Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: Bio, Life and Political Ideas

After reading this article you will learn about the bio, life and political ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

Life and Works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was born at Stuttgart on 27th August 1770. His father was a subordinate officer in the department of finance and Hegel himself grew up with the patient and methodical habits of those civil servants whose modest efficiency gave Germany the best governed cities of the world.

A solvent financial position enabled his father to give young Hegel the best possible education. He was sent to Grammar School at Stuttgart. At the age of 18, Hegel entered the University of Tubingen to study theology. But this was not his subject of interest and naturally he began to neglect it He studied the Greek and Roman classics.

He graduated from Tubingen in 1793. He then went to Berne in Switzerland as a private tutor. In 1799 his father died and he inherited certain amount of money which he thought sufficient. He gave up the job of private tutor.

He then went to Jena to get a chance in that university. In August 1801 he was appointed a private teacher and began lecturing on logic and metaphysics. As a teacher he earned wide reputation and in 1805 he was given the post of Professor which was highly coveted in those days.

While at Jena, in 1806, Napoleon’s army invaded Prussia and the French army threw the scholarly city into confusion and terror. French soldiers invaded Hegel’s home and he took to his heels like a philosopher, carrying with him the manuscript of his important work the Phenomenology of Spirit.

The University of Jena was closed and Hegel was in great financial crisis. For some time he was the editor of a newspaper.

He was later on offered the professorships at several universities including Heidelberg and he accepted this. He was there until 1818. Then he went to Berlin to take the chair of philosophy left vacant by the death of Fichte. At Berlin, Hegel’s fame reached far and wide and within a short time he became an international figure.

In this connection a famous incident may be noted here. “While at Jena in 1806 he saw Napoleon—the world soul—on horseback. Prussia’s defeat at the battle of Jena established French hegemony in Germany That hegemony only lasted a few years. Nevertheless, it was Jena and its aftermath that made Germany one of the key players in world history in Hegel’s sense”—J. S. Mcclelland—History of Western Political Thought.

His Phenomenology of Spirit was published in 1807. But this book did not bring for him wide reputation. He wrote Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences in 1817. For the students of political thought his important works are the Philosophy of Right (1821) and The Philosophy of History (posthumously published in 1837). He died suddenly on November 1831 after one day’s illness of cholera.

From his days at Berlin to the end of his life he ruled the philosophic world as un-disputably as Goethe the world of literature, and Beethoven the realm of music. His birthday came on the day after Goethe’s and proud Germany made a double holiday for them every year. After his death his influence was very great, not only in Germany but also in England and America.

Political Ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

1. German Idealism:

Behind the development of German idealism there was a chequered and colourful background. It originated in the idealism of Plato and Aristotle of about 4th century B. C. and then for about 2,000 years it was in fact buried in oblivion.

It was Rousseau who lifted the concept of idealism from the thick darkness of oblivion. But in Rousseau’s hand the resuscitation of idealism (that received elaborate and finest treatment in the hands of Plato) was not complete.

His chief interest was to build up a civil society based on morality and which could assure freedom. From Rousseau it went to the German philosophers Kant and Fichte. “The climax of German idealist political thought” thus comments Gettel “was reached in the writings of Georg Wilhelm Hegel”. The same opinion has been expressed by Dunning.

The climax of German idealism in political philosophy was reached in the speculation of Hegel, The profound knowledge and extraordinary genius of this German philosopher not only enriched the idealist philosophy, but also raised it to the pinnacle of glory. But the dark aspect of Hegel’s philosophy is it is very difficult to understand. A critic once said that Hegel and selected few persons understood his philosophy.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel borrowed the central idea of idealism from Plato and Aristotle. Some of Rousseau’s thought are to be found in Hegelian idealism. He also culled few materials from the French Revolution.

All these he combined with his attitude towards German nationalism, history, German state and prevailing politics of Germany and other European states.

So we find that Hegel’s philosophy in general and idealism in particular are not monolithic constructs. Rightly speaking, it is the confluence of various ideas and incidents.

The entire political and economic situation of Europe created an indelible mark on his thought system. He wanted to analyse politics in the background of all these. Personal pleasure or pain could not make any impact on his mind. Absolute idea, world spirit etc. occupied his thought world.

Herbert Marcuse has traced the origin of German idealism and also of Hegel’s idealist philosophy to German Reformation.

Since the German Reformation the German people had become accustomed to the fact that liberty was an “inner value” which was compatible with every or any form of bondage and the obedience to any existing authority was an important precondition to everlasting salvation.

The Reformation leaders taught that toil and poverty were the blessings of God. One of the decisive functions of Protestantism had been to induce the emancipated individuals to accept the new social system created by the Reformation movement and to divert their claims and demands from the external world into the inner life.

Out of this new outlook in Germany there developed the German culture the central idea of which was beauty, morality and freedom. German idealism imme­diately received it and made it a part of it.

Ultimately both German culture and German idealism were mixed together and it is difficult to make any separation between them.

“Culture was then essentially idealistic, occupied with the idea of things rather than with the things themselves. It set freedom of thought before freedom of action, morality before practical justice, the inner life before the social life of man. This idealistic culture, just because it stood aloof from an intolerable reality…… served as the repository of truths which had not been realized in the history of mankind”.

In order to understand Hegel’s philosophy we must remember that he judged and analysed everything in the background of one integrated whole. Remembering this Marcuse has rightly said that Hegel’s idealism or philosophy is the culmination of the entire tradition of Western thought.

Politics, culture, civil society, state, tradition civilization etc. are all integrated together. He analysed this idea with the help of dialectic. The progress of civil society and its culmination into a national state is the result of dialectic. Even the progress of civilization is the product of dialectic.

There are always conflicts between negative and positive forces and in this process, finally, the positive forces win, the absolute idea it reaches the final stage. But it is to be remembered that behind everything there work an idea.

The idea is first, and from that comes the reality. The importance of man comes from his membership of the state and he has no importance outside the state or away from the state. Complete­ness or indivisibility is the central idea of Hegel’s philosophy. This concept of indivisibility has been a very important source of criticism against Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

Kant was always in favour of an all powerful German state. This type of state in modern language is called an autocratic state or an absolute state. His sympathy for an all powerful state led him to oppose or criticize Locke’s philosophy of liberalism. For this reason he supported the absolutism of Hobbes and Rousseau. Hegel’s idealism accommodated this philosophy of Kant. His idealism teaches that man must show unconditional obedience to the state.

