[摘要] In Search of the Wanderer and Free Spirits: The Ascetic Absence of Nietzsche in American Sociology. Critical Sociology

Roberts, Michael James (2019). In Search of the Wanderer and Free Spirits: The Ascetic Absence of Nietzsche in American Sociology. Critical Sociology, 45(2), 167-181.

American sociology is too conservative (Stauth and Turner, 1988) to accommodate Nietzsche’s radical critique of the culture of modernity?

提問：為什麼政治理論家同時閱讀尼采與馬克思，但是社會學理論家卻鮮少閱讀尼采呢？

（從帕深斯走紅來解釋為何馬克思與尼采不受歡迎）Parsons argued further that American exceptionalism was the fruition of the cultural values unleashed by the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment. His celebration of capitalism and the culture of modernity meant that Marx and Nietzsche, respectively, were not welcome inside the house of American sociology.　(p.168)帕深斯編輯社會學著作，刻意忽略了尼采與馬克思，更成為問題的是其「價值自由」的翻譯，以及刻意對尼采認為科學是宗教的延伸之論點的忽略（這個論點在韋伯的〈學術作為志業〉實際上很明顯）。簡言之，在尼采的論點來看，啟蒙不應該視為進步。(p.169)而帕深斯將韋伯的「末人」翻譯成為「最後階段」，更是徹底的消除了尼采的存在，而這個翻譯過失，在Baehr and Wells的新譯本已經得到更正。

另外，則是《經濟與社會》的翻譯，德文原譯應作為，據Tracy Strong (2012: 103) 之說，應為 “economic and social concerns,”但帕深斯則譯為The Theory of

Economic and Social Organizations，而讓韋伯陷入了英美社會學傳統的經驗主義和政治學中。帕深斯認為西方社會（或者說資本主義的民主）的發展，已終結了意識形態與歷史，因此，儘管有社會問題，但這些問題只是技術層面的問題，而不是政治問題，我們已經到達到最佳的社會政治經濟體系，剩下未處理的，就僅僅是技術末節而已。(p.169)

        理解尼采與學科史，也幫助我們瞭解社會學與臨近學科的影響與借鏡的可能性。(While such an intellectual history is valuable in its own right—sociologists should have an intimate knowledge of their intellectual lineage—contemporary critical theorists adjacent to sociology in the areas of feminist theory, critical race theory, queer theory, science studies and cultural studies continue to push the boundaries of their fields in provocative and valuable ways by finding innovative connections to Nietzsche and the Nietzschean tradition of critical theory that stems from the Frankfurt School and poststructuralism (Babich, 1994; Bauer, 1990; Brown, 1993; Cocks, 1991; Emden, 2014; Gemes and May, 2011; Lemm, 2010; Oliver and Pearsall, 1998; Patton, 1993; Roberts, 1995; Schotten, 2009; Scott and Franklin, 2006; Yack, 1992).(p.170)

        接下來，作者探討尼采與韋伯、涂爾幹的關係，並且反對(a)因為我們已有韋伯，所以不必讀尼采。作者認為，這個說法沒看到尼采與韋伯的差異。(b)其實分析尼采的禁欲主義與涂爾幹的禁欲主義之說法，並指出，若我們希望追求自由，那麼尼采的觀點對於學科來說是非常重要的。(p.170)

Towards a Nietzschean Critique of Bourgeois-Classical Sociological Theory

（韋伯比尼采更接近法西斯主義者，這是蒙森的觀點）Nietzsche, unlike Weber, was not a nationalist, and the claim that Nietzsche’s thought lends itself to fascist aims actually fits Weber better than Nietzsche himself. (p.170)

（傅柯比起韋伯，更是尼采的門徒）

Aesthetic vs Ascetic Mode of Life

        指出涂爾幹的道德科學反而讓人不自由，尼采的系譜學讓人看到禁欲教士如何以知識份子的面貌，矇騙大家，指出此點，並從系譜學出發，重建學科立場，才能解放自由之本能。