HAPTER 9 Self-completing alienation: Hegel’ argument for transparent conditions of free agency Deen Moyer Mos people hve a sens of wart ike oe allestd. Ye alienation remains among the mow elueconeps in social an pot theoy. “The range of te erm inorinary wage extends om simply refering vague feting of dzone all he ay implying» Marist concen of {apis conscioues. Tobe 4 philoophitly produce coer lenaton anor ust ref os meray bere nner ve wih ae indvidal har lesbo, Bu bjece” theres sl problema forthe asumes view of human nau o fill human potent tht ay eon canbe alienated fom tat wold deine ue rather than fle Consciousness). An advange of sich an objec theory would be ably 0 give qua-etfae citer fr predicting the alenaton’ ofan indivi ren tat individ actives, estes ec. Yer the peer ‘enon of leon sinclininably rs penonal Even ance theey Coal arve ata “cre” view of human rare, could no coun fot sm eset dimension of aeration, Whar we ned 2 famevor or thinking falcon hae width palo pec eral and purl ‘exer concetons, We nnd vie he ends bee of proposal anodes and at dice pen sanding indeterminate Titons 9 pobicnorms Sch amewor poe bythe concept ineonal ston, Acton ae plc in conte common to many fd ‘tals and. qu nena. they anno bert vo mere behav, AR ‘zt of mecenfi scion and socal condison cn cue coma ing acount of alienation The benef of Hees pacar daca mode afupumenaion, in which hulls up an sco af scien by epg 2 procs of overcoming allan, that he aches 2 nermaine tare patency thas roundel i practic andi thas jute within and fo the peti fhe Phenomena of Spr ied “Sel Anaed Spit Calere” eur ser of Hircaly specie socal worl in whch individ nrsct wih eachother in avers of conficed neraie Selfcompling alienation as Jandcapes. The care that Hoge prcay though he igure of amc’ tephew fom Diderrsfrmous dog ives ay tothe conf of he Eightenment with tion. This conf ends wih the tum fhe Enlightenment ard followed, Finally, bythe Alcolte Pretom of the French Revlon. Undessnding why tht hixenedpreeion 2 whole fils under the rubic of lean can conti ew decper {ppreition of the precoadione of contemposy pal Iie tad theory While mos Hera thereof plea onal carded anf the vicoy of the Ealightamont, ey of thi td ae he lem of aetna sey a Hegel dos in the Prermenlgys Conacriae uta lonal oie wield deal eh stern. When they da, ofen rar apenemencn toes fnlionted with he proper dition of ae gods or he mini, tin of prefeencesetaion, But mck ofthe epee ep of pull ~ the sources of tation kr shining hat thx per oF usc inipesablet good if depends on the pec of nsson hovering over he individual in modern acc, Hegel is of coune, wll lows aa thot of exonciaton, and on shot nee gor at itive goal of is thoughe However, there 0 inal reeoncaon fr Fogel of the sor thar wuld pa an cr voll diene and cofice We can only think of ourselves a secmpihng the acy of econliason ino ara chee ia pou thac we could tar we could become alee. One of Heels pins ir hat we kw the vale of ucefel tuonal norms only ifwe kno he experiences of Ele orm wih they see born. The harder pone i tats soley can be fe ely i he ‘ondiions fr alienation remain pen, for only under sch coins ‘invest acne and usin Seclom oy incoporting th casero confirm oe nore proceed in ve ages Fine (exon), Texan why alain is such 2 cena iu in the Phenomenol by examining om pol ere tons inthe Pedic and Inoducion, Seco ection 1), Tw s concep ofaention through contig mies of condons of aces fetaeton [thus preene my cndustone hs i oder 1 provides der cutie for reading the propesion of Hepes concep fom in he ‘ining tee sens. Thi ston nso Se Aenaed Spit ‘pp ceictemene ere daeaetameee Eigen dee dat Gi ab aban omy wa of sxe Maa. Mar cy EEoosssec ey(Calere,” where Hegel esablishes the tanspazen soil conditions for succesful action by viewing the individual aught up in. and overcoming ‘ormatire conc. Fourth section 4), ad the Ealightenments confit ‘vith religion as exablishing a further form of canspareny. Fifth and finally Gecon 3), show how the move fom the shape of uly wo Absolute Freedom generates an explicitly political condition for non- alienated ageney. ‘Theimpocane of aination for Hegel's projet comes outin the Prec where he inves against de “mere eatin, and even dln of Pllosophy’ of the mere “iso which “otheres and lenstion Lenfending, and the overcoming of alienation [Enema are nt sevious mater” (8 fg)” Hep wes in his pasage Gath eee Becomes rit through thes monement ofthe fr,” and ha the comneccan only be expend tatu "jen “the whole wah the developed Forno.) Wich slmovenee of frm,” Hea tcferingt a dle proces in which sdonsounes deri ins in poy au cao fh igen Ma wey At ‘ik seh ems 3 aa ue Sr el ed ‘Sef ae eae cay eat he ‘Biers tenet Yen lent tc Sey ahs