HEGEL'S
DIALECTIC OF MASTER AND SLAVE (LORDSHIP AND BONDAGE)
from PHENOMENOLOGY OF SPIRIT/MIND, Baillie translation, pp. 229-240.
INTRODUCTION: abstract consideration of
the pure conception of recognition.
"Self-consciousness exists in itself ... They recognize
themselves as mutually recognizing each other."
Briefly, more or less:
I EXIST FOR MYSELF AS A
'SOMEBODY' ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT I AM 'RECOGNIZED' OR ACKNOWLEDGED AS SUCH BY
SOMEONE WHOM I ALSO RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT.
RECOGNITION IS THEN ALWAYS
MEDIATED, AND ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE MUTUAL: ITS VALUE IS PROPORTIONAL TO
THE DEGREE OF MUTUALITY OF RECOGNITION AND RESPECT.
But this story needs to be made concrete, the burden of the
rest of the section.
IST MOVE IN
THE GAME OF RECOGNITION. pp.
231 bottom of 234. =DESTROYING OTHERS TO
AFFIRM OURSELVES.
Briefly, more or less:
·
INSTINCTIVELY, WE THINK OF OTHER PERSONS IN THEIR DRIVE FOR
SELF-FULFILLMENT AS ANTI-THETICAL TO OUR OWN SELF-PROMOTION, OPPONENTS OR
COMPETITORS WITH US IN THE GAME OF RECOGNITION: TO TRY TO PUSH YOURSELF UP BY
PUSHING OTHER PEOPLE DOWN, EVENTUALLY IF NECESSARY TO DESTROY THE OTHER IN
ORDER TO AFFIRM YOURSELF.
·
THIS IS MUTUAL,- LEADING TO A ‘LIFE
AND DEATH STRUGGLE'.
·
THIS HOWEVER IS SELF-CONTRADICTORY., A PERSON WHO IS
DEAD IS NO LONGER CAPABLE
OF GIVING RECOGNITION
SO WE INSTINCTIVELY MOVE
TO ANOTHER STRATEGY.
SECOND MOVE IN THE GAME OF RECOGNITION. MASTER AND SLAVE. DEPENDENCY GAMES: bottom of p. 234 - P. 240.
Briefly and more or less:
WE TRY FOR A ONE WAY
RECOGNITION, WITH OURSELVES (WE HOPE) ON TOP AND THE OTHER IN A SITUATION OF
DEPENDENCY.
THIS LOOKS GOOD: THE
MASTER IS RECOGNIZED, THE SLAVE NOT,
AND THE SLAVE WORKS, THE
MASTER GETS THE ENJOYMENT.
THE STRATEGY HOWEVER IS
FUNDAMENTALLY MISGUIDED: [and must give way
eventually to totally mutual affirmation and respect and freely given
interdependence between such free and independent subjects]
1.
THE MASTER IS RECOGNIZED BY SOMEONE S/HE DOES NOT THEMSELVES
RECOGNIZE OR RESPECT OR ESTEEM.
2.
THE MASTER DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON THE SLAVE FOR HIS/HER
RECOGNITION AS MASTER - THE MASTER IS IN FACT DEPENDENT ON THE SLAVE, THE SLAVE
IS MASTER OF THE MASTER.
3.
INDEED, THE SLAVE IN FACT IS
IN A BETTER POSITION THAN THE MASTER (as far
as possibilities for development are concerned, the future belongs to the slave
provided we don't just get into swapping
places, the same problems, eternally
repeated, and a problem with all dependency games. Dependency
games as such are inherently
misguided.)
THIS IS LARGELY BECAUSE
OF TWO FACTORS:
(A) 'FEAR AND SERVICE IN
GENERAL': THE FEAR ITSELF EXPERIENCED BY THE SLAVE, THE EXPERIENCE OF THIS
TOTAL AND PROLONGED FEAR UNTO DEATH
(B) 'FORMATIVE ACTIVITY’:
THE,POSITIVE VALUE FOR PERSONHOOD OF HUMAN LABOUR, OF
EXPRESSING ONESELF IN THE NATURAL WORLD.
THE SLAVES FIND
THEMSELVES IN THEIR WORK, WHILE THE MASTER FLITTERS AWAY HIS/HER TIME AND
SPIRIT IN FRUITLESS FRIVOLITY.
(THE FUTURE BELONGS TO
THE SLAVE, THEN, PROVIDED ONLY THE SLAVE CAN FACE DOWN AND OVERCOME THE FEAR OF
DEATH THAT ULTIMATELY KEEPS THEM SLAVES.]
MOVE 2 AT SLIGHTLY GREATER LENGTH :Two main points:
·
: the importance of human labour in the creative process of human development.
·
: the insight into the factual positive significance of
alienation and of being alienated: how the most alienated class, e.g. the
proletariat, the poor, are not Just riff-raff but (potentially) the bearers of
the future.
Briefly:
-
the master has everything,
he (he in the large majority of cases, so I will continue using the masculine)
has people waiting on him, supplying his every need. He is independent consciousness, he exists
for himself, and other people exist for him.
He is free, you think, the only one that is free -or so it seems...
-
yet on further reflection, he is dependent, indeed he is more
dependent on his slaves than they are on him, or at least dependent for more:
-- his existence as master depends on their existence as slaves,, something
they could do without but which he wouldn't
want to do without: he is what he is only in relationship to his slaves.
-
moreover, it is the master who is
the useless one, the riff-raff, the good for nothing: it is the slave who is
productive, who is doing all the work; and the slave at least can find
themselves in their work, at least to some degree.
-
the slaves will remain
slaves but only so long as they fear death, and the master relies on their fear
of death to keep them slaves. Freedom
consists in facing the fear of death, risking all, even unto death. A time may come when their very wretchedness
loosens them from their fear of death.
-
Alienation as such, then,
has a positive historical significance, cf. the prodigal son, and it is with
the alienated class, the poor, the sick the blind the lame, the prostitutes,
tax collectors and sinners, or the 'proletariat' perhaps, that the future lies.
This opens the way for
Marx. But first he has to, as he says, put Hegel's philosophy on its feet, on the solid
ground of material reality…
QUESTIONS:
(1) TO WHAT EXTENT CAN YOU RECOGNIZE YOURSELF/OTHER PEOPLE IN
MOVES 1 AND 2??
(2) DO YOU AGREE
WITH HEGEL IN THIS PART OF HIS ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESS OF HUMAN
SELF-DEVELOPMENT [FOR THEOLOGIANS: WHERE MIGHT GRACE AND SIN COME INTO ALL
THIS?]
(3) 'A PERSON
SHOULD BE AT HOME IN THEIR WORK, AND NOT JUST WHEN AT HOME' (free translation
of a passage in the early Marx)
DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS?
IS IT FEASIBLE IN FACT?
IS WORK ALWAYS A POSITIVE TOWARDS HUMAN SELF-DEVELOPMENT, OR
ONLY SOMETIMES?
(4) WHICH IS MORE
IMPORTANT: WORK OR LEISURE? DO WE WORK
FOR THE SAKE OF LEISURE OR DO WE RELAX IN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR WORK OR DO BOTH
HAVE AN IMPORTANT PART TO PLAY IN HUMAN LIFE?
(5) WHAT IS WORK?