The Power of Words: Nietzsche Meets Saussure

 Objective

This article explores Nietzsche’s perspective on the dynamic interplay between language, morality, and power, offering a critical assessment of his ideas through the lens of Saussure’s linguistic framework. By contrasting Nietzsche’s portrayal of naming as a tool of dominance with Saussure’s view of language as an inherited, collective system shaped by relational structures and historical forces, the analysis highlights the tension between individual authority and systemic influences in shaping meaning.

Introduction

The relationship between language, reality, and power has long been a subject of philosophical inquiry. Nietzsche frames language as a tool wielded by the powerful to impose order and morality, reflecting dominance and defining societal values. In contrast, Saussure’s groundbreaking linguistic theories challenge the notion of language as a direct vehicle for control, portraying it instead as a collective system where meaning arises from relational structures and historical forces. This article critically examines Nietzsche’s philosophy of language and morality through Saussure’s principles, shedding light on the systemic and social dimensions of linguistic meaning.

Nietzsche’s Critique of English Psychologists

Nietzsche sharply critiques English psychologists like Hume, Mill, and Spencer for their reductive explanations of moral concepts. He accuses them of reducing morality to utility and altruism, suggesting that “good” originated from acts praised for their benefit to others. He mocks their view: "Man had originally," so speaks their decree, "praised and called 'good' altruistic acts from the standpoint of those on whom they were conferred, that is, those to whom they were useful; subsequently the origin of this praise was forgotten, and altruistic acts, simply because, as a sheer matter of habit, they were praised as good, came also to be felt as good—as though they contained in themselves some intrinsic goodness."

In The Genealogy of Morals (Erste Abhandlung: "Gut und Böse," "Gut und Schlecht"), Nietzsche argues that “good” originated with aristocratic elites who regarded their own qualities as superior. This self-affirmation contrasted with the "bad," attributed to the subjugated classes: “The judgment "good" did not originate among those to whom goodness was shown. Much rather has it been the good themselves, that is, the aristocratic, the powerful, the high-stationed, the high-minded, who have felt that they themselves were good, and that their actions were good, that is to say of the first order, in contradistinction to all the low, the low-minded, the vulgar, and the plebeian."

For Nietzsche, morality arises from this “pathos of distance,” a sense of superiority inherent to the ruling group. He challenges the idea that moral concepts are grounded in altruism, highlighting the central role of power in their creation.

Nietzsche’s Views on Language and Power

Language, for Nietzsche, is a tool of domination. The aristocratic “masters” held the societal power to define reality. As Nietzsche states, these individuals declared, “this is that, and that,” asserting their dominance by naming and interpreting the world in their own terms: “The masters' right of giving names goes so far that it is permissible to look upon language itself as the expression of the power of the masters: they say "this is that, and that," they seal finally every object and every event with a sound, and thereby at the same time take possession of it."

Such acts of naming are not neutral but serve as instruments of possession. Through naming, the ruling class embeds moral dichotomies of “good” and “bad” into cultural consciousness, shaping societal values. This act of naming, as Nietzsche proposes, parallels the biblical story of Adam naming creatures, though he reinterprets it as an assertion of power rather than divine harmony. For him, language is inherently political, enabling the dominant group to impose their interpretations, thereby defining what is valued and what is dismissed.

Saussure’s Critique of the Nomenclaturist View

Ferdinand de Saussure critiques this nomenclaturist view of language, which assumes a direct correspondence between words and preexisting ideas. In Course in General Linguistics, we read: “For some people a language, reduced to its essentials, is a nomenclature: a list of terms corresponding to a list of things. This conception is open to a number of objections. It assumes that ideas already exist independently of words. It does not clarify whether the name is a vocal or a psychological entity. Furthermore, it leads one to assume that the link between a name and a thing is something quite unproblematic, which is far from being the case.”

Saussure challenges this simplistic view by introducing the concept of the linguistic sign, which consists of the signifier (sound pattern) and the signified (concept). Their relationship is arbitrary and based on convention rather than inherent necessity. This dynamic framework exposes limitations in Nietzsche’s perspective. Nietzsche’s “masters” naming objects to assert power implies fixed and intentional acts of naming that align words with preexisting entities. Saussure counters that the meaning of signs emerges from systemic differences within language, not from individual acts of imposition.

Moreover, Nietzsche’s notion of an original moment of naming overlooks language’s historical continuity. Saussure emphasizes language as a collective system shaped by historical and relational forces: “The linguistic sign eludes the control of our will. At any given period, however far back in time we go, a language is always an inheritance from the past. The initial assignment of names to things, establishing a contract between concepts and sound patterns, is an act we can conceive in the imagination, but no one has ever observed it taking place. The idea that it might have happened is suggested to us by our/keen awareness of the arbitrary nature of the linguistic sign. In fact, no society has ever known its language to be anything other than something inherited from previous generations, which it has no choice but to accept. That is why the question of the origins of language does not have the importance generally attributed to it.”

This view reframes linguistic evolution as beyond the dominance of any single group or moment, challenging the unilateral control Nietzsche attributes to the aristocratic elite.

Comparing Nietzsche and Saussure on the Origin and Function of Language

As discussed above, Nietzsche and Saussure offer strikingly different perspectives on language’s origin and function. Nietzsche emphasizes linguistic expression as a tool wielded by dominant groups to impose their interpretations of reality. Words, in his view, reflect authority and are used to shape society according to elite interests.

In contrast, Saussure’s framework distances itself from power-centric interpretations. He sees language as a self-contained system of signs, where meaning arises not from acts of naming but from the interplay of differences between signs. Saussure’s perspective reveals language as a collective, evolving system shaped by historical and relational dynamics, rather than being dictated by isolated acts of authority.

Juxtaposing these perspectives highlights the multifaceted nature of language. Nietzsche underscores its potential as a vehicle for power, while Saussure demonstrates its intricate systemic dynamics. Together, their views reveal the tensions between individual agency and collective systems in shaping linguistic meaning.

Conclusion

Nietzsche’s vision of language as a mechanism for asserting dominance provides a provocative lens through which to view the interplay of power, morality, and societal structures. By emphasizing the aristocratic elite’s role in defining values through naming, he underscores the political dimensions of linguistic expression. However, Saussure’s linguistic framework offers a compelling counterpoint, shifting the focus from power dynamics to systemic, relational, and historical forces. His concept of the linguistic sign challenges Nietzsche’s unilateral view of language, highlighting the collective and evolving nature of meaning.

These perspectives enrich our understanding of language’s role in human thought and society. Nietzsche’s power-centric model and Saussure’s relational approach collectively illuminate the tensions and synergies between individual agency and systemic forces. This comparative analysis deepens the philosophical discourse on language, inviting further exploration into how these dynamics influence cultural and social development.

Bibliography:

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Genealogy of Morals. Translated by Horace B. Samuel. New York: Boni and Liveright, 1910.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. Translated by Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale. New York: Vintage Books, 1989.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, with Albert Riedlinger. Libraire Payot.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. With a new introduction by Roy Harris. Bloomsbury, 2013.