arpelalndrie deo arr rie epee teeioe a, LoNAPSace gn aes splenic en Se Cs? Sacompling imation 6 disineve charac a kind of ain, The ntepreaion of religion by the lghcnmer cn roc nd felon by cur ie “unsophictdvelon”of tht the “asl ebjee™ Hog hs consis the aide of fith tht Sou nk ar co an ose enc wee a marerof porta a be ane tha sch» th ‘ould mere demons dt ssc lua eee y the Enighenment (Gj) The who ape evdece 4 mine sanding of th The Enlghenmen runes hays queen “Why tut be never in cern way, say ta ah eam oer aed remain he dinate pre hat “The vicor ofthe Enighenment onc ith rng ou the enc of Jy and I of ons lms pups and the pei sto ken seach chem. Hegel clin hat the wall of Chien he ominae Cultural form el om i atempe to ave asec howsheping” 6572) forthe vnc od he pte Fath alte and me i £2 the Ealghenmen, becuse canos avid answering he quesion “Nip?” from wo dient penpecves in muta incompatible mae Enon if ne grat lon the te edn ees fend. wind Br ‘scrameny nl gn the inal re ta cone se Ha the able ceca che emia any chat the scan of acon treads down. Onc wold scion wil have thc a of en ee accumulating proper) and devotional prac wil have diferent fends (eg. ging coe o God). The Enlightenment rey bring that wo stp, showing the ncnsnency. Te shape of can sty I, but nos I, for some pin the marly incompcble ods dpe the ies ne mt be el shout hw one pee ‘Scions contribute oon oval ers Felloving the deft of hse kingdom of heen wil have been “ranached” re 57) gods bought down cath nthe Vey a Enlightenment analy Hegel ier he Enlightenmentss kina radial empiric that coe ode of “Sene-Ceciny” withthe conviction ht che immedi individu constuses andthe ene ‘old ae scl Go 9). Theil overoning of alnaen ‘feedthrough she alighenmonts moe of teting ini om ‘iousesto he “sbolteenec, which rence anther whch hao Preis (the acum ofthe materia. Bese her no dec ‘ina ote bolt enc cheval of hing nth woé mp Sp co the slFsoacos individual. Things canbe ake ws we seed” thecasniselor othe Tobe bth hese smalnenay. oa immediate decminaton wih vale and yet tobe so only toa to6 DEAN MovaR ‘others i 10 be something mf Hegel sums up the atitude of this Enlightenmenc in witing that “As he inmediacly i, a a nacural con- Sseiousness pers man is good, as an individual hei absolve and all elie ‘xin for hi” The individual can tink of himself “sone who hs come from the hand of God, walking the card ain a gure planed for bmn” (Gos, {560} This a Kind of naturals in which material objec are etna though chet ass for wand in which we oureles ae “univer sly wil mene ofthe roup” Gos, 360) in hich ne we othe and ‘But in this fist concepion of wliy, the Enlightenment semaine slinated in a fila sense tht Hegel avocites with cal romantic. ‘The Enlightenmenc wins dhe coats with religion butt isnot yr said, for ic is “ony individual” and “whae speaks co Spire is only a realy without any substance, and facade Forsaken by Spc” (ao, 4573. The ‘atonality characteristic of this phase ofthe Ealighenment is som, both because the individual knower sche basic eater af ath, snd bese indvcal representations are len a basic building blocs of knowlege. Buc in chat its euh is only an empry Beyond” (30, 73) there aes 4 longing fr something more, fora genuine core purpose 9 give meaning its particular acts. The Enlightenment thus has what we might call a romantic reflex, a longing for what i as overcome. The only “filled objec” de only object with determinate content is the “lak ofsefiad oF the wel” (51,4573). In principle, everything objective now sands a a posible means to accomplish my purposes in answering question about "ny purposes I describe the world only sit presents tel or my we. What ‘is missing here are those characersics that make the parposes worth ‘pursuing inthe fist place, tat give my abjecives meaning beyond my sete enjoyment. 5 “The Enlightenment decisively overcomes sicntion when it realize that she ver iden of purposes beyond the ordinary is unnecesry. I here 0 “blue empenes” with which ro contrat che ite seule wor there 5s no cause for alienation, no reson Fr the weil co remain lacking in selood. Hegel writes This dtingushing of he momen eves thee uamoed ani] behind a the enpey bu of pre eng, ic rn longer acti hog ne anges a Me ‘stn i for is proce of ileretaton ulema cnet This Scomplsing alain 6 hme ith po i ve a i. a sero an emai ona en ine. eingiia angr oder, caphnpgeriape rh manye saree Lnaeal cette cpa insehc Can. a 579) “The elation i thar pure beng is 2 sperfious “emp husk” rat 0 Tonge has any life within eT sya dhe process difrence isa the ‘eontent” i realze dat no tanscendent purposes acallyconibute “nyhing our reson and he on core prox an Be rly In terms of 1 this version of wi ir the reson thar