Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-qks25 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T02:17:48.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Hegelian state and International polities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Andrew Vincent
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is a characteristic of political theory and international politics that certain wellworn stereotypes are perennially wheeled out for generations of students. Some of these may be useful landmarks for scholarship, others offer only partial insights. This paper addresses one of these stereotypes which does not dissolve with more intensive study. It attaches to the Hegelian concept of the state in relation to international politics. I refer to the view that Hegel's concept of the state, elaborated in the Philosophy of Right, is the final unit of analysis for any theory of international politics; that it is impossible to go beyond the nation state; that it possesses a finality in that international affairs are only to be understood through the relation between nation states. One of the conclusions which is sometimes drawn from this stereotype. is that Hegel's account of international politics is Hobbesian in character; that is to say, the relation between states is rather like that between individuals in Hobbes’ state of nature. The ruling principle would thus be that ‘clubs are trumps’; or, more conveniently, that might is right. For an Hegelian there cannot be a legitimate concept of international order, because order only exists in the individual state. Each state has its own legal system and concept of right, therefore the relationship between states is simply the conflict of rights. To put this in a moral perspective: states are neither right nor wrong; this is simply how things are. This has often led to the paradoxical conclusion that Hegel is a realist as regards international affairs, though perhaps a better term would be ‘idealist-realist’. The aim of this paper is to examine the arguments for and against such a stereotype.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , July 1983 , pp. 191 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1983

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

1. A typical statement of this type of position can be found in the account of Hegel in Routh, D. A., ‘The Philosophy of International Relations: T. H. Green versus Hegel’, Politica, 3 (1938)Google Scholar; also Popper, K., The Open Society and its Enemies (Princeton, 1950)Google Scholar. A recent and more sensitive account of Hegel is given by E. E. Harris in ‘Hegel's Theory of Sovereignty, International Relations and War’, and with less sensitivity by H. Paolucci in ‘Hegel and the Nation-State System of International Relations’, both found in Verene, D. P. (ed.), Hegel's Social and Political Thought: The Philosophy of Objective Spirit (New Jersey and Sussex, 1980)Google Scholar, respectively pp. 137–50 and pp. 151–66. Both men exegetically present the stereotype of Hegel. Harris presents the realpolitik view of Hegel, with the proviso that he was not glorifying war, and that ultimately a close reading of Hegel should drive us back to Kant for ‘Salvation’, p. 148. Paolucci argues that for Hegel the very concept of a universal state is defective, p. 164. The comment on these papers by J. C. Flay in the same volume does anticipate, in outline, some of the points I make in this article. Flay argues that the Hegelian idea of the independent nation state no longer exists in theory or practice, consequently the time is ripe for a reconsideration of the Hegelian idea of international politics. Flay suggests a philosophical dialogue within Hegelianism. I am not so certain on this latter point. Another recent contribution to this debate is M. H. Mitias ‘Hegel on International Law’, Clio, 9 (1979/80). However I was stimulated to think more deeply about this issue by reading an exchange of articles between Savigear, Peter, ‘Philosophical idealism and international studies: Bosanquet, Treitschke and War’, British Journal of International Studies, 1 (1975), pp. 48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Nicholson, Peter, ‘Philosophical idealism and international politics: a reply to Dr. Savigear’, British Journal of International Studies, 2 (1976), pp. 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The emphasis of my own argument is however different to theirs.

2. For Kant see Perpetual Peace, translated by Beck, Lewis White in Kant on HistoryGoogle Scholar edited by Lewis White Beck (New York, 1963), pp. 85–135. For Hegel's overt rejection of Kant's Perpetual Peace see Hegel, G. W. F., The Philosophy of Right, translated by Knox, f. M. (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar, paragraphs 324, addition, and 333 Zusatz.

3. McGovern, W. M., From Luther to Hitler (New York, 1940)Google Scholar; Popper, The Open Society, p. 259; also the essays by Carritt, E. F., and Sidney Hook in Kaufmann, Walter (ed.), Hegel's Political Philosophy (New York, 1970)Google Scholar. These works are specifically concerned with the Second World War. Hegel's association with the First World War is argued by Hobhouse, L. T. in The Metaphysical Theory of the State (London, 1918).Google Scholar

4. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, paragraph 259.

5. Ibid, paragraphs 322 and 331.

6. Ibid, paragraph 71.

7. Ibid, paragraph 331, Zusatz

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. The state is not just the formal political elements. Such a view indicates a prima facie acquaintance with the text of the Philosophy of Right. For a clear discussion of this see Pelczynski, Z. A., ‘The Hegelian conception of the state’, in HegePs Political Philosophy: Problems and Perspectives edited by Pelczynski, Z. A. (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 1–29Google Scholar.

