Radical Linguistic Self-Focus in Max Stirner's 'The Ego and Its Own' & The Paradox of Legitimization
A Feminist and Postcolonial Literary Analysis of 'Ownness'
This paper was presented at the 2nd Annual Max Stirner Symposium in March 2024. Find out more here: https://philevents.org/event/show/115314
We all know Max Stirner and what he did. So, no introductions necessary. I would like to mention something which hasn’t been discussed much in relation to his work. His style. And I don’t mean the Max Stirner memes that exist in various niche groups all over the internet. I mean his writing style.
What makes his style so unique? Let’s look at one of his most famous quotes which is shown first on the Max Stirner Wikiquote page:
“I say: liberate yourself as far as you can, and you have done your part; for it is not given to every one to break through all limits, or, more expressively, not to everyone is that a limit which is a limit for the rest.”
In terms of diction and lexicon, the quote addresses the reader as if in a personal conversation with Stirner. The use of the term “liberate yourself” shows Stirner’s view regarding the primacy of agency and the delusion of entitlement. Saying “as far as you can” acknowledges individual limitations and therefore clearly highlights his concept of uniqueness. Using the term “done your part” conveys a message of personal responsibility.
In terms of syntax and sentence structure, the sentence is very direct and straightforward. It shows a clear imperative, being an imperative statement, and its simplicity enhances the directness and impact of the message. It seems almost as if his straight to the point approach resembles a man who does not have time to linguistically beat around the bush. He does not waste time with long explanations or rationalizations. He simply says what he thinks. And this is quite unique.
In terms of rhetorical devices, the sentence shows an antithesis (“liberate yourself” vs. “it is not given to everyone”) and parallelism in repeating two dominant phrases. Antithesis and parallelism are both rhetorical devices which highlight contrast and balance – an aspect of Stirner’s unique approach which I will go into more detail on in the coming text. In brief, contrast and balance both work to highlight Stirner’s dialectic of ownness and social constructs.
A semiotic analysis of Stirner’s quote shows aspects of symbolism (liberation as the symbol for personal emancipation), icons (“liberate yourself” as an iconic expression which encapsulates the idea of personal freedom) and the indexical sign “as far as you can” which points to the subjective nature of experience.
In terms of a poststructuralist deconstruction of the quote, we would deconstruct the simplicity of the statement to find its complexity and ambiguity, which might highlight the contingent nature of liberation and the multiplicity of meanings embedded within it.
But that’s enough analyzing for now.
Overall, let me first make the claim that Stirner’s unique style highlights a rejection of unfreedom and an almost uncaring attitude toward oppressive language – a term I use to express the way in which language is used to subjugate groups of people, trivialize or generalize meaning, and engage in the subjectivation of individuals.
Stirner's philosophical style is distinguished by the clarity of his voice and his perspective, encapsulated in his auto-ethnographical approach. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Stirner stands out by crafting his discourse from a deeply personal perspective.
In The Ego and Its Own, this auto-ethnographical approach takes center stage. Here, he not only expounds philosophical concepts but intertwines them with his subjective experience, thereby breaking away from conventional modes of discourse.
Stirner’s approach to what I call oppressive language in this paper is explored through a literary analysis and juxtaposition of his text with the revolutionary writings of Frantz Fanon and Simone De Beauvoir, both brilliant philosophers with a similar approach blending self-reflection, personal experience, and encouragement for liberation.
Frantz Fanon's Black Skin, White Masks (1952) serves as an example in this case, because, in a unique auto-ethno- and biographical way he explores the psychological impact of colonialism on the individual, particularly focusing on the linguistic and cultural dimensions of identity.
This is also an approach used by Simone De Beauvoir in her famous work The Second Sex (researched and later published between 1946 and 1949).
These two texts serve the juxtaposition and analysis of approaches to oppression and oppressive language as they are similar in intention and similar in their view of liberation.
Resistance: Theory and Liberation
Let’s explore the ways in which feminist and postcolonial theory has approached the topic of liberation.
