Nietzsche Social Straightjacket Summary

Explanation Nietzsche’s conception of the “social straightjacket” and the history of morality in relation to selfhood and social norms.

Nietzsche starts his explanation of the genealogy of morals by evaluating the origin of a version of the word “good”. He posits that what is good is described by the person it is most useful for, essentially that what is “good” is subject to the perspective of the person who is on the receiving end of the action. Nietzsche also provides an alternative view to its origin, he claims that instead of “good” being defined by the person who benefits from the action, rather that the noble and powerful have claimed the right to define their actions and values as “good”. Nietzsche defends this view by explaining the

Values are malleable and can be shaped to promulgate power. Nietzsche then shifts his attention to the decline of the Aristocratic values and the uprising of un-egoistic views, the rise of un-egoistic values flips the moral spectrum, un-egoistic actions become more valued over Aristocratic actions. Filling this voice is religion and priests. The priests introduced purity, the negation of power, as a value that is good which brings the Aristocratic and un-egoistic values into contention, but where did the priests idea of purity originate from? Nietzsche credits the Jewish religion with the origin of valuing weakness and purity over power. Nietzsche again explains that morality is held by the value positing eye, that what is good and bad is subjective. The Jews were know at the time to have been in a very hostile environment and were under constant threat, here is the bias that Nietzsche points out. Why would the Jewish people hold the value of being powerful to a high degree when they themselves are being oppressed by those values? The Jewish religion, gives birth to Christianity which spreads across Europe with its priests thus inverting the entire moral landscape, or

According to fanon there are three distinct bodily schema: corporeal, historico-racial, and racial epidermal. Fanon explains the corporeal schema first. Corporeal schema is relationship with the world that applies to both the world and the person. The schema acts on both the body and world and lays the conditions both must abide by in order to operate. The body creates the world as it wishes to operate within it while the world gives the body a state that must be dealt with. The importance of this schema is that it grants the body an enormous amount of freedom. Fanon next explains the historico-racial schema. Historico-racial schema, according to Fanon, is one of two addendums to corporeal schema. Historico-racial scheme is what its name implies, one’s self if explained by the history of their race. Fanon explains it in this manner because he views history as largely fixed and therefore irreversible. For example, Fanon’s ancestors were known for cannibalism and therefore, so is he. Fanon, by means of the historico-racial schema, carries the history baggage of his ancestors and he is subject to that. Fanon continues to explain that although one’s history can be argued and dismissed their race cannot, race is permanent. Fanon proposes his racial epidermal schema thereafter. He proposes that race is permanent and cannot be changed and that race is indefinitely linked to race and thereby permanently