there a9 fate ouside ofthe ordinary purposes themes, so chete i 90 ‘cause for disparity beeen one's purposes and the availabe stock of reasons. In rerms ofthe achieved objec that Hegel wil summarize in Absolute Knowing wiry sich an important sage Becte“e consciousness ight im the objec. and this insight contains the rue {sueneof the abject (which stobeseen through oto befor nate)” (6, ‘S5).This lam oceus ina summary in which Heel decries ili at ting he being fore Ramen nd the being iil fit Irs conclusion that bath momentous and deflaonry. He writes, “rath wells presence and away areuited. The two worldare reconciled sd eave is tanplnced ent below” (36 5). Benge becomes being for another tog s concep move sha lemaey pays outa the ranson to Able Freedom: he nlf converted tte jective vl, to what ther accep a ransparen exons. Inthe wanstion Asolo Freon, Hepl noe that his conversion has aleady inplicily happened, for relFcmsiosnes iol has become the sence ofthe objec so that there no obectviy besides others ‘onsibunenes. What main of abject i only tn “empry seb” Since the being in-isl of the objective word har ead become a passive being foranater, Hog indices che ral ieetjecne mplabon of uly in wing pens ire the pare concpe, he looking ofthe sein the sl the aan sexing of ef doubled te cen of ei the univer sujet and its knowing concep [eineder Bari the esence ofall acai” Grr 498). Beets seloraiousnesris now allof eal, it no sick tthe evel "mere een” oe epee, wth eprte bj overpaint isl The py of iy aa scaring fhe sori da agency i compel to become police becomes the “anveral sth “rel univer wing’ G27, 8) in which te indi sslracar the whole andthe whol act though he indi Hegel's move wo Absolute Fredom shows ha a concept of ination eed include an explicit poll dimension. The condion in A do"0 DEAN Movar ‘not require one’s actions w go beyond the level of insumenta ration- aly, and do not say how we are to consider other agents beyond ‘sctibing wo them a capacity fr fie choice, language ute and the abilty to sand pursue ens. All ofthis is consonant withthe worldview that Hoge describes under the rubvic of tity. The rest oF overcoming "the focm of objectivity of the use” (xs, 8a) is a substantive lam of ficedom, such tha alienation is overcome only ina polity governed by the geneal will Ione reads dhe conditions in Az in a stung enough ‘manre, one could be led to chi eanluson, forthe heart of Av iva ‘eran clan of mutual dependence berween the agents giving reasons ‘© one another. One could argue tha easoa-giving functions mmet- tally only if we all depend on a general wl hat bars inequalities in power ‘eltons. Thais, one could beled to Rowe's acl on the bourgeois ss alienated and to his proposed morl-poieal solution, We could then 21d new conditions 14: The question and ee anon presuppose poly in which he gene wills ‘he dominant normative pin suc hat a get essere to usps ‘aca the purposes a very gene. As ic stand, and as Hegel's portrayal ofthe lgicof che Reign of Terror makes clear, this conditon it much too song. The primery problem is thal takes the relationship of mutual dependence too simpli. I Hegel's terminology, the general wll works only with the exegoies of individuality and universality. which i aempes to gecinto an iumediaely symmecial elation, Tete can be no porte ston unde his contin, hich purchase ck of alienation only athe price ofall “dee and work of wing edo” (38-39, 588). The Sac and the ciizen could have the absent intention of acting according tothe general will but this objective is carried out, becomes 2 tealized intention, only when specie means are taken to accomplish it, and the particularity of those specie ‘means wll contradic the dsced purity. Can we rad ge asadvectings dlifeen candison for overcoming lienaton? ‘Amore moderate version of overcoming dependence it suggested by Hegel's remarks om how ffeedam could regain embodiment G:8-39, ‘$589. The gol would bean insutional rstonality in wich particular Individuals ae ike “branche” ofthe universal whole: Hegel's organic “mug dae tate tee ee Seen Selfcomplig alienation ™ metaphor need not be read a a rop-down endorsement ofan absolut Sate: Iecould become 14: Theanver andthe question penppoe hs th individual acne of veri Sate governed by entation wand conning many oemeite incon, such that an agents tos refer fo prpses that an be mad iin mean more incase nse purpose “Thenocion ofnested purposes isa version of the isu separating and 1", since nesting one's acons so ela story connecting your specifications to lager purposes, The point in tis formulation fr that such nesting relations can be embedied in initonal suctures in a wanspaien manner. We can thine of thee nractures at defined through