Book Chapters by Monika Wulz
Edgar Zilsel: Philosopher, Historian, Sociologist, 2022
In the first and last year of the First World War, the literary scholar Julian Hirsch (1883–1951)... more In the first and last year of the First World War, the literary scholar Julian Hirsch (1883–1951) and the philosopher/sociologist/social democrat Edgar Zilsel (1891–1944) published their monographs: Die Genesis des Ruhmes (1914, The Genesis of Glory) and Die Geniereligion (1918, The religion of the Genius). Herein both criticized the wide-spread social practice of admiring and worshiping (in most cases already deceased) European personalities, and of labeling them as “eminences,” “exceptional men,” “superlatives of mankind,” or “geniuses.” This phenomenon of (blind) adoration across a temporal, spatial, and cultural distance deeply disturbed and irritated the sensitive Jewish intellectuals, living and teaching in Berlin respectively Vienna early 20th centuries. Both feared that the superficial veneration of widely known personalities or the cult of the genius (while neglecting the great men’s actual mental work) would immobilize the admirers’ own intellectual powers and freedom and—on a political level—had a profound negative impact on the democratic base of European societies—as the concepts of “eminence” and “genius” could cause inequalities, injustice, and (structural and physical) violence among human beings. In their eyes, the quasi-religious admiration of seldom personalities would result in the contempt of the “masses” and of mediocre or “average people.”
In order to provide some background on the discursive context, the paper focuses, first, on philosophical and sociological texts, contrary to the trend of genius admiration, that can (at least in punctually) be seen as forerunners or followers of Hirsch’s and Zilsel’s critique of the cult of the personality: Theodor Geiger’s 1926/27 “Führer und Genie,” Walter Benjamin’s 1914 “Metaphysik der Jugend” and 1916 “Sokrates,” Wilhelm Lange-Eichbaum’s 1956 Genie, Irrsinn und Ruhm, and Axel Gehring’s 1968 Genie und Verehrergemeinde. Second, the paper traces similarities and differences between Hirsch’s and Zilsel’s life journeys, their transdisciplinary approaches, scientific methods, and favorite termini/metaphors, their concepts of glorification, as well as their analyses of the severe negative sociopolitical consequences of the latter. The chapter concentrates on the structural closeness of their respective argumentation and tries to speculate about reasons why Zilsel did not give Hirsch stronger credit for his groundwork which he himself could built on—be these connected to contemporary typical non-citation practices and shared philosophical ‘universes,’ or rivalry between colleagues who could have been connected by support and an anti-academic intellectual exchange etc. Third, the study highlights the way in which Zilsel exceeded Hirsch’s reflections (in which he speaks about pilgrimage and the apotheosis of the geniuses) by explicitly declaring a culture of (pseudo)religion and religious dogmatism, belief, and feelings (including the notion of rarity, immortality, brotherhood in the hereafter, productivity towards posteriority) which, due to his conclusion, would join in a lack of objectivity, critical reflection, and empathy for the ‘Other.’
Uploads
Book Chapters by Monika Wulz
In order to provide some background on the discursive context, the paper focuses, first, on philosophical and sociological texts, contrary to the trend of genius admiration, that can (at least in punctually) be seen as forerunners or followers of Hirsch’s and Zilsel’s critique of the cult of the personality: Theodor Geiger’s 1926/27 “Führer und Genie,” Walter Benjamin’s 1914 “Metaphysik der Jugend” and 1916 “Sokrates,” Wilhelm Lange-Eichbaum’s 1956 Genie, Irrsinn und Ruhm, and Axel Gehring’s 1968 Genie und Verehrergemeinde. Second, the paper traces similarities and differences between Hirsch’s and Zilsel’s life journeys, their transdisciplinary approaches, scientific methods, and favorite termini/metaphors, their concepts of glorification, as well as their analyses of the severe negative sociopolitical consequences of the latter. The chapter concentrates on the structural closeness of their respective argumentation and tries to speculate about reasons why Zilsel did not give Hirsch stronger credit for his groundwork which he himself could built on—be these connected to contemporary typical non-citation practices and shared philosophical ‘universes,’ or rivalry between colleagues who could have been connected by support and an anti-academic intellectual exchange etc. Third, the study highlights the way in which Zilsel exceeded Hirsch’s reflections (in which he speaks about pilgrimage and the apotheosis of the geniuses) by explicitly declaring a culture of (pseudo)religion and religious dogmatism, belief, and feelings (including the notion of rarity, immortality, brotherhood in the hereafter, productivity towards posteriority) which, due to his conclusion, would join in a lack of objectivity, critical reflection, and empathy for the ‘Other.’
In order to provide some background on the discursive context, the paper focuses, first, on philosophical and sociological texts, contrary to the trend of genius admiration, that can (at least in punctually) be seen as forerunners or followers of Hirsch’s and Zilsel’s critique of the cult of the personality: Theodor Geiger’s 1926/27 “Führer und Genie,” Walter Benjamin’s 1914 “Metaphysik der Jugend” and 1916 “Sokrates,” Wilhelm Lange-Eichbaum’s 1956 Genie, Irrsinn und Ruhm, and Axel Gehring’s 1968 Genie und Verehrergemeinde. Second, the paper traces similarities and differences between Hirsch’s and Zilsel’s life journeys, their transdisciplinary approaches, scientific methods, and favorite termini/metaphors, their concepts of glorification, as well as their analyses of the severe negative sociopolitical consequences of the latter. The chapter concentrates on the structural closeness of their respective argumentation and tries to speculate about reasons why Zilsel did not give Hirsch stronger credit for his groundwork which he himself could built on—be these connected to contemporary typical non-citation practices and shared philosophical ‘universes,’ or rivalry between colleagues who could have been connected by support and an anti-academic intellectual exchange etc. Third, the study highlights the way in which Zilsel exceeded Hirsch’s reflections (in which he speaks about pilgrimage and the apotheosis of the geniuses) by explicitly declaring a culture of (pseudo)religion and religious dogmatism, belief, and feelings (including the notion of rarity, immortality, brotherhood in the hereafter, productivity towards posteriority) which, due to his conclusion, would join in a lack of objectivity, critical reflection, and empathy for the ‘Other.’