Neophilologus

, Volume 96, Issue 3, pp 411–425

Robert Musil’s Cultural Diagnostics in the Light of Nietzschean Immunology

Open Access
Article
  • 499 Downloads

Abstract

Nietzsche was one of the first to point out the importance of immunological processes that are at work in any society to maintain its coherence against threats. At the same time, Nietzsche was aware that these immunological processes can become too rigid, ultimately even dangerous and self-destructive. Roberto Esposito has shown that Nietzsche’s work contains at the same time the seeds of such a problematic form of immunology and another way of thinking immunology that could avoid the dangerous consequences. Nietzsche knew that a society which rigidly bans out all threats will rob itself of the capacity for revitalizing itself. I will show that the Nietzschean writings on immunology are a crucial influence on Robert Musil. Due to the complexities with this aspect of Nietzsche’s work, this influence is not immediately obvious. Exploring this influence will help to clarify certain aspects of Musil’s work, such as the prevalence of pathological behavior in Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften. Moreover, it will make clear why Musil was very critical of Nietzsche’s legacy, while at the same time claiming that his work is full of possibilities which nobody takes up. To find a way to foreclose the dangerous forms of immunological thinking, for which people found inspiration in Nietzsche’s work, Musil takes up another way of thinking immunology that also comes out of Nietzsche’s thought.

Keywords

Musil Nietzsche Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften Immunology Health Cultural critique 

References

  1. Canguilhem, G. (1989). The normal and the pathological. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  2. Esposito, R. (2008). Bios; biopolitics and philosophy. London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  3. Groot, G. (2003). Vier ongemakkelijke filosofen; Nietzsche, Cioran, Bataille, Derrida. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij SUN.Google Scholar
  4. Jonsson, S. (2004). A citizen of Kakania. New Left Review, 27(May, June), 131–141.Google Scholar
  5. Le Blanc, G. (2007). Les maladies de l’homme normal. Paris: J. Vrin.Google Scholar
  6. Lukács, G. (1958). Wider den missverstandenen Realismus. Hamburg: Claassen.Google Scholar
  7. Musil, R. (1976). In A. Frisé (Ed.), Tagebücher. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  8. Musil, R. (1978). In A. Frisé (Ed.), Gesammelte Werke in neun Bänden. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  9. Nietzsche, F. (1967). Menschliches, Allzumenschliches. In G. Colli & M. Montinari (Eds.), Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Band IV2, pp. 259–430). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Google Scholar
  10. Nietzsche, F. (1969). Götzen-Dämmerung. In G. Colli & M. Montinari (Eds.), Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Band VI3 pp. 49–154). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Google Scholar
  11. Nietzsche, F. (1971). Morgenröthe. In G. Colli & M. Montinari (Eds.), Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Band V1, pp. 1–335). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Google Scholar
  12. Nietzsche, F. (1972). Unzeitgemässe Betrachtungen. In G. Colli & M. Montinari (Eds.), Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Band III1, pp. 153–423). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Google Scholar
  13. Sloterdijk, P. (2009). Du musst dein Leben ändern; über Anthropotechnik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  14. Zupancic, A. (2003). The shortest shadow; Nietzsche’s philosophy of the two. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research School in Culture and History, Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.LeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations