(no subject)
well... here's a pretty good one if i do say so myself.
the qestion was:
"Discuss the principal moments in Hegel's master-slave relation as an unbalanced, not fully evolved, and hence, inadequate form of the Process of Pure Recognition. Why is equal recognition the only truly adequate fulfillment of self-consciousness and how is anything less still tied to "animal desire"? What personal and historical significance does this have for you?"
attempt a float, but don't drown.
The Phenomenology of the Nod: Hegel’s Process of Pure Recognition and Master/Slave Relationship
In this essay I will attempt a brief description of Hegel’s Process of Pure Recognition, and from this I will outline the general shape of the Master/Slave relationship that stems from the Process of Pure Recognition gone awry. For both the Process and the Master/Slave relation, I will provide simple examples from day-to-day life in order to really view these structures in their applicable contexts. I will also briefly describe the general reasons that the Master/Slave relationship does not fulfill Spirit’s telos, or aim, throughout the development of History. Lastly, I will reflect on a single instance in which I experienced a sense of the Master/Slave relationship, and describe the steps I took to avoid letting myself fall into “Slave mentality” in the face of disrespect and denial.
In order to describe the Process of Pure Recognition, and thereby the problem-relationship between the Master and the Slave, a brief outline of Hegel’s concept of Spirit must be drawn. He begins with the concept of the “idea in itself” or “God” which is a-temporal and thus outside of the flow of History. This “God” is self-caused, and must achieve self-knowledge and true self-conscious freedom as a necessary characteristic of its essence. This means that “God” has to manifest itself in the form of the physical world, the living world that moves through time, or in other words Nature as a Whole. In the cycle of Nature, History is played out in the constant consumption of life, by life. Here the “idea in itself” becomes the “idea for itself” as Spirit transforms itself into a myriad of different “ways of being,” each of which naturally desires to achieve unity with itself, by returning to a verification of itself through the negation of an other in its environment. But out of Nature arises the human, and in this human there is the potentiality for self-consciousness; there exists a way for Spirit to achieve it’s ultimate goal, and thus become self-determined by way of a recognition of itself, or self-knowledge. Therefore the Process of Pure Recognition is the avenue through which two nascent self-consciousnesses, or two self-consciousnesses that are not yet fully self-conscious, arrive at mutual recognition of and respect for each other. This is where Spirit recognizes itself, and where we, as human beings, act as the catalyst for Spirit’s fruition into true self-determination and freedom.
Hegel describes the Process of Pure Recognition as a cycle that is built on self-sovereignty, from which respect is born, and through which the interdependence of multiple consciousnesses is acknowledged and accepted as valuable, yielding self-consciousness. This process is intended to be taken as a structural process, one that exists only as a general framework for Spirit’s externalization and acknowledgement of itself. It is up to me, as an individual phenomenologist, to recognize the structural framework in my day-to-day dealings, in the individual interactions I have with other people.
To illustrate the first step in the structural Process of Pure Recognition as a general framework by which respect is created (and thereby self-consciousness proper is attained),we must begin with the first interaction between two people. In this case we must assume that these people are already conscious of themselves as the “truth” of their existences, that they are certain of themselves as intrinsically valuable to themselves. But self-consciousness, as Spirit’s recognition of itself, is not yet present in either people. Prior to the interaction, they have only viewed the world as a larger extension of their own functions; they have not yet been presented with the presence of another self-sovereign individual who also considers itself to be the only “truth” of its own existence.
Structurally speaking, and in the most general terms, when the two people first meet, as two conscious beings meeting for the first time, they immediately recognize an “otherness” in the opposite person. Viewed from one person’s perspective (A), the other person (B) stands out against the background of “self” that it has established as its only truth. Because person B is self-sovereign in its own right, person A notices it as something other than its own self, something inherently different than anything it has previously known up until now. This means that person A is forced outside of itself, of its only reality, in the presence of person B; it is unable to escape the fact that person B exists, and therefore must realize that there is a part of reality that is not part of itself. Person A is made to face the idea that another consciousness exists, and exists in such a way that it is separate and independent from the consciousness of person A.
However, because only the one unified Whole of Nature, of Spirit, is the Truth, for Hegel, person A will see a resemblance of itself in person B. Fundamentally, this means that Spirit recognizes itself in the form of a separate and individual embodiment. Here person A acknowledges that person B is not person A’s own individual and self-sovereign existence, but at the same time acknowledges that person B is the same as itself, only in an alternate and separately individual instance. Person A sees the identity in difference, in that it is aware of the not-me of person B, but simultaneously realizes that there exists another self-sovereign me, which is inherently valuable, in person B.
