While reading Hegel’s analogy of the lord and the bondsman, I noticed what seemed to be a Georgic thread. Hegel expounds on how the lord cannot gain his own selfhood because the only other self is the bondsman, who is dependent upon him and thus inseparable from the lord’s selfhood, and the lord has separated himself from labor and the earth. However, the bondsman does not possess this inability; he gains a sense of self through his labor and working of the earth: “Work, on the other hand, is desire held in check, fleetingness staved off; in other words, work forms and shapes the thing” (546). Thus is permanence gained “because it is precisely for the worker that the object has independence” (546). Hegel is emphasizing the worker and how it is the labor itself that grants the bondsman a sense of selfhood and independence while the lord, who has separated himself from labor and work, is consigned to never attaining true selfhood. Similarly, Georgics values and praises the worker, the farming and labor involved in a pseudo-pastoral world. I cannot help but wonder if Hegel was working on that principle, as both seem to place a strong amount of focus (virtue?) onto the laborer.
Comrade Pax,
ReplyDeleteI think this is an interesting comparison. While reading about Georgics, I read that there was a strong movement in the late seventeenth century in England, to try to recapture the agrarian lifestyle from Virgil’s Georgics. The description sounded a lot like the pastoral ideal. In the same vein, I recently read several statements by Slavophiles from mid nineteenth century Russia in discussion over the happiness of the serfs. All of these sources convey a desire to return to the land, the idyllic worker life, while often romanticizing and in some ways demeaning the plight of the workers.
It would be interesting to get Hegel to talk about Georgics, and to get Marx to talk about Hegel. I would say we could invite the Russian aristocrat Slavophiles, but it might kill the party buzz.
Pax,
ReplyDeleteWhat's great about your post is that it really sets us up for Marx and Engels. I guess the bondsman will always be the laborer--less appreciated and yet the only one to bring things to their form, right?
The thing that I find most interesting about the idea of the bondsman being more independent (so long has he attains a self-consciousness of his position and invests himself in his work) are the moral implications. I think this is probably why the Church was so into Hegel, if not for his notion that we are all reaching perfection. Unlike Nietzsche, he opens up the door for the idea of superiority in servant-hood, which is the basis for the follower of Christ. I think it is important to notice, though, that the independence of the bondsman is entirely dependent upon his self-consciousness of his position.
ReplyDeletePax,
ReplyDeleteWe've been reading a couple Union plays in American Drama lately. This concept of the worker gaining selfhood through the labor itself is interesting to me in that these plays have so strongly emphasized the need for the worker to strike in order to get better conditions, more money, less hours, etc. I wonder how Hegel would feel about the Union movements of the early and mid 1900's, if he would say that the workers didn't have to worry, because while they might not have very good conditions, they were aware of self, while the boss man didn't? Still working out this slave-master analogy, so I'm not sure.
I like Jaque's reply to your post, Pax, about the superiority of servanthood, but to be honest this whole 'the bondsmen has it best' idea has always seemed rather sketchy to me-- Nat's post sort of leads to the problem I see: if they are 'aware of self' does that mean it is okay to oppress them, because it makes them more self-actualized?
ReplyDelete...Yikes?