What is so objectionable about being domesticated, tamed, civilized? Nietzsche comes very close, in ๐บ๐, to equating these to โweaknessโ and โsickness,โ so far as our species is concerned. His depiction of the ascetic priest โ as consoler and caretaker and ruler of the slaves, the herd, the failures โ no doubt contains a good deal of truth and clarifying insight. But just as there are exceptionally strong and gifted specimens among the โwell-turned-out,โ healthy, and happy โmasters,โ can we also imagine even stronger and nobler figures who refuse to segregate themselves from the โbad airโ of the โsickโ slaves (as Nietzsche advises the masters to do) because these figures are strong enough to withstand it, like brave physicians among the infectious? Wouldnโt this additional strength be needed, in fact, precisely in order to overcome the temptation to draw that segregating line for the sake of avoiding contamination?
ย
To be sure, the ascetic ideal (and its implementation in human history) has sensitized and tenderized us as a species โ but I ask: will we truly be better off by adopting Nietzscheโs proposed solution โ the complete and ongoing, โaristocraticโ separation of the โhealthy-happyโ from the โsick-depressiveโ?[1] This strikes me as a regression to an earlier, less enlightened, cruder stage of human development โ as if 2000 years of Christianization can or should simply be obliterated. Nietzsche โ while he grudgingly admits that some genuine good came from this largely harmful and debilitating Christianization (humans became more โinterestingโ and more โhonestโ as a consequence) โ sees more cons than pros, overall. As a non-believer, I can say, un-hypocritically, that I see more pros than cons, myself. If I am not a Christian by โbelief,โ I am certainly a Christian by acculturation, as perhaps all of us are in the West, simply by virtue of the fact that pervasive Christian ideas, values, and narratives have shaped our minds and personalities. In a similar way, we moderns carry vestiges of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Jews.
ย
But even on a practical level, I find Nietzscheโs proposal preposterous โ if only because a decisive majority of humans living today would not stand (or fall!) for this division or segregation that he proposes. While the masses will always be gullible, today they are not quite as clueless about power and politics, on the whole, as they were even 100 years ago. Interestingly, this general demystification of politics is due, in part, to the decline of religious piety and orthodoxy (thanks to science and Anti-Christian writers like Nietzsche).
ย
As an imaginative re-creator of mankindโs past โ its prehistoric and pre-modern stages of development โ Nietzsche has few peers. As a speculator about our origins, he brings much to the discussion โ along with thinkers like Rousseau, Freud, Jung, Levi-Bruhl, Yuval Harari, etc. But the big question is whether or not this โdomesticationโ process that has been enabled and implemented by language, rituals, religion, culture, ideals, and pain-inflicting punishments has transformed us in such fundamental ways that a return to the more instinct-governed way of life that our distant ancestors were confined to is even possible. If not, then Nietzscheโs proposals are likely to lead to a bad end. There is no going back. The way ahead must somehow incorporate or sublate the elements of our present condition, not erase or eradicate them.
ย
My strongest intuition โ and it may be dead wrong โ is that unless we find a way to face the future as a more or less unanimous species, we will do ourselves in. Paradoxically, in order for this precarious consensus of humanity to occur, only those who reject divisive recommendations will be in a position to bring this about, for obvious reasons. Those who are most likely to support Nietzscheโs ๐๐ฃ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฆ aristocratic scheme are those who fancy themselves โmastersโโthose whose aim is to dominate and exploit the โslaves,โ the โmany.โ So, if Iโm right, our survival and recovery from the crisis we are now faced with will depend not upon that camp Nietzsche calls โmasters,โ but on those other strong, wise men and women who are ๐๐๐๐๐๐ฆ pledged to a species-embracing, human future. A tall order, to be sure, but perhaps the only option that stands a chance of averting a global catastrophe.
