There is a dangerous aspect to Nietzschean thinking. (By "Nietzschean thinking" I mean the typical attitudinal stances adopted by Nietzsche and then replicated by his followers. By "dangerous" I mean not of the fun and games sort, but in the narrowest and purest possible sense of the term, "pathological".)
The danger is that, in trying to purge "decadence" from the world, one eliminates the complexity of one's own consciousness and its ability to relate to the person who is existentially "other".
The way I see it, one may start off quite innocently along one's journey towards pathology with an internalisation of the idea that women represent the negative parts of the Unconscious. Nietzsche tends to equate womanhood with decadence, and hence with the negative parts of the Unconscious mind -- those aspects that never speak their needs or desires directly but instead manipulate behind the scenes. In terms of interpretation of Nietzsche, one might take a soft line on Nietzsche, so as to say that he was making an kind of psychoanalytic ethnography of the society of his time, and that women did fall into the brackets of reactive thinking in relation to the patriarchal hegemony of his time. (In a significant sense, this interpretation of "feminine psychology" by Nietzsche is logical and accurate in terms of Nietzsche's times -- for when a dominant and powerful part of society [let us call it 'the patriarchy'] holds values that in direct opposition to another group's immediate interests, a negative, partly-submerged and yet definitely hostile manner of thinking is bound to result.)
So, one may start out innocently enough, or almost so, in taking in Nietzsche's ideas about decadence. One learns that there are decadent forces in the world, and by a gradual association with Nietzsche's writings, one learns to associate these forces of negativity with women per se. I am supposing here that one approaches Nietzsche with all the faculties of one's higher mind intact (including the ability to register and process nuances -- a defining feature of higher thinking, so far as I'm concerned). But as the reader proceeds to become more familiar with Nietzsche's work, and presuming there was higher thinking at work to begin with -- gradually there is a slippage, an equivocation that takes place between two levels of thinking. Whilst one may have begun by reading "psychoanalytic ethnography", soon one is reading -- or believes that one is reading -- all about "essences". The hypnotic effect of Nietzsche's writing, with its appeals to lower levels of thinking (ie. the "Unconscious") starts to take an effect. Perhaps one falls so much under Nietzsche's spell that one starts to believe that one is gazing directly into female psychology and perceiving all the negativity that is supposed to be there.
This is the point where one is reading Nietzsche regressively. One is impressed by "revelations" about the world, rather than reading rationally and reflecting critically. In effect, one is becoming "shamanised", a little, to see things in the way that Nietzsche does, along the lines of his own personality structure. Nietzsche's particular "object relations" -- his hostility towards "the Other" that may have been a part of his early childhood experience -- starts to take hold. The person who becomes shamanised under Nietzsche's tutelage then develops a firm inner conviction (actually based on regression and hypnosis) that misogyny is necessary and that one is justified in acting in a hostile fashion against all women.
This is a pathological development, as it makes all women out to be the same -- and all of them trapped within the 19th Century context of psychopathology, that Nietzsche was himself trapped within (a sexually frustrating predicament, no doubt). Yet the idea that all women, (or women per se), are pathological, is itself a pathological projection. By means of it, one calls forth the ghost of 19th Century gender relationships , which ought to remain buried. One projects upon the present aspects of the past, and upon 21st Century women, the expected attitude of revenge (which is derived from the 19th Century women's situation of cultural oppression).
The pathology that I have outlined can go even further to become downright persecuting -- for instance, when a woman protests that she is not inclined to think in the ways projected on her, and that she has her own, rather nuanced, thoughts -- this is taken as evidence of so much wickedness. To protest one's innocence means, within the scope of typical patriarchal thought, that one has not sufficiently repented from ones sins. If the witch, the woman, asserts her right to be left in peace enough, it means she doesn't love her God enough to face the test of faith (and martyrdom). The more she protests, the more clear it is (to patriarchal reasoning) that she has other interests that concern her, other than purifying herself of her supposed inner corruption.
The Neechy "loves us" and therefore he wants to purify us (especially us women) of our putative proneness to decadence: The Trinity also "loves us" -- and therefore our martyrdom is most assured!
