When trying to compare Hegel’s conception of the master/slave dialectic, I found a lot of parallels to the Hobbs and Rosseau arguments on the social contract. According to Hegel, if a master and his slave were the two beings in existence they would not be able to exist in the same position of power permanently. The slave would work to assume power, and the same could be said for the master if he became the slave. If two parties fought for their freedom, it couldn’t be said one could win their freedom over the other. When one eliminates the other, they eliminate the witness to their freedom. I think this state of living best corresponds with Hobb’s view of the social contract. We see both parties struggling for their own self-interest in mind. The two parties and the slave and his master both exhibit the self-aggressive characteristics of that society. The winning party would be the ruling sovereign. According to Hobbs, the losing party would then succumb to the laws of the sovereign. I think we could analyze the conclusion as either a perfect one for the sovereign or a terrible environment. If it were a fight to the death, then he is either pleased that his interests would always be fulfilled with never and opposing body, or miserable that no classes below him would obey and contribute to his society.
Hegel thinks that this wouldn’t be an ideal state to live in. Mutual recognition is the best way to live for both parties. The ideal state of the community would be for the sovereign and the slave, or the two opposing parties to not insist on exclusive recognition. If the parties could agree then they could live together in harmony. In this state of living both parties would treat and recognize each other’s needs. I believe this suits Rosseau’s general will concept of the social contract. If they both recognized and lived by the needs of the general will, then the sovereign would set aside his personal will for the will of the majority. The only thing that might conflict with my belief is that there would still be a conflict of authority between the parties. Either the slave would be pleased with the master paying attention to his needs and wills, or he would despise him still for having authority over him. In my opinion the servant would be satisfied if the sovereign was concerned with his well being along with his.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When I look at the slave/master dialectic, and the way you analyze it. It’s almost instinct for me to think about economic theories regarding general equilibrium and forces me to realize that both parties in pursuit of establishing their freedom would eventually come to a compromise. I think this would then force the consideration of the complete removal of social classes or at least the definition of them. That would then push the theory back into Kant’s philosophy by trying to find a “universal law” for everyone to follow.
ReplyDeleteAllen, this is a compelling comparison. Your second paragraph interests me in particular. When you speak of the "conflict of authority between the parties", meaning the sovereign and the governed, I am reminded of our democratic system.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that our democracy is the realization of the end result of the master and slave dialectic: when the master becomes subservient to the slave because he relies on the slave for recognition of his power. All American citizens are subject to the laws of the government in the way that the slave is subject to his master, but at the same time, our representatives serve us. They are our "slaves". Like Steven says, this power struggle reaches an equilibrium in which we place leaders above ourselves but also reserve the right to displace them if they do not act justly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Colin on the point that our representatives are also our "slaves".I believe we also talked about it in class that the real slave owners also need recognition. Thus they are to some extent "enslaved" to the recognition and supports of the slaves.
ReplyDeleteFor the second paragraph, Ellen, I find it hard to comprehend the relation of mutual recognition with Rosseau's general will. Personally, I think general will in the social contract is still centered on the a priori human nature, which is basically about how human beings deal with law, freedom and contract etc. While Hegel didn't really relate anything with it. Instead, he brings out the question of struggle for progress and recognition. So he concentrates more on the evolutionary concept rather than individual, and there comes the point of mutual recognition.
In this way, you might not have that conflict.
Steven, I like what your brought up about the "economic theories regarding equilibrium." Professor Carden likes to remind us in his class that economics doesn't promote slavery, even if the labor is really cheap. This is because slavery is a coercion that nobody will put up with over the long term. There is a natural desire to achieve equality, and I think Hegel acknowledges this when he says that the master/slave state is not ideal because of its inherent inequality.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Hegel that the ideal state is one where we mutually acknowledge each other's inherent freedom. The problem for me is that this seems like the obvious choice, not an exception to the normal choice of fighting to the death or being/making someone a slave.