11. Running briefly through these points in the Philosophy of Right: (1) paragraph 273, Zusatz, p. 178; (2) paragraphs 272–320, pp. 174–208; (3) paragraphs 182–256, pp. 122–55; (4) paragraph 211 or 215 on codification, paragraphs 227 and 228 on juries; (5) on marriage paragraph 167, schooling paragraph 239, vaccination 239 addition, p. 277; (6) on freedom of speech paragraphs 318 and 319, on conscience paragraph 140 or 270n, 2; (7) on state as actuality of freedom, paragraph 260, on man's inherent freedom paragraph 57, p. 48, the quote on slavery is from paragraph 2, p. 15, the quote on the feeling of selfhood is from paragraph 265, addition, p. 281; (8) finally, on the issue of the Protestant state see Hegel, G. W. F., The Philosophy of Mind, translated by Wallace, William and Miller, A. V. (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar, paragraph 552, pp. 282–91.

12. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, paragraph 270, addition, p. 283, also paragraph 258, addition, p. 279.

13. Ibid, paragraph 339, addition, p. 297.

14. See Smith, J. E., ‘Hegel's Critique of Kant’, Review of Metaphysics, 26 (1973)Google Scholar.

15. This refers to the famous account of the role of philosophy in the preface to the Philosophy of Right; pp. 11–13.

16. On the rejection of natural law arguments see Philosophy of Right, paragraph 337 Zusatz.

17. Ibid. pp. 75–104.

18. Ibid, paragraph 257.

19. For example, Ibid, paragraph 125.

20. On freedom see M. Riedel, ‘Nature and freedom in Hegel's’ Philosophy of Righf in Z. A. Pelczynski edition, Hegel's Political Philosophy, pp. 136–50; also Schacht, R. L., ‘Hegel on freedom’ in Hegel edited by Maclntyre, A. (New York, 1972), pp. 289–320Google Scholar.

21. See Z. A. Pelczynski, ‘Hegel Again’ in Kaufmann, EegeVs Political Philosophy, pp. 82–3.

22. Kant, I., The Critique of Practical Reason, translation Abbot, T. K. (London, 1873Google Scholar and 1967). I am relying on the arguments of Knox, T. M. in ‘Hegel's attitude to Kant's ethics’, Kant Studien, 49 (1957-1958), pp. 75–80Google Scholar.

23. See Haldane, Viscount, ‘Higher Nationality: a study of law and ethics’ in Haldane, , The Conduct of Life (London, 1914).Google Scholar

24. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, paragraph 258, addition, p. 279.

25. Kaufmann, introduction, HegePs Political Philosophy, p. 3. Also Avineri, S., HegePs Theory of the Modern State (Cambridge, 1972), p. 176CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, paragraph 281, specifically the addition, p. 289.

27. Ibid, paragraph 270, Zusatz, p. 166.

28. Ibid, paragraph 258, Zusatz, note 1, pp. 158–9.

29. Hobhouse, The Metaphysical Theory, pp. 111–12.

30. This is a summary of the arguments within paragraphs 321–40. The quotation is from paragraph 333, Philosophy of Right.

31. Ibid, paragraph 333.

32. See Routh's use of this argument in ‘The Philosophy of International Relations’, p. 225. For Hegel's own account of the cunning of Reason, see Hegel, , Logic translated by Wallace, William (Oxford, 1975Google Scholar), paragraph 209, Zusatz, p. 273.

33. Hegel's remarks on war are mainly found in the paragraphs 321–40 in the Philosophy of Right. Writings which support the above theses on war in Hegel are Carritt, E. F., Morals and Politics (Oxford, 1935)Google Scholar; K. Popper, The Open Society; also Cassirer, E., The Myth of the State (Yale, 1946), p. 266Google Scholar.

34. Hegel, G. W. F., Natural Law, translated by Knox, T. M. (Pennsylvania, 1975), p. 93Google Scholar.

35. Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Judgement, translated by Bernard, J. H. (New York, 1972)Google Scholar, section 28.

36. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, paragraph 338.

37. This conclusion concurs with other studies of Hegel on war; see, for example, ten Bruggencate, H. G., ‘Hegel's view on war’, Philosophical Quarterly, 1 (1950-1951), pp. 58–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, Constance I., ‘Hegel on War’, Journal of the History of Ideas, xxvi (1965), pp. 282–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Avineri, Hegel's Theory of the Modern State, ch. 10; D. P. Verene, ‘Hegel's account of war’ in Pelczynski, HegePs Political Philosophy, pp. 168–80. E. E. Harris, ‘Hegel's Theory of Sovereignty, International Relations and War ’ in Verene (ed.), HegePs Social and Political Thought, specifically pp. 145–8. All these studies reflect the point that Hegel is not glorifying war but trying philosophically to comprehend it. Verene's article is the clearest account of this argument. The debate between Savigear and Nicholson cited in note 1 is also pertinent to this argument though they are fundamentally addressing the British Idealists.

38. Hegel, Philosophy of Mind, pp. 282–91.

39. Hegel, G. W. F., Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, translation by Nisbet, H. B. (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 170–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, paragraph 339, addition, p. 297. This is totally contrary to Routh's claim in ‘The Philosophy of International Relations’, p. 232.

41. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, paragraph 258, addition, p. 279.

42. The ‘Kantian universalist’ perspective includes the points I have made about Hegel's philosophical method as essentially descriptive. I am not arguing, however, that his philosophical method is theoretically reconcilable with the Kantianism.