[摘要] Can there be a Nietzschean sociology?.

Runciman, Walter G. (2000). Can there be a Nietzschean sociology?. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 41(1), 3-21.

評述：這篇文章的重點，大概是說尼采可以視為社會學的社會學，幫助反省社會學的學科預設，甚至破除所謂知識份子以「清明」自恃的幻覺，這篇文章幹譙了韋伯〈學術作為一種志業〉的說法，基本上韋伯比較像戰士，只是偽裝成知識分子。其次，則是比較「格言」與「百科全書」式（或所謂教科書知識）帶來的洞察，格言大概類似四兩的炸藥（如尼采自述，我不是人，我是炸藥），去炸毀百科全書式的封閉樓層那樣的概念，而這個炸藥也可以幫助我們去炸尼采自身，尼采也有其盲點，重點是透過格言，帶入我們自身的立場與解釋，從我們自身的權能意志而戰那些過往的權能意志，使自己的自由精神得以炸裂昂揚。對於作者而言，若說真要有尼采的社會學的話，其必然建立在四個前提之上：(1)權力意志作為歷史動力(2)權力意志隨歷史社會脈絡而異(3)這些命題可能被人類用來解釋自身與他人之歷史(4)既然這些命題都是權力意志之產物，唯有座落於特定歷史與社會脈絡下，這些權力意志才能表達出來(p.9)作者的寫作並不流俗，有時會需要一點時間消化與閱讀，而不能草草讀過，但也因此常常有著洞見的火光。

本文目的： My aim is simply to answer the question: what sort of a sociology do we get if we (sociologists, that is) take Nietzsche's arguments about human history and psychology as seriously as we can? (p.3)

I.

兩種說法：（不可能有社會學／我們已經有了韋伯社會學）The first is to say that if you follow Nietzsche's arguments to their conclusion you cannot have a sociology of any kind at all. The second is to say that we already have a Nietzschean sociology to hand in the writings of Max Weber. (p.6)

知識是權能意志，但不意味著沒有知識。尼采的社會學的社會學，也可以是社會學。(p.7)

對作者而言，韋伯希望發現真正的社會學支配學說；而尼采則是從純心理學層面來探討權力意志的發展。(p.8)

（從兩篇演講與新教倫理來看，作者評價韋伯說不上是尼采主義者，因為）The  principal reason for which Weber's own sociology is, nevertheless,  uw-Nietzschean is that he remained too much both of a materialist and of a structural-functionalist in the broad sense in which most historical  and comparative sociologists have been and still are. (p.8)

一些論韋伯與尼采的文獻：
(6) Eugène Fleischmann, De Weber à  Nietzsche, Archives européennes de sociologie V  (1964), 190-238.  
(7) Wilhelm Hennis, Max Weber. Essays in Reconstruction (tr. Tribe, London: Allen and  Unwin, 1988), Chapter 4: 'The Traces of  Nietzsche in the Work of Max Weber' (first  published in 1986 in the Jahrbuch der Akade  mie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen).  
(8) Robert Eden, Political Leadership and  Nihilism: a Study of Weber and Nietzsche  (Tampa: University of Southern Florida  Press, 1983), p.42.

II.

若有尼采的社會學，其將建立在四個前提之上：

(1)First, the 'will to power' is the driving force of history: it explains the observed outcome of human sociocultural evolution as nothing else does. 權力意志作為歷史動力

(2)Second, the will to power expresses itself differently in different historical and social contexts. (權力意志隨歷史社會脈絡而異)

(3)Third, these propositions apply to the explanation of human beings' own attempts to explain their history and impose their chosen explanations on one another. (這些命題可能被人類用來解釋自身與他人之歷史)

(4) Fourth, since these three propositions are themselves a product of the will to power, they can be assessed only by reference to the particular historical and social contexts in which the will to power has found expression. (既然這些命題都是權力意志之產物，唯有座落於特定歷史與社會脈絡下，這些權力意志才能表達出來) (p.9)

這些說法不否定真理，但否定真理的普遍性，而主張真理具備著關係性特質，是否為真，要仰賴社會歷史脈絡而定。

從權力意志的角度重新思考我們的科學（學科），那麼我們將會在政治、經濟、社會解釋之外，看到學者們如何以「非關利益」之名，將他們的利益暗嵌於對於世界的解釋過程中。　(Sociologists are neither forgers nor fantasists. But we  have now to see through new eyes the actions and motives not only of  political, economic and religious leaders, but of the scholars who study  them in the hope of realizing their supposedly disinterested ambition to  arrive at what they suppose to be 'the' truth; and from this it follows that  there is an inescapable constraint on the possibility of extending our  would-be wissenschaftlich discoveries about human history and psychology beyond a much narrower limit than the pedants, professors and  priests have hitherto persuaded themselves and the Volk who mistakenly  look up to them.) (p.10)

        唯有帶著權力意志之眼，我們才能自系譜學視角，看到百科全書式知識的權威及其隱藏的權力關係。（it leads to the conclusion that the minds of human beings, including not least professional practitioners of Wissenschaft, are full of ideas which  can first of all be exposed to view and then unmasked as illusions; and only from that conclusion, which is itself wissenschaftlich, does there follow the notion that the encyclopaedic professorial treatises on human history and psychology could be replaced to advantage by collections of aphorisms—unfashionable though even those of the 'masterly soul searcher' La Rochefoucauld have become. 〈HATH, 35,36〉） (P.10)

III.

格言作為對人類行為的觀察。但其價值卻被百科全書派詆毀。像是這樣的洞見，為什麼不能寫在社會學教科書裡呢？作者舉例說：

The Gay Science (§40): 'Oddly, submission to powerful, frightening, even terrible persons, like tyrants and generals, is not experienced as nearly so painful as is submission to unknown and uninteresting persons, which is what all captains of   industry are’.

