How Nietzsche described them, and how relevant his description remains
From time to time, humanity—and the societies of individual countries—go through periods of moral decline and the degradation of mores. During such phases, classical religion is replaced by various kinds of superstitions, which may be collective or even purely individual. One person believes in casting spells, another in the power of a black cat crossing the street, and these individuals or groups can end up hostile to one another. As we shall see, superstitions can take more complex forms, but what matters here is the emergence of dividing lines within societies and the absence of shared interests. As a result, people no longer wish to struggle together, to fight collectively for a common goal; instead, they strive for a pleasant and comfortable life.
Writing about moral decline, the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche polemicized with those who claimed that in such periods morals were less cruel than in “religious” eras. During moral crises, people come to realize that one can kill one’s neighbor not only with weapons, but also with words. For this very reason, Nietzsche believed, “malicious jokes” and “slanders” flourish in such times.
Yet Nietzsche also saw positive elements in moral crises. The apparent apathy of a people is, in reality, an accumulation of energy. Periods of moral decline, he argued, are those moments when ripe apples fall from the tree—the autumn of nations.
Read also
As we can see, in a work written more than 140 years ago (The Gay Science, 1882), there are assessments that accurately anticipate today’s condition as well. Nietzsche, like many other thinkers, believed in the cyclical, periodic development of societies. The crisis that Europe was experiencing at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, when the book was written, ultimately led to the First World War.
Many of us have witnessed with our own eyes the ideological and moral crisis that gripped the Soviet Union—and Soviet Armenia in particular—in the 1970s, when no one believed in any “official” ideology. Incidentally, Nietzsche was also right to note that culture can flourish during such crises, as happened in the histories of Ancient Athens and Ancient Rome. In the culture of Soviet Armenia, too, significant values were created in the 1970s. Yet at the same time, the Soviet project was gradually revealing its bankruptcy: people once again placed not the ideas of socialism or communism at the forefront, but their own well-being and comfort (Gemütlichkeit—one of Nietzsche’s favorite negative characterizations).
By contrast, the crisis of faith and identity that at least half of the world (including us) is experiencing today has not led to major cultural breakthroughs—and I have certain assumptions as to why. I believe the problem lies in the fact that we are living in an era of seemingly easy solutions. Figures like Elon Musk appear, promising to take us to Mars and provide a happy life there. But where, really, are we supposed to flee—from ourselves?
And technologies offer us “avatars” in place of real love, friendship, and knowledge—avatars that fully satisfy our demand for entertainment and amusement. High culture, meanwhile, and indeed any true value, is created with humility of heart and through suffering—in the biblical sense of those words. Of course, valuable works of art are still being created today, but nothing resembling the kind of cultural “boom,” “golden age,” or “silver age” seen in the periods described above is evident.
The one thing in which we remain unsurpassed is precisely the “malicious jokes” and “slanders” mentioned by Nietzsche, whose purpose is the “moral annihilation” of one another. The age of social networks offers unprecedented opportunities for this. Groups of superstitious people who barely interact with one another are capable only of mutual hatred.
…Europe, in particular, is living through a time of “dying liberalism,” much as the Soviet Union in the 1970s lived through the era of dying communism. Once again, “correct” speeches are being delivered from high rostrums—speeches in which no one believes. Not even those who deliver them.
Yet this, too, is a period that will inevitably come to an end. Any illness, as has already been said, contains within it the potential for recovery. There is, however, one serious danger: small states, where everything is built on hatred and enmity, may disappear in these turbulent times.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
