Nietzsche's Übermensch
Masks and Poetics of the Self
Every profound spirit needs a mask ...(Nietzsche, 1886/1990, p. 69)
(Nietzsche, 1882/1974, p. 241)
It
is as difficult to define the concept of the Self as it is to define
God. The Self, being rooted in the unconscious, often communicates
indirectly through symbols, masks, irony and sounds. Nietzsche
maintained that "every profound spirit needs a mask: more, around every
profound spirit a mask is continuously growing, thanks to the
continuously false, that is to say shallow interpretation of every word
he speaks, every sign of life he gives" (Nietzsche, 1886/1990, p. 69).
He also declared that one must learn to speak in order to remain silent;
in what one says, one is simultaneously always concealing something:
"every philosophy is a foreground philosophy ... , every philosophy also
conceals philosophy: every opinion is also a hiding place, every word
also a mask".
A mask, which Jung called a persona, is "how one appears to oneself and the world, but not
what one is". The etymology derives from per sonare, to "sound
through", and refers to masks worn by ancient actors who had to project
their voices to the audience through fitted mouth tubes. A mask reveals
as much as it conceals, and it can grow into the wearer's face,
imperceptibly merging with the "true", silent self. The term
"personality", which derives from persona, possibly conveys this fusion.
A mask is more like a skin than a shell, so that the inner self still
shows through. The choice of a mask is revealing, as it can either
augment the unexpressed self or form the opposite of it. A mask can
serve as defensive armour that protects against getting hurt; it can
also be a weapon of attack or represent a heroic ideal to live up to.
Nietzsche's many masks (for instance, that of a rebel, or a misogynist,
an Antichrist, a tragic hero, an immoralist, the Übermensch, and so
forth) may have served all these functions in turn.
Above all, a
mask allows the wearer to hover at the boundary of dilemma: to be seen
or not to be seen. Winnicott postulated that "Although healthy
persons communicate and enjoy communicating, the other fact is equally
true that each individual is an isolate, permanently non-communicating,
permanently unknown, in fact unfound ... . At the centre of each person
is an incommunicado element and this is sacred and most worthy of
preservation". He stressed that "in the artists of all kinds,
one can detect an inherent dilemma, which belongs to the coexistence of
the two trends, the urgent need to communicate and the still more urgent
need not to be found", and in "a sophisticated game of
hide-and-seek ... it is joy to be hidden but disaster not to be found". Perhaps the opposite is just as true: it is joy to be
found but disaster not to be hidden. The oscillation between these
positions was pivotal to Nietzsche's soul. A close friend, Ida Overbeck,
observed: "Among his great uncertainties was the one that he always
wanted to hear his echo but at the same time was horrified of it". And she added: "He knew how to listen
receptively, but never revealed his mind completely or clearly. He felt a
need to remain unknown".
The problem of
reconciling the opposites lies at the heart of mask wearing. The concept
of coincidentia oppositorum [coincidence of the opposites] originated
in Heraclitus, the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher much admired by
Nietzsche. The battle of the opposites, fuelled by his mood
fluctuations, became a turbulent undercurrent in Nietzsche's philosophy
and also in his life. The constant tension and energy of the conflict
proved a source of inspiration and creativity for him; the strife led to
"new and more powerful births". The
discord between inner truth and the falsity of outer appearance may
reach an unbearable intensity, and, if unresolved for a long time, it
can lead to a crisis, even to psychosis. Jung cautioned that
"progressive development and differentiation of consciousness leads to
an ever more menacing awareness of the conflict and involves nothing
less than the crucifixion of the ego, the agonizing suspension between
the irreconcilable opposites". The healing tendency of the self
would strive towards bridging this gaping chasm (or "abyss", as
Nietzsche would have called it) by uniting the opposites into conjunctio
oppositorum. Huskinson, who closely followed Jung in her
interpretation, perceived the Übermensch as Nietzsche's failed attempt
to strive towards such union of the opposites. According to her, he
aimed at concealing "unconscious inferior feelings within him" and
therefore it became a "one-sided inflation that ignored the 'shadow'
side of his personality". Jung, however, was not a
disinterested party in his assessment of Nietzsche. Although he avidly
read Nietzsche's works and utilized his insights, he also feared that
one day he would become mad like him. This
fear created a chilling distance between him and Nietzsche, consequently
obliterating any feelings of compassion he may have had for the
philosopher. Perhaps by means of projection, Jung accused Nietzsche of repressing all feelings of compassion and called
his Übermensch "a famous example of masculine prejudice who scorns
compassion". I find the shallowness of this interpretation
disappointing. Ironically, following his break with Freud - which could
be compared to Nietzsche's parting with Wagner - Jung went through a
period of psychosis, as documented in his autobiographical work. Hence his fear was not altogether ungrounded,
and, just as Nietzsche once said, "the smallest cleft
is the hardest to bridge".
It is puzzling that
Nietzsche, this most eloquent of philosophers, never defined his
cardinal idea. Definition would have been indispensable if the
Übermensch had been a philosophical concept and subsequent rational
discourse was to follow. But what if the Übermensch were a kind of
fictional hero in a private drama of the author? One must remember that
Nietzsche was a brilliant classical philologist and a devotee of ancient
Greek tragedy, especially the tragedies of Aeschylus. Dionysian
Festivals, which had more in common with religious rites than with
entertainment, were a forum where the tragedies were performed. The
actors wore masks which were designed to create a sense of dread, as
well as being a means for an actor to play several roles. A mask was a
highly ambiguous device that allowed the voice to express the innermost
emotions whilst leaving space for the unknown and the unknowable; it
served as an engaging projection screen for the audience. Similarly,
Nietzsche's own writings are undeniably theatrical, even operatic, and
he invites the audience to participate in the production. With his many
masks, he created himself and stimulated the reader to create him.
Perhaps the Übermensch was Nietzsche's dramatis persona, so that the
concealed and the unsaid formed a part of the dramatic design that gave
the randomness of his individual misfortune a universal, almost cosmic
dimension. As well as serving as a mask to hide the vulnerable self, the
Übermensch became a symbol of transfiguration.