[摘要] Antonio, Robert J. (1995). Nietzsche's antisociology: Subjectified culture and the end of history. American journal of sociology, 101(1), 1-43.

資料來源：Antonio, Robert J. (1995). Nietzsche's antisociology: Subjectified culture and the end of history. American journal of sociology, 101(1), 1-43.

提要：本論文從思想史的角度，探討社會學為什麼沒有納入尼采的討論，雖然作者沒有花很多篇幅解釋，但是一方面和美國與德國之間的對立，尼采的反民主立場，還是尼采被納粹化的歷史，多少脫不了關係。比較重要的是，作者在本書提供了許多進一步研究尼采與當代思想的書目，還有討論尼采怎麼被文化左派或者保守的右派自說自話地運用。與當代社會學的部份，作者僅僅認為所謂的社會學理論，實際上是較為自限於以經驗為導向的理論應用，但是對於學科預設、世界圖像，方法論的預設與價值判斷，還有學者的責任等等的討論，實際上尼采都可以給我們很好的提醒，因此，在當代福利國家弱化，而新自由主義的大行其道，尼采可以幫助我們看到民主的弱點，並且重思基進民主的可能性。

(他人對尼采的讚譽)In a passage suggestive of today's post- modern tendencies, Georg Simmel ([1900] 1978, p. 484) spoke of a "secret restlessness" or "helpless urgency" that pushes thinkers "from socialism to Nietzsche. " In the wake of World War I and pervasive disenchantment with modern institutions and creeds, Thomas Mann stated aptly ([1918] 1983, p. 366) "I beg pardon for seeing Nietzsche everywhere, and only him. " Hans-Georg Gadamer (1977, p. 116) saw Nietzsche as "the great, fateful figure who fundamentally altered the task of the critique of the subjective spirit of our century"; Karl Mannheim ([1936] 1955, pp. 309-11) argued that Nietzsche, along with Marx, began the "sociology of knowledge"; and Paul Ricoeur (1970, pp. 32-36) held that he initiated, with Marx and Freud, the hermeneutics of "suspicion."…

        Hans-Georg Gadamer (1977, p. 116) saw Nietzsche as "the great, fateful figure who fundamentally altered the task of the critique of the subjective spirit of our century"; Karl Mannheim ([1936] 1955, pp. 309-11) argued that Nietzsche, along with Marx, began the "sociology of knowledge"; and Paul Ricoeur (1970, pp. 32-36) held that he initiated, with Marx and Freud, the hermeneutics of "suspicion." Treating conscious thought and morality as "surface" phenomena, Nietzsche made the representation of reality deeply problematic and shook modern theory's rational founda- tions.4 His views about the entwinement of knowledge and power and the split between subjective experience and objective culture implied a radical crisis of representation and a need to "overcome" modern thought (e.g., Simmel [1907] 1991; Scaff 1989). Martin Heidegger ([1961] 199 1b, pp. 6-8) held that Nietzsche pointed to a "consummation" of the "modern age" and a possible end of "Western history." Max Weber is purported to have said: "The honesty of a contemporary scholar ... can be measured by the position he takes vis-a-vis Nietzsche and Marx. Whoever fails to acknowl- edge that he could not carry out the most important part of his own work without the work done by both, Marx and Nietzsche, deceives himself and others. The intellectual world in which we live is a world which to a large extent bears the imprint of Marx and Nietzsche. "⁵ (p.2-p.3)

