Nietzsche’s slave morality as submissive instead of reactive
Nietzsche has a few choice words for what he regards as slave morality. In his sociological explanation, he argues that the weak fable individuals enslaved to the master resist with a new ethic. Their revolt is conditioning a new frame that usurps their agonising masters. It is submissive incarnation coping with the degradation. Yet, Nietzsche’s historicist clarification fails to understand the totality of history.
His analysis makes sense in the christian context resisting hellenisation. Though christianity incorporated many aspects of master morality even if they played it off as slave morality. The church’s supremacy championed kindness but enforcing power. They utilised slave morality to quash the “master morality” vikings (which ironically is a cinematic construction). While this in itself incoherently acknowledges the mythos of nordic ethics, it does demonstrate the Church’s synthesis to control the masses. Nietzsche’s critique of christian institutionalism is fairly noted but that does not include pre-hellenistic morality whether in Persia or Jerusalem. The origins of Christianity seem have to submitted to the hellenistic vision and in time socially rebelled. The fall of the Roman Empire was an internal collapse. The lack of national patriotism was saved by religious cohesion especially in the Byzantine region.
While the Church may have finagled itself into a powerful regime built on asceticism and purity, this did not cease hierarchies, superiority complexes or deranged otherness. The crusades are perfect example of punishing weak Jews (who were weak because of christian polemics and laws. Also were amazing merchants). Nietzsche’s argument of christian slave morality may exist in modern liberalism but it had zero affect in the Middle Ages. His slave morality clause is true to its inception under attack from the hellenised Romans such as Nero and Hadrian. When they attained power, equal to the Roman Empire they followed the same paradigm. They maintained the classist structure with a few tweaks. Placing the Church atop the noble chain and the Pope as the Emperor. The crusades were a call to fight and then the christian world responded consecutively. Whether or not the Church promoted killing innocent Jews, christians exacted their dominion over the helpless Jews. They were cattle with no protection nor way of overcoming the threat.
The ethical dialectic begins in Ancient Greece and the shift in global perception. Thinking of great empires of Babylon and Persia. While they conquered the world, they rarely forced their beliefs on the nations they conquered, instead they required taxation. The Biblical stories attest to this and independence was a measure of strength and maintaining currency. Hellenism alters logistical conquest to ideological conquest. The ideological motive became ever terminable. Subjugating losers to the victor’s way of life. A uniform identity. Anyone out of line would feel the wrath. This measure of control ousts any otherness. Either with us or against us. Consequences were horrid. Take the ten martyrs or crusade victims. From Greece to Rome to Christianity, Islam to Nazi Germany and Liberalism. Each of these groups pushed their own ideology on everyone else forcing or expunging those who refused to conform or couldn’t. This has yet to end. From cyberbullying to heckling political polarisation has been so grave.
Acknowledging its history and universalist formulation subduing all otherness only promotes master morality and massacres. Persisting the theme with different characters or different orders did not alter the outcome. Different actors with the same mission to ensure their idea is uniformity accepted. This idea of power is the fear of otherness. There is a sole method. The modern movements of mcCarthyism and the red scare are perfect examples. Preaching democracy as the saviour the world and communism as the devil incarnate is a demonstration of monolithic advertisement. Ironically, the Nazis first came for the socialists then the trade unionists and then the Jews. It was the Aryan way or the highway. The Nazis like their predecessors followed the master morality methodology through brute force. Today, there is no critical thinking and the actors in charge like Nazism exert power over the other and the people stand idly by. A reoccurring theme that may not possess the same physical force of old yet does sufficient damage in media stereotypical polemics.
Slave morality at face value is a reaction to the master’s coercive force. That does not make it wrong. The submissive element toils in deconstructing the system. The ethic is to do the opposite. To reverse the hierarchy and undermine the power struggle. Nietzsche’s explanation explains the model in context of its resistance to the master morality. To expel the overbearing master, they attempt to do the reverse. They are the many whether the peasants in the feudal system or poor in the capitalist system who are at the mercy of the few controlling parties. The master’s are merely individuals who do as they wish excelling proficiently. It is the masses in their jealous revolt. They wish they can have what the masses have. They construct a boogyman fuelling their pettiness. It is not resilience it is foolish superficiality. It is a classic measure of apologetics justifying their own schemes. In capitalism is it the poor’s fault for not trying hard enough to gain money.
Apologists maintain that their way is correct and others are wrong. The red scare is regarded as the worst thing since sliced bread. The poor are poor because of their own insolence. The issue at large is the pragmatics involved. A system that overlooks the pain of the past in order to promote its agenda. Acknowledging their success and demoting others. Other’s failures is due to their own negligence. In the U.S. conservative arguments concerning absent fathers in the black community may be a cultural problem but given context with slavery and Jim Crowe there may be a larger psychological phenomenon. Another example is the competitive spirit but smaller businesses are at an inherent disadvantage and cannot compete and fail. It is a matter of recognising the complexity of situations. Nothing as as simple as it appears. There is more than meets the eye. There is an interconnected thread spreading from situation to situation, nothing is immune of influence.
