In considering our class discussion last Wednesday, I started thinking about the implications of Hegelian community based ethics as a relative system when applied to different cultures environments.
When Hegel paints his picture of the ethical society, with the existence of Divine and Human Law in relatively peaceful co-existence amongst the whole of people, he cites ancient Greece as his prime example. For him, the ancient Greek culture presented the epitome of this system -- each citizen had his/her role and duties, these were well defined, and all there were no singularities so to speak for each individual was a coherent part of a larger ethical substance.
Living under such a system of positive freedom, the citizens were parts of a whole and, roughly speaking, equal in so much as the fact that they could only identify themselves in relation to the whole and the whole could only be identified through them.
With discord and war, the spirit of this ethical substance dies and discord is sown; as seen in Kant's Roman example, no longer is there a whole -- the individuals are now just that, individual singularities. With no duty to guide them, the chaos of negative freedom engrosses them and there are no longer seen as necessary in defining the group or community and no longer does the community or whole need them to identify. Aggregated, the relationship between them is still strained and there is no necessity between them and this opens up the possibility for the Lord of the World, a prince of power who's seat is completely fueled by the negative freedom existent in the group.
Ethics, and power, are thus thrown out of whack. It seems that without the coherent spirit to define them -- and instead simply a negative ethical being in the form of the LOTW to counter or terrorize them -- the individuals lose that sense of duty and identity that previously provided them with the ethical world.
It's fairly clear that Hegel holds a glowing view of Greek society and a less than positive one of the Roman system of stoicism; but as described in class, the Roman system seems much more similar to what we'd consider the 21st Century American society.
Is there a current LOTW, under Hegelian terms? Could that be considered the christian god, considering the state of religiosity in the United States at the moment? Or would it be the government itself, wielding power over an aggregation of citizens whose own opinions are only sometimes reflected in the community?
If writing the Phenomenology today, where would Hegel place us? And what would we learn from it? Would he consider us an ethical nation?
I too was thinking about how to apply Hegel to our current society. I think your question of who the LOTW would be in today's society is a particularly interesting one. I definitely agree that we fall much closer to the Romans than the Greeks. We certainly seem to fall under the notion of "negative freedom" from a lack of duty. Our prototypical gender roles have flown out the window in lieu of notions of the modern man and modern woman, both of whom venture into the workplace and share the load at home.
ReplyDeleteGiven our consumer culture and strong emphasis on capitalism, I wonder if the LOTW in our culture today might be someone not from politics or religion, but from business. Jumping off of the resurgent popularity of Ayn Rand in the last few years, one might argue that the LOTW is the ideal capitalist who lives entirely unto himself (someone like Howard Roark from The Fountainhead, but with bags of money). Just food for thought.
Dan I always enjoy reading your posts because you always seem to connect what ever we are learning in class to our world today. I think that the Lord of the Wold as Hegel described it ended with the Enlightenment. With the idea of individuals having natural rights and giving them up by a social contract. Therefore, the King no longer held that divine right to rule, people could choose who they wanted in government. This is seen today in many states that hold the idea of a King or Queen as a traditional figure instead of a political one.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Oscar, the LOTW is no longer seen in the political sphere, but it is present in the economical. Capitalism seems to be the LOTW of today. Capitalism leads to power being concentrated in the hands of a few (those who own property) and thus it can lead to inequality. Thinking of Capitalism as our LOWT today, also allows us to transition into Marx, now that we are going to begin reading his "German Ideology". For Marx the rise of this LOWT will also be explained in a historical process that will only be defeated with the rise of communism.
Take 2 after the website timed out and ate my previous comment:
ReplyDelete@Oscar and @Cristina --
It's interesting to me that both of you cited capitalism as potentially either the modern LOTW or the characteristic that would define such a being; I think, rather, of capitalism as an actualization of negative freedom and thus an attribute of the LOTW.
If that's the case, could it not be argued that the government or corporate America (or, more realistically, the entanglement of the two) would represent the LOTW?
Or, perhaps, were going about this all wrong. I'm glad, Crisitina, that you mention the Enlightenment thinkers and list some Lockean ideals as I've had Locke on the mind this whole Hegelian time.
It's true that they espoused the notion of individual rights as granted by nature -- in Locke's words, the right to life, liberty, and property -- and that those rights are greatly represented in our culture and our history.
But are they truly negative freedoms? Locke himself proposes the social contract because in a world without limitations or rules we see our natural existence for the harsh, brutal, lonely existence that it is. This would be a world with true negative freedoms.
Instead, much like Hegel's community/citizenry based system of ethics, we have an agreed upon set of cultural mores that we generally adhere too.
Even those freedoms we as Americans call ultimately free -- like the freedom of speech -- have *some* limitation, no? Hate speech, for example, is culturally moderated if not legally and there are limits place on actions like the proverbial yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
Are they then truly negative freedoms or do we fall somewhere between the Greek and Roman examples?
Hello all,
ReplyDeleteI'd have to agree more or less with Oscar, in that it seems we live in a society closer to the Roman than Greek model. We have (or at least aspire to have) meaning unto ourselves. I do believe, though, that there are still ways we define ourselves in relation to our community; we are not completely atomized as individuals. Also, as Dan put it, many see our 'core beliefs' or freedoms as negative, but they are still mediated to varying degrees (e.g. freedom of speech).