相對於馬克思，尼采在美國幾乎很少被討論。(3)接著，作用在腳註七用了近一頁多的篇幅，佐證他的說法，但他也提到有少數的例外，像是Collins and Makowsky's ([1972] 1993, pp. 66-80) mostly bio- graphical account and brief selections in Farganis's (1993, pp. 97-104) collection；但其他更多的討論則是在歐洲，Lawrence E. Hazelrigg (1989), Michael Maffesoli (1991, 1993), Mike Gane (1992), Georg Stauth, and Bryan Turner (e.g., Stauth and Turner 1988, 1992; Turner 1982) address Nietzsche. Other sociologists, such as Anthony Giddens, David Frisby, and Wilhelm Hennis, also consider him as a context for their work. But such individuals usually work in the style of social theory. Even in Europe, Nietzsche tends to be ignored in sociological discussions, including discourses about thinkers he influenced (see Baier 1981-82). An important exception, published while this essay was under review, is the Canadian sociologist Irving M. Zeitlin's Nietzsche: A Re-Examination (1994). (p.3-p.4)

Exploring Nietzsche's Antisociological Challenge 探究尼采的反社會學挑戰

        Echoing Weber, Baier held that Marx and Nietzsche raise the most fundamental questions for social theory. (Baier 1981-82, pp. 25, 27, 32-33)

(尼采對社會學的批判：社會學作為權力的妝點) By contrast, Nietzsche equated rationalization with cultural homogenization and liq- uidation of particularity. He saw "decadence" where classical theorists saw progress. In his view, sociology drapes sweeping cultural domina- tion, regimentation, and exhaustion with the appearance of legitimacy.(p.6)

        社會危機在社會學者看來是因為失去正當性或者說失去社會信任，故應重建權威，但尼采批判這類說法，認為僅是奪權，細節討論見註9：This is an extremely simplified summary of a very complex discursive field. For more detailed discussion, see Antonio and Kellner (1992), Kloppenberg (1986).。

NIETZSCHE'S ANTISOCIOLOGY　尼采的反社會學

(尼采對當代社會文化發展的批判，認定其根源於怨恨，培養人類成為畜群)Explosive sociocultural differentiation, celebrated by modern theorists, multiplies, disperses, and specializes the sites for ressentiment, asceticism, and discipline. Rather than genuine diversity, it produces nearly identical "useful, industrious, handy, multipurpose herd animal[s]." Nietzsche's charge that "the whole of sociology" draws its norms from "decaying forms of society" means that it reflects and serves Socratic rationalization. His vision of global liquidation of individuality and cultural particularity contradicts modern theory's grand narrative of rationality, freedom, and progress. Attributing the conditions to enduring aspects of Western civilization, he envisioned a much deeper crisis than modern theorists ever imagined (Nietzsche 1966, pp. 176-77; 1968a, p. 91; 1968b, pp. 478).(P.8-P.9)

The End of the Social/Cultural Exhaustion

        討論自由之本能（可惜人類已喪失）。尼采對社會主義、馬克思、社會達爾文主義、實證主義等等的批判，皆視之為蘇格拉底之後理性化發展出來的人類衰敗形式。

Cultural Rationalization contra Communication

Subjectified Culture: Social Selves as Simulators

Sovereign Selves: Dissimulators/Perspectival Beings

After Modernity: The Permanent Cultural War

上述討論皆為尼采立場剖陳，與社會學關係較小，略。

NIETZSCHEANISMS: NIETZSCHE'S ANTISOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL THEORY

（尼采的三種解讀與自說自話，把尼采納為己用，誰管它原本是什麼）Numerous and varied indirect appropriations preclude an inclusive mapping of Nietzsche's impact on social theory. However, three important currents can be identified. First, certain modern theorists employ his ideas to moderate exaggerated claims about rationality, science, social consensus, and progress within their own tradition. Although they express ambivalence about modern society, they reject Nietzsche's arguments about cultural exhaustion and attempt to strengthen modern theory by making it more reflexive. Another group of appropriators, on the left, sense a depletion of resources for progressive reform or revolution. They aim to go beyond modern theory and create new approaches that resuscitate emancipatory hopes or individual or sociocultural particularity. Because they do not entirely sever their ties to emancipatory theory, these positions remain at the border of modern theory, even when they are intended as postmodern departures from it. A third type of appropriation calls for a revolution from the radical right. These positions break sharply with modern theory, subordinating individuality to remythologized ideas of culture, nation, and state. (p.21)

Nietzsche and Modern Social Theory

        關於韋伯與尼采的相關分析，作者條列書目如下：

14 On Weber and Nietzsche, see e.g., Fleischmann (1964), Turner (1982), Kent (1983), Eden (1983, 1987), Schroeder (1987), Hennis (1987; 1988, pp. 146-62), Bloom (1988, pp. 194-240), Goldman (1988, 1992), Liebersohn (1988), Mommsen (1974, 1989), Scaff (1989), Strong (1992), Warren (1992).

