Contract theorists who have a rather abstract desiccated version of the individuals who make up their versions of the Social Contract Hegel gives his subjects the desire for recognition, and this is what drives a self-consciousness in its actions. Both sides want recognition, so initially both self-consciousnesses start off as formally equal but in their struggle they arrive at a position of inequality, with one giving way to the other.
Superficially it’s easy to see this as a sort of proto account of the worker/ capitalist division of Marx: the master loses by superficially winning. The slave is the ‘truth’ of the master – the master is forced to depend on the labour of the slave and in labouring the slave creates a whole world both materially and intellectually.
However, as this isn’t simply a struggle over an external object – as might have characterised the struggle between capital and labour which was focused around the respective share of a surplus product latter created, but a demand for acknowledgment of one party by another.
The irony being that the master can’t be satisfied with the slave’s recognition, because this person is beneath them – yet the master can’t be rid of someone who defines them by their servitude as much as the master defines them (the slave) by dominating them.
It is tempting to project back into Hegel how others, specifically Marx, have used him.
We've tried to not do that in our reading group.
Group member Cronain made a very similar point in relation to this section and I don't think he will mind me quoting him:
"This is a hare that Hegel set off running and it's still going. It's tempting to see it as a sort of form of class struggle in Hegel but if the fight is over recognition then the struggle at it's heart can’t be material (in a crudely economic sense), but it might take on material form through politics, or morality."
I like the idea that unlike the Social
Contract theorists who have a rather abstract desiccated version of the individuals who make up their versions of the Social Contract Hegel gives his subjects the desire for recognition, and this is what drives a self-consciousness in its actions. Both sides want recognition, so initially both self-consciousnesses start off as formally equal but in their struggle they arrive at a position of inequality, with one giving way to the other.
Superficially it’s easy to see this as a sort of proto account of the worker/ capitalist division of Marx: the master loses by superficially winning. The slave is the ‘truth’ of the master – the master is forced to depend on the labour of the slave and in labouring the slave creates a whole world both materially and intellectually.
However, as this isn’t simply a struggle over an external object – as might have characterised the struggle between capital and labour which was focused around the respective share of a surplus product latter created, but a demand for acknowledgment of one party by another.
The irony being that the master can’t be satisfied with the slave’s recognition, because this person is beneath them – yet the master can’t be rid of someone who defines them by their servitude as much as the master defines them (the slave) by dominating them.
Yes, I think that is an very important point.
It is tempting to project back into Hegel how others, specifically Marx, have used him.
We've tried to not do that in our reading group.
Group member Cronain made a very similar point in relation to this section and I don't think he will mind me quoting him:
"This is a hare that Hegel set off running and it's still going. It's tempting to see it as a sort of form of class struggle in Hegel but if the fight is over recognition then the struggle at it's heart can’t be material (in a crudely economic sense), but it might take on material form through politics, or morality."