Finally, after this internal “feeling-out” of person B, person A is said to give back the freedom person B inherently possesses as a self-sovereign consciousness. At the same time, person A takes back its own freedom from person B, who has been engaged in the same internal process as person A. At this point the cycle of the Process of Pure Recognition is complete and (in structural form at least) self-consciousness has blossomed from the acknowledgement and respect that both consciousnesses have simultaneously given to and received from one another. Now these consciousnesses are aware of themselves as objects to the opposite consciousness; instead of seeing themselves as the entirety of all reality, they are able to view themselves from the perspective of the other person. Personally speaking, the other, in this relation, ceases to be “for-me” and I cease to be entirely “for-myself.” Our relation becomes a “for-each-other,” which transforms the concept of “you and I” into a “we.” Thus self-consciousness proper exists in the relational process between two consciousnesses in the act of acknowledgement and respect.
Since this Process of Pure Recognition is only a skeleton for day-to-day real life interaction, and consequently the entire scope of the development of History, we find that variations of it occur on multiple levels and on numerous occasions in a single time frame. On our way to work, we may pass a person on the street and simply nod our heads to each other in silent acknowledgement of the simultaneous otherness, sameness, and inherent freedom we each possess as self-sovereign conscious beings. Self-consciousness is constantly reaffirmed with a simple twitch of the neck muscles, a common decency regularly practiced by passers-by in their separate routines.
A problem arises when one of the self-sovereign consciousnesses fails to acknowledge and respect the inherent freedom of the other self-sovereign consciousness. In an interaction of this sort, the Process of Pure Recognition is cut short mid-way, and respect is not fully achieved by either party. The first step of the Process is certainly fulfilled, in that the otherness of the opposite person is seen and recognized. An individual consciousness who sees the world as an extension of itself is still faced with an example of something that is not itself, but this is as far as that consciousness is willing to go in the problem interaction.
What will occur instead of the second step of the Process, Spirit’s recognition of itself in the other, is a conscious denial of equality by one or both of the people involved. As above, we can view this interaction from one perspective, that of the denier of equality. In this instance, Hegel calls the person who refuses to acknowledge the other the Master, and he who is refused the Slave. As a consciousness that views itself as the only truth in reality, the Master will openly disregard any attempt by the Slave to reach an understanding of equality, and thus any attempt at attaining self-consciousness. Furthermore, since “equality” in this sense does not mean sameness per se, but rather an inherent value in difference with an essential acknowledgement of the True “wholeness” of Spirit, the Master denies the Slave its own fundamental value and inherent self-sovereignty.
On behalf of the Slave, we must acknowledge the fact that at all times the Slave chooses to be the Slave, because of its own conscious self-sovereignty and ability to always decide what it is not being at any given moment. This includes the perpetual possibility of death as the last and final decision in its existence. Once denied acknowledgement by the Master, the Slave finds itself in a situation where it has offered itself to the Master with the hope of achieving mutual respect, but has not received acknowledgement from the Master in exchange. Thus, the Master takes the Slave’s self without offering its own self, and then refuses to return the Slave’s self to it. In this way the Master does not do to itself what it does to the Slave, and in turn by not choosing to be not the Slave, the Slave does to itself what the Master does to it.
By way of this unequal process the Master affects change on a consciousness which is an other to it, and in doing so gains its own return to self by short-cutting the Process of Pure Recognition. Now the Slave exists for the Master, and the Master simply incorporates the Slave into its own “for-me” reality. Conversely, the Slave then internalizes the actions of the Master and makes its conception of its own existence a “for-him.” Nowhere is there room for the “we” or even the “you and I.” All that is important in this relationship is the gratification of the Master’s existence, and the return to self it achieves through the denial of recognition of the Slave.
Consequently, we see that self-consciousness proper cannot exist in this relationship, since there is not mutuality in the exchange of selves, and respect is not shared by either participant. Only a twisted, poisoned respect may exist on the part of the Slave, and this can only be inspired by the fear of death, or the threat of punishment by the Master, not the intellectual-love that grows from a mutual acknowledgement of simultaneous difference (in embodiment) and sameness (in Spirit’s oneness). Given that the teleological nature of Spirit is to recognize itself, to become embodied and thus other to itself in order to become aware of itself in its own otherness, and thereby gain self-consciousness and self-determination, we see that the Master/Slave relation cannot achieve Spirit’s aim. This is because the Master, in negating the inherent value of the Slave, depends on the Slave for its own return to self; it necessarily must have the Slave present in order to satisfy its desire for natural consumption. In its dependence on the Slave for its own satisfaction, the Master is unable to be truly self-determined, and therefore cannot fully achieve the aim and purpose of Spirit’s progression through History.