韋伯的分析有許多是站在尼采的肩上發展出來的。Weber came to these positions by his own path, but his arrival was facilitated by Nietzschean ideas and the broader agenda they set for social theory (e.g., Baier 1981-82; Hennis 1988, pp. 158-61). (p.22)

        但韋伯與尼采亦有所不同。韋伯相對肯定現代發展促進了個體性（而不僅僅是負面看待現代發展）But Weber also held that rationalization sharpens the differences between the various spheres of life and value and that it produces unparalleled space for autonomous individuality. It is significant that he found highly aestheticized culture repellent and feared its sociopolitical consequence. Compare Nietzsche's positions about the primacy of art to "unmusical" Weber's (1958a, pp. 155-56) appeal to stronger individuals to set to work, understanding that disenchantment has permanently driven the sublime out of all but their most intimate circles. Additionally, Weber's "realism" about political elites and power contradicts Nietzsche's hopes about post-Socratic cultural selection and substantively legitimate authorit (p.23)

        （韋伯不是尼采主義者，但是他善用尼采批判與分析）He（韋伯） ultimately

affirmed sociology, the normative potentialities of modernity (e.g., "responsibility"), and liberal institutions, but he was still highly ambivalent about the prospects of democracy. ¹⁸ In modern theory, Nietzschean ideas are often entwined with somber or tragic visions about modernity and with pessimistic views about the possibility for stronger democracy.¹⁹ (p.23-24)

涂爾幹認為社會發展反而促進個體發展(而不似尼采所講的壓制) Like Nietzsche, Durkheim spoke of a "spiritualization" of culture. But he celebrated precisely what Nietzsche attacked, arguing that learning "to think and act with con-cepts" liberates people from the "yoke of the organism" (i.e., "passion" and "senses"), putting them under the regulation of higher "social causes."20 In Durkheim's view, cultural rationalization enhances potenti-alities for individual autonomy, social diversity, and "less imperative" social control (Durkheim 1964, pp. 287-91, 299, 302, 321, 333, 345-46, 349; 1965, pp. 307-8, 481-82; 1973b, pp. 95-126). (p.24)

        (涂爾幹肯定禁欲理想對於人類欲望的調節) Durkheim favored increasing moral regulation of the "body" to stem uncontrolled desire and to halt the dissipation of morality and democracy. Like Nietzsche, he saw priestly asceticism as "an integral part of all human culture," but he viewed it very affirmatively, imploring that "moral" life (i.e., "real living") be given primacy over "art" ("a game"). "We must see people as they are," he argued, in "their ugliness and wretchedness-if we want to help them. Art faces the other way" (Durkheim 1965, pp. 307-8; 1973, pp. 271-73). (p.25)但考慮到涂爾幹在當代的權勢立場，這些高舉抽象大旗之說，在當時的柏格森主義者與尼采主義者來看，也僅僅是反映了涂爾幹本身的價值與社會利益而已。(p.25)

Nietzscheanism on the Cultural Left and Postmodern Divide 尼采主義論文化左派與後現代分野

文化左派在現代理論的各種批評中運用了尼采的思想。（一堆人名，故略）對巴塔耶、布洛赫、法蘭克福學派的影響。到1968後的後結構主義等等，底下列出英文與google translate後的中文，幫助大略掌握其影響。

On the cultural left, Nietzschean ideas are found in heterodox fusions.

