Nicholas Locke

Dr. Ozar
Nietzschean Philosophy: The Possibility for Positive Gender Relationships
Friedrich Nietzsche is a philosopher ith !"ch conflict of interpretation s"rro"ndin# his
ork. $t has been said that %everyone has their on Nietzsche& 'Ozar(. Fro! these !any
"nderstandin#s of his ork) there are !ore #enero"s interpretations) very ne#ative
interpretations) and !any in the !iddle. $ believe that there are better and orse interpretations
of his ork*e sho"ld never devolve into nihilis! hen readin# Nietzsche. Nietzsche hi!self
ar#"ed that there are alays parado+ical interpretations) that tr"ths are alays bein# for!ed
thro"#h creatin# val"e. ,oever) he does not believe) like a kinder#arten teacher) %that
everyone-s opinion is ri#ht.& .ach person !ay have so!e #rasp on the tr"th) b"t so!e can do so
better than others.
For e+a!ple) Nietzsche as "sed by the Third Reich to /"stify the ,oloca"st. The Nazi
re#i!e took !"ch of his ork o"t of conte+t0 takin# the %tr"th& to be sin#"lar*that 1es ere
fo"l in so!e ay. Nietzsche scholars today) or si!ply a close reader) can see that Nietzsche 'in
no ay( advocated the e+ter!ination of a #ro"p of people. ,e dissolved relations ith his sister
hen she !arried a !e!ber of the Nazi party) she distorted his orks after his death) his friend
2a#ner beca!e his ene!y and Nietzsche even rote a book on the s"b/ect hen he discovered
2a#ner-s Nazi identity) and Nietzsche rote e+tensively in his ad!iration of the 1eish class.
Nietzsche as no Nazi) b"t the Nazis !ade his ork into their tr"th.
The !yriad of interpretations of Nietzsche-s ritin#s !ay !ake one skeptical. They !ay ask
%hat if yo" have interpreted hi! incorrectly3 2hat if yo" are the neo4Nietzsche4Nazi3& $n
response) $ believe that $ have for!"lated the best interpretation of Nietzsche #ro"nded in his
ork. $f $ believed $ as incorrect) $ o"ld not be ritin# this essay. 5lso) philosophy) and !y
ork) is self4correctin# i.e. if there is a disa#ree!ent over !y interpretation of a passa#e) a ord)
translation) etc. then that is a disc"ssion that can and sho"ld happen) b"t a stance !"st be taken
first. $ ill be doin# this thro"#ho"t the essay) here $ ill be correctin# the !iso#ynist
interpretation of Nietzsche and) hopef"lly) replacin# the patriarchal Nietzsche ith a fe!inist
Nietzsche.
F"rther!ore) if $ have incorrectly interpreted hi!) hat does that !atter3 Nietzsche as the
first to ad!it that there are contradictions in his ork. ,e rites in Human, All Too Human that:
5ll 6of !y ritin#s7) $ have been #iven to "nderstand) contain snares and net for
"nary birds and in effect a persistent invitation to the overt"rnin# of habit"al
eval"ation and val"ed habits89y ritin#s have been called a schoolin# in s"spicion)
even !ore in conte!pt) b"t fort"nately also in co"ra#e) indeed in a"dacity. ',5, :(
The reader of Nietzsche !"st be vi#ilant. ;he !"st realize here there are contradictions
beca"se there are %!asks& and irony beyond hat the te+t e+plicitly states. Nietzsche ar#"es that
it is these contradictions fro! hich e can learn to lessons. The first is %schoolin#& o"rselves
in close readin#) #ood interpretation) and critical reflection. 2e do not need to be eternally
correct) b"t e !"st be co"ra#eo"s in statin# o"r beliefs. 2e !"st str"##le to find the best
!ethod of dealin# ith the contradiction to a certain de#ree. 2e !"st take a position on a te+t or
idea) b"t not be afraid to be ron#. 2e !"st alk the !iddle line beteen pretendin# that e
are alays ri#ht0 "nillin# to hear and respond to co"nter4ar#"!ents0 2hile) on the other hand)
not devolvin# into a sort of relativis! here e pretend that everyone is %ri#ht& for the sake of
a#ree!ent. 2e !"st be critical readers and thinkers44<"estionin# interpretation and especially
o"r "nderstandin# of !aterial. $ believe that $ a! bein# the co"ra#eo"s person Nietzsche o"ld
ant !e to be.
The second val"e is to accept that so!e contradiction is intrinsically ed"cational. $t as the
Platonic and =artesian schools hich de!anded "niversality) valid lo#ic) and flaless
knoled#e. The notion of the co!pletely rational s"b/ect e!er#ed ith 2estern ."ropean
!etaphysics and episte!olo#y. 5 #ood e+planation is offered by >lack riter and poet) 1a!es
>aldin ho distin#"ishes:
beteen the >lack e+perience and the 2hite) =hristian e+perience. $t see!s to !e that
the black personality then has a kind of vi#or) a kind of vitality. 5nd a8sense of life that
does not co!e fro! here) it co!es fro! deeper re#ions8$ think that ."ropeans 8are
terribly orried abo"t the flesh) the senses) $ think they live ith checks and balances that
are nearly patholo#ical. $ a! the flesh) hich the =hristians !"st !ortify. The flesh is all
yo" have. .verythin# yo" find o"t) yo" find o"t thro"#h yo"r senses. .verythin# af"l
and everythin# !arvelo"s that happens to yo") happens to yo" in this fra!e8this !ortal
envelope '>aldin-s Ni##er) 5fter !in"te seven(
The ."ropean is the =artesian spirit) the head itho"t the body. They develop their episte!olo#y
so"ndly "pon rationality) as the !ind takes precedence over the senses. $t is precisely Descartes-
ar#"!ent that the !ind can be the only ob/ect that knos) the senses !"st be distr"sted. 2hile
Nietzsche only did !ini!al ork on Race Theory and >lackness) >aldin-s senti!ent is spot
on. 2e !"st re/ect the e+cl"sive i!portance of syllo#is!s) analytic lo#ic) and certain rationality.