We have already pointed out that this he got from the Reformation. Rousseau’s moral freedom and general will influenced both Kant and Hegel. The morality, freedom and will of the individual are not separate from those of the state.

So Hegel’s idealism veered around the state. Here he follows both Kant and Fichte. The three great German philosophers thought of institutions as repugnant to the all-round development of human personality and idealism. We, therefore, conclude that German idealism found its greatest manifes­tation in Hegel’s idealism.

2. French Revolution:

No philosopher of any worth can avoid the influence of contemporary events and Hegel is no exception. The political situation and events of the then Germany created an important impact on his mind. In both France and England there were absolute monarchies.

But people’s continuous struggle checked the oppression of absolutism. Liberal and democratic institutions flourished in these two countries and people fostered very carefully the democratic values.

Moreover, democracy in these two countries was successful. The political situation in general and situation in particular were quite different in Germany.

The French Revolution and the invasion of Napoleon’s army were supposed to bring about liberty, equality and universal brotherhood. But ultimately success was not achieved. There remained an atmosphere of authoritarianism.

The German ruling class did not like the democratic and liberal values of the “West”.

Moreover, since Germany did not show any sympathy to France and French political ideas and principles she thought liberalism as her national enemy.

Ebenstein remarks:

“The political experience of Germany has been preponderantly authoritar­ian; its orthodox tradition of political theory has been chiefly though not wholly, antidemocratic.”

In this atmosphere of authoritarianism Hegel was born. He could not think anything outside authoritarian politics. Even he did not like the demo­cratic institutions of England and France.

Initially Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel supported the French Revolution. Both Hegel and Schelling defended the Revolution with forceful arguments. But later on Hegel freed himself from the illusion. The violence and terrorism of the Revolution were disapproved by him. Moreover, the Napoleonic wars left devastating effects upon many small countries of Europe.

The reconstruction of these countries was a major problem. Hegel came to the conclusion that the problem would not be solved by appealing to the abstractions, like rights of man that had proved so disruptive.

Sabine writes “more and more Revolution was felt to be destructive and nihilistic and its philosophy was pictured as a doctrinaire effort to remake society and human nature according to caprice substantially this was the estimation in which Hegel came to hold the Revolution and individualism of its political philosophy”.

National reconstruction, integrity of nation and overall progress of the state were prioritized by Hegel and for that reason he could not support individualism and the rights of the individual. National solidarity, he thought, could not be sacrificed at the altar of individualism. The continuity of civilization, culture, history and tradition could be maintained at the cost of anything. Many people call this attitude of Hegel reactionary. But, in fact, it was not reactionary.

It was constructive and conservative creative forces of the nation state. So it was the national state which received maximum treatment in the hands of Hegel. Theory of the national state, to Hegel, was the embodiment of political power.

Real political and economic factors influenced the political ideas of Hegel. He was not against the rights of individuals. But to him national reconstruction and progress of Germany were more important than the personal rights.

He had the firm belief that if the nation remains in poor or deplorable condition and remain unattended there cannot be any development of individual. His philosophy was—whole is more important than parts. Naturally the interest of nation must remain much above the interest of the individuals.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel observed that the Industrial Revolution could not make any perceptible impact on Germany. The result was the she lagged behind other European nations. He wanted to reverse this situation

3. The Hegelian Dialectic:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel has analysed his philosophy and other related ideas with the help of dialectics and to him the dialectics means the embodiment of reason. Even history progresses from one stage to another in dialectical process.

He believed that there is always change and behind every change dialectics works. That is why he calls dialectics or reason as the “motor force of history”. He has also said that “the dialectic operate in individual mind”. Both history and intellect, in the view of Hegel, work according to dialectics.

The word dialectic is derived from the Greek word dialektike and according to Concise Oxford Dictionary the word dialectic means the art of investigating the truth of opinions. Plato adopted this method and a number of other philosophers followed Hegel. Dialectic is a process by which, in controversy, one proposition is set over against another and out of this confrontation a new proposition emerges.

This unites the truth contained in the original proposition. Hence dialectic is a method to find out the truth. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel adopted this method to explain the movement of Reason in human affairs.

The dialectic helps us in arriving at truth. The ultimate reality is reason and the process by which it is unfolded is dialectic.

Stated briefly, the “dialectic in Hegel’s hands is not merely a description of the way in which opposing tendencies are adjusted in political life and history. He is not talking about any law of the pendulum or saying only that historical change proceeds by opposites. For him the dialectic had to be a law of logic.

The dialectic is the mechanism by which thought propels itself on the way in which Reason progressively embodies itself in institutions or in series of propositions, no one of which is the truth, but each of which contains a part of the truth along with error.

The dialectical investigation proceeds by stages and at each stage of the argument a position is advanced. In Hegel’s dialectic it is also found that nothing is fully true or completely false. Naturally nothing is wasted.

The truth of one stage proceeds to a higher stage. Again, truth or false will emerge, again. Both truth and false are the product of argument and do not come from outside. The truth comes from the argument and for that reason it is said that the truth is discovered and not invented nor is it created.

The dialectic suggests no short-cut method. Both history and intellect are to proceed stage by stage and dialectically. Hegel thinks that historical dialectic always works in this process.

The Reason (or what he calls Idea or Spirit) passes through three stages and Hegel calls them Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis. So any assertion or proposition which one makes is never perfectly true or correct. Because as soon as the assertion is made, contradictions or opposites emerge.

Hence a conflict between the true and false becomes inevitable. This is Antithesis. But the conflict between truth and falseness does not exist indefinitely, it is resolved. This is due to the fact that the dialectic is self-propelling. That is, it is a self-regulatory system. It has the capacity to resolve the conflict. It is a characteristic feature of the dialectic. Again, the Antithesis does not last long.

It passes over into Synthesis. In this way the idea or Reason is constantly changing until a final state arrives. Hegel states that the Synthesis is not the final stage .It contain the germs of opposites and, therefore, it very soon is converted into Thesis It is called new Thesis.

The Synthesis is not imposed by any outside force, it is inherent in Idea, Reason, Spirit, and the Absolute-Hegel uses these terms. This view of Hegel’s dialectic is not very unlike that of Socrates. But Hegel may deny that his dialectic is similar to the dialectic of Socrates.

The point is that for Hegel the contradictions are not obstacle to the way of progress. Whereas Socrates thought that they were creating obstacles to progress. In Hegel’s opinion the contradictions are essential conditions to progress.

They are essential to our understanding of truth. If there is no contradiction there cannot be any tension, there cannot be any struggle between right and wrong, truth and falseness. The contradiction according to Hegel is the motivating force.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel claims that this is his new logic of dialectic. Contradiction is not blemish or deficiency or fault in a thing. Rather, the contradiction or conflict is life-blood. It helps the Reason or Idea or Spirit to move from one state to another.

Contradiction is concrete and there is determination in it. It moves until it is settled. Contradiction or the dialectic is, therefore, a self-generating process.

The world or history or civilization moves because there are contradictions. Hegel has said that Synthesis will not be a compromise between Thesis and Antithesis. Nor it is a victory of one over another.

Thesis and Antithesis are present in Synthesis. It is the nature of dialectic that out of the tension the truth will come out. So there is no question of defeat of one and victory of another.

4. Dialectic, History and Civilization:

According to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel the true subject of history is universal, not the individual; the true content is the realization of self-consciousness of freedom, not the interests, needs and actions of the individuals. The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom…… thus declares Hegel.

The universal law of history is, in Hegel’s formulation, not simply progresses to freedom, but progress in the self-consciousness of freedom. A set of historical tendencies becomes law only if man comprehends and acts on them.

Historical laws, in other words, originate and are actual only in man’s conscious practice, so that if, for instance there is a law of progress to ever higher forms of freedom, it ceases to operate if man fails to recognize and operate it. “Hegel’s theory of history is progressive, more and more people are actually coming to understand what freedom is and more and more people are actually coming to enjoy freedom as the form of state changes. But Hegel still has to deal with the sceptic who might say. It is one thing to say that the world is freer today than it was yesterday, but how can we be sure that the world is going to be freer tomorrow than it is today? Hegel seems to be saying that we can never know the present, let alone the future, in the way we can know the past”.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel further observes that the history of civilization is the unfolding or the progressive realization and materialization of the world spirit in time. When civilization gradually unfolds itself dialectically the efforts of particular individuals, whoever they may be, are of little importance, Hegel admits that the individuals may have their own desires, ambitions and gratifications. But so far as the progress of history or civilization is concerned they have no special importance. All these are sacrificed for the sake of civilization or for the fulfillment of the requirements of the nation. In this way Hegel has explained the necessity of history.

In the progress of history or human civilization only the impersonal or general forces are important and they act. No particular incident or person has very little to contribute. If a person’s contribution happens to be highly important in the background of entire civilisation or history only that accounts for.

In other words, the contribution of a person is to be judged in the light of whole history and civilisation. If Hegel’s theory is accepted we should say that the individual is insignificant. Is it correct? We believe that every man has something to contribute to the whole progress of human civilisation. Of course Hegel’s theory stands upon the denial of man’s individual contribution. The critics such as Mccelland say so.

He cites the example of Caesar’s struggle for power. Caesar, guided by personal ambition of power, overthrew the traditional Roman Senatorial Power. But in satisfying his personal desires or of the ambition he fulfilled a necessary destiny in the history of Rome and the world; through his actions he achieved a higher, more rational form of political organisation.

A universal mission is achieved through the personal activities of a man. A particular individual can change the destiny of a nation. Hence a man can play an important and necessary phase in the development of truth.

Absolute Spirit or Idea uses a particular man as a tool. In the dialectical progress of history the importance of individuals is not continuous and unilinear.

Opposition and contrariety are the essential characteristics of Idea or Reason as well as of nature. This is also the law of cosmos and of thought. In Hegelian logic the entire world is a moving equilibrium. This is due to the fact that there is a tussle between the positive and negative forces of Idea or Reason, opposite forces provide the dynamism of history.

That is, history of the world or, for that matter, civilization, moves towards perfection and it passes through contrary forces. Sometimes equi­librium emerges, but it does not last long. This is disturbed by the appearance of new forces.

So there is no permanent equilibrium. The disturbance of balance is not unnatural; rather it is an indicator of change and continuity. One positive or one negative in Hegel’s system is never correct or permanent. But it does not mean that any one is wrong. Both are partly wrong and partly right.

The dialectic and contradiction are the most important things of progress of civilization and history. Because there are problems in every society there are also contradictions. The contradiction leads problems towards solution. But he cautions us by saying that no problem can ever be solved permanently.

If a problem could have been solved permanently then history and civilization would have no scope to advance forward. But, in his opinion, this is not so. Interpreting Hegel’s logic Sabine says; “It is like a spiral that mounts as it turns. The driving force he called contradiction. In Hegel’s logic contradiction means the fruitful opposition between systems”.

Hegel applies the dialectic to the study of the progress or change of society. It has several parts in its structure. They are laws, morals, religions, institutions. All these are principal parts. There are also secondary parts in the structure of society. All these parts are moving endlessly and, therefore, there is a continuous tension between them.

The movement is, of course, not fruitless. The different parts are adjusting and readjusting among themselves and, as a consequence of it, equilib­rium is reached. But this balance is disturbed by the emergence of new opposite forces. In the process of dialectic, when one stage is arrived, the next step can easily be surmised.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel adopts the method of dialectic to explain the social change. There are two interpretations or adoptions. One is in the realm of social change—the negative and affirmative or positive forces come into conflict and in this way society proceeds towards higher and higher stages or progress.

There is still another interpretation. The social change may be continuous or gradual; or it may be radical or violent. The gradualness of change is the symbol of positive or affirmative force and the radical or destructive or violent change is the symbol of negative force. There is conservativeness in continuity or gradualness.

In this change, old tradition is maintained and everything proceeds on the basis of ‘wait and see’. The violent change negates the past and advances to vamp the whole society anew. What method will be applied to explain the social change that depends upon the philosopher’s outlook? Conservative Hegel and his followers were in favour of gradualness or continuity.

According to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel the key to social change is dialectic. This dialectic has two movements one is negative and the other is positive or affirmative. Every thesis contains within itself certain contradictions.

In the process of movement these become explicit that become active and destroy the original thesis. When the dialectic is positive or constructive in the conflict between negative and positive forces, the first is destroyed, and positive force wins. This results in the emergence of higher stage or level.

5. Abstract Rights and Morality:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel discusses abstract rights, morality, and the relation between them, the contradic­tion and reconciliation. He says that, as rational being, every man makes certain claims for the development and assertion of his individuality and these claims are called abstract rights. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel does not treat man as simply a creature of appetite.

Man is rational and moral conception guides his activities. Now, by morality, he means that rational man has some feelings and intentions.

He has some rights and obligations. Also, he possesses conscience. Man exercises the rights for the devel­opment of personality and, while doing this, he applies his maximum conscience. That is, he feels that his exercise of rights does not create any problems to others. So, in every act, conscience guides him. This is morality. His life is purposeful only as a member of society and in society the individual leads an ethical life.

Hence, abstract rights, morality and membership of the social order are closely connected with each other. A moral being cannot ignore the difficulties of others. It is to be recalled that Rousseau thought almost in the same line.

In his theory of general will there is no place of a will which aims at the interests of a particular person. Again, in the civil society of Rousseau, every man will get freedom and right.

But he will not enjoy or exercise his freedom or right at the cost of other’s freedom and right. Rousseau’s civil society is a moral society and everyman is guided by morality. Hence the influence of Rousseau upon Hegel is quite explicit.

In the Philosophy of Rights he has emphasized that man is rational and moral. This results in the fact that exercise of rights by man does not involve any loss or injury upon the exercise of rights and enjoyment of freedom by others.

The question may arise—how did he come to the conclusion that every individual is rational and moral? We have no answer. We believe that the idealist philosophers are accustomed to think in this way or line.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel also discovers the contradiction between abstract rights and morality, because the relation is part of his theory of dialectic. The abstract rights and morality may be incompatible and Hegel asserts that they are very often in conflict.

How does this conflict arise? In all societies, including primitive and static, rights are violated or infringed.

But this violation or infringement goes unchallenged. People of these societies have not acquired the moral sense to argue that the infringement of rights is unjustified on moral grounds.

Only in developed society—where self-conscious­ness has fully blossomed—the violation of abstract rights faces severe criticism. However, Hegel’s point of view is that-very often contradiction arises between abstract rights and morality.

Hegel has said that there may arise a contradiction between abstract right and morality. But since this contradiction is dialectical it can never be permanent. The conflict will jump upon the next stage and, finally, reconciliation will arrive.

Summarizing Hegel’s views Plamenatz observes:

“Abstract right and morality, when they do conflict, can only be reconciled in ethical or communal life. This ethical life is their synthesis, not only in the sense that they are inseparable spheres in which the tension between them is resolved”.

6. Family and Civil Society:

We have discussed the triad of abstract right, morality and ethical life. The tension between abstract right and morality is resolved by ethical life. Hegel then discusses another triad and it is the family, the civil society and the state. But this triad is not the same as the earlier one.

Abstract right and morality are connected but the family and civil society are not so connected. We may state Hegel’s view in the language of Plamenatz, “Where there is a right of any kind, there is also some kind of morality, and the two are mere aspects of social life. But it is not true that where there is any community of family type, there is always some form of civil society, and that neither family nor civil society is ever found outside the state”.

Let us see what Hegel means by family. The family is a natural foundation for the order of reason that culminates in the state. The family has its external reality in property but property also destroys family.

When the children grow up they separate themselves from their parents and establish their own families. The property is also divided. Thus, the amount of original property becomes small. Breaking of property and disintegration of family go side by side.

Following Hegel, we can define civil society in the following words. It is a community of producers of the kind described by classical economists together with the public services needed to maintain order inside it. In primitive times, there were societies but they were not civil societies.

Civil society is a particular product of the development of history. In ancient times there were tribes and clans. In the process of time the tribes,’ clans etc. disintegrated and out of this emerged civil society and state.

There are few reasons as to why Hegel gave emphasis on civil society. First reason is—He was out and out a bourgeois-minded philosopher and had lot of sympathy for the bourgeois class.

The control of civil society was at the hands of bourgeoisie and for that he was eager for the development and protection of civil society. Secondly, Hegel’s state is the final stage of dialectical process. Before state there were family and civil societies. Naturally the civil society is an important phase of rational development.

For that reason civil society occupies an important place in Hegel’s thought. Thirdly, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel believed that civil society is the manifestation of reason. In fact, reason is present everywhere in his thought.

He said “in a political constitution nothing should be recognized as valid unless its recognition accorded with the right of Reason”. Finally, the state is the highest embodiment of the development of the spirit of the people and in the process of development civil society occupies an important place. That is why he emphasized civil society.

In Hegel’s contemporary Germany there were many guilds and corporations. There were also various types of associations and local communities. All these had great contribution to the moulding of human character and behaviour. Hegel was fully acquainted with this picture. That is why he made civil society as part of his philosophical analysis.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was an abstruse philosopher, but he did not stay at the top of the ivory tower. He was a close observer of all the social, cultural and political events which thrived in his contemporary society of Germany.

He realized that without associa­tions and community’s individuals would be formless agents of society. They must realize the worth of personality and importance of social life, and this was possible only in civil society.

He further held that the individuals must be made fit or suitable for the state. They must be mediated through a long series of corporations and associations before they arrive at the final dignity of citizenship in the state.

The life in civil society is educative. People learn the values as member of the civil society and these values find their manifestations in the state. People learn the technique and value of collaboration in the civil society.

Civil society does not challenge the family. In Hegel’s judgment there is no contradiction between family and civil society nor there is any tension between civil society and state, they are complementary.

The civil society makes citizens eligible for the state. It educates and moulds their lives. The civil society, according to Hegel, is the intermediate position between the individuals and state. The civil society is not independent of state, it works under it. It has not separate will, but it plays an important role.

7. Theory of State:

We have prepared a background for a comprehensive analysis of the theory of state. Now we shall start with what Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel says about state.

Stated briefly, his theory of state is an integral part of his whole philosophy, and it is the final stage of the dialectical process.

History, in Hegel’s view, is the manifestation of Absolute Idea or World Spirit and this history is embodied in the state or, what Hegel frequently calls, national state. The national state is the greatest manifestation of morality ethics and civilization. This is his state.

Originally, man was like many other animals. But through dialectical process he has reached the final stage of evolution and he is the best of all animals. He is not alone or he does not like to live alone.

He likes to live with others and to form associations. Hegel says that the earliest form of association or institution is the family which is built up on the feeling of love and affection. Family is not only the most elementary institution; it is the smallest institution with extremely limited capacity to meet the requirements.

However, Hegel calls family the Thesis. It is unity and all the members of the family are held together by the bond of love and affection.

Within the family there is no conflict or tension and so no place of contradiction or disunity. We have seen that the family is not the only institution and it is not permanent. When the children become adult and self-dependent they form separate families.

To meet their growing demands people move for better and greater society. They land on wider environment. This society is bourgeois society. While the family is Thesis the bourgeois or the civil society is antithesis.

Wayper writes:

“Unlike the family which is a unity regarded by its very members as being more real than themselves, bourgeois society is a host of independent men and women held together only be ties of contract and self-interest. Whereas the characteristic of the family is mutual love, the characteristic of the bourgeois society is universal competition”.

The family according to Hegel is the primary unit of state which passes through dialectics. But with the development of trade, commerce, human habit and man’s necessity the family failed to meet the growing and varied demands of man.

Particularly in development of capitalism there occurred a significant change in trade, commerce as well as habits and outlooks of the common people. In this situation the family proved its inefficiency and there arose a gap. A new society called civil society controlled by the bourgeoisie emerged.

The new society made laws for its own management. There were also other processes of the civil society which was also bourgeois in nature. In bourgeois or civil society of Hegel’s time there were guilds and corporations.

The owners of these guilds and corporations developed a type of affinity and they began to control the state administration sometimes in clandestine ways. In the civil society there were capitalists as well as the common people. But the latter practically had no say in the management of society and state. This was the nature of civil society that prevailed in Hegel’s time and lie was overwhelmingly influenced by this civil society.

In support of the above view we quote few lines from Wayper:

“The thesis the family, a unity held together by love, knowing no differences is confronted by the antithesis, bourgeois society, an aggregate of individuals held apart by competition knowing no unity, even though it is manifestly struggling towards a greater unity which it has nevertheless not yet attained. The synthesis which preserves what is best in thesis and antithesis, which swallows up neither family nor bourgeois society, but which gives unity and harmony to them, is State. It does this because it is a super-organism”.

The final stage of the dialectic process is the state. In Hegelian formulation there can be no change. It is not only the super-organism, but also the highest manifestation of the Idea or World Spirit or Reason.

In the words of Hegel:

“The essence of the modern state is that the universal is bound up with the full freedom of particularity and the welfare of the individuals, that the interest of the family and bourgeois society must connect itself with the state but also that universality of the state’s purpose cannot advance without the specific knowledge and will of the particular, which must maintain its rights. The universal must be actively furthered, but on the other side subjectivity must be wholly and vitally developed. Only when both elements are there in all their strength can the state be regarded as articulated and truly organized.”

The state of Hegel is, thus, the meeting point of both particularity and universality.

Characteristics of State:

It is a divine state. Hegel’s state is a mechanism, but it is a mechanism for different purpose. It is not an instrument to maximize the happiness of individuals. Nor it is an institution to preserve the life, liberty and property of men. It is a super- organism.

“It is the institutionalization of perfect public spirit and complete disin­terestedness and the guarantor of folk custom, with the demands of which individual desires are in perfect harmony.”

Hegel’s state was not only real but the highest form of reality. It was the God Himself. “The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on Earth. We must, therefore, worship the state as the manifestation of the Divine on Earth and consider that, if it is difficult to comprehend Nature, it is infinitely harder to grasp the Essence of the State. The State is the march of God through the world.” To sum up, Hegelian state is the highest embodiment of Divinity or Spirit.

In all its essentials Hegelian state is an organic state. “The state must be compre­hended as an organism. To the complete state belongs, essentially, consciousness and thought.”

If we go through Hegel’s view about state it will appear to us that the state is a natural growth. It has passed through several stages of evolution. The final stage is state.

There is dialectic and the evolution indicates that the next stage is better than the former. All the stages or parts are closely related with each other. But it is to be remembered that the state is a complete whole. This is because when the evolution is complete all the parts forming the state are fully merged with it and the parts cannot claim their separate identity. If the state is destroyed various parts will lose their existence.

When the question is put “Why should 1 obey that state”? There is a very simple answer. Summarizing Hegel’s view Wayper says: “My hand is fulfilled in me, and I am fulfilled in the State, and there is nothing more to be said about the matter.” The hands are under my control and I am in the control of the state. So no question of disobedience arises.

The morality and freedom of the individual are not separate from those of the state. The worth of the individual is ascertained only as a member of the state or social order. Moreover, Hegel’s state is an end in itself and never a means to an end. The individuals exist for the state, and not vice versa.

The moral law cannot bind the state, because the state is the creator of morality. The state fixes the standard of morality for its individuals. Man moves, acts and decides guided by conscience.

Conscience tells us to do what is right, but it cannot tell us what is right and just. That decision is to be taken by the state. Man is just like a machine to perform his duty. What to do and whether the “doing” is justified—that never falls within the jurisdiction of the individual.

A man does not possess the wisdom to challenge the morality or ethics or the state. The wisest men of antiquity have laid it down that wisdom and virtue consists in living conformably to the customs of one’s people which are indeed the collective wisdom and reason of the past. The state is the best interpreter of the tradition of the community, only it can tell us what is good, and conformity with its decrees or social ethics, is thus the highest morality.

Another feature of Hegel’s theory of state is, it is sovereign both in national and in international spheres.

In relation to other states is own safety is of prime consideration. Hegel has categorically stated that it cannot make any compromise about its own safety and security because with these two the highest interest of citizen is connected. For the sake of its safety what it decides that is law and it is the highest law.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, in his Philosophy of Right, declares “It is a generally acknowledged and well-known principle that particular interest of the state is the most important consideration.”

To safeguard its own interest and protect its own sovereignty is the highest morality. Any plea against it is not allowed. What is good and bad, right and wrong—that is to be decided by the state and no interference by any other agency can be tolerated.

International relations mean the relation among the sovereign states and, in that sphere; every so foreign state has the right to protect her own interests. Negligence to perform this duty is a sin.

We believe that this view of Hegel regarding the status of state in international arena is wrong. A state is sovereign in international field does not mean that the state has the absolute right to do whatever it likes.

But the fact is that every state will have to observe and obey the international code of conduct and law of nations. But he ignored this aspect. The picture of an all-powerful German state was so much active that he forgot the law of nations and international code of conduct. He wanted to see an all-powerful German state. Rather, he was a blind supporter of a powerful Germany. For such a view Hegel was squarely blamed and castigated.

The Hegelian state has the absolute right to declare war. How does he justify it the fundamental proposition of international law is that the treaties, as the ground of obligations between the states, ought to be kept? But since the sovereignty of the state is the principle of its relations to others, states are, to that extent, in a’ state of nature in relation to each other. These rights are actualized only in their particular wills and not in a universal will.

It follows that, continues Hegel, states disagree and their particular wills cannot be harmonized, the matter can only be settled by war. War is not to be regarded as an absolute evil, but as a purely external accident.

War is the state of affairs which deals in earnest with the vanity of temporal goods and concerns. War has the higher significance that, by its agency, the ethical health of people is preserved in their indifference to the stabilization of finite institutions, just as the blowing of the winds preserves the sea from the foulness which would be the result of prolonged calm, so also corruption in nations would be the product of prolonged perpetual peace.

The successful wars have prevented the civil broils and strengthened the internal power of the state. The discovery of gun and gun powder has contributed liberally to the further­ance of civilization.

Evil doings and corruption of nations can be removed only through the declaration of war. If we deeply go through the argument of Hegel we shall find that so-called uncivilized and weak nations have no right to exist.

Only the powerful nations have the right to preserve their own interests. The weaker nations, being deprived of power, are also deprived of the right to preserve their national interests. Hence these nations have no right or opportunity to uphold the morality or ethical principles.

In Hegel’s thought and philosophy war had a sublime position. Like many other thinkers he did not view war as a menace to civilization and annihilator of man and property. Explaining Hegel’s position Lancaster observes – “War ennobles the individual by showing him the variety and triviality of everyday preoccupation.” Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a great nationalist and a patriot.

The concept of state occupied his thought and he believed that only through the state individuals could find the fulfillment of all their ideas and ideals. Hence they must be prepared to make all sorts of sacrifice for the sake of the state.

Naturally the individuals must be enthused or inspired for the cause of the state and in this situation war is the most potent means. The war can also ensure the loyalty of citizens to the state.

The above analysis of Hegel’s theory of state establishes the fact that he had no confidence on or respect for the famous social contract theory of state. It is the product of dialectical process or evolution.

It may also be called the evolutionary theory of state and, in this sense, Hegel comes nearer to Aristotle. Of course, he has philosophized the theory of state in an abstruse way not comprehensible to common people.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel has said that just as it is impossible to subsume marriage under the concept of contract so it is equally far from the truth to ground the nature of the state on the contractual relation whether the state is supposed to be a contract of all with all or of all with monarch or the government. The state is the “actualization of Reason”, it is the mind objectified. It is the product of long evolution and this evolution passes through several stages dialectically. “The real is rational and the rational is real.” The rationality is realised in the state.

Totalitarian Features of Hegel’s State:

We have discussed the central idea and salient features of Hegel’s theory of state. Time is now ripe to point out the totalitarian features of his theory of state. It is to be mentioned here that not all critics share the view that Hegel’s state contains the totalitarian elements. First we shall see to what extent Hegel’s state can be called totalitarian. Next we shall place the counter-arguments.

Karl Popper in his celebrated work Open Society and Its Enemies passes the following remark “Nearly all the more important ideas of modern totalitarianism are directly inherited from Hegel, who collected and preserved what A. Zimmern calls the armoury of weapons for authoritarian movements. Although most of these weapons were not forged by Hegel himself, but discovered by him in the various ancient war treasuries of the perennial revolt against freedom, it is undoubtedly his effort which rediscovered them and placed them in the hands of his modern followers.”

(i) The modern totalitarian doctrine of state says that the state as such is not the highest end. It views the state from different perspective. This is the Blood, the Race, and the People. The higher Races or Peoples possess power and subjugate the rest of the state. Hegel’s Spirit can be substituted for Blood.

Hegelian state is totalitarian. Its might must permeate and control the whole life of the people in all its functions. “The state is the basis and centre of all the concrete elements in the life of a people – of Art, Law, Morals, Religion and Science. The substance that exists in the concrete reality which is the state is the Spirit of the people itself.” Hegel further comments, “Nations are what their deeds are. A nation is moral, virtuous, vigorous, as long as it is engaged in realizing its grand objects.”

We, therefore, see that Hegel developed the historical and totalitarian theory of nationalism. A nation is all in all, it is supreme. All individuals are subordinate to it. His theory of nationalism has also psychological bearing.

He speaks of German nationalism. Germany was superior to all other nations. Particularly he had a feeling of contempt for England. This narrow nationalism was followed by many of his adherents.

(ii) Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel had justified and glorified war on another ground. He said that apparently there was good or cordial relation among the states. But this is not the real picture. The states are enemies with each another and there is a struggle for power and position among the states. Particularly the big states are involved in this struggle.

This problem, Hegel held, could be solved only by war. He said – “War is not only a practical necessity; it is also a theoretical necessity, an exigency of logic. The concept of the state implies the concept of war, for the essence of the state is Power. The State is the People organized in sovereign Power”.

This glorification of war is to be found only in totalitarian states. Mutual good relationship or friendship and peaceful coexistence are not generally to be found in the lexicography followed by the adherents of totalitarianism.

(iii) Hegelain state is characterized by another feature. Without any ambiguity Hegel declared that the state is above all types of law and morality because it is the embodiment of morality and the state is itself a law and creator of law. Many other totalitarian thinkers treated state and law in the same line. Naturally the state should not be bound by law and morality. Karl Popper observes. Its only judge is the History of the world.

The only possible standard of judgment upon the state is the world historical success of its actions and this success, the power and expansion of the state, must overrule all other considerations in the private life of the citizens; right is what serves the might of the state. This is the theory of Plato, it is the theory of modern totalitarianism; and it is the theory of Hegel, it is the Platonic Prussian morality.”

“The state is the realisation of the ethical Idea it is the ethical Spirit as revealed, self-conscious and substantial will.” The violation of treaty or agreement is quite immaterial. He says that, if this violation ensures the success of the nation or enhances the power, and then violation of treaty is not immoral. Success counts much. A state cannot surrender to any other will or decision of another state.

Plamenatz does not agree with the view that Hegel was the believer or propagator of totalitarian state. In his view “This is an ambiguous and misleading charge. The word totalitarian is not to be found-in Hegel’s writings; his varied and peculiar vocabulary does not include this particular epithet, which belongs to our century”.

What Plamenatz wants to say is that his emphasis on state, compulsory membership of state and several other views about it cannot be treated as yardstick of totalitarianism, or it cannot be said that he was a great supporter of totalitarianism.

He viewed the state from a particular stand­point and in the background of special circumstances. He wanted to see his Germany a powerful, developed and self-sufficient state. This mentality inspired him to draw the picture of state in this way.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel has said that the individual must obey the established laws and conven­tions of the state when the state is at its highest stage of development. This obedience to the laws and conventions of the state does not indicate that he will not have any freedom to criticize those laws and conventions.

He can both obey and criticize. If we interpret the opinion of Hegel in this light there is no harm or illogicality. His view on war is not completely illogical or irrelevant. He defended war as a preventive of slackness and corruption and of checking domestic slackness.

Even today, in the second decade of the 21st century, we find the validity of Hegel’s argument of war. Many states use it as a technique of checking people’s unrest resulting from maladministration and inefficiency.

The state which Hegel described in his Philosophy of Right and the actual Prussian state are both undemocratic. The state in which Hegelian freedom is realized fully is not democratic. We can say Hegel had no faith in democracy.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was not a great votary of democracy and this has been interpreted that he was a totalitarian. Since he was undemocratic or illiberal he was definitely totalitarian.

But this oversimplification is unjustified. A man is undemocratic—is not to say that he is totalitarian. His argument against democracy was based on the belief that in a democracy the majority party controls the government and party government means the government of a faction of population. We may not share his views. But we cannot blame him as a totalitarian.

Although Plamenatz does not accept that Hegel was believer of totalitarianism, he admits that he made excessive claims for the state which have supplied fuel for the arguments in favour of totalitarianism. “It cannot be denied that he makes extravagant and false claims for the state. It may be that man is rational, moral and free only as a member of society, but it is not true that he is so only as a citizen a member of the state.” There are family, civil society and various other ethical or religious organizations which mould the conduct and guide the activities of the individual. It is not true that he does not know it. What we can say about Hegel is that, for one reason or another, he had excessive sympathy for the state.

It is commonly argued that Hegel was the official philosopher of German government and the godfather of Hitler. Hitler quickly accepted the Hegelian doctrine of absolutist state and applied it in toto. It cannot be denied that there is a similarity between Hegel’s approach to state and Hitler’s Fascist state.

But this similarity must not lead us to conclude that Hitler was influenced by Hegel. There were scores of undemocratic theories and Hitler might have been influenced by them. Modern historians are of opinion that the then social, economic and political situation of Germany and the international situation influenced Hitler.

It may be that Hegel, in mind or feeling, was not totalitarian. We have already noted that special circumstances that prevailed in his time encouraged him to depict the picture of state in this way. Again, if we look at the Western political thought we shall find that apart from Hegel many idealist philosophers had soft corner for totalitarianism.

In Plato’s political ideas there are many elements of totalitarianism. Rousseau is also not an exception. Almost all the totalitarian thinkers always give priority to whole and not to parts. The position of society or state is much higher than that of the individual.

They believed that all-round progress of individuals is possible only through the general progress of body politic. The most serious charge against Hegel so far as his idea of state is concerned is that he has glorified war and the state is the actor of war. Today we despise war from the core of our hearts.

We are making numerous efforts both at national and international levels to stop war or to discourage any efforts of making war. His weakness for totalitarianism cannot be severely criticised. But we cannot forgive him for holding a brief for war.

War is the most dangerous and vicious enemy of human civilization and even for the mere existence of mankind. We do not know why Hegel failed to understand the devastating consequences of war.

8. Theory of Government:

Hegel’s theory of government is to be understood only in the background of his philosophy, particularly his theory of dialectic. He has said, “What is rational is actual and what is actual is rational.” The state and the government both are actual. Their existence cannot be denied.

So they are rational. If the state were not the highest embodiment of rationality or ethical Idea it could not have reached that stage at all. The state is the actuality of the ethical Idea.

The state is not only absolutely rational but also the actuality of the substantial wills which it possesses in the particular self-consciousness. The state is whole and it is real. “The state is organism that is development of the idea to its distinction.”

In every fully developed state, which is an organic whole, there is a government. Since the state is the synthesis, that is, the contradictions are resolved in it; the government also takes the character of the state.

If the state is rational and real the government is also bound to be rational and real. It is also the manifestation of Reason. It guards the universal will and prevents the particular will from its encroachment upon the universal will.

The organism, according to Hegel’s logic, is the constitution consisting of distinct powers so correlated as to sustain and strengthen the unity of the whole. The constitution, as Hegel conceives, is the complex of habits and responses produced by generations of living together under the same social and political institutions.

These habits and responses are grounded in reason. Hegel says, “The constitution of any given nation depends in general on the character and development of self- consciousness. The constitution is unity of explicit differences, i.e., of individuality, particularity and universality, i.e., of the crown, the executive and the legislature. Since these form a concrete unity, each of them has reflected into the characteristics of the other two”.

In his Philosophy of Right Hegel writes “The state as a political entity is thus cleft into three substantive divisions:

(a) The power to determine and establish the universal—the legislature,

(b) The power to subsume single cases and spheres of particularity under the universal—the executive,

(c) The power of subjectivity, as the will with the power of ultimate decision—the crown.

In the crown the different powers are bound into an individual unity which is thus at once the apex and basis of the whole, i.e., constitutional monarchy”.

We can form certain conclusions from this classification:

(1) He was in favour of monarchical form of government and the interpreters of his political thought say that this monarchy is constitutional.

(2) Among all the divisions—the legislature holds the most important position that is it is the most vital organ of government.

(3) He did not suggest separation of powers.

This is probably due to the fact that he had no interest in the liberty of individuals. Montesquieu prescribed separation of powers as key to individual freedom. Hegel had no intention to follow Montesquieu.

(4) So far as the classifi­cation of government is concerned, it may be observed here, there is hardly any seriousness.

(5) This type of classification is Hegel’s own.

The legislative power is vested in the Assemblies of Estates. We call it legislature. Hegel finds no ground in support of the universal adult franchise, because people do not know or cannot fully realize the public interest. So popular assemblies comprising the representatives have no place in the Hegelian system.

The Estates has two houses—one composed of landowners entitled as of right to be called. The other house is a functional body. This bicameral legislature reminds us of the composition of the British Parliament. One is House of Lords and the other is House of Commons.

Assemblies of Estates are whole and the real reflection of the state or government. It is a unity and perfection. The obedience of the citizens is to the Assemblies of Estates and not to the civil societies or associations since they represent only the particular or partial interests. These “partial associations” stand between the individuals and the state. Hegel does not assign specific and elaborate function to Estates. He makes certain sporadic remarks. He says that the legislature will act as an advisory body to the executive or bureaucracy. It cannot act as a check upon the bureaucracy.