Power is a the heuristic of control. Nietzsche absolves the marxian critique. The capitalist or the christian is not an aggressor but simply living his own life. Additionally, it may just be “human nature” to take at will lacking any responsibility to one another. There is an axiomatic ethic for the people but little proactiveness to ensure tranquility. People who are left behind are those who are lazy and bitter. This view muddles the corporate control and political hierarchical disposition. The initial clever manipulator placed himself above all else and the ensuing generations have suffered for this fool’s errand. Garnering support though hypnotic charisma is a savage egocentric perception. Support turns into influence which transforms into power. To an extent there are those who are responsible for enabling the few powerful to attain such might. Yet in most situations it was done in good faith. If the people trust the ruling class then they should be alright, Yet it is the minorities who suffer the most as the scapegoats.
Minorities did choose this fate. Blacks did not decide to be sold as slaves nor did Jews accept Nazi rule. At times Jews entered a town willingly but were promised to be cared for. William of Orange brought the Jews into England to help the economy and once they did their part he exiled them. He lied to them. Modern immigrants face the same challenge. It is not necessarily their fault and they then forced to start afresh in a foreign land treated as subhuman. Their minority status places them at the bottom of totem poll open for attack. Even when the nation promises protection is fails. Many a time there is no where else to turn. The majority’s submission is not equivalent to the minority. The majority also does not submit itself voluntarily to authoritarian rule. They are backstabbed by the leader. A promising prophet is a false prophet, the devil leading them to their demise. Being duped is not simple nor easily recognisable. The majority placed its hands in representatives that took it upon themselves to ensure their own future. Usually the founders are good-willed while corruption is a later generation, once power is entrenched in a certain class.
Cementing oneself in the echelons of the hierarchical order is advantageous and prolonged. Not everyone is born into a specific family or brilliant to invent something or a charismatic individual. Nature and nurture are privileges that are not afforded to everyone. Attributes are fated and while there are ways to eclipse it, that is not always possible. Even with these privileges, there is an ideological necessity. Entering the aristocratic group, there are certain qualifications to their ideals. A medieval Jew was coerced to submit to the church to further his wealth and today is to keep trading with wealthy friends. As long as the wealth is maintained in the upper stratosphere, it gives little opportunity to strive beyond. Since many of these wealthy institutions have entrenched their power over decades, it does not switch to average Joe to pull off a miracle. The players may change but not the mechanics. A system regulated in routine for enough time, the norm disallows any fundamental alterations. Revolution becomes the sole solution.
The ideologically possessed few reaching the top push their agenda for profit. Master morality is a misnomer. There is ethics here. It is to do whatever wish to maintain power. Feudal lord’s retained their might by expanding their circle. Both systems were highly profit incentivised. As long as profit is the prime motivator, it will continue to plague national cohesion. These few devilish characters redirect the public’s attention to the minorities as the scapegoat. It isn’t the greedy rich who have screwed the average person but the foreigners. Pinning the blame on otherness clouds the good willed civilian into a racist. The elitist club feeds on the people’s fears and directs them to these fictions with realistic consequences. They toy with people. Their influential might is placed in the minds of aspiring individuals. Everyone wishes to escape the average life for a spectacular life. All the riches and status. The powerful solidify their ethos with bogus achievements creating a yearning archetype.
Nietzsche’s mistake is in presenting slave morality as this nourished rebellion. Yet the assailants are Jews and christians. It is from the oppressed but more those from a different order. Religious observers have a unique niche to perceive the world a different plane. Their spiritual mechanics is a kind of schizophrenia. While a fictional presentation by scientific standards, its metaphysical orientation educates a differing model of life with different values. Slave morality is not vigorous hate for the master. Needing to act out like a rebellious teenager doing the complete opposite of parental guidance. While elements concerning socialism’s anti-hierarchy are responsive that does not mean, that should not be an ideal to search for. The Jewish biblical model was heavily hierarchical and fated. Slave morality in a sense perceives the suffering of the out of control chaos. An empathy is constructed from the traumatic travesty. The altered perception switches from a materialistic view to a caring view. Personal success is irrelevant if the collective does not advance as well.
It offers a grouped understanding. It is not individual aspiration but a collectivist dream. Understanding that technically there will be a hierarchy. Someone must lead the nation. Yet, in this situation, the representative clause is taken seriously. The leader works for the people because his ultimate goal is group development. It is honourable and generous. People working for one another is a duty. Appearances are hallowed for inner soulful presence. It was not an oppressed response out of jealousy but out of resentment. Devising changes to enter a new ethically successful society. Yet Soviet Russia failed in this regard. Just as the vikings pillaged for profit, Europe imperialised for profit and Soviet Russia worked for profit. A proper transition to ideal socialistic impact is through an ethical shift. Only those who have suffered understand the pain of others. The master does not care for consequence immune to his own pain. The slave sees his brethren suffering alongside himself. It unites them in a hopeful future. Responsibility for each other is a proactive claim to consistency check on people. The slave looks out for his own. Cogs in a wheel but in pursuit of a greater goal.