Much of feminist literary criticism is committed to “exposing what might be called the mechanisms of patriarchy” (Barry: 124) according to Peter Barry in the 2017 edition of Beginning Theory. He describes the common linguistic approach of feminist critics as “combative and polemical” (Barry: 124). However, he also speaks of a mood change which occurred after the 1980s, where, first, feminist criticism took a turn into an eclectic realm, where critics started drawing on other forms of criticism like Marxism, or structuralism.
Then came the more explorative approach, focusing less on attacking male versions of female representation and more on “reconstructing the lost or suppressed records of female experience” (Barry: 124). In response to this type of criticism, critics then began rewriting narratives and reconsidering language altogether, by
1) utilizing new Feminist lexicons, like in bell hooks’ 1981 book Ain’t I a Woman? where she uses the term “imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy”,
2) changing naming conventions, like in Kate Bornstein’s 1994 Gender Outlaw where the term Mx. is first used,
3) by utilizing utopian narratives like Marge Piercy’s Woman on the Edge of Time, which takes place in a world where words like mother or daughter are replaced by parent and child, as well as
4) by reclaiming or redefining words like the word vagina, which is removed from the realm of stigma and taboo and elevating it to a position of liberation in The Vagina Monologues by Eve Ensler. Feminist literary styles also encompass a variety of linguistic approaches unique to feminist writing, including language play, which involves the creation of new terms, such as the use of "herstory" to challenge the male-centric language prevalent in historical narratives, and nonlinear narratives like in Jean Rhys's Wide Sargasso Sea, written as a prequel to a famous piece of literature which provides a feminist perspective on a fictional marginalized character.
Postcolonial criticism utilizes similar approaches in fiction and non-fiction writing, such as
1) decolonizing literature, as with Chinua Achebe’s 1958 novel Things Fall Apart, which serves as a subversion of colonialist perspectives by strictly focusing on the marginalized perspective.
2) Postcolonial critics also work with a method they call rewriting history. This is exemplified in Marlon James’ The Book of Night Women, which portrays a nuanced and devastatingly realistic experience of enslaved women.
3) An effort to decenter Eurocentric perspectives is also a theme in postcolonial writing like Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Half of the Yellow Sun.
4) Furthermore, cultural hybridity is used as well, its main aim being to explore what is called the double consciousness or double identity in postcolonial literary theory.
Postcolonial literary criticism is focused exploring and challenging Western discourse and exposing it as biased and exploitative. Edward Said’s exploration of otherness, for example, challenges Western narratives as
“a repository or projection of those aspects of themselves which Westerners do not choose to acknowledge (cruelty, sensuality, decadence, laziness, and so on). At the same time, and paradoxically, the East is seen as a fascinating realm of the exotic, the mystical, the seductive” (Barry: 193).
The common thread through feminist and postcolonial criticism is clear. It stands against an oppressor. And it seeks to either oppose and resist it, or to expose and reject it. Both have also arrived at a point where the poststructuralist approach, or the Derrida-Foucauldian deconstruction of discourse is frequently utilized in an attempt to go as far as possible into the depths of textuality and signification and their contradictions and false binaries. Furthermore, the “developmental stages” (Barry: 199) of feminist and postcolonial criticism run parallel.
Literary Analysis
In order to approach this attempt to analyze and juxtapose Stirner’s approach and Beauvoir and Fanon’s approaches I have decided to focus on the structure of all 3 texts, as well as analyzing the introductory and concluding chapters of each book, as they align most with the auto-ethnographical- or biographical approach.
Structure
At first let’s look at the structural similarities and differences:
Black Skin, White Masks by Frantz Fanon follows a logical development that traces the psychological impact of colonialism and racism on the individual, particularly focusing on the experiences of the Black man.
First, Fanon opens with an introduction that sets the stage for his exploration of the psychological effects of racism and colonialism. The first chapter (The Black Man and Language) then explores the impact of language on the identity of the Black man. Fanon considers language as a tool of the colonizer – a weapon to control self-perception.
The next two chapters explore the dynamics of interracial relationships, and the complexities of love and desire in the context of racial and colonial power dynamics.