Nietzsche reaffir!s this co!!it!ent thro"#h his style of poetry thro"#ho"t the !a/ority of his
ork and hi#hli#htin# the i!portance of %feelin#& tr"ths. ,oever) be caref"l ith this
episte!olo#ical fra!eork. 2e can certainly "se analytic ar#"!ents) in fact) >aldin certainly
does in his criti<"e of 2estern rationality. The point is that e !"st not e+cl"sively "se it and
!ar#inalize other for!s of knoled#e #atherin#. $nstead) e !"st e!brace a pl"rality of
episte!olo#ical approaches. 2hile there is fertile #ro"nd here for a Nietzschean ethic that is
incl"sive of passive voices) consider it only a prel"de. The first of >aldin-s d"al p"rpose
speech is to ar#"e that irony) do"ble4speak) and non4analytic for!s of prose do e+ist*!y clai!
here is that Nietzsche does "se these for!s of knoled#e. This ill pre4e!pt !y opponents ho
choose to take Nietzsche literally in his te+ts. 5 caref"l readin# of his ork ill allo "s to
discern here he is bein# ironic and here he is bein# #en"ine.
2hat if $ have interpreted Nietzsche incorrectly3 2e !"st distin#"ish beteen the %spirit& of
Nietzsche and %interpretation& of Nietzsche. The %spirit& of Nietzsche is ho $ #enerally
"nderstand his ork thro"#h interpretin# his te+ts as a hole. This process is very nat"ral and
paradi#!atic. $!a#ine that yo" have a friend ho is a !ilitant fe!inist. ;he orks to e<"alize
a#es beteen !en and o!en) destroy the #lass ceilin#) force the #overn!ent to #ive
reprod"ctive ri#hts to o!en) and spends the rest of her ti!e helpin# at a do!estic ab"se?rape
shelter. This o!an is the epito!e of the aeso!e fe!inist*she spends all of her ti!e p"shin#
forard the ca"ses of fe!inis!.
@
,o sho"ld e react hen this s"per fe!inist says so!ethin#
like %o!en belon# in the kitchen&3 ;ho"ld e interpret her literally as a co!plete reversal into
a patriarchal /erk3 $ think not. 2hile she !ay be !is"nderstood by those ho are not inti!ately
close ith her) it see!s clear that she is bein# ironic. ;he !ay be overhel!ed by the abs"rdity
of reality co!pared to her str"##le for o!en-s ri#hts. ;he is deployin# irony to /"+tapose her
ideal e#alitarian orld ith the f"nda!entally "ne<"al one she lives in.
2e !ay "se this infor!ation abo"t irony in a co"ple ays. First) e can be faithf"l to the
%interpretation& of Nietzsche. $f e find that his certain portions of his ork are at odds ith the
holistic interpretation of his ork) e are probably !istaken in o"r interpretation. This is not
necessarily contradiction eradication as e disc"ssed above. $t is instead a !ore faithf"l readin#
of the te+t hich ill e+press the interests of the riter. ;econd) e can #et to the %spirit& of
Nietzsche even if e !ay be interpretin# incorrectly. $f Nietzsche had !eant certain state!ents
to tr"ly be !iso#ynistic) that ill !atter less than o"r p"rs"it for #ender /"stice. $f e divert
@
Please bracket disa#ree!ent over hether or not these are fe!inist iss"es fro! the Rep"blican or De!ocratic
perspective0 /"st "nderstand that she believes in the respect) a"tono!y) and love of o!en as a hole.
fro! Nietzsche-s intended !eanin# in a sin#le sentence 'hich $ do not believe e ill be
doin#() it still does not !atter if e ret"rn to the central pillars of his ork. $f $ can prove that
Nietzsche-s philosophy affir!s the incl"sion of !ar#inalized voices) a love of those different)
and a re/ection of a stable %self& there is roo! for a positive #ender relationship ar#"!ent. Th"s)
the sin#le instances of patriarchy 'ass"!in# they are the intended !eanin#( can be i#nored or at
least bracketed for the sake of the hole.
