Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:16:33.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Critique of European Nihilism. Interpretation, Responsibility, and Action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2014

Jon Wittrock
Affiliation:
School of Social Sciences, Södertörn University, 14189 Huddinge, Sweden. E-mail: jon.wittrock@sh.se
Mats Andrén
Affiliation:
Department of Literature, History of Ideas, and Religion, University of Gothenburg, PO Box 200, SE 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden

Abstract

The concept of ‘nihilism’ is ambiguous and has had and continues to be attached to several different usages. This special Focus primarily looks at the ways in which ‘nihilism’, in and following the works of Friedrich Nietzsche, has been understood as specifically tied to a crisis of European culture or civilisation, and has come to be politicised in conjunction with the National Socialist and Fascist movements in Germany and Italy during the twentieth century. Specifically, the individual articles deal with the connection between an understanding of nihilism and what it entails for the question concerning political responsibility. This introductory article presents this thematic, introduces the other contributions, and attempts to situate these debates on nihilism in the context of processes of secularisation. The article retrieves three major themes in relation to the critiques surveyed in this special Focus: nihilism as a crisis of beliefs and values, as an appropriation of religious elements into ideological grand narratives, and as the unshackling of an instrumental approach towards reality, and argues that all of them remain relevant to contemporary debates.

Type
Focus: Nihilism
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes and References