Chapters 4 and 5 then set out to dissect the so-called Dependency Complex of the colonized, with a focus on the complex dynamic within colonial hierarchies.
Chapter 6 and 7 then take a deep dive into into the desire for legitimization, validation and recognition and their psychological implications by exploring the works and thought of Adler and Hegel in relation to colonialism and racism. Fanon shows how the Black man seeks acknowledgment and affirmation within a society that devalues his identity.
The concluding chapter summarizes key insights and offers a reflection on the psychological struggles faced by the Black man. Fanon provides a synthesis of the themes explored, and encourages further reflection on the broader implications of colonialism and racism.
In brief, the logical development of the book mirrors a psychological progression, moving from the impact of language and relationships to the internalization of dependency and recognition.
In The Second Sex, the logical development of thought follows a more complex pattern:
The book unfolds with a thoughtful and dual progression, navigating through 2 books, 7 volumes and 26 chapters which move through the realms of biology, psychology, history, and social knowledge.
In Part I, de Beauvoir explores what she describes as the destiny of femininity by dissecting the intertwining threads of facts and myths that have historically shaped the perception of women. Here, she follows a progression from biology to history to social knowledge. The progression then shifts to an exploration of the history of womanhood, also following a logical development in evolutionary order.
Building upon the exploration of women's experiences, de Beauvoir then redirects attention to the representation of women in popular works of literature and art. It seems almost as if the progression is becoming less strict and evolutionary at this point – meaning it is losing its rigid scientific approach and focuses more on the complexity of women’s representation and the vast but intertwined nature of social knowledge, before jumping into the second book, where the focus is set on women’s experience of their own development and reality.
Parts IV and V navigate through the chronological evolution of women, including the complexities of their development in society. De Beauvoir scrutinizes the changing roles, expectations, and challenges faced by women throughout history.
In Part VI, and continuing the chronological exploration, she then scrutinizes the evolving representations of women, as well as the societal expectations placed upon women. This section uncovers the power dynamics of patriarchy and how women’s oppression is justified. The logical culmination of thought leads to Part VII, where de Beauvoir engages in reflections on liberation. This section synthesizes the insights gathered throughout the book.
"The Second Sex" unfolds with a dual progression which intertwines thematic exploration with an evolutionary and later, chronological examination.
Max Stirner's "The Ego and Its Own" unfolds in a similar way. The book is divided into different parts, each contributing to the development of Stirner's unique philosophy. In his preface/introduction, titled All Things Are Nothing To Me, Stirner takes a very unique structural step. It is almost as if he is declaring that he is not writing the book for anyone but himself. This sets the ground rule for the rest of his text and makes it an exploration of himself and his own unique experience and perception rather than flaunting any real value to anyone but himself. In Part I the real progression of the book begins:
A progression inward, and toward freedom.
From external perceptions, ideas, and concepts, to himself, to his ego and his ownness. It’s as if he is shedding the external, and coming to the internal.
In chapter one of the first part, Stirner starts out by exploring the notion of a human life and how it relates to ownness. This is where he lays the groundwork for understanding his very specific individualism as a rejection of external constraints, and we see the progression from humanity and society – so an exploration of that which is external to Stirner – to that which is internal – namely, ownness.
In the following chapters, Stirner compares ancient and modern concepts of liberty, as well as critiquing the concept of liberty represented by political, social, and humanitarian liberalism. He exposes the contradiction and questions the validity of the concept in terms of their relation to what he considers freedom, by showing how authority enforces constraints on individuals.
The next part is dedicated to ownness as a concept and how it relates to the external world and the individuals place in it.
Style
I will now look at the introduction and conclusion of each book in terms of the style.
Frantz Fanon's Black Skin, White Masks exhibits a distinctive style marked by clear binary oppositions, the strategic use of rhetorical devices, and the employment of vivid language in anecdotes. Fanon employs clear binary oppositions to emphasize the stark divisions between racial identities. In the introduction, he boldly states:
"The white man is locked in his whiteness. The black man is locked in his blackness."