These prel"de re!arks sho that readin# Nietzsche on #ender ill be co!plicated. Only the
!ost co"ra#eo"s and close readers ill "nderstand his intended !eanin#. $ ill do !y best to
!ake fe!inist Nietzsche as accessible to as !any people as possible. ,oever) this !"st be
done thro"#h disc"ssion. The possibility for en#a#in# a rando! person off the street ith
fe!inist Nietzsche ill be very hard) b"t not i!possible. >oth interloc"tors !"st co!e to the
table ith the p"rs"it of knoled#e bein# their final #oal. They !"st be honest abo"t hen they
are ron# and p"sh on their opponent hen they believe they are ri#ht. $ ass"!e that the person
readin# this paper is illin# to openly eval"ate ar#"!ents and let #o of bias if the ar#"!entation
is pers"asive. This philosophy is not partic"larly "niversalizable) in that) individ"al disc"ssions
need to occ"r. 5ltho"#h) dialo#"e can per!eate the bo"ndaries of society*enterin# dinner table
conversations) o!en and #ender st"dies lect"res) or even Philosophy ABC. $t is !y hope that !y
ar#"!entation ill spread in this !anner. 9oreover) $ ill !ake s"bstantial co!!ents on the
political syste! hich Nietzsche o"ld advocate. The openness and respect for others can
flo"rish best in a de!ocracy0 so these political chan#es o"ld clearly i!pact all of those livin#
in de!ocratic societies. The inchoate pieces of this de!ocracy be#in in dialo#"e tho"#h. ;o
conversations can beco!e the catalyst for overall political chan#e that) in t"rn) can affir! a
positive #ender relationship. Needless to say) the literal interpretations of Nietzsche-s philosophy
has !ade hi! into fe!inist ene!y n"!ber oneD
2hen Nietzsche-s na!e is even breathed in a conversation on fe!inis!) the knee4/erk
reaction is a dis#"sted face. 5s $ e+pressed !y desire to rite this paper) Eatie-s conf"sed and
skeptical e+pression <"ickly ca"#ht !y attention. ,er reaction is not an isolated one. The central
#oal of !y paper is to !ake !y Nietzsche not only co!patible ith a positive #ender identity)
b"t e+plain ho his philosophy can be a fo"ndation for this p"rs"it. $ ill ar#"e: first) that
Nietzsche "ses irony to fra!e fe!ininity and is not patriarchal as the literal interpretation of his
ork s"##ests. $ ill also dra fro! his ork to hi#hli#ht portions here Nietzsche is literally in
favor of a fe!inist #ender ethic 'no e+tensive te+t interpretation needed as ith irony(. ;econd)
Nietzsche-s notion of the fract"red %self& is instr"!ental for individ"als to let #o of their violent
#ender stereotypes they pro/ect onto others. $n addition) this !ore %fl"id&) non4e+cl"sively
binary interpretation of #ender identity ill open "p space for individ"als to love the!selves.
Third) $ ill ar#"e that Nietzsche-s philosophy is !ost in line ith a de!ocratic political
str"ct"re hich is !ost advanta#eo"s for incl"din# !ar#inalized voices) deconstr"ctin# so4called
eternal tr"ths) and lovin# those ho are the epito!e of different. 2ith hard ork and a bit of
l"ck) e can chan#e Eatie-s fron into a s!ile*or at least a ne"tral e+pressionD
The first distinction $ o"ld like to !ake in favor of the fe!inine Nietzsche readin# is a
se!antic one. 2hen Nietzsche refers to the %eternally fe!inine& the co!!on day readin# of his
ork o"ld be that he is directly attackin# fe!ininity or fe!inis!. $t see!s that he is criti<"in#
the p"rs"it for fe!ale e<"ality. ,oever) henever Nietzsche refers to the eternally fe!inine) he
is speakin# of the definition in Faust . ,e rites in Gay Science that %belief in God and =hristian
conscience: that is8fe!inis!& 'G; AFG(. 2hen he speaks of the eternally fe!inine) his is
criticizin# eternal tr"ths) s"ch as God and 9etaphysical %heaven&. The definitional distinction
sho"ld clear "p a lar#e portion of the fe!inist criti<"e. They are "sin# an anachronistic definition
of fe!inis! hich does not !atch ith the riter-s "nderstandin# of fe!inis!. 2hile this
resolves the se!antic "se of %fe!inis!&) e !"st still #rapple ith Nietzsche-s descriptions of
o!en.
Nietzsche calls o!en %actresses& thro"#ho"t !any of his orks. ,e clai!s that:
5ll o!en are s"btle in e+a##eratin# their eaknesses0 they are inventive hen it co!es to eakness in
order to appear as "tterly fra#ile orna!ents ho are h"rt even by a speck of d"st. Their e+istence is
s"pposed to !ake !en feel cl"!sy) and #"ilty on that score. 'G; HH(
2o!en) then) are playin# a role. They are actin# as o!en should act. $t is very easy to read this
passa#e as Nietzsche ar#"in# that fe!ininity is passivity0 that o!en are the %eaker se+& and
th"s need to be do!inated or protected. Nietzsche see!s to be sayin# that o!en are delicate
floers that ill be h"rt easily. 9oreover) the contrast of their identity is %s"pposed to !ake !en
feel cl"!sy&. Th"s) the fe!inine is so pristine on its pedestal that o!an intends to !ake !an
aare of his br"tish nat"re. The fe!ale here see!s like a s"per !odel ho !ocks !en-s "neven
#ait. The fe!inine see!s to be attackin# !asc"linity0 !akin# the latter self4aare of its
shortco!in#s and inade<"acies. $ can certainly "nderstand hy people !i#ht read this passa#e as
a !iso#ynist description of Io!an-. Jet) let "s p"t o"r Nietzsche readin# #lasses on and see
hat is deeper in the te+t.