1.Skulsky, H. (2009) Staring into the Void: Spinoza, the Master of Nihilism (Newark: University of Delaware Press), and P. K. Crosser (1955) The Nihilism of John Dewey (New York: The Philosophical Library).Google Scholar
2.Cf. Gillespie, M. A. (1995) Nihilism before Nietzsche (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
3.Ohana, D. (2009) The Dawn of Political Nihilism. Volume I of the Nihilist Order (Brighton & Portland: Sussex Academic Press), p. 2.Google Scholar
4.Cf. Slocombe, W. (2006) Nihilism and the Sublime Postmodern: The (Hi)Story of a Difficult Relationship from Romanticism to Postmodernism (New York: Routledge), p. 78.Google Scholar
5.Cacciari, M. (1993) Architecture and Nihilism: On the Philosophy of Modern Architecture (New Haven & London: Yale University Press), p. 199.Google Scholar
6.Cf. Jacobi, F. H. (1987) Open letter to Fichte. In: E. Behler (ed.) Philosophy of German Idealism (New York: Continuum).Google Scholar
7.Turgenev, I. (2008) Fathers and Sons (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 24.Google Scholar
8.Nikolai Strakhov quoted in Stites, R. (1987) The Women’s Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilism, and Bolshevism 1860–1930 (Princeton: Princeton University Press), p. 99.Google Scholar
9.Nietzsche, F. (1968) The Will to Power (New York: Random House), p. 7.Google Scholar
10.Jaspers, K. (1947) Der Philosophische Glaube (München: R. Piper & Co Verlag), p. 103.Google Scholar
11.Löwith, K. (1995) ‘European Nihilism’ Reflections on the Spiritual and Historical Background of the European War. In Martin Heidegger and European Nihilism (New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 181208.Google Scholar
12.Arendt, H. (2003) Responsibility and Judgment (New York: Schocken Books), p. 177.Google Scholar
13.Cf., for example, Heidegger, M. (2003) Philosophical and Political Writings (New York & London: Continuum), p. 33.Google Scholar
14.Cf., for example, the chilling ending of Schmitt’s posthumously published (1991) Glossarium: Aufzeichnungen der Jahre 1947–1951 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot), p. 320.Google Scholar
15.Schmitt, C. (2003) The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum (New York: Telos Press), p. 49.Google Scholar
16.Cf., for example, Lacoue-Labarthe, P. (1990) Heidegger, Art and Politics: The Fiction of the Political (Oxford: Blackwell), p. 34.Google Scholar
17.Heidegger, M. (1976) What is Called Thinking? (New York: Harper & Row), p. 66.Google Scholar
18.Schmitt, C. (1988) The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press), p. 76.Google Scholar
19.Cf., for example, Lübbe, H. (2003) Säkularisierung: Geschichte eines ideenpolitischen Begriffs (Freiburg/München: Verlag Karl Alber), p. 23.Google Scholar
20.Löwith, K. (1967) Meaning in History: The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of History (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press), p. 43.Google Scholar
21.Schmitt, C. (2005) Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press), p. 36.Google Scholar
22.Heidegger, M. (2012) Contributions to Philosophy (Of the Event) (Bloomington: Indiana University Press), pp. 2122.Google Scholar
23.For a recent study on the case of the French Revolution, cf. Velicu, A. (2010) Civic Catechisms and Reason in the French Revolution (Farnham: Ashgate).Google Scholar
24.Here one should of course mention Casanova’s, J. study of the ‘deprivatization’ of religion in (1994) Public Religions in the Modern World (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
25.It should be noted that, according to Carl Schmitt in his work on Thomas Hobbes, it was exactly the fact that Hobbes, albeit supportive of a shared, collective worship, separated inner faith from outer confession, that opened up the gates towards political secularisation in Europe; cf. Schmitt, C. (2008) The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press), p. 125.Google Scholar
26.Arendt, H. (2006) Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought (London: Penguin Books), p. 201.Google Scholar
27.Marx, K. (with F. Engels) (1998) The German Ideology including Theses on Feuerbach and Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books), p. 574 (emphasis in the original).Google Scholar
28.Heidegger, M. (1998) Pathmarks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 338.Google Scholar
29.Rawls, J. (2005) Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press), p. 214.Google Scholar
30.Habermas, J. (2001) The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays (Cambridge: Polity Press), p. 128.Google Scholar
31.Cf. Mouffe, C. (2005) On the Political (Milton Park: Routledge).Google Scholar
32.Habermas, J. (2002) Religion and Rationality: Essays on Reason, God, and Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 160, 164.Google Scholar
33.Habermas, J. (2012) The Crisis of the European Union: A Response (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 75, 89.Google Scholar
34.Heidegger, M. (1991) Nietzsche, Volume IV: Nihilism (New York: HarperCollins), p. 190.Google Scholar
35.Cf. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (2012) The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition (London: Verso), p. 38.Google Scholar
36.The latter half of the twentieth century, and up until the present day, has seen intense debates on processes of secularisation, and their alleged reversals or counter-movements, often by comparing Europe as an exceptional case to other parts of the world; cf., for example Davie, G. (2002) Europe: The Exceptional Case. Parameters of Faith in the Modern World (London: Darton, Longman & Todd), and P. Berger, G. Davie and E. Fokas (2008) Religious America, Secular Europe? A Theme and its Variations (Burlington: Ashgate). While. For example, J. Casanova in (1994) Public Religions in the Modern World (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press), speaks of a deprivatisation of religion in recent decades, P. Norris and R. Inglehart (2011) Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), maintain that the general trend is nonetheless one of diminishing existential risks entailing a loosening of the grip of organised religion, even in the US, if one controls for certain factors. The entire debate is obviously complicated further once we start to question the very conceptual pair of ‘religious’ and ‘secular’, i.e. why would the rituals of the nation, or the grand narratives of allegedly secular ideologies, indeed be ‘secular’, and not ‘religious’?.Google Scholar
