of Nietzsches thought, but I find that Dombowsky makes a compelling case that the radical liberal view simply misses the point. Instead of a radical liberal view, Dombowsky argues that Nietzsche should be understood as growing out of thinkers like de Tocqueville and Taine (what Dombowsky calls the aristocratic liberal school of thought). These thinkers were very skeptical of democracys leveling tendencies but did not favor replacing liberal regimes with aristocratic ones. Nietzsche shares this school of thoughts profound skepticism of the common person and the fear that democracy is ruining culture. Nietzsche, however, radicalizes this school of thought, pushing him much closer to neo-Machiavellian elite theorists (such as Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca). Dombowskys final chapter argues that, like these thinkers, Nietzsche adopts Machiavellis tactics and outlook, including the use of violence and deception and the importance of virtu, plus the willingness to use current regimes and religions as tools to promote the creation of a new nobility. According to Dombowsky, Nietzsche adopts Machiavellis techniques of control, attempting to use democracy for nondemocratic ends. Compared to the earlier chapters, the argument here is not as strong. Dombowsky makes some interesting connections, but his case is not fully persuasive. One of the significant problems of the book is that Dombowsky does not provide a clear account of Machiavellis teachings; he writes as if it were clear what Machiavelli believed. The huge range of interpretations of Machiavelli shows that there is no consensus on the subject: for some, Machiavelli is a teacher of evil, while for others he is a principled advocate of republican government. Yet Dombowsky does not engage this debate. So when Dombowsky states that Nietzsche was a disciple of Machiavelli (Nietzsches Machiavellian Politics, 5), what exactly does this mean? Unfortunately, there is no clear answer to this question, which is a rather serious problem. Dombowsky frequently invokes Nietzsches standard of lifeall that supports life is good, while all that undermines it is badin his account of Nietzsches politics. However, this is problematic because Nietzsche himself points out that life cannot be a standard: no living thing can truly evaluate life, and even things that seem to negate life actually serve a form of life (albeit a weak one). While in itself this may not be a critical problem, it suggests that Dombowsky is not reading Nietzsche closely or with subtlety. And this to me raises doubts about Dombowskys reading of Nietzsche in general. An example of this comes in Dombowskys assertion of Nietzsches use of the noble lie. He asserts that the core component of Nietzsches noble lie is will to power or order of rank (Nietzsches Machiavellian Politics, 149). If the order of rank is a noble lie, then is Nietzsche really an elitist? Or is he an elitist whose elitism is merely preference, with no objective reality? Should we simply disregard Nietzsches statements that the order of rank is innate? Dombowsky states that (unlike Platos) Nietzsches noble lie has no salutary effect; to what end, then, is the noble lie told? Given Dombowskys repeated emphasis on Nietzsches antidemocratic views, this is a serious issue, and to my mind Dombowsky offers no satisfactory answer to these questions. Political Writings of Friedrich Nietzsche fits with Nietzsches Machiavellian Politics because it, too, seeks to anchor Nietzsche in his time (probably even more than the former book). The book

BOOK REVIEWS

131

consists of virtually all of Nietzsches political passages, from his earliest juvenilia to his final published works. Cameron and Dombowsky intersperse the selections with valuable historical information on German politics of the late nineteenth century. These comments are very useful for understanding some of Nietzsches terminology as well the targets of his praise and criticism. The bulk of Political Writings of Friedrich Nietzsche consists of excerpts from Nietzsches writings, placed in chronological order. The books great strength is that it is comprehensive: it covers Nietzsches entire life. The book includes a number of writings from Nietzsches student days, including his essay on Napoleon IIIs seizure of power. Of perhaps greatest interest to Nietzsche scholars is the inclusion of several lectures Nietzsche gave in his early days at Basel, several of them on overtly political topics. These lectures have, at times, been difficult to find in translation, so Cameron and Dombowsky provide something valuable by presenting these essays. Much of the books is composed of excerpts from Nietzsches published writings that deal with politics: everything from The Birth of Tragedy to The Antichrist is covered. Perhaps the greatest weakness of the book is that it does not provide context for the excerpts. More than many other thinkers, Nietzsches writings are heavily context-dependent; it is easy to misinterpret a passage if you do not know the context. Some of the worst examples of misinterpretation of Nietzsches work have been based on stripping a quote from its context; for example, the infamous passage in On the Genealogy of Morals about the blond beast sounds like Nazi propagandauntil you read further and see that Nietzsche includes Arabs and Japanese among the blond beasts. An edited volume like this one necessarily strips passages out of context, at least to some extent, which could interfere with understanding Nietzsches political thought. It was not at all clear to me what the target audience for Political Writings of Friedrich Nietzsche is. Serious scholars of Nietzsches politics probably wouldnt have a huge interest in this book because they have access to virtually all of the texts already. A few unpublished writings (especially from Nietzsches youth) are of interest, but that is not enough to be a major resource. The volume is also not likely to be useful as an introduction to Nietzsches political writings because of the issue of context mentioned in the previous paragraph. Political Writings of Friedrich Nietzsche is probably best used as a resource for those who have some understanding of Nietzsches politics but who are looking for a bit more depth. I dont know how big of an audience that is. I have offered some harsh words about these books. They do, however, make contributions to the debates about Nietzsches politics, especially by tying Nietzsche concretely to political events of his time. As I pointed out at the start, Bergmann is the only other scholar to pursue this topic at such length. However, these books are problematic. Both are worth reading, but with a critical eye. Independent Scholar pfglenn@gmail.com

Jacob Golomb, Weaver Santaniello, and Ronald Lehrer, eds. Nietzsche and Depth Psychology. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. xv + 364 pp. ISBN 0-7914-4139-3. Paper, $30.95.

WILLOW VERKERK
This collection of seventeen essays analyzes the theme of psychology in Nietzsches works from the standpoint that Nietzsche himself wished to be considered a psychologist and viewed psychology as a means of exploring the most fundamental problems of the human condition. Nietzsches philosophy, in both style and content, is approached as containing a psychological methodology that aims JOURNAL OF NIETZSCHE STUDIES, Issue 41, 2011. Copyright 2011 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.