For example, Bourne ([1914] 1981, p. 238) described his "paradoxical

desire for Tolstoyan ends through Nietzschean means; socialism, dynamic social religion through the ruthless application of scientific materialism." In the 1930s, French ultra-leftist, Georges Bataille, fused Nietzsche with Marx, de Sade, Freud, and Durkheim. Celebrating the "heterogeneous," this antibourgeois aesthete explored extreme experiences and forbidden behaviors, including violence. Nietzsche and Marx both appear in Ernst Bloch's redemptive revolutionism and quasireligious philosophy of hope (Bataille 1985, 1992; Habermas 1987a, pp. 212-21; Aschheim 1992, pp. 182-84, 229-30, 286-95). Nietzschean ideas helped Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno ([1944] 1972, p. 44) shift the focus of their critique from capitalism to Western rationality. They held that new capacities for imposing terror, deflecting criticism, and regimenting workers (i.e., Stalinism, fascism, corporate capitalism) are rooted deeply in Western civilization and require a fundamental cultural critique. Herbert Marcuse spoke of global convergence toward "onedimensional,"  "advanced industrial society," which manipulates needs so effectively that "negativity" and "opposition" are eliminated' Applauding Nietzsche's attack on the repression of pleasure and ecstatic experience, he held that "artistic alienation" offers a "remembrance of freedom in the totality of oppression." If rationalization has become a singular logic of domination, the Enlightenment project of emancipation and progress and modern theory must be radically rethought. For this reason, the cultural left gravitated to Nietzsche (Marcuse [1945] 1993, pp. 180, 195; 1964; 1966, pp. 119-24, 232).

Rising to popularity in the wake of May 1968 radicalism and weakened Marxism, French poststructuralists engaged a diverse lineage, including Descartes, Kant, Comte, Durkheim, Marx, Husserl, Bataille, Bachelard, Saussure, Heidegger, Levinas, Sartre, Levi-Strauss, and Althusser. But Nietzsche has special prominence in this tradition.

…1930年代，法國的超左派主義者喬治·巴塔耶（Georges Bataille）融合了尼采與馬克思，德薩德，弗洛伊德和塗爾幹。慶祝這種資產階級的美學“異質”探索了極端的經歷和包括暴力在內的違禁行為。尼采和馬克思都出現在恩斯特·布洛赫（Ernst Bloch）的救贖革命主義和準宗教的希望哲學中（Bataille 1985，1992; Habermas 1987a，pp。212-21; Aschheim 1992，pp。182-84，229-30，286-95）。尼采的思想幫助馬克斯·霍克海默（Max Horkheimer）和西奧多·阿多諾（Theodor Adorno）（[1944] 1972，第44頁）將批評的焦點從資本主義轉向了西方理性。他們認為，施加恐怖，偏轉批評和團伙工人（即斯大林主義，法西斯主義，公司資本主義）的新能力深深植根於西方文明，需要進行基本的文化批判。赫伯特·馬爾庫塞（Herbert Marcuse）談到全球向“一維”，“先進的工業社會”的融合，這種融合有效地操縱了需求，從而消除了“消極”和“對立”。異化”提供了“整體上壓迫自由的記憶”。如果說合理化已成為統治的單一邏輯，那麼就必須從根本上重新思考解放與進步的啟蒙計劃和現代理論。因此，左派文化被吸引到尼采（Marcuse [1945] 1993年，

pp.180，195; 1964年； 1966年，第119-24頁，第232頁）。

1968年5月激進主義激增並削弱了馬克思主義之後，法國後結構主義者開始流行，包括笛卡爾，康德，孔德，杜克海姆，馬克思，胡塞爾，巴塔耶，巴切拉德，索緒爾，海德格爾，列維納斯，薩特，列維-斯特勞斯，和阿爾都塞。但是尼采在這一傳統中有著特殊的地位。

