Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T16:50:00.654Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hegel’s Schein as Ideology of Equality and Freedom in Capitalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2017

Arash Abazari
Arash Abazari*
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University, USA, arash.abazari@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

In this paper, I demonstrate that the category of Schein (which I translate as ‘semblance’) in Hegel’s Science of Logic expresses the structure of ideology in general, and specifically the ideology of equality and freedom in capitalism. To this aim, I motivate Marx’s mature critique of political economy in Capital and the Grundrisse. I argue that while the semblance of equality is false and misleading, it is constitutive of the essence of capitalism. This implies that domination in capitalism does not exclude equality, but requires it. In particular, I argue that the structure of domination generates equality as its own necessary moment. The paper shows, on the one hand, how a close study of Hegel’s Logic is helpful for understanding the structure of capitalism, and on the other hand, how reading Hegel’s Logic through Marx can help in unveiling its social import.

Type
Articles
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , August 2019 , pp. 257 - 280
Copyright
© The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abazari, A. (2017), Hegel’s Logic of Essence and the Ontology of Power in Capitalism. Johns Hopkins University, PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
Fulda, H. F., Horstmann, R. P. and Theunissen, M. (1980), Kritische Darstellung der Metaphysik: eine Diskussion über Hegels Logik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Geras, N. (1984), ‘The Controversy about Marx and Justice’, Philosophica 33: 33–86.Google Scholar
Hartmann, K. (1970), Die Marxsche Theorie: eine philosophische Untersuchung zu den Hauptschriften. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Henrich, D. (1978), ‘Hegels Logik der Reflexion: Neue Fassung’, in D. Henrich (ed.), Die Wissenschaft der Logik und die Logik der Reflexion, Hegel Studien, Beiheft 18. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
Houlgate, S. (2006), The Opening of Hegel’s Logic. West Lafayette IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
Iber, C. (1990), Metaphysik absoluter Relationalität: eine Studie zu den beiden ersten Kapiteln von Hegels Wesenslogik. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jaeggi, R. (2009), ‘Was ist Ideologiekritik?’, in R. Jaeggi and T. Wesche (eds.), Was ist Kritik? Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Krahl, H. J. (1970), ‘Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis von Kapital und Hegelscher Wesenslogik’, in O. Negt (ed.), Aktualität und Folgen der Philosophie Hegels . Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Lukács, G. (1968), History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Luxemburg, R. (2012), Reform or Revolution and Other Writings. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Moyar, D. (2012), ‘Thought and Metaphysics: Hegel’s Critical Reception of Spinoza’, in E. Förster and Y. Melamed (eds.), Spinoza and German Idealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pinkard, T. (1988), Hegel’s Dialectic: the Explanation of Possibility. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, R. (1989), Hegel’s Idealism: The Satisfactions of Self-consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, M. (1996), On Voluntary Servitude: False Consciousness and the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Sandel, M. (1984), ‘The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self’, Political Theory 12:1: 81–96.Google Scholar
Theunissen, M. (1978), Sein und Schein: die kritische Funktion der Hegelschen Logik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Yeomans, C. (2012), Freedom and Reflection: Hegel and the Logic of Agency. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar