Why do people attempt to reinterpret Nietzsche as a politically correct thinker?

Question

Why do many advocates of Nietzsche exert themselves so energetically in "explaining away" Nietzsche's negative views of women, democracy and various races?

They argue that his opinion of women wasn't really as low as it may seem, that anything totalitarian perceived in his work is a misinterpretation etc.

But as Nietzscheans don't they realize that pandering to the received wisdom and political prejudices of academia, attempting to render him palatable to the mob, and force his views to conform to the current zeitgeist of political correctness, all for the purpose of "justifying" him, is laughably un-Nietzschean?

So why do they do it?

Answer 1

Look to human nature and Nietzsche for your answer - the VAST majority of us are not the ubermensch, rather we are the sheep. And so we don't want to look like fools, we want to seem as though we know what's going on, and we don't have the nerve to stand up to public or academic "ridicule" or shame for believing what we believe.
Better to make Nietzsche attractive to other feminists or whomever than be the only one standing there defending your beliefs in a man who was, clearly, a misogynist.

But why they all can't just say, hey yeah, Nietzsche was kind of a prick, but that doesn't mean ALL of his thinking was poor, or wrong etc... - I don't know, its bothered me for years.

Answer 2

I think it's because modern Nietzscheans think he has some interesting insights in his works, but feel a social presure to philosophically distance themselves from more 'negative' aspects of his thinking. Many people will make ad hominem attacks on Nietzsche and thereby assert that there is no useful core truth or wisdom in anything that he was saying. In order to advocate a 'Nietzschean" perspective, you therefore have to modify it to make it more palatable to current sensibilities.

This isn't necessarily wrong -- as all philosophy is basically reinterpreting and building on the works of previous thinkers -- though it may not be accurate in terms of the way Nietzsche really thought during his time.

Answer 3

I have felt this too, and i generally agree. It may be linked to his attempt to transcend theism and Christianity. Marxism and the New Left are generally both anti-religious, and would see Judaeo-Christian morality as reactionary, so the fact that he wanted to leave this behind was encouraging to them. There is also an echo of Marx's attitude to ethics in Nietzsche's views, because Marx saw ethical attitudes as determined by one's class position, so a member of the bourgeois can't help but have values which oppress the proletariat and the working class tend to follow "the opiate of the people", namely religion perceived generally as Judaeo-Christian. Once a communist society was achieved, there would be no more need for religion and there would also be no more slave morality, i.e. Judaeo-Christian values. This is, i think, the link between Nietzsche and political correctness.

However, i would say that Marxism is firmly in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, even to the extent of having an eschatology, and it also characterises all spirituality as similar to dominant Western religion, which is a mistake, whereas Nietzsche rejects it quite clearly.

It's actually quite convoluted and a bit like the emperor's new clothes. It's the kind of thing which has become academic dogma, probably due to the social forces which operate in academia. Sometimes they can't see beyond it easily because they are too fixated on minutiae and sometimes it's because they can't speak out because of their career interests, which is why i'm here typing this rather than in a university department. Oh, and also very poor and somewhat bitter.

"Organisation is suppression" is it? OK, so why is he still an academic? (Google it and you'll see what i mean).

Answer 4

I still can't understand why people paint Nietzsche as a racist. There is absolutely no evidence in his writings that he condemns anyone on racial grounds; it is always about how a race is culturally and morally. He frequently refers to 'being oriental' as something worthwhile.
I accept the fact that he wrote mysoginist rubbish in his books an still this doesn't make me miss his insight, where it is.
His 'political philosophy' is so fragmented as to be non-existent. The problem here is that most of the fragments are viewed through post-WWII eyes. This, for instance, from the Gay Science:

"Parliamentarianism - That is, public permission to choose between five political opinions - flatters and wins the favour of all those who would like to *seem* independant and individual, as if they fought for their opinions. Ultimately however, it is indifferent whether the herd is commanded to have one opinion or five. Whoever deviates from the five public opinions and stands apart, will lways have the whole herd against him."

That is the only overt political statement in the book and I challenge anyone to deny its sharp insight. That might trip from the lips of any independant commentator today.
It is his vocabulary which is inflammatory to our ears: the word 'herd'.
It's difficult to whitewash him without castrating him, as you pointed out. Everyone has a general (though sometimes mistaken) idea of what he represents, so the whitewashes will never be completely successful.

Answer 5

No question that Nietzsche was very sexist and he was no fan of democracy.

And he was racist. But then he was racist with about as even a hand as you can get. He blamed the Jews for our life-denying Judeo-Christian ideals but then commended them for being a strong, cohesive people in the face of oppression, stronger than other people fortunate enough to have a homeland (cough... Germans... cough.) Credit where it's due.

He was no totalitarian. His views on government and any mass movements of the people are anything but flattering. Hilter's political party would have given him a dreadful pain.

Take into consideration that his proto-Nazi sister took a lot of his work and altered it when he was too mentally ill to stop her.

Answer 6

Nietzsche himself spoke at the start of 'ecce homo' wrote of wishing to prevent people from 'doing him mischief' with their words on his behalf. So I will do my best to honor him with the following:
'Thus far, there has only been 1 true Christian...& his name was Christ' Nietzsche
...seems only sensible, we should say the same about him.

Answer 7

Kicks

Answer 8

Never listen to the "political correct" brigade they will poisonous us all with their mis-guided babbling.

As long as you can respect others thats all that matters in life.