ย
Nietzscheโs breakdown or division of humans into two camps โ master types and slave types โ is ultimately as stupid as it is rhetorically attractive (to inflated ignoramuses). It is stupid because humans have, for some time now, occupied various points ๐๐ ๐๐๐ก๐ค๐๐๐ these two caricatures. Admittedly, persons born into todayโs master class have obvious advantages (in realizing their โhumanโ potential) that those from the slave class do not enjoy. Thus, we can approach these types โ master and slave โ from the ๐๐ฅ๐ก๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ standpoint of the socioeconomic class one is born into or from the ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ standpoint of oneโs native strengths, weaknesses, virtues, and vices. But regardless of the condition of birth, individual human beings evidently occupy all points across these simplistic polarities that Nietzsche presents (noble/base, strong/weak, honest/dishonest, courageous/cowardly, healthy/sick, etc.).
ย
By stressing the power drive (at the expense of humansโ perhaps equally natural inclinations to cooperation, to care for the helpless and infirm, to generosity and kindness โ as forms of strength, and not merely as cunning forms of weakness and manipulation), Nietzsche oversimplifies the โhuman animal.โ[2] This is not a minor oversight or trivial miscalculation about humans, since the train of reasoning that begins with this vision of the human leads undeviatingly to conclusions that are profoundly disturbing. As Keith Ansell-Pearson writes in the introduction to ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ : โWhat is disturbing about Nietzsche is his application of this way of thinking โbeyond good and evilโ to the social sphere, which results in his contention that culture and the advancement of man are not possible without slavery and cruelty.โ
ย
As I suggested elsewhere, Nietzscheโs rather intoxicating power as a persuasive writer depends as much or more upon his rhetorical-poetical gifts as it does upon the accuracy and comprehensiveness of his (generally one-sided, โpolemicalโ) speculations and arguments. I used the word โcaricatureโ to describe his otherwise compelling depictions of the โnobleโ and โslaveโ types. It is a masterful synthesis of extreme compression and vivid psychological coloration that comes to Nietzscheโs aid here โ bypassing the critical and skeptical resistances of the shocked, entertained, or ๐๐๐ฃ๐๐ข๐ก reader. It โfeelsโ just ๐๐๐โ๐ก ๐๐๐๐ข๐โ โ just likely or true enough โ to silence and stifle our objections.
ย
But this is the mesmerizing, seductive power of art, myth, poetry, and drama triumphing over the actual complexity of human beings, the countless exceptions to his binaristic typology, and the abundant counter evidence that would seriously weaken Nietzscheโs claimsโcounterevidence that might effectively undermine his implicit and explicit proposals as to how things in the future should proceed, given Nietzscheโs rather merciless view of the โhuman animal.โ
ย
Let us agree that, in the beginning of settled human communities โ in the first cities โ a powerful class of tribal warriors (such as we see in the ๐ผ๐๐๐๐, the ๐๐โ๐๐โ๐๐๐๐ก๐, the ๐ธ๐๐๐๐ , etc.) ruled over a larger population of serfs, slaves, and poor peasants. Under a power scheme such as this โ where a small minority of piratical, plundering warrior-nobles lorded it over a much larger population of tillers of the soil who had little or no freedom โ Nietzscheโs simplified picture fits quite closely. In the past several hundred years, however, the general spread of prosperity, political freedom, and education have done much to restructure the balance of power. If it is true that a relative minority of powerful economic and governmental elites continue to rule over most mass populations, it can be said that, in most places, they do so at the consent of the (more or less complacent) governed. What does this mean with respect to Nietzscheโs vision and expressed recommendations in the ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ฆ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ? I would argue that with the broader distribution of power and education, along with freedom of movement and expression, an institutionalized segregation of happy-healthy nobles from miserable-sick slaves is no longer a viable or sane option. Unless those at both ends of this โmaster-slaveโ spectrum come together for the sake of the species, untold hardships for everyone will be impossible to avoid.
ย
[1] What person who is equipped with even a smattering of intelligence and sensitivityโwith his/her eyes openโcan be truly โhappyโ for more than a few hours nowadays, anyway? Today, we humans are interconnected in ways that make it virtually impossible to insulate ourselves from events going on at great distances from us.
ย
[2] Even Achilles breaks down at the end of the ๐ผ๐๐๐๐ and, moved by Priamโs humble entreaty, releases Hectorโs body; even Edmund tries, at the end of ๐พ๐๐๐ ๐ฟ๐๐๐, to rescind his order to have the King and Cordelia slain. To be sure, these are literary characters that I have chosen in order to make my point, but their wise creators โ Homer and Shakespeare โ were not.
