I am often discouraged with attitudes expressed toward theory. Supposedly theory is too esoteric and inapplicable to be understood, much less taught. Rarely does Hegel appear on syllabi and just this past week I was reminded not to broach the topic of Hegel with undergraduates. Last spring when we read Hegel in class my professor told me reading Hegel made theorists feel macho because they could brag about reading something so difficult. Why? Hegel is not difficult, but we do need to rethink the way we teach him. It is possible to contemporize Hegel and apply him to a scenario. Below I provide a brief selection of Hegel followed by one way I propose applying Hegel. It is my hope that new approaches to Hegel can be developed so that we do not lose knowledge of his influence.
The Phenomenology of Mind
Self Consciousness
A: Independence and Dependence of Self-Consciousness:
Lordship and Bondage
“SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS exists in itself and for itself, in that, and by the fact that it exists for another self-consciousness; that is to say, it is only by being acknowledged or “recognized”. The conception of this its unity in its duplication, of infinitude realizing itself in self-consciousness, has many sides to it and encloses within it elements of varied significance. Thus its moments must on the one hand be strictly kept apart in detailed distinctiveness, and, on the other, in this distinction must, at the same time, also be taken as not distinguished, or must always be accepted and understood in their opposite sense. This double meaning of what is distinguished lies in the nature of self-consciousness: — of its being infinite, or directly the opposite of the determinateness in which it is fixed. The detailed exposition of the notion of this spiritual unity in its duplication will bring before us the process of Recognition.”
1. Duplicated Self-Consciousness
“Self-consciousness has before it another self-consciousness; it has come outside itself. This has a double significance. First it has lost its own self, since it finds itself as an other being; secondly, it has thereby sublated that other, for it does not regard the other as essentially real, but sees its own self in the other.”
“It must cancel this its other. To do so is the sublation of that first double meaning, and is therefore a second double meaning. First, it must set itself to sublate the other independent being, in order thereby to become certain of itself as true being, secondly, it thereupon proceeds to sublate its own self, for this other is itself.”
“This sublation in a double sense of its otherness in a double sense is at the same time a return in a double sense into its self. For, firstly, through sublation, it gets back itself, because it becomes one with itself again through the cancelling of its otherness; but secondly, it likewise gives otherness back again to the other self-consciousness, for it was aware of being in the other, it cancels this its own being in the other and thus lets the other again go free.”
“This process of self-consciousness in relation to another self-consciousness has in this manner been represented as the action of one alone. But this action on the part of the one has itself the double significance of being at once its own action and the action of that other as well. For the other is likewise independent, shut up within itself, and there is nothing in it which is not there through itself. The first does not have the object before it only in the passive form characteristic primarily of the object of desire, but as an object existing independently for itself, over which therefore it has no power to do anything for its own behalf, if that object does not per se do what the first does to it. The process then is absolutely the double process of both self-consciousnesses. Each sees the other do the same as itself; each itself does what it demands on the part of the other, and for that reason does what it does, only so far as the other does the same. Action from one side only would be useless, because what is to happen can only be brought about by means of both.”
“The action has then a double entente not only in the sense that it is an act done to itself as well as to the other, but also in the sense that the act simpliciter is the act of the one as well as of the other regardless of their distinction.”
“In this movement we see the process repeated which came before us as the play of forces; in the present case, however, it is found in consciousness. What in the former had effect only for us [contemplating experience], holds here for the terms themselves. The middle term is self-consciousness which breaks itself up into the extremes; and each extreme is this interchange of its own determinateness, and complete transition into the opposite. While qua consciousness, it no doubt comes outside itself, still, in being outside itself, it is at the same time restrained within itself, it exists for itself, and its self-externalization is for consciousness. Consciousness finds that it immediately is and is not another consciousness, as also that this other is for itself only when it cancels itself as existing for itself , and has self-existence only in the self-existence of the other. Each is the mediating term to the other, through which each mediates and unites itself with itself; and each is to itself and to the other an immediate self-existing reality, which, at the same time, exists thus for itself only through this mediation. They recognize themselves as mutually recognizing one another.”
Full Text of this passage can be read here.
New Approaches
Below I try to explain consciousness in the Master/Slave or Lord/Bondage Dialectic of Hegel. In it I maintain the traditional trichotomy of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. But, I attempt to contemporize it by applying it to a political issue and illustrating it with a simple spatial model
Hegel: The Master/Slave Dialectic and Traditional Father/Mother Roles
Thesis
Hegel conceptualizes self-awareness as only possible through the awareness of another. Without interaction with another human one is not aware of self. When two individual consciousnesses come in contact with each other, each sees the other as a reflection of sameness. The mirrored sameness between inner (self) and outer (other) is difficult to process so a difference between the self and other is sought to make the interaction meaningful. The way of establishing the difference is through conflict and ultimately domination of one self over another. The two independent selves fight until a difference can be established in terms of a relational value. I am – my self is – better/worse, richer/poorer, stronger/weaker, more lovely/more loathsome than the other self before me so now I have meaning for my self, established in terms of its relation to another self.