Frances Oppel ill help "s on o"r <"est to find to find fe!inis! in a see!in#ly patriarchal
te+t. The notion of actin# ass"!es that o!an is not bein# %herself&. ;he is chan#in# ho she is
to appear !ore %fra#ile& to affir! the !asc"linity of I!an- 'NG KK(. ;he is p"ttin# on the !ask
of fe!inine to please hi!*she is reinforcin# the binary beteen the se+es. ;he is doin# hat
al!ost all o!en 'and !en( do0 !ake the!selves hat their ob/ect of love desires. ,ere) it is
li!ited to a heterose+"al relationship i.e. o!an !"st appear as fe!inine as possible to attract
the stereotypical !ale. ;o hat does this discovery tell "s3
Lpon readin# the te+t) the fe!inine and !asc"line are to bla!e for the dysf"nctional
relationship. >oth #enders are actin#: they are not #en"inely connectin# to their identity) b"t)
instead) actin# ho they believe the other #ender desires the! to do so. The co4ca"sal reflection
of layer "pon layer of stereotypes !ake clarity beteen the #enders al!ost i!possible. The
netork is dense. 5s in the e+a!ple of the fe!inine o!an*she starts fro! the position of her
identity and ideas of hat the fe!inine is. The idea of the fe!inine is si!"ltaneo"sly reinforced
by the notion of !asc"linity in opposition. Like o"r fe!inist ho says o!en belon# in the
ho!e) it see!s that Nietzsche is bein# ironic. The te+t represents a !iso#ynist vision of the
fe!inine) hoever ho !i#ht the reader react #iven the knoled#e of irony3
The realization that %actin#& is involved in #ender allos "s to deny the %tr"th& of these old
#ender val"es. 2hen e reco#nize that Nietzsche is ironically pointin# o"t that the %actin#& of
#ender is abs"rd) e can deny their i!portance. $t beco!es ithin o"r reach to drop so!e of
these #ender roles or at least not take the! as serio"sly. 2e are able to bracket the!0 realize they
are e+ternal to o"r identity. $n doin# so) e need not take #ender code violations so serio"sly
'NG @K(. Nietzsche ar#"es that the #ender binary is proble!atic) clai!in# that the antithesis of
%!an and o!an& is a %f"nda!ental proble!.& 'NG AK( 5t the individ"al level) one side of the
#ender #ap can end*or at least a!eliorate*the co4constr"ction of old #ender val"es. $f one
individ"al chooses to chan#e the ay they act) a !"t"al tr"st can be b"ilt hich denies the all4
enco!passin# notion of #ender identity.
5nother facet that sho"ld be noted of the passa#e is that bla!e is e<"ally placed and o!en
are not necessarily casti#ated as it see!ed "pon first #lace 'NG KF(. >oth #enders reinforce the
binary dance to appropriate the!selves to the opposite se+. $t is !en-s e+pectations of o!en
hich is the i!pet"s for the fe!ale act*and vice versa. The actin# is not in the abstract)
co!pletely free4illed fe!inine choice) b"t reinforced by !ale?fe!ale desire. Nietzsche) then) is
absolvin# %victi! bla!in#& hich is a pretty ne a#e notion of fe!inis!D ,e ref"ses to place
c"lpability entirely on o!en0 an e+c"se co!!only "sed even today*e.#. %she ore a short
skirt and as Iaskin#- for it.& $nstead) Nietzsche o"ld say: %Jo"r e+pectations of o!en !ade
her dress this ay so that she co"ld Iearn- yo"r loveD ;he as playin# the #a!e by the r"les you
createdD Then yo" bla!e her for yo"r desires3& 2hy o"ld Nietzsche "se irony to #et to this
point) tho"#h3
2hen these do"ble4standards arise) one cannot "se the rational !odel. ;i!ply statin# one-s
position a#ainst the abs"rdity of a sit"ation?relationship cannot s"bs"!e its appeal. There is little
rational abo"t o"r #ender presentation*desi#ner clothin#) bikini a+es) protein shakes) etc. $t
see!s that the crazy cannot be re!edied ith the rational. $nstead) Nietzsche is atte!ptin# to
brin# to the crazy to its absol"te point here the rational !"st ret"rn. Nietzsche see!s to say:
%9en) yo" ant the fe!inine3 $-ll #ive yo" yo"r fe!inineD& ;o those ho read the !ost Iideal-
and stereotypical depiction of o!an sho"ld find so!ethin# a!iss*no o!an is this
canonically fe!inine. The 'close readin#( !an sho"ld beco!e introspective and onder hether
his desires are #ood for hi! or the ob/ect hich he is force fe!inizin#. For o!en) they sho"ld
see the chas! beteen ho they are and the fe!inine caricat"re that Nietzsche pro/ects. They
sho"ld react affir!in# their on identity above the iconic fe!inine stereotype beca"se its
abs"rdity cannot be !atched by the individ"al. 5fter the notion of static #ender identity is
deconstr"cted or at least <"estioned) a !ore positive #ender relationship !"st be developed.
Oppel ar#"es that once the ne#ative #ender ass"!ptions are so!ehat dissolved) a !ore
positive relationship beteen the #enders can develop 'NG KG(. >oth !an and o!an can
participate in this process here they are !ore tolerant. They can reco#nize that per!eation
beteen the bo"ndaries of traditionally !asc"line and fe!inine acts is nat"ral. F"rther!ore) they
can #o f"rther and associate their notion of the bea"tif"l ith a pl"ralistic style of identity.
2here canonically !asc"line or fe!inine as the bench!ark before) the ne desired traits can
be a !ore diverse identity. $ !ean) ho o"ld not ant a !ale partner ho can bench to
h"ndred po"nds) b"t also !ake a so"fflM3 5fter the realization of that static notions of fe!ininity
and !asc"linity are foolish) e ill be able to create ne and positive types of #ender identity.
Nietzsche starts in his orks by val"in# the fe!inine as creative and e+pressive0 the noble
p"rs"its of creation hich he calls for all individ"als to affir!. These creators are "s"ally
associated ith the Iearth- and the arts of poetry) !"sic) and dancin#. These traits coincide ith
the core aspects of Nietzsche. Thro"#h his orks Nietzsche de!ands that h"!ans ret"rn to earth.
,e criti<"es !etaphysical notions of heaven beca"se these have been invented by priests ho
ant individ"als to t"rn aay fro! earth. The %slave !orality& ca"ses people to not overco!e
and appreciate s"fferin# as an inte#ral part of e+istence) b"t instead believe in the fictional
afterorld 'G9(. They try to divide the orld beteen the %bea"tif"l&) 5pollonian and the
%"#ly&) Dionysian '>T(. They see the for!er as the ordered) str"ct"red) and peacef"l0 the latter
as chaotic) creative) and violent. Nietzsche ar#"es that hen people divide "p the %#oods& and
%bads& of the earth they ill fail0 there is no ay that they can prod"ce one h"ndred percent of
each. 2hen they cannot overco!e the %nasty& thin#s in the orld) all of it beco!es "#ly and
they t"rn aay fro! the earth '>T(. 5s hen any of "s is sad) the anser is creativity: dancin#)
sin#in#) ritin#) poetry*all of the life affir!in# forces 'T;N(.
