Shared from another section of the course.
One of the excerpts that we will be reading this week is the “Introduction to the Reading of Hegel,” written by Alexandre Kojeve. This excerpt looks at and analyzes the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who was a German philosopher in the 19th century. One of Hegel’s most notable philosophies is the Master / slave dialect. This dialect, as described in the reading, looks at the idea of having two self-consciousnesses and how they interact with each other. The struggle between the two is built on the fact that each must see each other not as a threat to itself. Hegel describes this relationship similar to the relationship between a master and its slave, thus making the Master / slave dialect.
Between a master and a slave, they are in a relationship where they are both dependent on each other; the master has the power of its slave, yet only has that power if the slave recognizes to themselves that they are powerless to their master. In an article written by Andrew Cole apart of the Duke University Press, he has an alternative way to describe the relationship “The truth of the master reveals that he is the slave, and that the slave is revealed to be the master of the master” (Cole 579). The overarching idea of the Master / slave dialect is that both, self conscious or master/slave are dependent on each other whether that is how it was originally intended to be.
To look at this Master / slave dialect in a much larger scale, it can be seen prevalent in todays society through capitalism. Capitalism is the “economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state” (Oxford Languages). The social relationship of Capitalism consists of wage laborers and capitalists. Capitalists seem to be in the dominant position due to fact that they control the wage laborer’s work and pay. However, if you cut the jobs of workers, or lower their pay, then those workers loose their ability to buy the capitalists product. This contradiction of relationships is what Hegel’s refers to as the Master / slave dialect; the relationship between two parties which rely on each other for the good of their own.
Other articles to check out:
Capitalism’s Master/Slave Relationship and Hegel’s Dialectic
Works Cited:
Cole, Andrew. “What Hegel’s Master/Slave Dialect Really Means.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, Volume 34, Number 3, Fall 2004. Duke University Press. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/174870/pdf.
Feilmeier, J.D. “Hegel’s Master-Slave Dialect: the search for self-consciousness.” Central College. Accessed Aug 27, 2021. https://central.edu/writing-anthology/2019/07/08/hegels-master-slave-dialectic-the-search-for-self-consciousness/#:~:text=Hegel’s%20Master%2DSlave%20dialectic%20tells,life%2Dand%2Ddeath%20struggle.&text=Self%2Dconsciousness%20indicates%20that%20an,the%20only%20point%20of%20view.
I think that the comparison of capitalists and wage workers as the master and the slave, respectively, is one of the best examples that could be used in our modern day era. Going further, from Hegel’s idea that the slave will be freed later from their work, the wage worker will benefit more as the worker since they are gaining the experience of doing the tasks set by the capitalists. They figure out how they are being exploited, their experience liberating them and giving them further knowledge that the capitalists will never get. The capitalists, while having the power to control the wage workers, are never put under the experience of actually working. They are just given what they asked for without understanding what goes into making/doing it.
With all this said, it really shows how the relationship is needed. The wage worker is not a worker without the capitalists, and the capitalists is not a capitalist without the wage worker.
I found it interesting how you described the Master and Slave relationship as being dependent on each other. The Master only has the power over the Slave if the Slave realizes they’re powerless. Also, the comparison to Hegel’s story and capitalism was a great connection. I never thought to look at it through that perspective but, after reading your take on it I can see just how similar the two are. The Capitalist have the domination over those doing labor and the laborers realize this which gives them their power. Although the Capitalist know they have the power they enjoy to play with that relationship in order to get the recognition of being more powerful.
The master-slave dialectic not only relates to the dependence between one another and the distribution of power but also the development of how the individual self comes to be. A desire for recognition drives this relationship especially with the capitalistic example given. Earlier in the reading, the significance of “I” also draws attention to the desire and self-consciousness given a social environment. This struggle and power separation between one another, in general, can apply to the different classes of people and the inequalities that come with it.