作者回答說，為什麼像這類的洞見不能進入教科書？因為他們更重描述性，而不是解釋性。（The answer to these questions is that Nietzsche is right to see himself  as doing something other than what the conventional academic practi  tioners of the 'unnatural' sciences are doing. It is not only because of his own very personal just-so stories about the evolution of mankind and his own very idiosyncratic pronouncements about free spirits, supermen and eternal recurrences—to say nothing of his curious views about women or food. It is also because his aphorisms about the human condition, like those of the other aphorists whom he admires, are only  incidentally and in part hypotheses of cause and effect. They are more  descriptive than they are explanatory）(p.11)而且尼采希望讀者從自己的角度看見，而不是要求讀者從作者的角度來觀察（譬說說，他跑得更快了，因為他的腎上腺素增加了，這就是作者要求讀者觀察的角度）。

（說不存在無前提的假設，不意味著我們不能假設。而尼采的格式則像是維根斯坦所說的，幫助我們看見盲點的工具。）The function of a Nietzschean  aphorism, by contrast, is much more akin to what would be called in  Wittgensteinian terms the correction of 'aspect-blindness' in the  reader—including, it may well be, the inability which Wittgenstein  deplored to see that what the reader supposes to be a causal question is in  fact a conceptual one (14) (p.13)

(格言，與尼采的社會學的社會學) The recourse to aphorism is imposed on the would-be Nietzschean sociologist not as a retreat into either scepticism or  ubjectivism but as a  corollary of Nietzsche's sociology of sociology.能幫助知識份子除自身的魅（或所謂知識迷障）。 It is the least self deluding way of talking about the pursuit, distribution and exercise of  power in a world, including an intellectual world, which anyone of good  intellectual conscience must acknowledge to be a 'disenchanted'.

（尼采的支配理論，正是突顯了權力意志說在知識追求上之真誠）The implicit Lehre von den Herrschaftsgebilden is the  Entwicklungslehre of the will to power as it finds different expression in  different social contexts, most if not all of which either distort or repress what only a Nietzschean sociology can reveal to be its workings.社會學的分析，並不在社會學規則之外，我們都在權能意志之中，伴隨權能意志，運用權能意志而生。

（人類提出了自身無可反駁的錯誤→而且一直錯下去，如同分子生物學解釋遺傳）

To the reader who questions the grounds on which such a sociology lays claim  to a validity which rival sociologies are denied, Nietzsche's answer is  there in The Gay Science (§265) where he asks 'What then in the last  resort are the truths of mankind?' and replies 'They are the irrefutable  errors (unwiderlegbaren Irrtümer) of mankind. (p.14)

演化生物學對於權能意志的反駁（不是只有支配，還有合作，也是生物本能，也因而，所謂無法反駁的錯誤，這個說法，也適用在尼采自己所提的權能意志的觀點上）Sociology is still about structures of  power. But it is not all about the will to power. It is about the complex  and varying interplay between relations of domination and of cooperation in human institutions, communities and societies of different kind.

為什麼作者本人要寫這篇文章，因為要突顯所謂所謂的無可辯駁的錯誤，之所以無可辯駁，正是權力意志本身。而只能以權力交爭，來辯駁其並非無可辯駁。(p.16)

在《超越善惡》一書第192節，尼采說，我們已經習於說謊。作者用了這節，談社會學已不再檢視自身的基礎，而自以為真理。尼采，能夠幫助我們擁有自知之明。（s. A Lehre von den Herrschaftsgebilden, even if it goes no  further than to expose the Herrschaftsgebilden which are intrinsic to the  institutional practice of sociology itself, will to that extent have trans  cended successfully the 'premature hypotheses, the fictions, the good  stupid will to "believe", the lack of suspicion and patience' which he  says will be found by anyone who studies the historical development of  any individual Wissenschaft (BGE, §1）(p.17)

一旦引入了尼采的社會學，我們將看見知識場域內部的競逐，以及維持真誠(Wahrhaftigteit)的艱困。我們甚至可以說尼采的社會學與百科全書派的社會學，是相互依賴的鏡像。甚至連真誠本身，都是一種虛構，後尼采的社會學者，如何面配支配學說對於世界理念的解釋？（A post Nietzschean sociologist like Weber analyzing the pursuit, distribution  and exercise of power in human societies is accordingly to be likened not  to a post-Newtonian astrologer or post-Darwinian creationist so much  as to a post-Gödelian number theorist who struggles to prove new  theorems (and sometimes succeeds) in full awareness that if axiomatic set theory is consistent there are theorems which cannot be proved or disproved and that axiomatic set theory itself cannot be proved to be free of any possible contradiction. It is in this sense that a Lehre von der Herrschaftsgebilden can claim Wahrhaftigkeit even after conceding that  Wahrheit is an illusion.）　p.19

V.

尼采比起韋伯更誠實。韋伯在學術作為志業當中提到的真誠等諸條件，實際上是不可能實現的。（價值自由是防火牆，價值關聯說是掩蓋了權能意志之作用），而這些價伹關聯不會僅僅出現於社會科學，自然科學亦然（如畢達哥拉斯對數學之愛）。如同《善惡彼岸》187節所說，道德律令只是情緒性的命令手勢，不會再是別的什麼東西，也不會比較有價值。(p.20)雖然韋伯說承認價值多元論，但是面對他的競爭對手，他可是毫不留情地詆毀與攻擊，韋伯的舊教堂仍未倒塌，說一套作一套，是尼采可以幫助我們看到他的虛偽。人類歷史仍然是諸神爭戰的歷史（學術界亦不例外）。

[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。

[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)

[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 .