This concise and direct expression underscores the perceived trap imposed by racial categorization. He further accentuates the divide with statements like,
"Some Whites consider themselves superior to Blacks"
and
"The black man wants to be white. The white man is desperately trying to achieve a rank of man."
Another binary would be that of dependence and independence. He highlights the complex interplay of these concepts, asserting that the black man must navigate a dual struggle which the privileged white man does not have to navigate.
Repetition serves as a rhetorical device in Fanon's work. It reinforces key ideas and conveys the cyclic nature of racism. For instance, the repetition of the statement, "The white man is locked in his whiteness. The black man is locked in his blackness," creates an emotional resonance that underscores his perceived inescapability of racial identities.
In the conclusion, Fanon employs repetition with phrases like "There is no black mission: There is no white burden" and a series of statements beginning with "I have not the right as a man of color…" This repetition reinforces the limitations imposed by racial categorizations.
Fanon employs vivid language in anecdotes to convey the severity of personal experiences and delineate a clear break between personal and cultural realms. For example, he vividly recounts an incident where he was prompted to comment on an article that likened jazz music to cannibalism erupting into the modern world. He uses this example to highlight the absurdity and racism embedded in such comparisons.
In the conclusion, the use of vivid language continues with phrases like "For the Antillean working in the sugarcane plantations in Le Robert, to fight is the only solution." These anecdotes heighten the emotional impact of the narrative, allowing readers to grasp the harsh realities faced by individuals within a broader cultural and societal context.
Fanon also underlines his words with polemics and irony. In this case it is done, first and foremost, to make a mockery of but also show the deep impact of racial hierarchies, such as with his famous quote: “So? So, in all serenity my answer is that there are too many idiots on this earth. And now that I’ve said it, I have to prove it.”
In summary, Fanon's style in Black Skin, White Masks is characterized by the skillful use of binary oppositions, rhetorical devices like repetition, and the incorporation of vivid language in anecdotes. These stylistic elements enhance the clarity and emotional resonance of his exploration of racial identity and the struggle for liberation.
Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex is a massive thought project that combines a complex structure with a distinctive style.
First of all, De Beauvoir makes use of literary allusions to support her arguments, by drawing on a wide range of literature. The tone is analytical, yet reflective. De Beauvoir maintains a critical perspective on societal norms, that challenges preconceived ideas about women's roles in society.
Beauvoir introduces clear binary oppositions in her exploration of gender dynamics. For example, she notes that:
"[w]omen who assert they are men still claim masculine consideration and respect"
Here she emphasizes the societal distinctions and expectations placed upon women in relation to men.
The text uses various binaries, such as the subject/object dynamic, the interplay between personal experience and societal representation, the tension between dependence and independence, and the distinction between biological sex and socially constructed gender roles.
De Beauvoir also employs repetition and parallelism to underscore key points. This technique adds emphasis and helps convey the cyclic nature of what is meant to be explored. For instance, the repetition of the question:
"Is femininity secreted by the ovaries? Is it enshrined in a Platonic heaven? Is a frilly petticoat enough to bring it down to earth?"
Furthermore, the same is achieved with the parallel structure in her exploration of women's roles contribute to the rhetorical impact of the text.
Irony is a recurring rhetorical device as well. De Beauvoir uses irony to highlight the uncertainties and contradictions surrounding societal roles of women. For instance, she expresses the ambiguity with phrases like:
"It's hard to know any longer if women still exist, if they will always exist, if there should be women at all, what place they hold in this world, what place they should hold."
De Beauvoir maintains an analytical tone throughout the text, as she is, of course, offering a rigorous examination of philosophical and sociological concepts. However, she interweaves this with vivid personal experiences. An example is the vivid portrayal of a young “Trotskyite in a stormy meeting” which offers a glimpse into the intersection of ideology and personal encounters.
Overall, the language is vivid and precise. Descriptions like "a young Trotskyite standing on a platform during a stormy meeting" evoke a vivid picture, and this enhances the reader's understanding of the intersection between ideology and personal encounters.
De Beauvoir also enriches her arguments by drawing on philosophical and literary concepts.
In summary, her style is marked by its clarity in presenting binary oppositions, the effective use of rhetorical devices, and a nuanced blend of analytical rigor and personal engagement. The text's richness is also further amplified through vivid language and literary allusions.
Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own is characterized by a similar but distinct style as it employs clear binaries, rhetorical devices, and assertive language to convey its philosophical arguments.
Stirner establishes a clear binary between the ego and the Other.
"Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself"
Stirner also merges the conceptual and personal realms, by emphasizing the transition from abstract ideals to personal existence. The shift from the conceptual question, "what is man?" to the personal question, "who is man?" highlights this rejection of collective abstractions in favor of individual self-realization.
Stirner employs irony provocatively to challenge conventional wisdom. The example of the Sultan sacrificing himself for his people serves as ironic commentary.
The use of parallelism is evident on a large scale throughout the text as well, particularly in the chapter titled All Things Are Nothing To Me. Stirner repetitively references different causes, emphasizing their insignificance and showing the smallness of such concepts in comparison to the uniqueness of the individual.
Stirner's assertive language starts with the title of the introduction itself and also ends with that very statement in the conclusion. The constant use of "I," "Me," and "Mine" reflects both assertiveness and a sense of humility, that points out the importance of individual identity but also the respect for others whose individuality flourishes.
Stirner utilizes declarative language. This feels like a rejection of the validity of linguistic authority. This is evident in statements like, "I am the owner of my might.”
Another interesting aspect of his writing is that many of the paragraphs in the text lead to an assertive expression.
Stirner's style also includes a critique of his contemporaries, such as Marx, Engels, Bauer, Feuerbach, and Hegel. His rejection of Marxist and Hegelian dialectics, as well as his focus on the experiential aspect of egoism, sets him apart from these thinkers.
In conclusion, the style of The Ego and its Own is characterized by clear binaries, provocative rhetorical devices, assertive language, and a rejection of conventional philosophical discourse.
Poststructuralist Analysis
Now, I will conduct a post-structural analysis of the three texts:
First of all, Black Skin, White Masks reinforces binary oppositions, such as Black/White, colonizer/colonized, and self/other. On one hand, he reveals their constructed nature and explores the ways in which they contribute to the oppressive structures of colonialism and racism, on the other hand he demonstrates how devastating these binaries are to colonized people.
Fanon examines how language is a site of power, illustrating how the colonized subject is often forced to navigate linguistic structures imposed by the colonizer. The “quote” intellectual alienation is a creation of bourgeois society” (199), for example, underscores how language contributes to and is grounded in power structures.
Fanon's discussion of the gaze reveals power dynamics embedded in visual representations. The white gaze objectifies and dehumanizes the Black subject, contributing to a hierarchical structure. This can be exemplified by the quote:
“At certain moments the black man is locked in his body. And yet for a being who has acquired the consciousness of self and body, who has achieved the dialectic of subject and object, the body is no longer a cause of the structure of consciousness; it has become an object of consciousness.” (199)
Fanon explores the racial and cultural hybridity experienced by individuals in colonial contexts as well:
“It is not the black world that governs my behavior. My black skin is not a repository for specific values. The starry sky that left Kant in awe has long revealed its secrets to us. And moral law has doubts about itself.” (202)
Further, he reveals the discursive practices that support racism by analyzing the works of other philosophers and psychoanalysts.
Now let’s look at Simone De Beauvoir’s work. At its core, the text engages in a simultaneous reinforcement and deconstruction of binary oppositions like Self/Other, immanence/transcendence, subject/object, and dependence/independence. An example of this could be the following statement:
“[…] speaking of certain women, the experts proclaim, ‘They are not women’, even though they have a uterus like others. Everyone agrees there are females in the human species; today, as in the past, they make up about half of humanity; and yet we are told that ‘femininity is in jeopardy’; we are urged, ‘Be women, stay women, become women. […]” (4)
By highlighting the fluidity and contingency inherent in gender roles, de Beauvoir manages to disrupt but also show the problematic essentialist notions of gender roles and definitions.
Central to de Beauvoir's analysis is the recognition of power dynamics embedded within language and visual representation. As with Fanon’s text, language is portrayed as a site of power – for example by lining up the various words to identify a specific woman based on her applied role – with societal discourses often defining and constraining women's identities. Furthermore, the concept of the gaze is scrutinized. It plays as much a role in her work as it does in Fanon’s. This can be exemplified in the following quote:
“A few years ago, a well-known woman writer refused to have her portrait appear in a series of photographs devoted specifically to women writers. She wanted to be included in the men’s category; but to get this privilege she used her husband’s influence. Women who assert they are men still claim masculine consideration and respect.” (5)
Hybridity and ambiguity also emerge as recurring themes, as de Beauvoir explores the fluidity of gender roles.
Through a critical examination of discursive practices in the works of other philosophers, authors and psychoanalysts, de Beauvoir critiques societal norms that reinforce gender stereotypes and advocates for the subversion of traditional gender discourses.
A post-structural analysis of Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own involves examining how the text challenges fixed structures, deconstructs binary oppositions, and explores the fluidity of individual identity.
Stirner goes further in most regards than De Beauvoir and Fanon. He does this by not only challenging specific definitions but, in an anti-essentialist fashion, obliterating the notion of universal truths or absolute values altogether. His way of doing so, however, is quite unique, as he speaks only of himself, frequently refers back to his own thought and declaring his freedom:
“I have no need to take up each thing that wants to throw its cause on us and show that it is occupied only with itself, not with us, only with its good, not with ours. Look at the rest for yourselves. Do truth, freedom, humanity, justice, desire anything else than that you grow enthusiastic and serve them?” (1)
Stirner's deconstruction of the conceptual and the personal with his frequent referencing of his own agency challenges traditional distinctions between abstract concepts and personal experiences.
In contrast to De Beauvoir and Fanon, Stirner explores language as a tool to assert his unique perspectives. But this is not a clear statement. He does not encourage, nor does he advocate. He simply speaks of himself, and we are invited to witness it, as with the following quote:
“They say of God, “Names name thee not.” That holds good of me: no concept expresses me, nothing that is designated as my essence exhausts me; they are only names. Likewise they say of God that he is perfect and has no calling to strive after perfection. That too holds good of me alone.” (191)
His discursive approach has several layers, one of them being his innovative use of language by coining new phrases or shifting the meaning of certain terms like “The Unique One” or rather Der Einzige in German, meaning the Only One. It can be assumed that he does not mean that he is the only one in a solipsist sense, but rather that he is the only one to himself. Another approach is that of his frequent addressing – not just referencing – of philosophers, authors, or historical and religious figures, as well as engaging with philosophical concepts and theories in an almost dialogical manner.
Approach to Oppressive Language
(this part was omitted from the conference presentation but is useful for context)
To locate these approaches to oppressive language in a way that shows their potential, let us first look at what is meant by oppressive language:
The language question has been approached by pretty much any popular philosopher one can think of including Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russel, Friedrich Nietzsche, but also Aristotle and Plato. So this certainly isn’t new. But the poststructuralist era definitely looked deeper than many had looked before.
Michel Foucault, for example, in his analysis of power dynamics, emphasizes the role of language in the exercise of power. He argues that language is not merely a neutral medium for communication but that it is embedded within systems of power that govern society (Foucault, 1972)
Similarly, Jacques Derrida's deconstructionist approach reveals how language can be used to impose binary oppositions and hierarchical structures. Through deconstruction, Derrida exposes the inherent instability and ambiguity of language, which aids in the destruction of the fixed meanings and categories imposed by linguistic norms (Derrida, 1967).
Then we have Slavoj Zizek who showed us how language constructs and maintains ideological fantasies that sustain oppressive social orders. He emphasizes the role of language in producing ideological interpellations, where individuals are hailed into predetermined subject positions that align with dominant power structures (Žižek, 1989).
Furthermore, Žižek explores how language can serve as a tool for masking contradictions and maintaining the illusion of coherence within ideological systems. He examines the ways in which ideological discourses manipulate language to suppress dissent and reinforce hegemonic narratives (Žižek, 1989).
