[摘要] 尼采：千禧年暮光中的社會理論 by Antonio, Robert J.

資料來源：Antonio, Robert J. "Nietzsche: Social Theory in the Twilight of the Millennium." The Handbook of Social Theory (2001).頁163-178

The figure of Michel Foucault has also been widely seen in the tradition of Nietzsche and Weber, as has been argued by Owen (1994).

Owen, David (1994) Maturity and Modernity. Nietzsche, Weber and Foucault and the Ambivalence of Reason. London: Routledge.

P.163

第一節　Theorizing with a hammer

（本論文主題：從非政治的角度，理解尼采）I will address the connections between `Nietzschean theories', modernization theory, Marxism and postmodernism, focusing especially on the convergence of radical `left' and `right' Nietzscheanisms in a `totalizing critique of modernity' and contrasting this theme to a divergent, largely ignored `antipolitical Nietzscheanism'.　(p.163-164)

第二節 Nietzschean theory and epochal exhaustion: an end to history?

        以韋伯的責任倫理破題，破除對於政治人物崇拜的信念。接著，指出史賓格勒在《西方的沒落》引用了尼采的看法，但卻主張國家力量面對困境，而忽略了尼采對國家中心說的批判。後續引用了一系列所謂尼采主義者批判西方沒落與同質化趨勢，這些尼采主義者在作者看來，包括海德格、霍克海默與阿多諾、馬庫色、傅柯等人。

第三節 Dialectics of modernity: Nietzsche versus Marx

（韋伯認為尼采與馬克思形塑了現代思想的框架）The intellectual world in which we live is a world which to a large extent bears the imprint of Marx and Nietzsche.' Max Weber purportedly made this statement after a public debate with Spengler over Decline of the West.³ Holding that theorists `deceive' themselves and others when they fail to recognize their debt to the two masters, Weber implied that Marx and Nietzsche framed the core questions and problems that set limits for modern `social theory'.⁴ Although disagreeing about the worth and impacts of Marx's and Nietzsche's ideas, diverse thinkers have argued that the two made a basic and, perhaps, `the' most fundamental contribution to framing the project of modern social theory.接著是一系列人，肯定這兩位對於現代思想的貢獻，作者條列了一堆人名，也許用得上？

For example, Heidegger held that Nietzsche heralded the `consummation' of `the modern age', while Marx represented its decline into technological civilization (1991b: 9); Karl LoÈwith stated that they `made the decline of the bourgeois-Christian world the theme of . . . a fundamental analysis' ([1939] 1991: 175±6); Paul Ricoeur held that the two were framers of the hermeneutics of `suspicion' (1970: 32±6); Leo Strauss saw them as the core theorists of the `third wave of modernity' ([1975] 1989: 94±8); Michel Foucault said that `It was Nietzsche who speci®ed the power relation as the general focus . . . whereas for Marx it was the production relation' (1980: 53); and Wolfgang Baier called them `polestars' of social theory (1981±2) .

（面對時代困境以及思想上的危機狀態，人們轉向尼采）A century ago, Georg Simmel ([1900] 1978: 484) spoke of a `secret restlessness' or `helpless urgency' that pushes thinkers `from socialism to Nietzsche'. Around mid-century, the Frankfurt School's `dialectic of Enlightenment' phase suggested a similar shift, following the dashed revolutionary hopes after Stalinism, Nazism, the Holocaust and triumphant capitalism .

