Abstract
In recent decades a number of reinterpretations of Hegel’s social philosophy and Marx’s social theory have been carried out, which allows us to examine the relationship between the two thinkers in a perspective of fruitful complementarity. In this chapter, Honneth begins with a comparison of their respective philosophies of history (I). In a second step, the chapter explores the advantages of Hegel’s social theory vis-à-vis that of Marx (II). The third step consists in reversing the perspective and considering the merits of Marx’s analysis of capitalism (III). Finally, the question is raised of under what conditions and in what form the two approaches can be put into a relationship of productive complementarity.
My thanks to Juliane Rebentisch and Ferdinand Sutterlüty for helpful comments and suggestions. Text translated from German by Felix Koch.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Clear evidence of this is found in the debate about the extent of Kant’s influence on Marx, which goes back to the late nineteenth century (see Sandkühler and De La Vega 1970).
- 2.
One example is Marcuse (1932).
- 3.
A useful overview is offered by Habermas (1971, esp. pp. 402–13).
- 4.
For a concise but very accurate summary, see Emundts & Horstmann (2002, pp. 32–37).
- 5.
There is an ongoing debate about whether Hegel’s philosophy of history is in fact best read as asserting that world history exhibits an “objective” teleology ensuring the realization of freedom (Hegel 1970b). Many of the relevant passages also admit of a more Kantian interpretation to the effect that such a teleology is found in human history only when the latter is regarded from the perspective of a philosophical outlook committed to reason. This becomes especially clear in Hegel (1970a, pp. 347–52).
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
See Marx’s famous dictum that “the history of industry” is “the open book of man’s essential powers” (Marx 1968b, esp. pp. 510–22).
- 9.
See the reference to the “most revolutionary role” of the “bourgeoisie” in the Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels 1972, p. 464).
- 10.
Hegel’s own use of the term “society” (Gesellschaft) is limited to the “system of needs” (System der Bedürfnisse), to which he also refers as “bourgeois society” (bürgerliche Gesellschaft) in his Philosophy of Right. What he has in mind by these latter terms, following Adam Smith, is the historically recent structure of a capitalist market society (cf. Rosenzweig 2010, pp. 391–401; Vogel 1925). In the present context, when I speak of Hegel’s concept of society I have in mind what Hegel calls “objective spirit” (concretely represented in particular “national spirits”), that is to say, the most general unit to which processes of social differentiation can be attributed.
- 11.
An interesting comparison, along with a critique of Searle from a Hegelian perspective, is offered by Ostritsch (2014, pp. 205–18).
- 12.
- 13.
Following Hegel, an explanation of this sort was offered by Dewey (1973, pp. 64–71).
- 14.
On the tension between these two interpretative models, cf. Castoriadis (1984, op. cit., p. 52–59).
- 15.
- 16.
At the same time, Hegel faces great difficulties in establishing that the state, too, is a sphere of intersubjectivity that is enabling of freedom. These difficulties have been treated, with impressive precision, by Theunissen (1982, pp. 317–81).
- 17.
I have put forward a proposal of this kind in Honneth (2013, op. cit.).
- 18.
On these difficulties regarding the foundational concepts of the traditional theory of social differentiation, cf. Schimank and Volkmann (2008).
- 19.
Some initial suggestions can be found in Honneth (2010b, pp. 103–30).
Bibliography
Althusser, L 1969, For Marx, Verso, New York.
Brudney, D 1998, Marx’s Attempt To Leave Philosophy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
Castoriadis, C 1984, Gesellschaft als imaginäre Institution. Entwurf einer politischenPhilosophie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Çidam, V 2012, Die Phänomenologie des Widergeistes. Eine anerkennungstheoretische Deutungvon Marx’ normativer Kritik im Kapital, Nomos, Baden-Baden.
Dewey, J 1973, Lectures in China, 1919–1920, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Emundts, D, and Horstmann, R-P 2002, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Eine Einführung, Reclam, Stuttgart.
Habermas, J 1970, Arbeit und Interaktion. In Technik und Wissenschaft als “Ideologie,” 9–48. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Habermas, J 1971, Literaturbericht zur philosophischen Debatte um Marx und den Marxismus. In Theorie und Praxis. Sozialphilosophische Studien, 2nd ed., 387–463. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Habermas, J 1981, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Vol. 2: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Hegel, GWF 1970a, Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften,Vol. 3. Theorie-Werkausgabe, Vol. 10, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Hegel, GWF 1970b, Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. Theorie-Werkausgabe, Vol.7, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Hegel, GWF 1970c, Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte. Theorie-Werkausgabe, Vol. 12, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Hegel, GWF 1977, Phenomenology of Spirit, Trans. AV Miller, Oxford University Press, Oxford UK.
Herzog, L 2013, Inventing the Market: Smith, Hegel and Political Thought, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Honneth, A 1992, Kampf um Anerkennung. Zur moralischen Grammatik sozialer Konflikte, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Honneth, A 2010a, Anerkennung als Ideologie. Zum Zusammenhang von Macht und Moral. See Honneth 2010b, 103–130.
Honneth, A 2010b, Das Ich im Wir. Studien zur Anerkennungstheorie, Suhrkamp, Berlin.
Honneth, A 2010c, Das Reich der verwirklichten Freiheit. Hegels Idee einer “Rechtsphilosophie.” See Honneth 2010b, 33–50.
Honneth, A 2013, Die Moral im Kapital. See Jaeggi & Loick (eds.) 2013, 350–63.
Honneth, A 2015, Die Idee des Sozialismus. Versuch einer Aktualisierung, Suhrkamp, Berlin.
Jaeggi, R and Loick, D eds. 2013, Nach Marx. Philosophie, Kritik, Praxis, Suhrkamp, Berlin.
Kotz, D 2015, The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Löwith, K 1978, Von Hegel zu Nietzsche. Der revolutionäre Bruch im Denken des 19Jahrhunderts, Meiner Verlag, Hamburg, 7th ed.
Marcuse, H 1932, Neue Quellen zur Grundlegung des Historischen Materialismus; reprinted in Marcuse H 2004. Schriften, Vol. 1. Springe, zu Klampen.
Marx, K 1968a, Auszüge aus Mills “Éléments d’économie politique.” See Marx & Engels 1968, 445–463.
Marx, K 1968b, Ökonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte aus dem Jahr 1844. See Marx &Engels 1968, 467–588.
Marx, K 1968c, Zur Judenfrage. See Marx & Engels 1968, 347–77.
Marx, K 1971a, Das Kapital, Vol. 1, in Werke by K Marx, F Engels, Vol. 23, 181–191. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Marx, K 1971b, Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, in Werke by K Marx, F Engels, Vol. 13, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Marx, K, and Engels, F 1968, Werke, Suppl. Vol. 1, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Marx, K, and Engels, F 1972, Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei, in Werke, Vol. 4, 459–93. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Mauss, M 1969, The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies, Norton, London.
McCarney, J 2000, Hegel on History, Routledge, London.
Neuhouser, F 2000, Foundations of Hegel’s Social Theory. Actualizing Freedom, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Neuhouser, F 2013, Marx (und Hegel) zur Philosophie der Freiheit. See Jaeggi & Loick (eds.) 2013, 25–47.
Ostritsch, S 2014, Hegel and Searle on the necessity of social reality. Rivista di Estetica 57: 205–18.
Polanyi, K 1979, Ökonomie und Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Polanyi, K 1997, The Great Transformation. Politische und ökonomische Ursprünge vonGesellschaften und Wirtschaftssystemen, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Quante, M 2011, Die Wirklichkeit des Geistes. Studien zu Hegel, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Reichelt, H 1973, Zur logischen Struktur des Kapitalbegriffs bei Karl Marx, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Rosenzweig, F 2010, Hegel und der Staat, (ed.) F Lachmann, R Oldenbourg, Berlin.
Sandkühler, HJ, and De La Vega, R eds. 1970, Marxismus und Ethik, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
Särkelä, A 2013, Ein Drama in drei Akten. Der Kampf um öffentliche Anerkennung nach Deweyund Hegel, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 61:681–96.
Schimank, U, and Volkmann, U 2008, Ökonomisierung der Gesellschaft. In Handbuch derWirtschaftssoziologie, ed. A Maurer, 382–93. Springer, Weisbaden.
Schmidt am Busch H-C 2011, “Anerkennung” als Prinzip der Kritischen Theorie, de Gruyter, Berlin.
Searle, J 1995, The Construction of Social Reality, Free Press, New York.
Streeck, W 2013, Gekaufte Zeit. Die vertagte Krise des demokratischen Kapitalismus Suhrkamp, Berlin.
Taylor, C 1979, Hegel and Modern Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Theunissen, M 1982, Die verdrängte Intersubjektivität in Hegels Philosophie des Rechts, in Hegels Philosophie des Rechts, ed. D Henrich, R-P Horstmann, 317–81, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart.
Tomasello, M 2016, A Natural History of Human Morality, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Vogel, P 1925, Hegels Gesellschaftsbegriff und seine geschichtliche Fortbildung durch LorenzStein, Marx, Engels und Lassalle, Pan-Vig, Rolf Heise, Berlin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Honneth, A. (2017). Hegel and Marx: A Reassessment After One Century. In: Bargu, B., Bottici, C. (eds) Feminism, Capitalism, and Critique. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52386-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52386-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52385-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52386-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)