I think it is interesting how a master can be seen as the slave to the slave. If the master does not have a slave who cooperates, they are not a master. Likewise, if a slave has a master who does not act like a master, they aren’t really a slave. Both the slave and the master need recognition from each other to maintain their roles and continue the master-slave relationship. If the slave does not treat the master like a master, he is powerless. The comparison to capitalism is very helpful in explaining how if people do not buy the capitalist’s products, the capitalist’s no longer have power. The same goes for slaves and masters. I think this idea of cooperation and power can be applied in many other different scenarios in the world. If people do not give someone the power, that person or people will not longer have power.
I found it to be interesting that you mentioned the power relationship between the master and slave and described it as “the master has the power of its slave, yet only has that power if the slave recognizes to themselves that they are powerless to their master.” This makes me think that the slave has the power of choice and is in more control. It sounds as if the master only has as much power as the slave allows. Another modern day comparison of the master/slave dialogue is modern day politics. We elect officials to represent us then they hold the power until the next election cycle. However, if they abuse the power without looking out for the people who elected them, then they are signing their own death wish. On the other end, the people can’t move forward their political agenda without a representative in place.
Capitalism is such a good way to look at the master-slave dialectic especially because Hegel himself was not necessarily referring to materialistic examples like historical enslavement of African Americans so it is helpful to see the relationship played out in a different way. I know for me at least, it allows me to better see the philosophical argument. Another example I can think of that only borderline works is the relationship between technology and humans. As artificial intelligence becomes more and more advanced, as humans we consider ourselves its master, however, we are also, as a society, so dependent on technology, could we someday reach this master-slave dialectic, or are we even already there? I’m not sure if this can perfectly be related to this situation because technically the “slave” in this example is not human.
Thinking of the slave as a sort of master to the master has always seemed a sort of natural progression in the dynamic of those who rule vs those ruled. Nearly every modern system would be nothing without some sort of slave or ruled class, however, in every case there can be no ruler without a seemingly subservient ruled. Whether the slave sect know themselves to be slaves or are witness to their own enlightenment as having power over their masters in one way or another its never as simple as just a master and slave dichotomy. We largely see today how those of influence may seem as though they are the masters of thought or choice but are routinely slaves not only to their own images of themselves but to both society and the dictations of their role. I think calling this dynamic a life and death struggle is a bit far reaching but can very much reflect an intense struggle within where one may not even ultimately be aware of their true role in the dynamic.
Capitalism is a great way of viewing the master-slave dialectic. Another great example that was mentioned from Elizabeth Vu this week was the relationship between a pop star and their fans. The fans are the slaves to the master pop star as in they give in to the pop stars fame and “enrich” them, however the pop star relies on the fans benefactor qualities to keep that master status. If the fans took power over, the pop star would switch roles and make a slave use to gain the fans back.
I love your comparison of master/slave to pop star and their fans. I think this takes the ideas of a complex read and puts it into simple terms where it is more easily understood. Without one another their roles/status would be irrelevant, and are dependent on one another. Thinking of this analogy explained in the initial discussion post puts into perspective of how Kogeves essay on Hegel related to our current political and economic status and how role powers rely on one another.
I found your comparison of the master/slave dialect to the modern wage laborer/capitalist relationship to be very interesting. The idea that the master’s power only comes from the slave believing they are powerless also rings true with modern-day capitalism. From your description, it seems like there is a sort of Overton Window for “policies” (employment and wages) that produce economically viable outcomes for both parties. It also seems like ideas such as collectivism or monopolies are natural outcomes of this relationship, as the master wishes to keep and expand their power while the slave wishes to diminish or end their power.
The comparison you drew regarding capitalism is very intriguing. I would not have initially thought of this comparison when considering the master-slave relationship. It is hard to see the words ‘master’ and ‘slave’ being used in a way separate from examples of physical enslavement, but your analogy is a great way of applying the slave-master relationship to modern day society. We can see this relationship also in people with perceived power such as politicians and celebrities. Even parent-child relationship may be seen as a master-slave dialectic. Your use of the word ‘dependent’ accurately describes the way that neither the master nor the slave can exist without each other and that societies need both in order to advance. This relationship of those in power having command over those with less power has been a dynamic that has persisted throughout history and has strong ties to the institutions on which global societies are built. Your breakdown of Kojeve’s essay on Hegel shows understanding of the powerful relationship.