The same can be understood in a very crude understanding of gender relations. What meaning does maleness have outside of a relation to femaleness. I am a man because I am not woman. My masculinity is referenced through certain signifiers that only have meaning in so much as femininity contrasts them. The interaction between two consciousness sorts into a male, female dichotomy. I am – my self is – more masculine and less feminine than your self. From this need to establish meaning for selves along a gender differential comes the need to establish all sorts of signifiers for masculinity and femininity including a manner of dress, speech, mannerism, expression, demeanor, etc. And gender normative roles follow logically. The performance of gender specific roles establishes one’s gender. What does it mean to be a man? Traditionally masculinity is expressed with warrior, provider, hunter, and conqueror; all dominate motifs. Traditional femininity is expressed with caretaker, nurturer, gatherer, and domicile; all submissive motifs. It is not surprising then that the English word domicile is a blended derivative from the Latin roots domus, which means the home, and docere in the infinitive, docil in the imperative, which translates literally, you be easily taught or controlled.
These traditional gender roles appear throughout unrelated societies across time and have ingrained history at their defense. When examining a subversion of gender roles by themselves it is difficult to see how they are harmful. What harm is exacted on a male if a female earns an income. But, a subversion of gender roles is extremely threatening to identity. What am I if you perform the masculine signifiers that make me male? There is no longer the dichotomy there to assure the self of its meaning. A new conflict between consciousnesses must emerge in the form of the battle of the sexes. New definitions of what is means to be masculine and feminine are thrown into the arena. Since the previous dominant in the dichotomy has more to lose in the fight his signifiers become more entrenched. The result is a heightened hostility toward men that break ranks and a stricter codification of what it means to be a man. A woman can wear sandals or high heels, wear her hair short or long, be an athlete or debutante and still be feminine. There are few ways to qualify as a masculine man. This rigorous man-coding is explained, if not parodied, in such web sites as www.mancode.com. It is why male homosexuality is generally more repugnant than female homosexuality to men. Male homosexuality represents the ultimate betrayal of the quintessential masculine essence found in the dominant posture and reproductive coitus.
No place is this battle more fierce than in the home. What does it mean to be a father if the mother begins earning income outside the home and even manages finances independently? Why is seeking income tantamount to an abandonment of not just duty but identity? The professional woman is not just a bad mother, to some critics, she has ceased to perform the act of mothering and no longer deserves the title.
A key component of Hegel’s master/slave dialectic thesis is the assumption of necessity. When two consciousnesses (identities) collide one must dominate the other. In the two competing consciousnesses of male/female and father/mother one must reign and one must submit. The necessity argument is reiterated whenever and wherever an egalitarian impulse is uttered. It is always seductive in its inability to be disputed. Abolitionists could not prove society would not collapse after abolition. They had to argue for freedom for slaves in spite of the acknowledged fact that the Southern economy depended on slave labor. As agriculture technology developed it replaced the performance of slave labor but never really the need.
The necessity claim extracted from its particulars claims that society cannot be sustained if a portion of society changes. In the particular: Private property cannot exist if serfs own an apportionment of the land. The economy will collapse and with it social order if slavery is abolished. A generation of children raised by mothers working outside the home will result in moral chaos. The institution of marriage will no longer exist if same-sex unions are legally recognized. For there to be an it there must be a not it and the it must remain superior or society fails. From this mentality we learn that the father must be the head of the household lest dire consequences befall. The necessity argument remains specious yet convincing no matter how many times history disproves it.
Mothers Day is not the celebration of the biological contribution to reproduction. It is a celebration of the performance of mothering in all its socially constructed norms. And what it means to be a mother has been and is being redefined. One common representation is the super capable life manager. The not it in this case is the dumb oaf man-child husband and father. This subversive paradigm is popular in the media with the Sears commercial in which a father, overwhelmed by the antics of an infant, moans in defeat, “Where is your mother.” (In the commercial Mom has abandoned the husband not to perform surgery or argue a case in court but to stock up on spring dresses at Sears!) The paradigm is repeated ad infinitum with Homer Simpson, Raymond, the King of Queens, Dan Conner. Gone is the wise leadership of Bill Cosby. In its place is the long suffering wife who puts up with Raymond’s inability to help his kids with their homework and Homer’s existence on the couch.
Even as a supposed celebration of femininity and the “new mother” Mothers Day remains the man-child belching of patriarchy. It celebrates a gender norming that keeps women domicile (docil in the domus). Mom bandages your boo-boos with a kiss. Dad golfs with important clients. Mom cooks you your favorite meal on your birthday. Dad teaches you how to score. These celebrations of gender norming are evident in the apron/necktie, flowers/golf-tee of Mothers Day/Fathers Day stereotypical gifting. Stated differently, rarely are professional achievements celebrated in traditional Mothers Day gift giving. The necktie for dad on Fathers Day reflects his importance outside the home to the people inside the home. For every redefinition or reordering of the master slave dialectic there is an insidious reassertion of the original order masquerading as the update.
Antithesis
The antithesis of the master/slave dialectic thesis is the idea that the slave really dominates. Rather than the separate spheres (two distinct circles) or shared dominions (interlocking rings like a Venn diagram) concepts of gender roles popular in the 19th Century, a graphic representation of Hegel’s master slave dialectic might best be drawn as concentric rings around a core. The core is the spirit or the essential self. The master ring fully circumscribes the slave ring because the master has reached further from the self than the slave and is therefore more powerful and esteemed. But the slave is closer to the core and can more readily satisfy the needs of the spirit due to his proximity. The intermediate ring the slave occupies separates the master from the spirit, meaning that the master has to go through a servant to have his core needs met. In this position the slave has enormous control over the master even though the master is technically more dominant and more powerful.
The analogy is easy to see in the stereotypical 1950s housewife. She has no bank account of her own. Lucy was lucky to get her allowance each week from Dezi. But as the gateway to the core needs of the spirit such as love, food, sex, and support the “powerless” housewife exerts enormous control. Remember, men cannot cook. Men went further into the world in their outer ring while women languished on their intermediary ring longing for their own prestige. By pushing into their own outer rings, many argue that women gave up some of their control over men and caused themselves greater dissatisfaction at the realization that they had strayed too far from the spirit core satisfaction of hearth and home.
Synthesis
The synthesis of Hegel’s master slave dialectic is the integrated man or woman unconfined by rings. The goal is a freedom of consciousness that connects the core of the spirit to full expanse of identity and indefinable self (or self without the need for definition). Using the graphic model described above, the integrated conscious is like a radial line extending from the core to the outer most rings of human fulfillment. The integrated man, or woman, no longer feels the need to fulfill gender normative or any relational, hierarchical criteria for identity but is free to live and be more wholly, authentically self.
In actually, the subversion of the master slave dialectic for women has not resulted in normative free womanhood for most. Many women have bought into the mythology of the superwoman that can dominate the boardroom and the PTA meeting while still having time and energy for a book club and sex with their husbands. The result is the attempt and subsequent expectation to occupy two or more rings around the core at the same time. Mom still occupies the ring of domestic servitude but is also expected to perform in the ring of outside achievement. The result is not the traversal of the radial line that integrates the self but a self-defeating be all and do all mentality that requires relentless self-denial and self-sacrifice. Hegel contends that morality is the product of social consensus. And society echoes the past in a double standard for mothers and fathers. What is “wrong” for many mothers never seems to be quite so wrong for fathers.
There is an endless debate about whether a mother can or should work outside the home. There is no equivalent masculine debate. Nobody ever questions whether a man can be a good father and good professional. The integration is taken for granted in men but the subject of indefinite discourse for women. Only the most integrated of women capable of recognizing social norms but refusing to be defined by them traverses the radial line to find some true self among the rings. Likewise, the stay-at-home father content with his own domicile still deals with being an infraction of the man-code almost as egregious as homosexuality.
Conclusion
Femininity is understood in contrast to masculinity. Likewise motherhood has traditionally been understood in contrast to fatherhood. Both have set roles, signifiers, normative behaviors, duties, and their place in a two-person hierarchy. Efforts to redefine the role of mother are met with fierce opposition because they represent a threat to the self’s recognition of itself and other and all the comforting identity that comes with it. The antithesis to this thesis is the control of the slave over the master in which the slave is freer and more capable of fulfilling core needs of the spirit. The slave controls the master by acting as a gateway to the fulfillment of core needs. The synthesis of this dialectic is an integration of self without the need for definitional dominance. The progressive home lead by a man and woman who share power and in which the mother and father each exhibit and subvert traditional gender expectations is an example of this synthesis. So too are homes led by same-sex couples who fulfill all the duties and needs of parenting without the requirement of strict roles performed by opposing sexes. The necessity argument of the original dialectic thesis is then disproved by these synthesized homes and their integrated performance of motherhood.
Comments