第四節 In the ruins of postwar modernization: Nietzsche rising

        在1960年代反對帕深斯以降的「規範共識」以及「美國化」論點，興起來後來被稱為「衝突論」的思潮，其代表人物包括C. Wright Mills, Lewis Coser, Alvin Gouldner。而在這個過程中，馬克思被視為當時主流社會學之外的另類經典角色。(p.167)但到了1960年代晚期與1970年代初，活躍於反戰運動與新左派政治的年輕人，形成了新的理論思潮，強調西方馬克思主義與文化問題（此時的重要人物包括盧卡奇、葛蘭西、阿多諾與阿圖塞），他們主張工人階級是保守的，並且已被整合進入資本主義體系，歐洲共產主義既官僚又妥協，而俄國共產黨是壓迫的。1970年代初，這些馬克思主義的觀念，逐漸整合進西方社會學理論，馬克思、涂爾幹與韋伯成為「神聖的三位一體」，作為學科理論正典存在，馬克思成為基進批判的能指以及三者當中的「指標」角色。(p.167)1970年代晚期，新保守主義抬頭，新左派勢頹，新的尼采取徑以及新「文化理論家」逐漸在新左派理論圈獲得重視。在1980年代，馬克思在社會學經典地位上得到穩固，但亦隨其正典化，其不再作為社會文化理論的指標人物；而尼采則在1980年代中期，成為社會文化理論的象徵。1990年代新社會運動（包括種族、族群、女性主義、同志與其他形式的認同政治）取代了新左派，其關注焦點也從物質需求、結構與階級，轉變為文化認同、能動性與論述（譬如Beck 1992; Beck et al., 1994; Giddens, 1994; Mellucci, 1989, 1996a, 1996b; Sassoon, 1996: 647±90）。他們的文化立場，經常要求打破馬克思主義，而要求走向「差異政治」，與尼采對於文化同質化與文化多元主義的立場親近。他們批判馬克思僅僅關注國家主義，忽略了少數族群與女性，失敗的現代化、父權支配。社會學批判者也指出戰後左派忽視文化支配、父權、異性戀霸權與歐洲中心主義傾向，他們認為這些忽視，根基於社會學正典。因而，在1990年代的社會學年會會議上，聖三位一體成了「該死的白人男性」(Dead White Males)，而被印刻在T恤上加以嘲諷。(p.168)

        接著作者談法國的發展，從拉菲弗爾、傅柯、李歐塔，透過尼采批判了馬克思。作者引用了新保守主義哲學家Allan Bloom在的說法1987年代的說法，指出「馬克思令人生厭」並且「馬克思不得年輕的美國知識份子的心」(1987: 217, 222)Bloom更宣稱，今日美國的新左派，實際上是尼采－海德格的左派(1987: 222, 314)。後現代主義者視尼采為前驅，並且採取了尼采的文化損耗與差異(cultural exhaustion and difference)的觀點，因而尼采的大名，常常跟下列與後現代的下列宣稱連結在一起：歷史已死、社會已死、政治已死

、左派與右派已死、另類已死，等等，以及在技術官僚的支配下，這些尼采跟隨者疾呼這些死亡，是在政治另類可能性尚未覓得的情況下喊出的。

第五節 When history fails: the `body against the machine'

        本節用Pandolph Bourne與Henri Lafebvre談馬克思主義的歷史論點為何失敗。

第六節 In the land of `zero options': twilight-time Nietzscheanism

        本節談對後結構主義、後現代思想的批判，馬克思主義對於結構、勞動條件的重視，似乎又有復興的傾向，最後引了布希亞對當代擬像化的批判。但這些過於單向化的批判，忽略了其他可能的開放解釋（如同韋伯容許歷史的多種可能性那般）。接著再談新右派與新保守主義的復興，指出這些學者如何選擇性的挪用尼采，並且跳過尼采批判權威的面向。

第七節 Antipolitical Nietzsche: against `psychic proletarianization'

尼采自視為反政治的最後一個德國人，換言之，在奴隸反叛與禁欲教士的視角下，他的反政治意味著不選邊站，不站在社會主義，不站在反猶主義，不站在任何主義之列，即不活在幻象之中（Especially in his later work, Nietzsche spoke passionately about living `without illusions', `saying Yes to reality', and the `self-overcoming of morality' ([1886] 1966: 50; [1888] 1969: 218, 272, 328, 331).）。尼采批判政治道德，他的立場是：Nietzsche argued that political morality commands obedience by shame, censure and guilt, causing already resentful followers to act in obsequious ways, become more resentful and direct their self-degradation and anger outward toward conventional targets. In his view, such morality is a prime source of cheap and cowardly forms of aggression, passed off as good reputation or trustworthiness among friends. Like other complex aspects of culture, political morality, has multiple directions and felicitous as well as harmful sides. However, Nietzsche offered valuable insight into its usually ignored, yet very important relation to power .所謂的道德，反而為屠殺與戰爭提供了正當化的藉口（如Stalinism, the Holocaust, the slaughter in Kampuchea, Jonestown, Serbian ethnic cleansing, US racism and Christian anti-semitism）。尼采的反政治，提醒了我們一頭熱的盲目，能夠成為我們自我批判與精進的盟友，幫助我們認清事態。

NOTES

註４作者對社會理論與社會學理論的區分（後者有較強的學科規範傾向）4 This essay is about `social theory'. By contrast to `sociological theory's' primarily empirical, hermeneutic, or analytical intent and usual `middle-range' disciplinary focus, `social theory' has a strong, yet not exclusive, `normative thrust', addressing issues of societal or trans-societal scope and posing questions about the `value' of different directions or programs of sociocultural development, knowledge, and policy .