Nietzsche Nationalism And Identity Analysis

Nationalism and Identity;
Authenticity against the will-to-truth.

BENJAMIN GUY TICKNER
Oslo University

Abstract.
The revitalization of both civic and political nationalism draws a powerful parallel to the concerns held by Friedrich Nietzsche writing at the end of the nineteenth century. In light of these concerns a detailed analysis of the proliferation of these tendencies seems highly warranted ― one which I am undertaking as part of a much larger project ― yet aside from the question of how Nietzsche’s thoughts can perhaps illuminate a better understanding of contemporary issues, the question of why the genealogical approach is best suited to this task becomes an important stepping stone in pursuit of this larger project.

The moral ambiguity of nationalism, which pitches diverse socio-political and ethno-cultural struggles for self-determination and political independence – to name just two dimensions - against the more-often-than-not harsh reality of ultra-violence and oppression to those not included or uncooperative towards nationalist sentiment paints a complex picture of the wants and fears of society at a particular time. In a moral context, this spectra of consequences reflects a deep tension between solidarity with oppressed national groups vis-à-vis repulsion in the face of crimes perpetrated in the name of such movements (Nenad, 2014). Therefore the resurgence of the ultra-right wing within the political theatre and the preceding excavation of long thought antiquated civic and ethnic nationalist sentiments sits – arguably as a consequence or cause – in direct confrontation to increasing number of refugees, migrants, economic-immigrants and a plethora of other displaced and/or persecuted peoples seeking refuge in the so-called “developed” world and has therefore catapulted nationalist agendas to the very forefront of domestic concerns. As Nenad (2014) notes in relation to the wider context of problems related to the treatment of ethnic

Why Nietzsche now? An analysis of becoming.
As David Owen asks in his book “Nietzsche, politics and modernity” (1995), “Why Nietzsche now?” (Owen, 1995, p. ix), there has recently been a growing support behind the idea that Nietzsche’s writings on nationalism shouldn’t be accepted as anything more than postulating on a subject that is so far removed from the context of his day as to render it useless. The position agues, that because of the nature of Nietzsche’s writings, which are often antithetical – seeming to often support contradictory positions – written in aphoristic style and in many cases un-systematic, proponents such an Christian Emden and Simon Glendinning are right in characterizing two inter-related critical positions regarding the competence of the genealogical method to present an effective understanding of modern phenomena. In relation to the question why Nietzsche now… I think these positions are worth exploring both as a critical response to Owens, and with the intent of situating Nietzsche’s genealogy of nationalism in the orientation it was first intended to be