37.Tumarkin, N. (1997) Lenin Lives! The Lenin Cult in Soviet Russia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), p. 264, recalls the anecdote of a competition for a statue of Alexander Pushkin: third prize went to a statue of Lenin reading Pushkin, second prize to a statue of Pushkin reading Lenin – but first prize went to a statue of Lenin. And any visitor the Ho Chi Minch Museum in Hanoi should have a look at the small Japanese 1960’s transistor radio contained there in a glass box, on account of having been a gift from the Soviet Union. The strangeness of that object, venerated within that glass box, is immediately striking.Google Scholar
38.Indeed, as Asad, T. observes in (2010) Toward a genealogy of the concept of ritual. In: P. J. Stewart and A. Strathern (eds) The International Library of Essays in Anthropology: Ritual (Farnham: Ashgate), p. 237. ‘The semantic distinction between “outward sign” and “inward mentality” is in fact an ancient one and has been drawn by Christian reformers throughout the ages.’Google Scholar
39.Cf., for example, Cavarra Britton, K. (ed.) (2010) Constructing the Ineffable: Contemporary Sacred Architecture (New Haven: Yale University Press), K. Oliver (2013) To Touch the Face of God: The Sacred, the Profane, and the American Space Program, 1957–1975 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press); D. Cowan (2010) Sacred Space: The Quest for Transcendence in Science Fiction Film and Television (Waco: Baylor University Press); F. Berkes (2012) Sacred Ecology (New York & London: Routledge); and R. Scruton (2012) The Face of God: The Gifford Lectures 2010 (London & New York: Continuum). Some, like S. Critchley, in (2012) The Faith of the Faithless: Experiments in Political Theology (London: Verso), p. 25, have come to see, ’with no particular joy’, much of modern and contemporary politics in terms of metamorphoses of the sacred. Our point is that, whether we welcome or dislike such developments, they call, by themselves, for a deeper reflection on the functions of the sacred and corresponding categories, which may not necessarily be called by that name.Google Scholar
40.It is hardly surprising that so many scholars on the subject, despite their differences in other respects, have pointed to the analogies between nationalism and organised religion. According to some, nationalism has served as a kind of replacement in this respect; C. Hayes claims, for example, in (1960) Nationalism: A Religion (New York: Macmillan), p. 15, that developments during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries resulted in ‘a kind of religious void … for large numbers of people in modern Europe and the contemporary world … any such void is unnatural, and an urge arises to fill the void with some new faith.’ And W. Parker claims in (1984) Europe, America and the Wider World: Essays on the Economic History of Western Capitalism, Volume 1: Europe and the World Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 231, that ‘Europeans … seemed increasingly to need in politics, as they once had needed in religion, an intercessor between the individual and the universal, an object of tangible love on a grand scale [...] It was not simply a political necessity, but a psychic hunger that the national idea fulfilled…’ Several theorists have pointed to such similarities more recently, for example Smith, J. (1994) Quasi-Religions: Humanism, Marxism and Nationalism (Basingstoke: Macmillan); B. Anderson (2002) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London & New York: Verso); and A. Smith (2001) Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History (Cambridge: Polity Press). Strictly speaking, however, national narratives, rituals and symbols typically neither entirely replace, nor function in an identical way to, those of organised religion. Furthermore, religious elements may become part of national narratives.Google Scholar
41.These ambiguities can be clearly perceived in classical, indeed canonical, works on the sacred, such as Durkheim, E. (1995) The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (New York: The Free Press), R. Otto (1950) The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational (Oxford: Oxford University Press); and M. Eliade (1987) The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (Orlando: Harcourt).Google Scholar
42.This is not only a question of the reach of the commodification of objects, but also of landscapes and bodies as well as of time: an important part of early industrialisation in England consisted of the destruction of traditional holidays, removed from the world of work. Cf. M. Perelman (2000) The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation (Duke University Press: Durham & London), p. 17.Google Scholar
43.Tensions between national symbols and supra-national ones have been clearly visible in the development of the EU, for example in the transition from the rejected Constitutional Treaty to the Lisbon Treaty, a development that entailed both a rejection of the explicit reference to the EU’s shared symbols as well as a hesitance to clearly and concisely state the actually recognised primacy of EU law over national law; cf., for example, Piris, J.-C. (2010) The Lisbon Treaty: A Legal and Political Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 23, 81–89. Trans-national and cosmopolitan democratic projects ought certainly to reflect on the proper locus, if any, of shared, publicly supported symbols and rituals, but also on the role presently carried out by narratives on nations in withdrawing certain domains from ordinary usage and hence restraining tendencies towards commodification.Google Scholar