For Nietzsche) o!an is the epito!e of this life force. $n Thus Spoke Zarathustra )
Narath"stra alks "pon o!en playf"lly dancin# in aphoris! AK. $n the akard sit"ation that
follos) Narath"stra acts like the idiot at the bar. ,e co!pli!ents their dancin# and speaks of
hi#h !oral tr"ths. Predictably) the o!en stop dancin# and akardly stare at hi! as he
%strikes o"t&. Narath"stra has none of the dancin# ability) nor the slick ords of these o!en.
,e has crashed their party as they ere e!bracin# the earth and p"shin# back a#ainst the ;pirit
of Gravity hich holds h"!ans back fro! e+pressin# the!selves 'T;N(.
The fe!inine noble traits) s"ch as %tr"th& are described as #oddesses. ,oever) these are
self4tr"ths of the earth) an acceptance of %eternal i!perfection& b"t a strivin# forard thro"#h
o"r inability to !atch "p to ideal tr"ths 'NG @OH(. The fe!inine is tied to the earth) #oddesses to
a bea"tif"l co"ra#e) and an acceptance of one-s finit"de and i!perfection. $n this ay) as
Narath"stra did) !an is t"rnin# aay fro! the earth. These o!en and #oddesses find personal)
self4tr"th hile the !en are off tryin# to find eternal ones. The o!en learn abo"t their bodies
and choices that they desire. These tr"ths are by far the !ost bea"tif"l beca"se they are personal.
$f one discovers) contrary to conventional isdo!) that they do not like /azz) that is a !eanin#f"l
tr"th. $n doin# so) they o"ld be co"ra#eo"s. They o"ld sift thro"#h alb"!s of Dave >r"b"ck)
9iles Davis) and 1ohn =oltrane. Despite hat their friends say abo"t 1azz bein# the best !"sic)
they co"ld find o"t for the!selves thro"#h testin# the !"sic that it is not their c"p of tea.
This is a li!ited e+a!ple) b"t self4tr"ths of hat #ender !i#ht !ean here can be inserted as
ell. This fe!inine ethic calls for the individ"al to really kno ho they are. The !ale or
fe!ale sho"ld discover their preferences and develop individ"alistic for!s of identity. Jo" can
discover hat %type& of #ay) black) hite) rich) poor) etc. person that yo" areD For Nietzsche-s
fe!inine) there is so !"ch space for difference and self4aareness. These fe!inine tr"ths of
bodily preference and discovery are !"ch !ore "sef"l than the !asc"line ideas of e+ternal
tr"ths. These are #ood e+a!ples of the fe!inine bein# positively associated in Nietzsche-s ork)
b"t the 5pollo?Dionysi"s relationship ill help "s resolve the fl"idity of #ender.
Re!e!ber) 5pollo and Dionysi"s e+ist in dyna!ic tension here the for!er) the s"n #od)
represents the bea"tif"lly ordered hile the latter represents a sort of creative) chaotic ecstasy.
These #ods) in The Birth of Tragedy ) play an inte#ral role in e+plicatin# Nietzsche-s #ender
theory. First) Dionysi"s is knon far and ide as a se+"al bein#. $t sho"ld be noted) tho"#h) that
he represents "lti!ate e+cess in all thin#s0 creativity that overflos cate#ories. Dionysi"s only
desires of "s to be passionate in all thin#s that e do. Oppel ar#"es that Nietzsche-s Dionysi"s
de!ands of "s to %dra on yo"r se+"ality) all of it8hen yo" listen to !"sic) look at a paintin#
or read or atch a fil! 'NG CG(. O"r affir!ation of o"r e+istence transcends notion of #ender0
th"s the individ"al ho passionately cooks) dances) la"#hs) etc. sho"ld i#nore the #endered ays
that they do these actions. The passionate e+istence cannot be sloed don by thinkin# %ho
sho"ld a !an?o!an do this3& $n s"!!arization) the fe!inine criti<"e of Nietzsche is
anachronistic) the fe!inine has been associated ith the !ost life affir!in# portions of
Nietzsche-s ork 'that of creation() and) in p"rs"it of this noble e+istence) #ender as s"bs"!ed
by this creative ecstasy. The notion of the Ie#o-) collaborative relationships) and love of the
Other ill f"rther the Nietzschean fe!inist position.
Larence ,atab rites that Descartes notion of the self i#nores ho the individ"al is
necessarily prod"ced thro"#h inters"b/ective disc"rsive practices ith others *th"s the rational
!odel esches contradiction 'NDD AA4AF(. These internal and e+ternal Icontradictions- 'this
sho"ld be interpreted loosely beca"se its !eanin# is very broad( are the very fo"ndation for
str"##le) e+periences) and life4affir!ation 'NDD @K(. Ret"rn to the hypothesis proposed by
>aldin that one !"st ret"rn to the flesh. The rational ill f"nda!entally leave "s lackin#.
$nstead) associations beteen individ"als) love) carin#) and the senses sho"ld be the fo"ndation
on for!in# identity. This socialization process is e+actly hat Nietzsche affir!s: that o"r
tho"#hts) actions) and feelin#s 'o"r episte!olo#y) politics) ethics) !orals) and really everythin#(
are for!ed thro"#h inters"b/ective relationships ith others hereby perspectivalis! and
pl"ralis! !eet in disc"rsive spaces 'NDD KOC(.