Using the master-slave dialectic to examine capitalism is a good idea – while reading, I was definitely thinking about it more along the lines of relationships between celebrities and their fans. I think in terms of economic systems it is interesting to consider the dialectic as an intermediate stage. The reading discussed how the master, while initially in a position of power, remains stable, but the slave can grow and learn through service to the master and eventually free themself from that relationship. This made me think about political/societal revolutions – situations where the slave/lower class gets fed up and takes power are sort of like the slave overcoming the master and becoming free. Additionally, revolutions still happen, and it seems unlikely that they will somehow naturally stop happening, which emphasizes the inevitability of the master-slave dialectic and its continued occurrence in society.
The notion that the master and the slave are dependent on one another really resonated with me. Examining this further, I thought about how this comes into play regarding personal responsibility and holding oneself accountable. The idea that we are both the master and the slave means that one conscious self is controlling the other. The “slave” completes the tasks that are assigned, and the master is the one assigning those tasks. I agree that the slave is the true master of the master. This is because, in actuality, the master relies on the slave. The greater we become at disciplining ourselves and holding ourselves accountable, the more effective and productive we become. Once we recognize and surrender ourselves as being our own slaves, we do hold all of our power.
I think the fact that the master and slave are dependent on each other is something super interesting to look at. When looking at the relationship, the usual understanding is that the master holds all the power, but what you were talking about, the slave needs to recognize that the master does hold the power over them. Comparing that to capitalism is also interesting. I do think there is a difference between them as workers can have other options as we have seen unemployment rates rise. With the low pay, people have chosen they would rather get unemployment or a different job. So there is a similarity with the owner and worker relationship, but not quite the same exact link.
While reading the master-slave dialectic, I was also reminded of a capitalistic society. Specifically, your point on how masters/capitalists depend on not only the work of a slaves/laborers but the economic input of each laborer. This perfectly highlights the contradiction that Hegel was speaking of. The master-slave dialectic is not a one way perspective. The master is in charge of income distribution, labor, and profits. But in the contrary, a slave/laborer is in charge of using their wages/time to purchase/consume whatever the slave/capitalists have to sell. If they are unable or refuse to purchase, then the dependency no longer exists and the power that the master holds is no longer there. The mass of power is held within the slave/laborer.
This idea can be used to further look at the problems within a capitalistic society today. How to mend employee/employer relationships, economic collapse, and the ideas of organizing (unionization).
The idea of the master and the slave / capitalist and wage worker is arguably corrupt, yet regrettably realistic. The ties between the two go hand and hand, as one is modernly translated from historical exploitation, all while being “legal” and a function of their respective time. Capitalism fails without the exploitation of a lower class that relies on income solely to live whereas the owner depends on the labor of the worker. Without the other, they cannot exist. Hegel’s inclusion of intent for the slave to be freed upon sufficient work however, differs from modern capitalism. Where although the capital owner cannot carry on his livelihood without the worker, the worker can go on to other means of work by submitting their power to another owner who abides by the same system.
I think while I was reading the master-slave dialectic that I realized the correlation of business, people and compensation laborers as the expert and slave, separately, is probably the best model that could be utilized in our current time. Going further, from Hegel’s thought that the slave will be liberated later from their work, the pay specialist will benefit more as the laborer since they acquiring the experience of doing the assignments set by the entrepreneurs, They sort out how they are being taken advantage of, their experience freeing them and giving then further information that the business people won’t ever get. Thee business people, while having the ability to control the compensation laborer, are never put under the experience of really working. They are simply given what they requested without getting what goes into the the making/ doing it.
This is a very interesting topic and would like to know more about how this relates to how our minds are composed. What inside of our brains is dependent of eachother without it being intentional? This idea also relates back to the idea of power and how it is only given when there is a force behind it was as the master-slave dialect. Having two consciousness makes me wonder who really is in control.
The comparison you drew with our capitalistic society and the Master/ slave dialect was very pensive. When looking at how capitalism, the laborer is provided a job by business owners, and business owners rely on them to buy their product. This is a recognized power within our society. Without laborers dependency to acquire a job, capitalists would have no power. I have not thought of this as an example to the master/slave dialect, but it has also drawn me to think of government officials as another example. We give the president power to make decisions. This can also be an example because the president would not have any power without us granting them to do so.
