Discussion about this post

User's avatar
John Seel, Ph.D.'s avatar

To clarify, I am an intellectual protege of James Davison Hunter. Yes, in my own way this is an extension of thought following on from his book, "Democracy and Solidarity." The conclusions I make are mine and not his. I have not discussed them with him.

The general assessment of a shared culture of nihilism as a feature of advanced modernity is not limited to Dr. Hunter. It is a view shared by many both in the social sciences and philosophy. It is not my intention to use the term "nihilist" in a nihilist fashion to "out groups of people." This is not my own power play.

Culture in the Durkheimian sense is more than a "group of people." It is its own thing, an invisible objective reality that is coercive on society. As such, cultural patterns, beliefs, and attitudes holding to the "assumed rejection of any objective ground of Being" to "expressions of a will-to-power" reflect the general cultural ethos of nihilism. Even if this is not exactly what you want to protect in its more narrow analytical usage, this remains a substantive cultural problem that this essay seeks to address. Even more than Hunter, this essay is dependent on the cultural analysis of Philip Rieff. We need not waste time in academic definitional squabbles when so much is culturally, politically, and missionally at stake.

Expand full comment
Benjamin L. Mabry's avatar

I hope the invocation of Hunter in this essay is not also an advocacy for the deeply flawed prescriptions from this last book. One of the reasons I had to pan Democracy and Solidarity in the book review I submitted last semester was the sloppy use of 'nihilism' throughout the text. Hunter regretfully used the word nihilism to refer to any rejection of his "hybrid-enlightenment" framework whatsoever, wielding it like a bat against any criticism that found something within the American Founding that contributed to or even necessitated the current crisis. "The Founders were wrong about something and we're going to have to change" is not nihilism. Neither is it nihilism to point out the wrong turns taken in the 19th or 20th Centuries that led to our current situation. You can't change directions without retracing your steps back; reform isn't possible without demolishing the institutions and practices which obstruct the new path.

Otherwise, let me just end by saying that it is unwise to use the word nihilism in the way Hunter uses it, to dismiss contemporary cultural-symbolic trends as something that can be ignored. Yes, epitemporality and image-reality assume a rejection of any objective ground of Being. Yes, they express a will-to-power to articulate a Second Reality more amenable to the sublimated desires of the deformed psyche. Yet we still must deal with these deformed psyches, these gnostic dreamers, these ideologues, in the real world and recognize the way in which they operate. Culture is not an entity or object of manipulation. We can't "take" it from them. We can only co-opt them and their symbol-complexes in an attempt to bend a warped image toward luminescence. Nihilist is another ideological pejorative designed to out-group people who ultimately need to be engaged and to keep the inner circle "pure." Let's keep its usage analytical and avoid the error of Hunter's book, which tries to circle the wagons again those darn young'uns who might challenge the opaque dogmatisms of 20th Century ideology.

Benjamin L. Mabry

Director of Political Science

Lincoln Memorial University

Expand full comment

No posts

Ready for more?