Hegel

 

The philosopher G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1830) is one of the most unique political philosophers, and also one of the most challenging. Hegel is known for his philosophy of the mind and consciousness, writing about how human consciousness has changed and evolved over time, and argues for what he calls a dialectical approach to philosophy, or understanding how opposing forces are connected and how they change. For example, human consciousness changes as we encounter other consciousnesses (other humans) different from our individual selves. For the most part, we will not concern ourselves with these writings, but will focus more on his political philosophy as detailed in the work that has come to be known as Elements of the Philosophy of Right or more simply Philosophy of Right.

In this book, published late in his life in 1820, Hegel starts with the idea of an individual who possesses certain fundamental rights and free will. In this regard, he is not that different than Locke, however his philosophy goes in a drastically different direction and in some ways can be seen as a synthesis between Locke and Rousseau, or a synthesis between liberalism and communitarianism. Like Rousseau, Hegel was an admirer of the ancient republics of Greece and Rome, particularly in how they prioritized the common good and could motivate people to fight for the sake of the republic. However, Hegel was also keenly aware of the great limitations on individual rights that existed, and the limitations of speech and action. His desire was to see a political order that could better balance the two opposing sides of individualism and the needs of the community. Hegel was also an admirer of Machiavelli, and like Machiavelli saw politics as an endless contest to hold power, however Hegel also believed that the power had a purpose which was to preserve order and could be rational (this idea can be found in Machiavelli's writings as well but is less commonly acknowledged and perhaps not as developed).

Hegel argues that individuals possess certain basic rights, but they are incomplete, and do not really become themselves until they become part of an ethical life (the German word for this is Sittlichkeit) which Hegel argues comes from belonging to a community. It is in the community that we learn the ethical norms of how to interact with other people, which not only regulates how we interact, but Hegel argues helps us develop to our fullest potential as human beings. Essentially, the Philosophy of Right sketches out how we develop from isolated individuals to full fledged members of a community. He examines the different aspects of ethical life starting from the family, the economic realm of civil society, and finally the state which he regards as the highest form of ethical life.

In the course of this process, Hegel pays close attention to the economic sphere of life, or how we enter into different economic relations with others in the process of exchanging goods and commodities. For Hegel, economic life is one of the first things that breaks down the illusion of the self, the idea that we can ever be totally self-sufficient individuals that do not depend on others. This fantasy is known as the Robinson Crusoe fantasy after the literary character who is stranded on an island and learns to survive on his own. This character is often held up as some sort of symbol of self-sufficiency, but of course this is just a fictional story, and the character is forced to because they are stranded on an island by themselves. 

For the rest of us, the realization that we come to depend on other people is something that people learn rather quickly, whether it is for food, shelter, clothing, other basic necessities of life, or even things that are not basic necessities but things we enjoy, our ability to produce these things on our own without any assistance at all is very limited. Hegel realizes this and this is why he emphasizes of the economic aspects of life, also known as civil society. Hegel does argue in favor of a free market economy, as the best means of providing goods and services that people need although he also argues that regulations should be placed on a market economy in order to make sure it serves the interests of all and not just the wealthy.

For civil society to function, there needs to be laws and this is where politics comes into play. Politics develops as a way of regulating the aspects of civil society. Here again, Hegel's ideas sound very similar to Locke. However, Hegel also realizes that politics becomes something more than just regulating economic exchanges between people but becomes a means of expressing the culture or spirit of a people as well, that politics is something that confers meaning on people by being an expression of the ethical life of people. It is important then to define a little bit more what ethics means. Ethics are not necessarily universal moral laws that everyone must follow but are expressions of cultural norms and values that have developed over time in certain areas. In this regard, ethics are not universal, but can vary, what may be ethical to one community may not be ethical to another. If that is the case, then politics would vary as well, since it expresses the ethical life of a certain culture or people, then politics would vary depending on the location. Besides a geographical sense in which people living in different areas might have different ethical values, there is a temporal or historical aspect to this as well since ethical values may change over time. In the case of the U.S. it is very easy to see how ethical values have changed over time whether it be white supremacy, patriarchy, homophobia, etc. all of these values were at one time (and among certain people) accepted as normal values, but at least for the majority of people these values have changed and are no longer considered acceptable ethical values. Because Hegel was aware of this in a way that philosophers like Locke were not this makes Hegel's ideas in many ways much more relevant and interesting (despite the fact that Hegel is a notoriously difficult philosopher to read).

In the process of examining how isolated individuals develop into members of a community and participate in an ethical life, Hegel examines three different aspects of "right" (Recht). In German, this means law, and so he looks at three levels or three spheres of law and how they develop.