I loved the analogy of the capitalist and the wage laborer. I think that as close as we have to actual slavery in the United States the modern era. While wage worker get a salary, and therefore, are not slaves, in comparison to the people they work for, it is essentially a slave/master benefit gap. The capitalist though has no power without the labor of others, and the workers have no job, if not employed by the capitalist. There is a codependence here, which also is to say that masters can also be slaves in many contexts. They truly have no power without people recognizing him for having it. If the masses realized they have the power collectively, the capitalist is overmatched. I think this idea can be applied to celebrities/influencers in the social realm as well.
An idea I never considered is when you said a master and a slave are both dependent on each other. Although there is one with all the power over the other, both still need eachother. Both could exist without the other, but without each one having a role there would be no need for each other. The power that goes to the master is from the dependency on the slave. This idea worked really well when you brought up the point of capitalism and how they are also dependent on others.
The master slave dialect can be recognized in various forms in many social constructs. The self-contradicting aspect of the dialect where the slave seems to be the master of the master was seen in the soccer world with development of the Super League. The super league was an idea presented by the owners of the best teams in the world to create a league which has all the best soccer teams in the word, essentially a money to monopolize soccer as most of the money generated in soccer comes from these big clubs. However, soccer being a sport that heavily relies on the fans, the fans used their power over the sport to stop the master in this case to cancel the formation of the super league. The idea of holding power over someone is relied on the dependent on the perception and the situation of the slave to treat that power, essentially giving the slaves the power, leaving the only divide between the slave and the master to be whose desire to be recognized was fulfilled.
I have never thought about how similar the master/slave construct is similar to capitalistic society. Something that was never discussed about the topic of slavery is how dependent both parties are to each other. A slave master depends on their slave to feel powerful and survive economically. On the other hand, it is up to the slave to perform his or her labor work in order for their master to earn any income. The slave indirectly holds more power because they are the source of revenue for their master and their family. Likewise, the structure of capitalism is set up very similar. The private business owners are comparable to the slave masters. The owners and or people in charge have “power” over their workers because they control their pay and hours. However, the laborers, which in this case are the slaves, hold more power because the business owners receive their income through the workers. Power is not just held by the higher people in charge, it also is built on the foundation of the people doing the work. Without the slaves/workers, the entire system would collapse because there would not be a constant flow of money.
This was definitely an interesting read. There were a lot of statements I never appreciated too much while considering the master/slave dialect, it really widened my perspective on a lot of historical and current events. I absolutely loved the analogy with today’s capitalist society, and I have a feeling it can be relevantly compared to so many other things really. What initially came to my mind at the end of the read was parents with their children. Although the connotation of “master” and “slave” is definitely an inappropriate correlation, I find the connection similar. A child is dependent on their parents to provide care, education, and everything that comes with the value of life. A parent is dependent on their child to provide perspective to their own lives, and moreover as a benefit be a model to the public eye. A parent has full control of their child, until their child grows old enough and matures through stages to decide and recognize they are no longer powerless in certain situations.
This was an interesting take on the meaning, that very much helped make things make sense. I have never thought about it this way, and I completely agree. They are very much codependent on each other, and you can see this sort of context past the master/slave dialect. For example, I was thinking about the relationships with authors and the audience, or heroes and villains. Authors need the support of the audience to continue to grow and write, and the audience has to keep waiting for the author to publish more. Heroes and villains would both be nothing without the other. If there was no villain, a hero would just be an average person. There would be nothing to safe. If there were no heroes, villains would just be bad people, but there would be nobody to stop them. They wouldn’t have the titles they do without each other.
At first the master/slave dialect was a bit difficult to comprehend but the example of capitalism really put it in perspective and helped break down the concept. The master has more power over the slave when the slave views themselves as powerless, just as the laborer can be exploited by capitalism if they don’t realize that they actual hold some of the power. This is why when labor unions form and laborers demand better conditions or wages, capitalists have to comply because they don’t have as much power when the laborer realizes the power that they hold. If laborers quit or strike, the “masters” in this example don’t get paid either because they are dependent on one another.