後又論傅柯、德希達、布希亞。

影響不僅僅來自尼采，所以像法蘭克福學派還是融合了馬克思主義；而後結構主義者與後現代主義者持異托邦平等主義理想，這也與尼采立場不同，他們無視尼采對於權威與階層復辟之說（Nietzsche's ideas about restoring authority, hierarchy, and cultural domir?ation under a new rank order of values and leadership）他們擁抱酒神，但不考慮主權個體之概念。（They embrace his Dionysian side apart from his affirmations of severity of spirit, self-discipline, and science. Leaving sovereign individuality behind, these positions some-times dissolve persons into an aleatory play of signifiers and desires），如布希亞即為一例。

Radical Right Nietzscheanism

極右派的尼采，談尼采怎麼被運用來建構國族主義，正當化戰爭等行為。The radical right embraces Nietzsche's scathing attacks on decadent liberalism, socialism, and democracy, his idea of post-Christian, European culture, and his aestheticism, elitismn, vitalism, and masculinist metaphors.但作者表示However, radical right statism, regimentation, and anti-Semitism are all profoundly contradictory to Nietzsche's views.(p.32)

AFTER NIETZSCHE: A RETURN TO HISTORY?

(沒有尼采的社會學，損失了什麼？在政治人與經濟人之外，對審美人的考慮)Nietzsche's absence from sociology diminishes disciplinary resources for fully engaging some of the most important classical and contemporary social theories. Moreover, his antisociology opposes tendencies to overvalue rationalization, overestimate levels of consensus and integration, and mistake domination and coercion for social integration or solidarity. It also poses sharp critiques of the social self and mass regimentation. And, his emphasis on the musical, bodily, and nonrational side of interpersonal ties points to gaps in normative and instrumental theories of social bonds. As Maffesoli (1991, p. 19) argues, homo aestheticus ought to be entertained along with homo politicus and homo economicus. Nietzsche's affirmation of conflictive points of view and multiperspectival theoretical fields points to the limits of "general theories" that arrogate all reality and integrated theories that abstractly harmonize irreconcilable differences. Finally, his relentless critique of ethical formalism and concern for authenticity addresses the all-too-human side of intellectual life, calling on us to reflect on the meaning of our practices and exercise responsibility.　(p.32)

        尼采幫助我們追問根本問題，超越經驗取向的「社會學理論」It raises founda-tional questions, which are bound up with normative issues and go beyond the empirical scope of strictly "sociological theory." In this regard, Nietzschean thought poses the question of the value of social knowledge in the context of the broader issue of its historical and cultural rootedness. Modern theorists, like Weber and Simmel, who engaged Nietzsche, ulti-mately rejected the cultural exhaustion thesis, but seriously entertained his charge that sociology employs norms of a decadent epoch as its own standards. In Baier's words, these thinkers became "children of the pathos of distance" (Baier 1981-82, pp. 32-33). The best of the early generation of "Nietzschean" modern theorists shared a critical reflexivity about the foundations of their practices and the unknown horizons of knowledge that were missing in positivism. Modern theory has been enriched by the creative tensions and insights generated by past carriers of Nietzschean "otherness." Reengaging his perspective would also benefit sociological theory today. (p.33)

        將尼采納入社會學思考，幫助我們瞭解學科根基，以及民主的脆弱與限制，才能幫助我們進一步思考基進民主的可能性。An engagement of this vision with the emergent discourse on radical democracy could produce a new Nietzscheanism. Because sociology was not fully institutionalized until the middle of the post-World War II era, its theories, methods, and, even, readings of the classics are partly-perhaps largely-shaped by the culture of this possibly bygone era. Thus, it is an appropriate time for sociology to entertain a wider range of social theories, including the new visions of radical democracy. Inclusion of Nietzsche among the founders would enhance the discipline's historical sense as it rethinks its foundations and practices at the end of the postwar era. This aspect of his challenge is worth exploring. As he held, the "earthquake reveals new springs" (Nietzsche 1969c, p. 228).　(p.34)