He does not work for his master’s industry. He wishes to be independent. Nietzsche forces morality into a binary. He does not see an oppressor but a successor. A celebrity everyone is envious of. Creating a reactive ethic to escape their status and destroy his status. If they cannot achieve then no one can. The slave is forced into the binary, he does not ask to be enslaved. He wishes for freedom. Whether from watching his master roam freely or simply recalling his life prior to his enslavement. Nietzsche’s paradigm suffers from acknowledging the master’s ultimate power over the slave. Given his critical democratic outlook it is not shocking that he dissolved the political setup back into a master-slave contract. There is some truth in the corporate feudalism but his answer of the superman is accepting the order of things. As it argues to fight fire with fire. To show one’s strength become a master oneself just as freed slaves become slave owners as well. There is an eternal hierarchy may as well play the game. The way out is to do others that which you did not like to be done to you. Don’t fret it’s natural selection.
This latter move is completing jealousy by becoming the monster itself. The powerless slave is reactionary no doubt but it is not as if his identity is entirely invented by trauma experienced. It is obviously a major factor in inspiring such experience but the irony is that the powerless recognise that there will always be a powerless even in an equal society. Variables are predetermined that crush the perfect life. It is the powerless who traumatically introspect and recognise a new future. The initial thought is how to overcome this situation to live like the master in an oedipus rage. The second step post-reflection is to shift the paradigm. How can the gap be reduced How can we will live comfortably with less problems? Focusing on the collective drastically diminishes the individualistic growth. If the individual seeks out his own salvation he will either become the monster master or abandon society fulfilling his own greed. The powerless collective seek salvation together. Their ethical primacy is motivated by a mutual understanding of pain and dread.
Power is not the sole answer to peace. The recognition of the binary overpowering dominance bemoans the stragglers. Failing to fall in line with the ideological monism will torment any progress forward. The latecomers are at a heavy disadvantage. They see revolution as the solution to equalising the playing field. At the current state due to the choices and influences some people have prevailed at the expense of others. Achieving heights whilst forgetting the rest of society. Nietzsche’s natural selection is void of collectivist responsibility. While he may loathe democracy he essentially is promoting its continuation in its Neo-aristocratic garb. Monetary passion need not be the aspiration of humanity. Individualism coerces self made accomplishments. Divided belittles those left behind. Often is not unskilled but repression. Those with power join to suppress otherness. They are actively ensuring their exclusivism. Their own privileges enabled their success and then prejudice others for attempting to achieve the same feet. Penalising attempts by cutting the rope collapsing the bridge to the wealthy sector.
Reaching the eminent space on the backs of others should leave at least an ounce of empathy. In psychopathic denial he refused to admit he needed others’ help to reach the pinnacle. He affirms his own pride as a self made man. A ludicrous assertion that fuels his arrogance. He is safe in a new group away from the stragglers. He has made it and quickly forgets the troubles of old. In despotic disgust he challenges others to devour their souls to attain his prestige. He lacks sympathetic humanity for the suffering. People do not choose suffering. By variables generally under their control are placed in awful positions. Privileged individuals should use this as a time to look back. Even the owner who makes a huge profit, is only profiting from his workers’ hard work. He may have provided the supplies but it is their tireless effort that ensured his success. Gratitude loyalty and responsibility are values voided in the monistic individualism. The contract is incongruent. The employer doing others a favour. He fails to acknowledge their prominent work to accomplish the vision. It is not shocking that strikes occur. People grow angry when they are not appreciated for their work and uncompensated for their efforts. They are humans not animals to you with and do away when unnecessary.
Any success story persists to require others to succeed. Any owner needs employees an author needs readers and a politician needs voters. Every success occurs with reciprocation. While the employee reader and voter are receivers and gracious ones at that, they still play a pivotal role in the success. If not for them, there would be no profit no company no book no campaign. Even more so the staff the owner author and political work with to put everything together. A recognition of the others’ need fuels an awareness of collectivism. In this language game of exchange it is less a gift and more a mutual need. The pride that comes with a moral implications. The ethical relation is beneficial in helping both camps without exploitation. Yet placing oneself in a higher seat as better than others. That they need you more than you need them, is dually egregious. It furthers this Nietzschean superiority complex over taking all for granted. Any concern for the other or collective is undermined. The monetary excess and profit generated are primary concerns not the concerns of the workers or the voters. Toying and manipulating people.
Context to master morality places its origin in hellenistic universalism. Its ideological backing pushed individualistic profit motivation. The church, medieval and modern imperialism both attribute to this norm. The only empire resistant to this affect was the east. The great Chinese empires did little to expand westward. They had their own superiority complex but their choosiness was spiritually relevant manifesting in a bordered existence. The asian empires that of the Mongols, Khmer and Meiji committed horrific massacres as well but not pushed by ideological bound were religiously tolerant. They were barbaric in their own right like their western counterparts but to some extent it follows more of the ancient logistical conquest than the ideological universalism of the west. Both were tremendously brutal and hunted difference but at times the irony lies in the liberal deceivers who claim to push for freedom and liberty all the while planning to undermine the faithful.
No comments:
Post a Comment