Hegel, acknowledging the complexities inherent to the Master-Slave Dialectic, chooses to simplify it for the first-time reader by describing the interactions of the two consciousnesses as if each consciousness were an individual person. This simplification lends the dialectic a narrative quality that makes it approachable to the reader, but I tend to think that it may—in some cases—cloud the reader’s understanding of what is actually going on between consciousnesses within one single consciousness. I say this, not just because I’m confused (I would have been confused, no matter how Hegel would have chosen to describe it), but because I believe that the construction of a fictitious human narrative and the assignment of human qualities to processes that are not really human can lure the untrained or ignorant reader (the not-yet-phenomenologist) into a perception of the text that adheres to, well, the human world. I suppose this yet unsupported statement raises the question, “If the Master-Slave Dialectic is not human, then what is it?” and that is not a question that I am fully prepared to answer. With that said, I don’t think my point is entirely unreasonable.
As I’ve been going through my memory of our discussion in class on Tuesday, I keep revisiting Phong’s objection to the “ceasefire” between the two consciousnesses that eventually results in Hegel’s famous Master-Slave Dialectic. In case you’ve forgotten what he said, I’ll eventually try to paraphrase it concisely in the context of the “bildungsroman” we have been following.
Before ever encountering another consciousness, the self-consciousness travels through its existence in search of something to help it achieve self-certainty. Along the way, it tries to validate its existence to itself by exerting its will on objects that cross its path until it destroys those objects and moves on to greener pastures filled with more destroyable objects. This “Nature of Desire” does ostensibly appeal to the basest human sensibilities, but the encounter with the second consciousness might not. For two consciousnesses to back down from Hegel’s “life and death struggle” in order to preserve the interests of each individual seems probable enough to me, since my real-world experience with consciousnesses is severely limited. However, Hegel’s transition from his unassailable world of phenomenology into a human narrative leaves him open to the assaults of humans like Phong and me.
As Phong said, and I tend to believe, it is unrealistic for a life and death struggle to turn non-violent without some form of communication between the involved parties. Granted, it is in the best interest for both consciousnesses to back down (Interestingly, it was also in the best interest of both involved parties for Aaron Burr not to drop Alexander Hamilton like the Federalist he was). The consciousnesses, however, stop all communication upon engaging in this struggle. I suppose I’m just a little hazy on the line between what is human and what is not human in the Master-Slave Dialectic. Any comments would be appreciated, and I will try my best to defend this somewhat haphazard post.
From what I understood from our discussion on Tuesday, there was a form of 'communication' between the two self-consciousnesses when they decide not to go through with the fight to death. One self-consciousness comes to the realisation that, though s/he has proven to the other self-consciousness that s/he is something other than an object because s/he is willing to self-sacrifice, it is not worth dying for this recognition. Thus, in this epiphanic moment, this self-consciousness communicates to the other by recognising his/her self-consciousness. In this way, the recognising self-consciousness becomes the Slave and the other is raised to the height of Master.
ReplyDeleteI suppose one just needs to be careful about interpreting this dialectic too literally. In a certain sense, then, the Master 'puts' the Slave to 'work' on the world in that he/she becomes the mediating consciousness through which the Master sees the world; the Slave does all the work while nothing much changes for the Master. In this way, the Master becomes a recognised self-consciousness while the Slave remains unrecognised.
I tend to think that this is a human process. That is, Hegel's Master-Slave Dialectic seems to be a kind of allegory/metaphor for the workings of our self-consciousness, and I suppose accessible imagery always helps to emphasise a point. I hope this post helps a little.
I think you properly described how I felt. This definitely does lend me to become more confused than I already am. However, the personification of the self-consciousness is what makes it difficult to absorb what he is actually saying. Even though he describes two consciousnesses, I think that he only wants us to pay attention only to the one that matters. Even though he is confusing, I think that his point is to show the development of a singular self-consciousness. This is what I assume is happening. It would be better to get clarification, but this is where I am now. I believe that in the most radical form of the development of self-consciousness, it is a life and death struggle. Only in the absolute knowledge that death is immanent and at the same staring you in the face, will there be a "ceasefire". I hope this makes sense.
ReplyDeleteIn response to what you said, Phong, about paying attention to the consciousness that "matters" (and I'm honestly asking this): is part of the importance of this new section where self-consciousness realizes that there are more of him in the world that we are now focused on more than one consiousness? I'm having a hard time remembering that we are really talking about the two parts of one consciousness and translating what we describe as two into one conceptually. Also, when the master puts the slave to "work" (as Kharys said), is consciousness conscious of this process? I know that isn't the best way to ask that, but how distant are the master and slave within the one consciousness they are a part of? I think this is a part of the communication conversation started earlier. How do the two "communicate"?
Delete