DIALECTICS, LABOR, AND DEATH: HEGEL AND MARX’S CRITIQUE OF HEGEL

by Gustave Doré

Early dialectics, originating with Socrates, are considered a powerful method for acquiring knowledge. Participants engage in dialogue, continuously refining and clarifying ideas, as illustrated by his famous aphorism: "An unexamined life is not worth living." This process ultimately leads to more accurate insights. [1]

Dialectics, as a philosophical methodology, focuses on uncovering the underlying laws of development through the transition from contradiction to unity. Among various dialectical discussions, G. W. F. Hegel’s contributions are perhaps the most well-known. However, Hegel abstracted the interaction between two sides to allegorical and ideational levels, which can be applied to specific subjects, such as logic. Hegel’s famous Master-Slave dialectic revolves around the idea of self-consciousness and the dynamic shifts in social relations. The inevitable encounter between individuals begins when infants open their eyes and look at their mothers after entering the world. As Lacan suggests, early social interactions help infants gradually develop self-awareness through their mothers' and peers' words and actions. [2] Hegel acknowledges the role others play in the formation of self-consciousness, arguing that one can only recognize their identity by recognizing differences. In the encounter of two conscious beings, both individuals seek to affirm their independence and self-sufficiency, which arises from the development of self-consciousness. [3]

Hegel’s interpreter, Alexandre Kojève, in his seminar on The Phenomenology of Spirit, views this desire as the essence of self-consciousness and the fundamental driving force of human survival. [4] The concept of self-consciousness moves toward a reality-determined nature, and the desire for defined self-consciousness is realized through practice. Unlike the reification of knowledge, such as the theories of physics, self-conceptualization serves as a means to satisfy desires. Fulfillment of desire, however, requires the negation and destruction of the other. This process allows individuals to achieve a genuine sense of self, leading to the feeling that “I control everything, and all other existences are dependent on me.” Each side wants to impose its will on the other and gain recognition; however, compromise is difficult among two proud and self-conscious individuals. This conflict occurs because both desire to deny the other and achieve superiority, as neither can simultaneously dominate or be dominated. To build self-consciousness, one must negate the other, and in its highest form, this negation involves denying the other’s life—actualized through pushing the other toward death. Hegel believes that the life-and-death struggle is essential to the human spirit: the knowledge that one will eventually die underscores the limitations of human life, which distinguishes humans from animals (who lack awareness of their mortality). Although humans are animals in many respects, the key difference is that humans possess self-consciousness. To gain recognition from others, it is crucial to overcome animal instincts—such as the instinct for self-preservation and the fear of death—and be willing to risk one’s life for the endorsement of others. In this process, the awareness of mortality deepens one's understanding of self, reinforcing one’s self-consciousness. Furthermore, this awareness transcends individual life, elevating existence to a higher, universal form. Recognizing that "I" is not a unique being but part of a broader human experience, self-consciousness evolves into a universal spirit. Only through the life-and-death struggle, where life and death are pervasive, can self-consciousness be fully recognized by another. Therefore, the life-and-death struggle is necessary for self-consciousness to be acknowledged because this recognition is based on an omnipresent spirit rather than finite life.

In Alexandre Kojève’s seminar on The Phenomenology of Spirit, Georges Bataille—who was also a participant—became known as the "Master of Eros and Death," a title given by Susan Sontag. Bataille agrees with Hegel that death is central to human existence and defines the human condition: humans are “characterized” only by confronting death. However, although Bataille was influenced by Hegel, he critiques Hegel’s attempt to rationalize death within a totalizing framework, arguing that this fails to fully capture the nature of death. For Bataille, death presents a "limit-experience" for each individual. This experience of death is “ambiguous,” as, in the struggle between life and death, “one must die, but ‘while living.’” It is an extreme threshold that individuals cross where they experience the intensity of life while facing the proximity of death. This "limit experience" transcends traditional dialectical logic, as it disrupts rational order and surpasses ordinary human experience. Additionally, Bataille emphasizes the particularity of the “limit experience,” suggesting that each individual has a unique encounter with death, which contrasts with the more universal view of life and death in Hegel’s theory.

While some may argue that both sides in the Master-Slave dialectic could perish together, the ultimate goal of the individuals—to gain recognition—can only be achieved when the other side is defeated, making the demise of either party meaningless. This is where the Master-Slave dialectic comes into play as an inevitable outcome. One side becomes the master, conquering the other, which becomes the slave. This process continues as long as the disparity persists. While the master may initially hold more prestige, the slave enhances their self-consciousness through labor, as the slave gains independence by shaping and transforming natural objects. When confronting the master, the slave may see their being-for-itself as external or irrelevant. However, through labor, the slave gains control over the product they create. This process of labor allows the slave to realize their intrinsic essence and attain self-consciousness, thus achieving being-for-itself. Conversely, the master's dependence on the slave’s labor and their desire for acknowledgment shifts the balance of power, effectively transforming the master into the slave. The roles may then reverse, as the slave realizes the masters' dependence on them and may begin to see themselves as the true master.

Karl Marx remains critical regarding Hegel’s opinion on labor. For one thing, he refutes Hegel of abstracting and estranging history in speculative and logical thoughts; for another thing, he aligns himself with Hegel, positioning labor in vital status:

“… that he (Hegel) thus grasps the essence of labor and comprehends objective man– true, because real man –as the outcome of man’s own labor. The real, active orientation of man to himself as a species-being, or his manifestation as a real species-being (i.e., as a human being), is only possible if he really brings out all his species-powers...” [5]

Both consider labor as the core of humans and the process of self-production. Despite Marx’s accusation of Hegel overrepresenting labor in “pure abstraction to the level of thought,” ignoring material labor. It’s not surprising that Marx repudiates this aspect of Hegel since, by the time he wrote “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” the source of his theory lies in Feuerbach’s “True Materialism and the Science of the Essence.” Nonetheless, Hegel’s direct reference to labor as the complex process of processing material provided by nature to meet certain purposes displays the material side of labor, resultantly causing contemporary scholars such as Christopher J. Arthur to deem Marx’s interpretation incomprehensive. [6]

The debate between Hegelian and Marxian dialectics reflects a fundamental divergence between idealism and materialism regarding the nature of history. Yet, in an era of algorithmic domination and ecological collapse, Marx’s warning remains urgent: only through material praxis can we shatter the abstract rule of capital and fulfill dialectics' emancipatory promise. Their intellectual tension continues to supply philosophical tools for critical theory to reactivate historical possibilities.

References:

[1]   Stumpf, S.E. and Fieser, J. (2020) Philosophy: A historical survey with essential readings. Dubuque: McGraw-Hill Education.

[2]    Lacan, J. (2018) The four fundamental concepts of psycho-analysis [Preprint]. doi:10.4324/9780429481826.

[3]    Hegel, G.W.F. (1977) Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A.V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[4]    Rojtman, B. (2020) ‘A pernicious joy: Georges Bataille’, The Fascination with Death in Contemporary French Thought, pp. 27–41. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47322-8_3.

[5]    Marx, K. (1844) Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Translated by D. McLellan. London: Pelican Books.

[6]    Arthur, C. J. (1986) Dialectics of Labour: Marx and his Relation to Hegel. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.