overall purposes, each of which is characrerzed by cern pattems of inference that are themseles related to each other in vziou complicated mays” ‘Aadding this condition ro Aa we arveatsSinal formilion ofthe concept of alertion withthe four conditions. ‘Ax: An nvidia when he fle be ble aver stacy the wanted question “Why” about hi actin, where te snr sd the quton Pretuppue (0) eat he affine ean fr aca epecn upon sown Feet, 2) tt his aga pee bs commiemet to che ansarney fe nein i ton a he ey oe es son ti fering wo the core prpos of eager Conception at ling teen drape cm pre by maranatte ee ied soil spc 0 dhos coe purposes an) ht eal 4 ‘iiss ofa soe Sate pred by copttaond ow and conan ny ‘serene oon ech han agen rece er puesta canbe tse within ber mor incre sonal paren. Hoge has thus defivered 2 workable general concep of alienation, The fine structure of aienaon, which would give the way in which eason- ving acualy breaks down, canbe worked out only within the specc ‘contexts of ation. The eiteria fr alienation ae neces loose, for ‘much of the question of fling to anewer “sist” will depend ‘pon how speci social conditions are acral experienced by she nd ‘uals acting under ther, ‘My final condiion 1") suggest that some individuals by he ver fee ofliving under eran politcal conditions, wl count as lente. think " Swastaleng goa ef mga pie nat Hole pi ria Stent eich Spee fling deaxcgetooosear see aes ‘ele ey fw dy oll i ed won pen ishat suggestion is right for we nen some basc “external” crea for fieedom and slienacon, and some abjeaive sense of alienation that we Can arrbure co others, What should give s pause shat Hepes pola ‘condition is one which encourages people co develop cei own interests tnd views, Thisi the nacre of modern Cis Scien, thera of ational chica ie (presented in the Philosphy of igh) thac corresponds most ‘oely with the Phenomenology elm of Bldg. Hegel did nocimaginea ‘ranquil society in wich everyone agreeson what count reason ands 2 fling ite. Sach sues are inevitably cones in many areas, and ina pluralistic oeiery many questions will not haves unitary answer. Doesthat tnean that evenone flea reasongivng and that we aealalcnted? No, the lesson is rather tara rational socal order must be able incorporate the differences bexween individual and groups that make alienation an ‘ongoing possibile. Whac Heges reconsruced. historical account has ‘rablthet are the terme under which senation is nor 2 eoesve force that undermines the very principles of fredom. Rameau embodied @ ‘erin kind of failure of French aristocratic socry, fr his alienation ‘elected the asc injustice and ination of the economic and political insintons The French Revolution oc, however, was failure, ramelya failure ro understand tat lention is aocsimply an enemy tobe camped fut, bu ater the very background tension that mainains modern sole ‘es in theiimperfcFeedor. Tete iscause today eoblieve chat only in ‘sci that has topped asking fr exsons could the pssbily of alen- ation diaper. Practical reason and spirit in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit Ludwig Siep ‘The characersic caneepe which Hegel from the et of| modem age pilosophy is that of “spic” Moder philosophy since Desates and Hobbes has been «philosophy of reason and subject. ‘OF course, there have been eendences to radically eine reason and subjectvgin moder philosphy at wel: From Niemche ro excel, tal hey in sexy phase and the wo-lled “potmader” philosophy. ‘Bur in general “Reason” and “Rasionaliy” ae approved of cri and pease concepts and values in the sence and philosophy, polis, and fconomis of modern times. does no belong tothe camp ofthe crits of reason. He even defends “undersanding™(Vessend apsns the philosophy. terre, and theology of immediacy ling, and fith. Bur understanding and rezon ane sepsona sale with easton ontop tis Hegel's message tothe age of reason and enlightenment that reason must be ransioemed int spirit eis the tak ofthe Phenomenal of Spirit ro prove thar itis 2 fundamental misjudgment to take reason athe highes human faculty the Fundament of moral and legal zton, and the gal of history. ‘The Phenomenology aibues the concept of prt the “moder age ane istelgion” (22, 2s) Asoftenin Hegel’ writings, “modem age" is here sed in the verse ofthe “guerelle des anins e des madera following he (Greco-Roman er. The religion of ths ers, ofcomse, Chyisiancy. and che plhlesophy which undetiesis devdopment is Neo-plaronis. This had been Hegel's view since the Fran writings. Bat Hegel nderande che Nev-platnic concept af “nu ina rather Arotlan way a “thinking of thinking” (Dehn des Detken) beynd the diference of rajocrand obec Facer of Engh am gl Fa utd nd Din Mer Ee BB fig ee oR gl ain oN