This makes language, as shown by De Beauvoir and Fanon a way to oppress. Fanon and De Beauvoir both approach language by highlighting its oppressive nature. Stirner has a different approach. Instead, he makes a mockery of the strict approach to definitions and interpretations.
The way De Beauvoir and Fanon set up their logical progression centers on the dichotomy between a particular self and a particular other, followed by prompting a call to action. Stirner does not do this. He does not advocate or promote proactive political action.
Through De Beauvoir and Fanon’s rhetorical strategies, their texts destabilize fixed notions of identity, which does end up defying societal constructs. However, the focus on identity versus self-determination is what separates Stirner’s text from the former.
While Fanon and De Beauvoir clearly reject their imposed position in society, Stirner rejects society as a concept.
The text advocates for the subversion of colonial language and discursive practices as a means of resistance, Stirner rejects truth.
So, in contrast to Black Skin, White Masks and The Second Sex, The Ego and Its Own maintains a strict focus on the ego without risking the essentialization of identities, which would be the case had he made himself an advocate.
Stirner's conception of the Other is rooted in the idea that the Other is composed of personal and socialized norms, rather than distinct identities. This changes the binary of the individual from self/other to fully-self-determined vs. still-in-a-haze-of-socialization.
Stirner critiques both materialist and idealist dialectics and thereby crushes the notion of objectivity in individualistic pursuits.
Language is primarily seen as a tool for self-assertion and individual expression. Even though it is clearly identified as a site of power dynamics. Stirner simply does not think the tools exist only for higher powers or institutions. He uses it as a tool for himself.
He also clearly engages in the subversion of collectivist language and discursive practices by using language in a way he pleases.
Clearly, there are distinct differences. In the following part I will explore one of the reasons for these differences. Namely – the Paradox of Legitimization.
The Paradox of Legitimization
The paradox encapsulates several key components.
One aspect is the notion of felt legitimacy, where the perceived validation of actions intersects with deeply personal, internalized convictions.
According to Elizabeth Anker, the affectual relation to legitimacy itself, alongside actual explicit state authority, implicitly expands state power:
“What I call felt legitimacy refers to an affective experience of authorizing state power. [...] Felt legitimacy is as powerful and meaningful as any formal consent even when nothing procedural or deliberate has occurred to instantiate that feeling.” (Anker 2014: 111)
Anker explains that, aside from legitimacy enforced through politics, political discourse evokes a second layer of legitimacy which she describes as felt legitimacy. Felt legitimacy is perceived as validated state action through what she refers to as political melodrama surrounding questions of freedom and agency. The question which the evocation of felt legitimacy attempts to respond to is who and what determines and produces legitimacy which subsequently becomes state polity. Max Weber and Michel Foucault both alluded to and discussed felt legitimacy in other words:
“Weber argues that legitimacy is an effect of subjectivity [...] and Foucault suggests that discourses cultivate subjectivities that produce legitimacy as their effect” (Anker 2014: 113).
Anker extends these suggestions by exploring how this is done, finding that “melodramatic political discourse’s moral imperative and narrative expectation for vast state actions cultivate the feeling that these actions are legitimate” (113).
Additionally, the ambivalence of truth further complicates the pursuit of legitimacy. Truths, whether personal or cultural, are not always clear-cut and can be contested or manipulated in the pursuit of liberation. This ambiguity adds layers of complexity to the paradox as individuals navigate competing narratives and interpretations. Consider here a Lacanian evocation of the dangerous ambiguity of truth. Here, he subjects Cartesian logic to a Freudian analysis:
“[W]hat the I think is directed towards, in so far as it lurches into the I am, is a real. But the true remains so much outside that Descartes then has to re-assure himself—of what, if not of an Other that is not deceptive, and which shall, into the bargain, guarantee by its very existence the bases of truth, guarantee him that there are in his own objective reason the necessary foundations for the very real, about whose existence he has just re-assured himself, to find the dimension of truth. I can do no more than suggest the extraordinary consequences that have stemmed from this handing back of truth into the hands of the Other [...]” (36)
Moreover, the tension between power and freedom introduces another layer to the paradox. Balancing the desire for freedom with the practical constraints of power highlights the complexities of navigating societal structures and norms while striving for liberation. David Beetham shows this in the following quote:
“Power and freedom are closely related, but not identical, concepts. Without freedom, even the strongest individual may be rendered powerless […]; but without resources of personal or material kind even the most free person will remain impotent (the physically incapacitated in an open space, the penniless in a free market). Freedom is necessary if we are to utilize our powers to achieve our purposes but without such powers in the first place, freedom will be worthless to us.” (Beetham 1991: 43)"
Finally, the concept of double consciousness and the male gaze shed light on the internal conflicts experienced by marginalized individuals. Negotiating one's identity within the lens of societal expectations adds further complexity to the pursuit of legitimacy, as personal liberation intersects with external perceptions and judgments.