I'm not sure, though, that there would be/can be a LOTW in America today, in the Hegelian sense. The spheres through which/in which people attain or exercise power aren't consolidated in the same way they used to be (under a monarch). For sure, there is plenty of interaction and cooperation between the spheres of politics and business, for instance, but I don't think we can identify a single person or group as a LOTW.
In response to the hypothetical possibility of a LOTW existent in the 21st Century, I am inclined to say that The Christian God and his influences within America, reigns as being the LOTW.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in response to Dan statement “I think, rather, of capitalism as an actualization of negative freedom and thus an attribute of the LOTW.”
Although, I agree that Capitalism is an attribute of the LOTW. I am not sure it would be accurate to ascribe Capitalism, and its actualization, as an attribute of negative of freedom. I would agree that Capitalism functions in the way that is characteristic of negative freedom i.e. free of barriers or constraint; non-regulative. Yet, I find it hard to digest how negative freedom can somehow come to actualize itself in Capitalism. For example, Capitalism does not guarantee freedom to move as we wish from state to state, and neighborhood to neighborhood, as we please: economic freedom.
I believe that Christianity within the United States reigns as the LOTW. Christianity provides the platform that allows Capitalism and government to actualize itself individually. When you hear politicians and their speeches, often America is referred to as “The God Nation.” Through Christianity and religion, the government is able to neutralize or manipulate peoples’ singular beliefs. Which then facilitates the enactment of governmental and capitalistic policies i.e. occupations of other countries to implement their neo-liberalistic policies. Nevertheless without peoples’ assurance that God is behind it, those policies, would face more extreme interrogations.
I agree with the notion that Capitalism is representative of an aspect of our hypothetical LOTW. I don’t believe that notion of LOTW as one individual can be represented in our society since at least in theory we can challenge anyone or anybody (though we often opt not to) and the LOTW in the Roman society is undisputed. I see our LOTW as conflation of a certain number of entities which serve as the LOTW through their interconnectivity yet I’ll only focus on Capitalism for now. Capitalism seems to be representative of the devastative power the LOTW wields and constantly flexes. Historically, unethical practices by capitalists (i.e. unethical business policies, monopolization, lobbyists, global and local political corruption among others) have incited depressions, bubble collapses, as well as the concentration of power Cristina talks refers to (among other devastative effects). Finally it is ‘unchecked’ in the sense that the government none-the-less endorses it in an unabashed way, as is so clearly illustrated by our recent “too big to fail” policy. It seems clear that Hegel would have had to re-imagine the concept of the LOTW if he were to apply it to America if at all.
ReplyDeleteTo address your inquiring about the Lord of the World existing in present day, as everyone else has also found this an interesting point to address, I would say that in light of Hegel’s reference to the Roman Empire, this idea most definitely epitomizes a view of the modern day. We live in a society of negative freedom. Though the Lord of the World is not, in this case, a single being (a prince) with absolute power, it still accounts for the state of ethical spirit. The government in its entirety can be considered the Lord of the World. It fits exactly Hegel’s criteria as something that confronts all and is constituted as a “valid universality” by all (p. 33) The present day Lord of the World is not as cynical and unpleasant as Hegel depicts them in the Roman Empire. The people, as well as, the government have a somewhat equal duty to one another in order to maintain the whole, though the self is distinct and separate from the whole. In terms of religion, Hegel does not concern himself with an abstract God presiding over the people as the Lord of the World. In present day religion, God means something very different and would probably take on a different role in Hegel’s views, especially because he describes the Lord of the World as knowing himself as the actual god in a historical sense. I doubt, though, that Hegel would be inclined to say that we currently have reached something significant; perhaps we are still moving to reach spirit, but have improved that of the Roman Empire, whom we have taken after.
ReplyDelete@ Dan, can we infer that in a Marxist perspective Capitalism is a representation of negative freedom? In capitalism the idea of collectivity is gone. The individual recognizes the value of capitalism and it will not doubt it because it is the only form by which the individual can aspire to gain the luxuries desired or enjoy the luxuries that he/she already holds without regret. Each individual is at constant rivalry with the other to succeed. On the other hand communism for a Marxist will represent positive freedom. Individuals would agree to leave behind these ideas of private property, of making profits or acquiring luxuries and enter a society in which property will be collective and our freedom to receive a part of that property would be placed in a central government that will be hold responsible for distributing "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". So Dan perhaps you are correct and Capitalism is an attribute of the LOTW, an therefore in a Marxist perspective the LOTW would be the bourgeoise.
ReplyDeleteRegarding my comments on the role of the enlightenment, I will come back to respond to your questions, the thoughts that I had this morning on it are far away from my mind right now ( I need some sleep)...
Free-market capitalism is unquestionably the closest approximation to a modern day LOTW. As I mentioned as part of my blog post on the antimony of the moral worldview, “Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ metaphor used to justify the free-market, insists that social/collective benefits are maximized when each individual pursues their own self-interests.” The strength of capitalism is based on the negative freedom it claims to provides each individual. And yet, as mentioned previously in the comments, this freedom comes with many stipulations. The inherent economic and social inequality inherent in capitalism further illustrates the contradictions of the free-market, and seems to also illustrate the contradiction of the moral spirit. Our reverence for the market forces of capitalism, as though they were the LOTW, clearly explains why the then president would urge every American to go shopping after the 9/11 attack. Such reverence for market forces also allowed for the emergence and political dominance of banks “too big too fail.” So I always find it interesting that Adam Smith was considered a moral philosopher, especially since I’ve come to think our society best resembles the conflicts pertaining to the moral spirit.
ReplyDelete