But none of this is possible without The Patriarchy to facilitate it, so blessed be It!
(Amen)
The danger is that, in trying to purge "decadence" from the world, one eliminates the complexity of one's own consciousness and its ability to relate to the person who is existentially "other".
The way I see it, one may start off quite innocently along one's journey towards pathology with an internalisation of the idea that women represent the negative parts of the Unconscious. Nietzsche tends to equate womanhood with decadence, and hence with the negative parts of the Unconscious mind -- those aspects that never speak their needs or desires directly but instead manipulate behind the scenes. In terms of interpretation of Nietzsche, one might take a soft line on Nietzsche, so as to say that he was making an kind of psychoanalytic ethnography of the society of his time, and that women did fall into the brackets of reactive thinking in relation to the patriarchal hegemony of his time. (In a significant sense, this interpretation of "feminine psychology" by Nietzsche is logical and accurate in terms of Nietzsche's times -- for when a dominant and powerful part of society [let us call it 'the patriarchy'] holds values that in direct opposition to another group's immediate interests, a negative, partly-submerged and yet definitely hostile manner of thinking is bound to result.)
So, one may start out innocently enough, or almost so, in taking in Nietzsche's ideas about decadence. One learns that there are decadent forces in the world, and by a gradual association with Nietzsche's writings, one learns to associate these forces of negativity with women per se. I am supposing here that one approaches Nietzsche with all the faculties of one's higher mind intact (including the ability to register and process nuances -- a defining feature of higher thinking, so far as I'm concerned). But as the reader proceeds to become more familiar with Nietzsche's work, and presuming there was higher thinking at work to begin with -- gradually there is a slippage, an equivocation that takes place between two levels of thinking. Whilst one may have begun by reading "psychoanalytic ethnography", soon one is reading -- or believes that one is reading -- all about "essences". The hypnotic effect of Nietzsche's writing, with its appeals to lower levels of thinking (ie. the "Unconscious") starts to take an effect. Perhaps one falls so much under Nietzsche's spell that one starts to believe that one is gazing directly into female psychology and perceiving all the negativity that is supposed to be there.
This is the point where one is reading Nietzsche regressively. One is impressed by "revelations" about the world, rather than reading rationally and reflecting critically. In effect, one is becoming "shamanised", a little, to see things in the way that Nietzsche does, along the lines of his own personality structure. Nietzsche's particular "object relations" -- his hostility towards "the Other" that may have been a part of his early childhood experience -- starts to take hold. The person who becomes shamanised under Nietzsche's tutelage then develops a firm inner conviction (actually based on regression and hypnosis) that misogyny is necessary and that one is justified in acting in a hostile fashion against all women.
This is a pathological development, as it makes all women out to be the same -- and all of them trapped within the 19th Century context of psychopathology, that Nietzsche was himself trapped within (a sexually frustrating predicament, no doubt). Yet the idea that all women, (or women per se), are pathological, is itself a pathological projection. By means of it, one calls forth the ghost of 19th Century gender relationships , which ought to remain buried. One projects upon the present aspects of the past, and upon 21st Century women, the expected attitude of revenge (which is derived from the 19th Century women's situation of cultural oppression).
The pathology that I have outlined can go even further to become downright persecuting -- for instance, when a woman protests that she is not inclined to think in the ways projected on her, and that she has her own, rather nuanced, thoughts -- this is taken as evidence of so much wickedness. To protest one's innocence means, within the scope of typical patriarchal thought, that one has not sufficiently repented from ones sins. If the witch, the woman, asserts her right to be left in peace enough, it means she doesn't love her God enough to face the test of faith (and martyrdom). The more she protests, the more clear it is (to patriarchal reasoning) that she has other interests that concern her, other than purifying herself of her supposed inner corruption.
The Neechy "loves us" and therefore he wants to purify us (especially us women) of our putative proneness to decadence: The Trinity also "loves us" -- and therefore our martyrdom is most assured!
But none of this is possible without The Patriarchy to facilitate it, so blessed be It!
(Amen)
No comments:
Post a Comment