[摘要] Christopher
Thorpe(2019) Book review: Nietzsche and
Sociology: Prophet of Affirmation. European
Journal of Social Theory. Pp.1-6
書評Anas Karzai, Nietzsche and Sociology: Prophet of Affirmation. London:
Lexington
Books,
2019.
評論者對《尼采與社會學》的批評：
（表達不清；以及學術上不及格）The first concerns a
lack of clarity with regard to what it is exactly that the author is trying
to achieve; and the second comprises what I can only describe as the author’s willed-ignorance of, and
failure to engage with, the significant body of sociological and social theoretical scholarship to have grown up
around Nietzsche’s work in the last 60 years or so. (p.1)
評論者指出作為一本書，其章節格式不合格，編排上非常規。而作者的宣稱也不怎麼可靠，沒有給出足夠的支持。（casts very little light on the
specific aims of the author, at the same time as making various claims, which frankly
speaking, are highly implausible.）。
評論者提到，作者宣稱經典社會學家沒有注意到尼采，但是評論者說，尼采在那時候是什麼咖？涂爾幹忙著建立社會學的時候，眼裡那可能有尼采這個角色？（Given that at around the
time of Nietzsche’s writing, Durkheim was busy trying to get sociology up and
running, it is hard to imagine why either then, or indeed ever since, those concerned
with conserving the status and integrity of the discipline would have actively sought
to welcome Nietzsche into the fold.）其次，當代人也沒有輕視尼采的智慧，就評論人來說，他就提到了Latour(2004)與Rita
Felski,( The Limits of Critique 2015)的作品。第三，尼采的查拉圖斯特拉並不作經驗研究，而如何彌平經驗脈絡與尼采的哲學，作者也沒有給出說明。
前三章系譜學的足跡，是為了展示尼采及那些大人物的名字。韋伯、傅柯與阿多諾各自成章，但作者沒講明其關係；又為何選擇這三人，作者沒說明；而為什麼跳過齊美爾，也令人費解。再者，這三章並未依時序安排，也不知道作者是何用意。
評論者說，作者宣稱大家忽略了尼采與傅柯的關係，但這太可笑了。作者隨便舉例，說大學教科書都有寫。以下原文照引：I refer you to, well, any good
undergraduate social theory textbook, Edward
Said’s Orientalism (1978), the work of the great Weberian Runciman (2000) and Rahkonen (2011), not to mention
Foucault himself in an essay written in 1977 entitled, Nietzsche, Genealogy,
History.(p.3)
至於韋伯與阿多諾的章節呢，作者也一樣宣稱社會學忽略了尼采的影響。評論者一樣反駁作者，他說「Here, I am thinking of the work of
Lo¨with (1960/1993), Turner (1992) and
Stauth (1992), all of whom, and not that recently, have sought to address
the importance of Nietzsche for understanding the formation and direction of
Weber’s thought.」(p.4)更令人費解的是，作者有列這些書在參考書目，但為何仍作出如此宣稱，實在匪疑所思。
評論人認為，關於馬克思與尼采的那章寫的最好，他會把這部分內容列為課堂參考資料。（I will use this chapter as a
secondary reading for the course in classical social theory that I teach.）但也提到，作者沒有繼續討論呂格爾的「懷疑詮釋學」，也沒有提到弗洛依德，是不足之處。直言之，作者談的都是尼采著作的內部閱讀，而沒有嘗試將尼采置於外部脈絡當中閱讀。
接下來談涂爾幹，但除了呼應尼采所述，我們活在非真理中（社會作為一種神話），也沒有多談什麼。（就像齊美爾談的秘密，或者弗洛依德類似的說法）。
接著談尼采論文化、政治、知識之類的，但是作者也沒有說明自己的目的。
最終結論，評論者認為，作者沒有說清楚尼采與社會學之間有什麼關係。作者宣稱這是本導論書，但是評論者說，這是一本他從沒看過的（或者說不像樣的）導論書，原文「the author does not
explicitly address the reader, seek to guide them through the various chapters,
make connections to wider intellectual currents and schools of thought and conclude
by way of offering up ideas and suggestions as to future avenues for research.」但作者說，像是這樣的書，正是我們迫切感到需要的，因為確實這個重要的思想家對整個學科的影響仍未清晰，其次，如何將這些討論運用到政策研究上也是不明朗的；最後，它在書寫的層面上，也幾乎不可能用作經驗研究。尼采是重要的，作者選這主題撰寫，也無可厚非。
延伸書目：
References
Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of
steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern.Critical Inquiry, 30,
225–248.
Lo¨with, K. (1993). Max Weber and Karl Marx.
London, England: Routledge (Original work published 1960).
Rahkonen, K. (2011). Bourdieu and Nietzsche:
Taste as a struggle. In S. Susen & B. Turner (Eds.), The legacy of Pierre
Bourdieu: Critical essays (pp.125–144). London, UK: Anthem Press.
Runciman, W. G. (2000). Can there be a
Nietzschean sociology? European Journal of Sociology/Archives Europ´ eennes De
Sociologie/Europa¨ isches Archiv Fu¨ r Soziologie, 41, 3–21.
Stauth, G. (1992). Nietzsche, Weber and the
affirmative sociology of culture. European Journal of Sociology, 33, 219–247.
Turner, B. S. (1992). Max Weber: From history to
modernity. London, UK: Routledge.
沒有留言:
發佈留言