This return to self by way of natural consumption is akin to the most basic animal instincts that most of the rest of the natural world possesses. Hegel calls the drive to consume for the sake of the return to self “animal desire.” An example of this animal desire might prove helpful. Last year I adopted a parakeet and named him Zarathustra. Earlier this year I also bought a house cat, and named her Andromeda. Zarathustra and Andromeda got along with one another just fine, at first. But soon Andromeda was habitually chasing Zarathustra around the apartment, and Zarathustra was obviously provoking Andromeda by taunting and annoying her. Hegel explains that this natural battle is both animal’s realization of otherness in their existences. The cat sees the apartment as an extension of herself; all that exists in the apartment is for her enjoyment. Similarly, the parakeet views the apartment as an extension of himself, and all that exists in it is for him to climb on. Inevitably, though, the two animals come to realize that they are not alone in their enjoyment of their territory, and thus feel a desire to negate the other that presents itself in their realities. Needless to say, one night I came home to find feathers strewn about in every room, and the bird was nowhere to be found, although the cat appeared happy and content. In the state of animal desire, this violent mauling, this negation of the other, was essentially the cat’s own verification of its internal purpose as a cat. In the act of eating the bird, the cat consumed the meaning of otherness that personified itself in the bird, and thus received gratification and a return to self in this action.
Likewise, the Master’s cruelty toward the Slave is fundamentally a consumption of meaning; the Master negates the individual otherness of the Slave by not recognizing its human value and importance. Unfortunately, this leaves the Master in a precarious position, for if the Slave was to muster up enough courage to actually end its own life, the Master would be left hanging with nowhere to turn in the hunt for the satisfaction of desire. In the same vein, I often observe my cat staring out the window at the birds that land on the porch, and see her attempting to negate the fresh sense of otherness they present. The birds are out of her reach, though, and instead of gaining a return to self through another being, she literally turns to herself and begins to suckle on her own thigh, as if attempting to simulate some external stimulation that is no longer attainable. She, like the Master who is tied to natural desire, has become an addict; she depends so much on another animal to verify her own meaning that she is willing to fool herself into thinking she is that other animal.
Both the cat and the Master will never be able to develop as consciousnesses; they will never learn the value of life in the eternal cycle of the Whole, they will never recognize their own dependencies, and they will never progress in the direction of Spirit’s intention: self-determination and ultimate freedom. Because the Master is tied to his desire, because he relies on the negation of the Slave in his satisfaction of desire, he is not free. Just as with the Process of Pure Recognition, I, as a phenomenologist, can recognize this Master/Slave structure in my own experiences.
A particular instance comes to mind that happened a few weeks ago. I was strolling through the campus marketplace to get a slice of banana bread, and found myself walking down the isle toward a police officer who was moving in my direction. On this day my body was adorned with large plastic plugs in both of my ears, abstract lines shaved into my buzzed scalp, and large tattoos on both fore-arms. Perhaps it was the hair, or the earrings, or the tattoos, or maybe it was just my big friendly smile, but whatever the reason, as we approached each other I nodded my head in friendly acknowledgement only to receive a stone-cold stare that seemed to look through me as if I were invisible. The police officer could very well have thought that I was mocking him, or somehow trying to disrespect him with my courteous acknowledgement, but in reality this was not my intention.
His reaction struck me as intensely rude, and very superficial on his part. I could see that he may have become jaded by his profession, after dealing with countless criminals and belligerent drunks, but I could not understand why this would give him reason to blatantly disregard me as a human. Was it so much to ask to raise the eyebrows a millimeter or two? He could have grunted through his closed mouth without saying a single word and I would have felt satisfied, but I was left hanging. For a moment I was stunned, and then crushed. This sort of thing had not happened to me since I was in grade school. Was there something that wrong with my appearance? Did I have a “disregard my existence” sign stamped on my forehead? I began to get slightly irritated as my inner voice began using words like “pig” and “tool” to describe the man I had just encountered.
Fortunately I was knee-deep in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit at this particular juncture, and I immediately pulled myself together. It was quite obvious what had happened now, and remembering Nietzsche, I laughed at myself for feeling such resentment toward an authority figure. The police officer had quite simply incorporated me into his own reality; he had grasped hold of my freedom, opened his desirous mouth in a naturally instinctive way, and had consumed me whole without consideration for my life. I was left chewed up, spit out and trampled on as he paid for his hotdog and returned to his patrol car, and I couldn’t have cared less.
I looked through his self-assured and authoritative demeanor and saw a man who had not yet learned the value of self-negation, the value of intellectual love toward his equals. The fact was, he did not see me as an equal, and he refused to acknowledge any importance in my individual otherness. I made sure to consciously examine our interaction step by step, and thought long and hard about my own personal reaction to the matter. I figured that he most likely had already forgotten about ever passing me, and the fact that I was still thinking about him seemed to suggest that he had made a greater impact on me than I on him. Realizing my own choices at the moment, and recognizing my own possibility as a person, I decided not to loath him, to “bring him down to my level,” to castigate him in my mind, to make myself a Slave in reaction to his disrespect. Instead, I turned away, and nodded at the cashier as I left.