,oever) e !"st resolve the parado+ i.e. that too !"ch love of the other ill dissolve the
self) hile on the other hand) e#ois! i#nores o"r social relationships and ens"res violence.
Oppel atte!pts to deal ith this proble!) ar#"in# that the !iddle4#ro"nd is cr"cial 'NG BB(. 2e
!"st !ake the radical #est"re of co!plete e!pathy toard those different than "s. 2e !"st be
tolerant) b"t !ore than that) try to "nderstand their inner orkin#s) feelin#s) and desires. >y
p"ttin# o"rselves into this %void& absent o"r e#oistic fra!in#) e ill be co!!ittin# the "lti!ate
act of co"ra#e*castin# aside all co!fort in identity that e so terribly fear losin# 'NG @O@(. The
#est"re of love is reactive to hat the Other beca"se it tries to kno her inti!ately. $n this
process) the e#o beco!es an a!al#a! of the Other and the self. The act) altho"#h) still "pholds
the #lory of the co"ra#eo"s act*it is still a choice startin# fro! the e#o. $n this ay) the denial
of the e#o is the ne for!ation of the e#o. To deny the safety of the self) e take on so!e traits
by "nderstandin# the Other. ,oever) e also !ake o"rselves !ore co"ra#eo"s) passionate)
darin#) and creative*hich is f"nda!entally a ne for!ation of the self. Th"s) the partic"lars
!ay chan#e based on hat e learn fro! others) b"t the for! of o"r e#o is all o"r on doin#.
Nietzsche-s ideal person o"ld not be a violent character or she o"ld not be so thro"#h
!orality. $f that as the case) she o"ld ne#ate her on life by alays doin# violence to those
ho did not follo the !oral code*#ender codes as ell44and) instead) those ithin this
Nietzschean syste! o"ld !ost likely be very tolerant and live in peace 'Patti!o) :G(. They
o"ld accept a orld of a pl"rality of interpretations and therefore not place their capital T tr"th
clai!s on those ho ere different. This notion is si!ilar to the pl"ralistic notion of !"ltiple
narratives p"t forard by ,ilde Linde!ann4Nelson. $t is these !oral syste!s or !etanarratives
hich seek to erase difference and live for the sake of reven#e hich is f"nda!entally reactive
and th"s closes off possibilities for creativity. Therefore) e!bracin# pl"ralis! and re/ectin#
#ender violence is p"rely lo#ical 'Patti!o HH(. The spite filled discri!ination of those ho are
different is only the !anifestation of individ"al insec"rities. 5s thinkers s"ch as 9ichel Fo"ca"lt
and Gior#io 5#a!ben have pointed o"t) the notion of difference is only affir!ed to develop a
stable notion of ontolo#y 'The ;"b/ect and Poer) The ;tate of .+ception) NDD K@A(.
For e+a!ple) $ can only be sure that $ a! a !an beca"se there are o!en0 $ can only be s"re
that $ a! hite as lon# as there is the %colored&0 $ can only be certain that $ a! rich only if there
are people ho are poor) etc. Therefore) the rationality of the individ"al ho needs affir!ation
of a violent ontolo#y is si!ply a creat"re of ressentiment. This creat"re cannot !ove past the
socially constr"cted binaries of %"s?the!& and redefine herself. ,e takes on the co!!on social
interpretations and labels that are #iven to her) #"aranteein# her !eldin# into a herd and the loss
of her individ"ality 'Patti!o) :F(. For o"r disc"ssion) the stereotypical hite so"therner is a
#ood e+a!ple*$ a! paintin# ith a ide br"sh here. .ssentially) he cannot allo #ay !arria#e
to e+ist beca"se it is central to his identity as a !ale that to !en or o!en cannot sleep
to#ether. ,is choice to deprive others is hat #ives hi! stability in %ho he is&. ,e is bein# a
coard. ,e is relyin# on a co!fort that is a violent ontolo#ical notion of hi!self and necessarily
refers to other individ"als.
The tr"e Overo!an) on the other hand) o"ld define herself itho"t "sin# any referent0
she o"ld be independent and active instead of reactive to this Other. ;he o"ld overco!e the
notion that she needs so!eone else to define ho she is and instead cast off those o"tard
pro/ections hich are collectively inscribed into social str"ct"res. $n this ay) the self4
overco!in# individ"al acts /"st like a =hristian last !an) b"t does not do it thro"#h the !andate
to love thy nei#hbor0 rather in this case) by si!ply i#norin# the serial binaries of Otherness
alto#ether.
,atab ar#"es that lashin# o"t violently and reactively lacks self4overco!in#) hile pacifis!
in the face of co!ple+ violence 'personally chosen restraint( is !"ch !ore an e+pression of the
ill to poer 'NDD :H(. The individ"al practices restrainin# hi!self fro! co!plete reactivity or
hedonis! beca"se it prod"ces no challen#e0 therefore) the !ost ad!irable and noble act in the
face of violence o"ld be inaction) in contrast to a reven#e ethic. 5ltho"#h) one !"st <"alify
that !otive is the lynchpin*shoin# ho Nietzsche is a psycholo#ical philosopher in his on
ri#ht. The tr"e =hristian ho t"rns the other cheek si!ply beca"se she is !andated thro"#h
!oral obli#ation only allos ressentiment to b"ild inside her hile she li!its her on desire to
act. On the contrary) the individ"al ho chooses to overco!e and challen#e herself thro"#h
pacifis! affir!s her e+istence*the only difference beteen the slave ethic and the overo!an)
is the !otive 'NDD :A(. Therefore) it is safe to concl"de that a Nietzschean political syste!
co"ld also allo for si!ilar acts that take place in 9odernity) hoever) his syste! ill atte!pt
to c"ltivate creativity in the citizen. 5s lon# as an act is reco#nized as a c"lt"ral trend and
interpretation) that act co"ld be se<"entially repeated and affir!ed 'Patti!o) :H(. The telos of a
Nietzschean ethic) in this sense) is foc"sed on creativity) Ibeco!in#-) and self4overco!in# rather
than ho one acts*an episte!olo#ical foc"s.
Nietzsche-s %arrior spirit)& hile so!eti!es bein# related to arfare) as not necessarily
connected to it. Narath"stra proclai!ed:
%8let "s be ene!ies too) !y friendsD Let "s strive a#ainst one another like #ods& 'T;N(. %$ love the valiant0
b"t it is not eno"#h to ield a broadsord) one !"st also kno a#ainst ho!8there is !ore valor hen
one refrains and passes by) in order to save oneself for the orthier ene!y. Jo" shall have only ene!ies
ho are to be hated) b"t not ene!ies to be despised& 'T;N(.
Nietzsche ar#"ed that this ethic as contrary to the =hristian syste! hich de!anded the
eras"re of difference) the Other) and evil0 hile si!"ltaneo"sly callin# for love of Ithy nei#hbor-.
The violent eras"re of an ene!y o"ld necessarily eli!inate difference and th"s) co!petition*
endin# in a !onoc"lt"re 'NDD FK) HK(. Therefore) the violence hich those !isappropriate fro!
Nietzsche o"ld necessarily eli!inate c"lt"re and the arrior spirit. 5nother i!portant concept
that sho"ld be hi#hli#hted is the idea that one sho"ld refrain fro! fi#htin# certain ene!ies. $n
this sense) the association ith Nietzsche as advocatin# ab"sin# o!en or violence a#ainst those
ho are dee!ed eak is a false interpretation. The physically !ore poerf"l !ale co"nter4part
sho"ld not do pointless violence to an %ene!y& ho cannot protect herself. $t is clear that
Nietzsche o"ld not believe in c"rrent day arfare hich en#a#es ene!ies ho are "ne<"al and
easily con<"ered0 that o"ld offer no resistance of e<"als 'NDD @@B(. One only needs to be
re!inded of the %shock and ae& ca!pai#n hich bro"#ht $ra< to its knees in one day. Or even
!ore si!ply) the lackl"ster en/oy!ent received hen beatin# a toddler in a sport*this clearly
does not offer the resistance and challen#e in Nietzsche-s arrior. Nietzsche o"ld not see these
colonial and econo!ic s"perpoers defeatin# lesser states as noble or honorable.
Pa"l Eirkland ar#"es that Nietzsche-s philosophy is centered on prod"cin# the noblest
life*this necessarily !eans that one !eets and overco!es contin"al episte!olo#ical and ethical
conflicts 'N5(. One of Nietzsche-s central criti<"es of =hristianity and !odern ethical
!etaphysical syste!s ere that they affir!ed a notion of /"stice) hich beca!e ary of the
poerf"l and called the! %evil)& and those ho ere !eek and passive ere characterized as
%#ood& 'G9(. Therefore) those ho did not follo this syste! violated the ethical rules hich
individ"als believed applied to all of e+istence*/"stice as tanta!o"nt. Nietzsche ar#"ed that
these priests and those ho accepted their ideolo#y o"ld be creat"res of ressentiment*reactive
resent!ent at the orld or individ"als44and ne#ated their <"ality of life thro"#h hatin# others)
and thereby i#norin# their on ill to poer. $f this co!petitive and contradictory society is
hat Nietzsche desires) ho o"ld the e#alitarianis! and #ift #ivin# of de!ocracy fit in3 2e
sho"ld t"rn to the third and final point for the sol"tion*a Nietzschean de!ocratic syste!
e!poerin# pl"ralistic !ove!ents) incl"din# positive #ender identity coalitions.
Nietzsche !i#ht see this as %#ift #ivin#& or charity hich prod"ces ressentiment in the
individ"al0 a %#nain# or!& here the benefactor feels indebted and the #iver feels honorable
for her false charity 'T;N) N5 @@K(. >oth atte!pt to e<"alize and repay the debt) b"t instead are
/"st "pset abo"t the in/"stice of the e+chan#e and beco!e resentf"l. $t !akes sense that the Last
9an asks %2hat is love3... and8blinks& beca"se he feels no real love) b"t instead coerced love&
'T;N(. $n opposition to this false charity) Narath"stra states %Jo" love yo"r virt"e as a !other
loves her child0 b"t hen has a !other ever ished to be paid for her love3& 'T;N(. 5 #en"ine
benevolence for individual reasons is bea"tif"l) b"t it !"st be "nforced.
The shared e+perience as !"t"al a#ents ho assert a ill to poer ithin a le#al syste!
co"ld be a fo"ndation for cooperation0 i.e. helpin# the Other o"ld e+tend and e+pand
co!petition ith another. The Other) ho has different ideas) cannot be left to die beca"se that
o"ld brin# abo"t a !onoc"lt"re. $n addition) %=o!passion in the face of pain) loss) and death
!ay be an effective startin#4point for ethics& 'NDD @CC(. $n this ay) the incl"sion of LG>TQ
voices is cr"cial to challen#in# a !onolithic narrative on #ender ethics. 5ltho"#h) this ethic !"st
be only a realization of co!!on h"!anity-s pain?s"fferin# and not that this s"fferin# is "n/"st)
deserves restit"tion to those dise!poered) and retrib"tion a#ainst those ho violated the r"les.
The ethic !"st be f"lly h"!an if it is to avoid ressentiment of #ift #ivin#*a realization that
s"fferin# 'hile bein# inte#ral to a certain e+tent( is also debilitatin# for those e care abo"t.
