A Critical View on Nietzsche’s “Übermenschen” Democracy Project

”With a hundred such men . . . the whole noisy sham-culture of our age could now be silenced for ever.” (95)

Acutely criticizing the utilitarian science and mass culture, Nietzsche strongly persuades the reader to be completely independent and autonomous. His refusal of the Hegelian narrative of world-view, that the world is gradually improving and all aspects of the human race will eventually arrive at an eternal consolation, unveils the shaky foundation of scientific ‘knowledge’ and historical ‘facts.’ According to his plan of rebellion, when all stubborn epistemological, ethical, and even aesthetic criteria hitherto are abolished, ‘not the masses but individuals’ (111) will emerge as the new generation of Übermensch (superman). They will individually set their vital aims with ‘masculinity’ and overcome any obstacle in reaching those goals. His adamant proposition seems ideal and subversive, and it is not surprising that he has been considered elitist, misogynist, and nihilist.

Almost all criticisms on him are valid in their foundation, but many of those contemporary postmodernist oppositions might miss the exact target since Nietzsche was unaware of the developments of the chaotic twentieth century. Hence, here I want to carry out a ‘thought experiment’ following his suggestion of reformation and anticipating the consequences. Suppose that, on a bright day in the late nineteenth century, a hundred German dwellers suddenly realized their existential purpose and the fallacy of mainstream ethics. They might have some common interests and would be in conflict with each other when the resources for their own goals are limited. Because a superior juridical system does not exist and Nietzsche did not prohibit violence, arguments, fights, even wars may start. What is more, the world of “Übermenschen” is essentially unfair and inefficient; people would not know the concept of love and solidarity. Moreover, any minorities including children, elders, and the mentally and physically disabled, who are deprived of chances of becoming an Übermensch, would be the victims of this savage culture. What if one Übermensch has the opinion that all beings except her should be exterminated?

Is Nietzsche prepared for this expected anarchy and chaos? His nonsystematic writing style and provocative word usage makes it hard to extract his concrete plan. However, several of his quotes support and supplement the radical plan. Firstly, his plan does not require restarting the human race from tabula rasa, but insists ‘that our first generation must be educated.’ (119) Not systematic but self-directed, the ‘supra-historical’ education of Übermenschen would provide them with the basic moral codes among human society. Secondly, Nietzsche believed in the spontaneous ability of the super-men community ‘to organize the chaos.’ (122) He explains that to arrange the disorder, ancient Greeks followed the Delphic teaching, retrospected, and found their true need. (122) If an Übermensch community can find a common goal, conflict might be alleviated.

To prevent the total barbarian anarchy, I think Nietzsche should at least admit the existence of an ethical common ground among human beings. Of course, the detailed personalities are, and should be, varying. If the individual self-education has a form of ‘the exalted spirit-dialogue,’ (111) and is energized by ‘their own youth,’ (120) anyone might be able to find the essential moral codes such as respect for life and altruism. Then an utopia with both stability and diversity might prosper—or might not if the common ground does not exist at all. Can this naive prospect on human nature suffice as a reason for revolution? My current opinion is in the negative. We need a lot more scientific and philosophical evidence on humanity before we demolish all the things we have.