The first sphere is what he calls abstract right, which concerns only external actions and the idea of non-interference with others. In other words is the law justified or complete if we only monitor our external actions and pledge not to interfere with others? For reasons discussed above, Hegel regards this as impossible and then moves into the second sphere, morality. Morality concerns our inner conduct or our thoughts. Although this level of law or right is higher in that it concerns our thoughts, or our intentions rather than just external acts, Hegel also finds this lacking. The reason for this is he questions what serves as the guide for morality, is it some kind of universal rational law that we follow? If so, how de we know we are really following it, what is to prevent us from for deceiving ourselves and pretending we are being moral when we are just following our own selfish impulses? For these reasons, Hegel finds the idea of law as morality lacking, and argues that the law only becomes complete when it reaches the level of ethical life, or law embedded in specific circumstances and in interaction with other people.

In examining these different levels of law, Hegel also engages with several philosophical arguments over the nature of law. Is the law merely an artificial creation as philosophers like Hobbes would argue, or is law something rooted in what is called natural law and exists in nature apart from what humans have constructed? Or finally, is the law something which is merely a creation of historical circumstance? Hegel attempts to synthesize or combine these different theories together. As mentioned, Hegel regards ethical life as something which forms in actual living communities of people. However, Hegel is not a relativist, meaning that he does not believe that the standards of what is right or wrong are only determined by communities. In fact, he does believe in the idea that there are rational ideas of right and wrong that exist in nature, but he believes that these rational ideas only become real and only exist in specific communities, not in some abstract ideal that people strive towards. Going back to the example of the U.S., it can be argued that over time U.S. laws and values have become more rational (and hopefully will continue to do so). This comes closer to Hegel's view, and is one of the most distinctive aspects of his philosophy, the belief that over time human civilization is becoming more rational. This is how he combines these different theories together, on the one hand law, and thus concepts of right and wrong, only exist in specific communities of people, but he also argues there is an underlying tendency for these communities to become more rational. It is important to point out that even if Hegel believes this, it is only a pattern that emerges when you take a broad view of history, Hegel does not believe that this process happens in a linear fashion or in a straight line, rather it goes through different cycles and periods. For example, most people would not regard the current Trump administration as a step towards a more rational society, however it is also possible that society could become more rational after going through this period, and in fact Hegel places a strong emphasis on contest and struggle as a driving force of human civilization.

This idea is reflected in probably Hegel's most quoted, and most controversial statement which is found in the Preface to Philosophy of Right: "what is rational is real, and what is real is rational" (p. 10) For centuries, people have puzzled over the meaning of this phrase, and offered several interpretations. Does he mean to say that everything that exists is rational, and if it is rational we should just accept it? That would mean that every government is rational in some way and we should not oppose the government ever. In one sense, it can refer to Hegel's belief that what is rational is realizing itself in a historical process so that the rational are more real than the irrational which will fade away over time. Perhaps this expresses the anxiety of many of Trump's racists followers who are at least partly aware that their way of life is coming to an end, and are desperately fighting against it, hence one of the slogans chanted by the white supremacists in Charlottesville, "you will not replace us," even though in a historical sense that is exactly what is happening. Another way of saying this would be that something that is irrational is in a sense not real. To stick with the current examples, that would mean saying that the Trump administration is in a sense not real? How can that be? Well, one way of looking at it would be to say that the Trump administration is not a legitimate government and its claims to be a legitimate government are not real, and so the people are not obliged to obey this government. Yet, another way of looking at would be that Trump is unintentionally serving a rational purposes through mobilizing people to oppose him.  For example, in Hegel's terminology political leaders like Julius Caesar or Napoleon could have been bad people only motivated by power and ambition, but through their actions helped make civilization more rational, even if they had no awareness they were doing that. These are examples of what Hegel has called the "cunning of reason," or the way in which the historical development of reason makes use of the irrational to fulfill its purposes. As said, this is a very puzzling phrase, but these are at least some interpretations.

Another phrase that is often analyzed by Hegel is his statement that philosophy as he says always comes too late and can only interpret what has happened, as he says also from the Preface:

Only one word more concerning the desire to teach the world what it ought to be. For such a purpose philosophy at least always comes too late. Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva, takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering (p. 12)

Here, Hegel regards philosophy as not an abstract exercise, but as something that reflects real life events, what he calls the thought of the world. However, this also seems a very pessimistic belief since it limits the ability of philosophy to actually produce changes but only to teach lessons which many possibly be of use to future generations. Others have argued that this suggests the level of development of philosophy reflects the level of society, and that if philosophy can imagine a society that balances the rights of the individual with the good of the community then it is possible to achieve it. Either way, this also serves as a nice transition to the next philosopher we will go over Karl Marx, who one famously said "the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." Marx was influenced by Hegel in many ways as we will see, and Marx perhaps more than any other philosopher we have looked at thus far sought to break out of the confines of being only a political philosopher.

For the assignment, choose a passage by Hegel from the reading.