LAUSR

The essays collected in this special issue of Critical Sociology are arranged as a dialogue about how or why to situate the work of Friedrich Nietzsche in the field of Sociology. Does Nietzsche belong in the canon of social theory, and what, if anything, does his work offer critical sociologists in particular? What might Nietzsche’s thought offer to Marxists, feminists, critical race and queer theorists in light of his allegedly reactionary politics? Is Nietzsche friend or foe for those of us who identify as critical sociologists? Answers to these questions of course depend upon how we interpret Nietzsche’s texts. In addition, we contend that the answer to such questions depends upon how we define our discipline. If we consider sociology a social science, then perhaps we can and should leave Nietzsche for the humanities, since as a science we are concerned with statements about the world that can be verified or falsified. This has been the position of conventional sociologists trained in the U.S.; Nietzsche is more or less ignored by professional sociologists in spite of the fact that the work of Max Weber – who considered Nietzsche and Marx to be the most influential and important thinkers for his own work – has enjoyed a certain hegemony among these same American sociologists. This first position is perhaps less of an issue for readers of this journal who are familiar with the critique of positivism. What remains is the question of if and how to situate Nietzsche in relation to critical sociology. The spark of inspiration for this special issue on Nietzsche came from two very important essays on the French Nietzschean theorist Georges Bataille, written by Ishay Landa (2015a, 2015b) and published in this journal (Vol. 41, 4–5 and Vol. 41, 7–8). Bataille was an important influence on Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze who are perhaps the most influential “Left-Nietzscheans” in the 20th century outside of the Frankfurt School. Along with Henri Lefebvre, Bataille was the key Marxist intellectual in France who sought to defend Nietzsche against the interpretations of György Lukács, who read Nietzsche as a reactionary. There is not the space here to delve into that debate, but we do recommend that our readers consult the essays by Landa to supplement this