This !eans o"treach to #ive opport"nities to the iconically fe!inine ho are discri!inated
a#ainst. Th"s) e o"ld ant to relieve those afflicted by the evils of nat"ral disasters) for
e+a!ple) beca"se e care for the Other*that love is "nconditional and it has no !etaphysical
#ro"ndin#.
essentiment see!s inevitable if one does not help) in the sa!e ay that e+cl"sion is based
on Otherization. The latter is an e+cl"sion that denies ne#ative ri#hts) hile the for!er is only
different beca"se it denies the possibility for positive ri#hts or s"bsistence. The reason for not
#ivin# o"ld probably be an apathy for the Other ho is Ievil- in so!e ay*e.#. those ho
ant to pay loer ta+es do so beca"se they believe that the poor !e!bers of society are
astef"l) lazy) etc. The o!an ho looks o"t only for his self4interest and helps no one o"ld
be a creat"re of ressentiment. There o"ld be no reason to al!ays help the Other) b"t that o"ld
be the likely o"tco!e of a political process hich realizes the finit"de of the disenfranchised and
avoids ressentiment e+cl"sion. The i!portance of incl"sion is tanta!o"nt) b"t here is the line
dran3
Nietzsche once rote that %every enhance!ent of the type of I!an- has hitherto been the
ork of an aristocratic society8that believes in a lon# ladder of rank orderin# and differences
in val"e beteen !an and !an) and needs slavery in so!e sense& '>G.) KFG(. For Nietzsche)
!odern society is a place here individ"als are represented as tarant"las ho o"tline their %ill
to e<"ality& hich is their %8na!e for virt"e0 and a#ainst all that poer e ant to raise o"r
cla!orD& 'T;N( The ani!al choice is apropos beca"se Nietzsche ar#"es that these slavish
individ"als) hich disdain self4overco!in# and the poerf"l) ill necessarily fail to red"ce the
orld to co!plete e#alitarianis!: %9en are not e<"al. Nor shall they beco!e e<"al& 'T;N(. $n
the face of this i!possibility) ressentiment ill b"ild inside the! and ca"se the! to lash o"t*
atte!ptin# to reorient the orld aro"nd their val"e syste!. These tarant"las*as the preachers of
e<"ality*ne#ate their on ill to poer innate ithin the!selves and instead pro/ect #nain#
ven#eance a#ainst the poerf"l.
The ine<"ality of proced"re or access to the disc"ssion o"ld also li!it contest and a#onistic
de!ocracy. 5cknoled#in# that others are better at certain activities or ideas 'fo"ndational in
pl"ralistic tho"#h() opens "p space for a rational disc"ssion beteen interloc"tors beca"se there
is a #eneral tolerance for o"r incapacity to kno everything or the %tr"th& holistically 'NDD @@:4
@@F(. This not only #"arantees debate and co!petition over interpretations of the tr"th) b"t
f"rther hi#hli#hts the fract"red nat"re of the individ"al and his capacity for learnin#) self4
con<"est) and internal conf"sion. The eli!ination of a co!petitor displays the lack of self4
control and the individ"al-s ill to poer for overco!in# the Other*the individ"al feels that he
!"st e+cl"de those ho think differently beca"se she !ay not be able to in an ar#"!ent*an
episte!olo#ical coard 'NDD @KK4@KA(. The "lti!ate act of co"ra#e is to re!ain open to
criticis! and p"t in peril everythin# hich is co!fortable episte!olo#ically for a possibly !ore
life affir!in# ar#"!ent.
2hile Nietzsche is #enerally "nderstood as a !iso#ynist) his ethic of de!ocratic practices
ill open "p space for positive #ender !ove!ents. These !ay be the #ay ri#hts or transse+"al
!ove!ents. 5ny of these str"##les hich p"sh a#ainst the !etanarrative of stable #ender
hierarchies ill find co!!on #ro"nd in Nietzsche. ,is re/ection of a stable ontolo#y #ro"nded in
ne#ative descriptions of different o"ld be "prooted and replaced ith a floery #arden of
pl"ralis!. ;ince e !"st re/ect o"r desire to #o to the Platonic heavens of essential tr"ths) e
!"st collaborate and learn fro! each other. 2e ill be forced to foster "nderstandin# and love if
e are to be co"ra#eo"s. Nietzsche sho"ld no be "nderstood as a neo4fe!inist or e sho"ld at
least "se his ork to forard a positive #ender relationship.
Bibliography
,atab) Larence. A "iet#schean $efense of $emocracy% An &'periment in (ostmodern (olitics. Per": Open
=o"rt) @BBF. Print.
,eide##er) 9artin. The )uestion *oncerning Technology, and +ther &ssays. N.p.: ,arper Torchbooks) @BCK.
Print.
1a!es >aldin: http:??.yo"t"be.co!?atch3vRPJ>cl>@9,vc
Oppel) Frances. "iet#sche +n Gender. N.p.: n.p.) KOOF. Print.
Nietzsche) Friedrich. Beyond Good and &vil. N.p.: Pinta#e) @BCB. Print.
Nietzsche) Friedrich. +n the Genealogy of ,orals. N.p.: O+ford Lniversity Press) KOOB. Print.
Nietzsche) Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. N.p.: Pen#"in) @BF:. Print.
Nietzsche) Friedrich. The T!ilight of the -dols and The Anti.*hrist% or Ho! to (hilosophi#e !ith a Hammer.
N.p.: Pen#"in) @BBO. Print.
Patti!o) Gianni. "ihilism and &mancipation% &thics, (olitics, and /a!. N.p.: =ol"!bia Lniversity Press) KOO:.
Print.