Civil Society of Hegel “The door to Hegels thought is guarded by the mutually opposed twin hydras of Marx and Nietzsche and the post-modernities they have spawned. There is on both sides of this revolutionary division a conception of philosophy not as rational comprehension, but as domination whether as Ideologie or as Wille zur Macht. Likewise Rawlsian liberalism, pragmatic and constructivist, is intent on consigning philosophical wisdom to the realm of private opinion and, from the standpoint of consensus or moral consumer democracy, on portraying as oppressive any attempt to found justice on a philosophical conception of the good.”:- David Peddle In the ethical connotation of Hegel, the important formation between the family and the state was the arena of civil society, which he stated categorically, was of modem origin. This was because of the fact that the modem understanding of what constituted social was very different from the ancient perception; for instance in Aristotle, civil society was identical with the political community. Cicero described civic as an attribute of civility, or knowledge of civic affairs and prudence. In Hegel, the nature and basis of civil society were very different from those of the family and the state. The bases of the family were love and affection. On the other hand, a universal class-the civil service, governed the state competently and impartially. Civil society, for Hegel, reflected a system of needs where the individual pursued his own interests according to his inclinations and abilities. This was an achievement of the modem world, reflecting division of labour and the actualization of a new science-political economy. This new science was of enormous importance, as it had discovered the laws which governed an individuals behaviour in civil society-the major arena for the bulk of the people for the major- part of their time. Hegel regarded the theories of Smith and Ricardo as important as those of Kepler and Galileo. Civil society, in Hegel, contained three different but interrelated things: (a) The system of needs, (b) The administration of justice, and (c) Need of police and cooperation. Regarding the first, Hegel said that these were particular needs of particular individuals, which existed in contrast to universal principles. They were subjective needs. Hegel argued that the needs of animals were~ limited in scope, whereas those of human beings multiplied. Division of labour was one of the major means of their attainment, as by this the individuals work became simpler and his skill increased with growth in output. They became interdependent, leading to a dialectical advance as self-interest generated a situation where everyone elses needs were also satisfied. The cumulative effects of the particular motivations led to a universal minimum in which each persons enjoyment led to similar enjoyment by all others out of this complexity of interdependence. By education and the skills of multitudes of people, the general wealth of civil society also increased. Civil society inevitably was divided into various classes and estates. This division was bound to take place because of the different levels of skills, outlooks, interests, ways of life, opportunities, and other factors like risk or fortune. The three broad groupings of the peasantry, the business class, and the universal class of bureaucracy mediated between the family and the state. The state being very large and impersonal, the individuals public spirit and feeling for the community had to grow within the ambit of civil society. Hegels corporation was the mechanism to achieve this by the flowering of professional associations and voluntary organizations. Here, Hegel sounded like Tocqueville, and accepted that freedom of association was one of the key rights of the modem world. Corporatism was to perform a number of crucial functions. It was an essential requirement for actualizing freedom. He could even go to the extent of arguing that freedom of association was more important than freedom of speech and opinion. Freedom of association was important for furthering different human capacities and for identification of a particular individual for a particular kind of grouping of ones liking or interest. Associations helped not only in preventing over centralization of the state but also in preventing fragmentation of the market at a particular level. They also provided for the development and recognition of particular skills, abilities, and talents. People also learnt how to cooperate, and gain by such cooperation. Membership entailed acceptance of a code of conduct, which inculcated a sense of discipline. It allowed for the growth of pride and integrity, giving the individual dignity, second only to the family. Another important aspect of corporatism was its welfare functions for the underprivileged. The state, in Hegels theory, was not a welfare state nor was Hegel an advocate of a planned economy. However, he was opposed to social indifference to poverty and the idea that people should fend for themselves. With concern for social stability, he suggested that the corporation for all those who suffered in the market provide a safety net. However, he recommended foreign markets and thought that domestic problems could be solved by external involvement. For him, society consisted of three classes: the agricultural, governmental, and business class. The last one incorporated(ed all craftsmen and producers. The corporation also played the role of a mediator between the s1ate and civil society by facilitating political representation for its members. Like other political thinkers of his time, Hegel opposed universal franchise, arguing that it would lead to fragmentation and apathy. But he was also conscious of the need for representation, and preferred corporate representation in the legislative assemblies or states. The representation was not geographical but interest-based. Participation in the political process would protect interests better. Hegels idea was very similar to Burkes theory of representing interests. For Hegel, it was a kind of functional representation leading to class cooperation and harmony. This political recognition was essential to prevent people from forming an organized group of disgruntled people against the state. In the 20th century, corporatism was looked upon with misgiving because of Italian Fascism, and also because military and authoritarian rulers of South America had used this term in the context of total governmental control and direction of business enterprises and labour movements to secure unity, discipline, order, efficiency and to crush any opposition. It was supposed to create a state-supported consensus between different and even conflicting social groups, by controlling market competition. Hegels corporatism was very different from this. It was more akin to the idea of liberal corporatism, meaning self-regulation by quasi-autonomous social groups within the ambit of constitutional government. It was still not democratic, as by preferring organized groups and elite, it would negate the representational process. Despite the fact that Hegel was an inveterate conciliator, his placing of negation at the midpoint of the struggle to understand the human condition was completely right. It is only necessary to recognise that there is disagreement and contradiction: Marx pointed this out in his Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right. The organised working class cannot be reconciled to the state of property owners, since in this state they have no property and no rights. We would all like to be well adjusted.” To rebuff the world as we find it, it regarded as the description of lunacy. However, sometimes we have to just refuse to see reason.” As anyone who has worked in an organisation knows, there comes a point when internal conflicts grow beyond the stage of sullen resistance to the point of the emergence of opposition and ultimately to a point where the two principles, the opposing factions, cannot be reconciled within the organisation and the only road to truth is split. This is where Marx the communist parts company with Hegel the conciliator. It was Hegel who pointed out that the dissimilarity amid mediaeval society and the modern state, was the severance of the state from civil society, in which the state took the form of a construct. His proposal was to overcome this construct, this departure, by the erection of a State along the lines of The Logic. In actuality however, what has transpired is the reverse, in that political right has become progressively abstract and increasingly separate from commonplace human existence. People have become MORE not LESS alienated from the affairs of state. However, what has happened is that the Family has been destroyed and the State increasingly overshadowed by the growth of Civil Society - the global economy. Hegel proposed a settlement between the state, the family and the economy, but this will not transpire. Therefore, the future lies not in defence and reconstruction of the state and the family but rather in a revolution from within and against Bourgeois Society.
Posted on: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:31:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015