In essence, the paradox of legitimization encapsulates the challenges that individuals face in reconciling binaries imposed on their identities. For marginalized groups, there seems to always be a sense of having to escape or change, before liberating oneself. So, in a way this shows that personal liberation can only be achieved outside of the spectrum of politicization and vice versa.
In other words, the result of the desire for cultural liberation is the invalidation of the legitimacy of personal liberation and the moving of liberation from a psychological realm where truth is ambivalent to a space for politicization which redirects all claims of ownness into the hands of those in power of social knowledge i.e. the oppressor.
Stirner’s Potential
In Stirner's philosophy, language functions as a rejection of the authority of meaning. Within this framework, language becomes a means of challenging the authority of societal expectations and norms, which is especially highlighted by his lack of advocacy and his radical self-focus.
Stirner’s thought is personal. And in its “personality”, it operates as a vehicle for anti-essentialism.
He rejects not only specific imposed identifications but the concept of legitimacy and identification altogether.
It is important to mention the differences in privilege between Max Stirner and Simone de Beauvoir, and Frantz Fanon which obviously significantly influence their respective experiences with the Paradox of Legitimization.
Toward An Egoist Literary Criticism
Max Stirner's egoist approach to language offers a radical departure from traditional power structures by challenging the notion of power as a fixed and universally applicable concept. He is not affected by the Paradox of Legitimization, not because he has the power to be an individual, but because he reframes the meaning of power.
This rejection of power as a fixed entity resonates with Deleuze and Guattari's concept of schizophrenic subjectivity, which highlights the fluid and multiple nature of subjectivity.
Moreover, Stirner's dialectic of power treats power as a thing in itself and an enemy while also framing it as something useful.
Stirner introduces something like a concept of felt power which exists as an alternative for felt legitimacy. This felt power can be framed as a kind of "delusion of grandeur.” This, of course, underscores the subjective nature of power dynamics. This concept is rooted in the perspective of power and its relationship to desire, as a productive force which is engaged in a constant negotiation and navigation of power dynamics within the framework of schizophrenic subjectivity.
Additionally, Stirner's emphasis on the self over culture does not imply a rejection of cultural norms but rather a fluid engagement where culture becomes a tool for self-expression. Again, there is a relation embedded in this perspective which resembles Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of nomadic subjectivity, where individuals engage with culture in a constant state of becoming which is detached from rigid constraints of fixed cultural identities.
Conclusion
Stirner's egoist approach to language certainly opens up new possibilities for understanding and navigating power dynamics.
However, Stirner's exploration of the liberation of language is not rooted in advocacy for broader societal change.
Rather, it centers on the recognition of the individual's power to reclaim language for personal expression.
His self-focused philosophy, devoid of broader cultural or societal concerns, distinguishes him from those who seek legitimacy for cultural liberation.
It is my claim that by doing so, Stirner avoids what I call The Paradox of Legitimization, a subversion which could be uniquely useful to, both, feminist and postcolonial literary criticism and liberation.
It is my aim to show that Stirner’s approach differs in that it does not try to turn his self-focus into a basis for any further liberation beyond the individual.
This paper has aimed to articulate the unique strength of Stirner's approach, to not only offer a new way of ‘doing criticism’ but also to show the reasons why oppressed groups face a devastating dilemma – The Paradox of Legitimization.