We now come to Hegel’s second organ of government the executive. To Hegel the executive was the most important organ of government and in this regard he differs from many other political thinkers.

It consists of the civil servants. According to Hegel, the civil service is the universal class which is the synthesis of two subordinate class’s farmers’ class and manufacturers’ class.

The former is called substantial and the latter is called reflecting class. The farmers’ class is characterized by family life where particular interest predominates. The manufac­turers’ class is aware of public interest and gives priority to universality.

In Hegel’s view there is, thus, a contradiction between farmers’ class and manufacturers’ class and this contradiction or difference is a logical necessity and not a matter of accident or convenience.

Hegel’s belief is that the civil servants have deeper and more comprehensive insight into the nature of state’s organization administration and requirements. They are also well acquainted with the necessities and administration of the government. The members of the civil service are educated and possess greater skill. So they should be entrusted with the responsibility of the state.

The function of the legislature is to advise the civil servants. The proposals of laws are to be made by the civil servants. Since the outlook of the civil servants is universal and they aim at general interest, the purpose of the state would be better served by them.

Hegel’s special interest in civil service is really interesting. This is probably due to the fact that in Germany the civil service was well-organized and played crucial role in administrations.

The famous German scholar Max Weber (1864-1920) took a lot of interest in civil service system and he is treated by many as the first man to throw enough light on it.

It is held by many that the civil service system in Germany was of high quality. The civil service system of Germany which was an autocratic state was the backbone of state administration and Hegel was aware of it.

9. Concept of Sovereignty:

It is difficult to formulate a clear concept of sovereignty from Hegel’s huge works. Even he does not feel it necessary to deal with this matter in a categorical way. Some discussion is available in his Philosophy of History and Philosophy of Right. But the analysis is far from being systematic.

In his division of power we have seen that there is an organ called crown or monarchy. Planenatz explains Hegel’s theory of sovereignty in the following way. In his classification of government there is a branch which is called monarchy and sovereignty resides in monarchy.

It means that sovereignty hold is the power to utter the last word on any issue or matter. Both legislature and executive are the two other branches of government but so far as the ultimate power is concerned monarchy is above two other branches.

The monarchy is not only the authority to utter the last word; he is the reconciler and restorer of harmony. Hegel has depicted the picture of sovereignty in this way. But it is far from satisfactory.

Hegel’s view that sovereign power is vested in monarchy does not give us a full picture of the subject. Rather it is partial. Why? He has argued that the state is indeed the sovereign, because in the state Reason, Idea, Spirit and Freedom are represented. Or, the state is the manifestation of the Welt-Geist or World Spirit.

So outside the state there cannot be any freedom or morality. If such is the nature of state it is quite obvious that it should be the symbol of sovereignty.

The state sovereignty requires a personification and that is to be found in monarchy. Granting that sovereignty in conception may properly be said to be an attribute of the state as a whole, be contends that sovereignty in reality and in action consists in the final decisive indication of an individual will.

If the state be sovereign, yet an expression of the sovereign will must necessarily involve in the last analysis a determination by some person.

The Hegelian conception of sovereignty resembles the British system. Many critics blame him as an advocate or believer of totalitarianism. But they will be frustrated to see that he did not recommend unfettered prerogative powers for the sovereign authority. To him it was simply one of the formal organs of the government.

He argued, however, that the acts of the state are the acts of ministers who are responsible, whereas the personal majesty of the monarchy is above all answerability for acts of government.

Even the sovereignty of the state is not such as to deny the rule of law under ordinary circumstances. Explaining the Hegelian theory of sovereignty Maxey says that it proceeds directly from his exaltation of state as the external manifestation of ultimate consciousness and will His theory of sovereignty is not the outcome of contract, it is the necessary unity of state itself.

Moreover, Hegel’s sovereignty is absolute ‘and indivisible. In his judgment people are formless and not fully conscious. So they cannot have power to exercise sovereign authority. Hegel thus rules out the possibility of popular sovereignty. By doing this he makes his philosophical analysis more consistent.

10. Theory of Freedom:

The contemporary social, political and economic situation of Germany was one of the chief sources of political thought of Hegel. Germany was ravaged by corruption in all levels of society, chaos, indiscipline, provincialism and groupism. Integrity of the nation was at stake. But Hegel, we know, was the staunchest supporter of nationalism and national state. The unity of Germany received highest priority in his analysis.

The prevailing contemporary situation of Germany inspired him to form the opinion that individualism stands on the way of attaining and perpetu­ating national integration. People must first of all show unconditional allegiance to the authority.

The general interest of the state must come first and must be protected at any cost Individualism was to him another name of provincialism and particularism. Parochialism and groupism had no place in his philosophy. So he did not intend to give the individual’s private interest prime importance.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel according to Sabine, also identified individualism with Jacobinism, violence, terrorism, fanaticism and atheism of the French Revolution. Moreover, his assessment of the individual was very low.

The individual is merely capricious, an animal governed by brute instinct with no rule of action higher than his own impulses, appetites and inclinations with no rule of thought higher than his own fancies.

Analysing the background of Hegel’s theory of freedom J. S. Mcclelland makes the following observation:

“Perhaps the best approach to Hegel on freedom is to regard the theory of freedom as a philosophical commentary on the epoch of the French Revolution and its aftermath, particularly in Germany. Before 1789, Germany was little more than a geographical expression. There were over three hundred German states, duchies, free towns, seigneuries. The effect of French Revolution was to rationalise the German state system. Hegel was enthusiastic about the French Revolution”.

The reorganisation and restoration of units of Germany were of prime importance to him.

The importance of the individual is due to the fact that he is a member of society and also an integral part of it. The attainment of freedom and development of personality are possible only through the membership of the state.

Modern civilization is embodied only in the national state. Not only civilization, Protestant Christianity, Absolute Idea and Reason are also embodied in it. Outside the national state the worth of the individual will not be recognized.

Most important of all is individual will find his freedom only in the national state. It reconciles authority of the state with the freedom of the individual. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel himself says – “The essence of the modern state is that the universal be bound up with the complete freedom of its members with private well-being.”

Hence, from Hegel’s analysis, we conclude that freedom of individual and the state cannot be separated from each other.

He says:

“The state is the actuality of concrete freedom. But concrete freedom consists in this, that personal individuality and its particular interests not only achieve their complete development and gain explicit recognition for their right, but, for one thing, they also pass over of their own accord into the interest of the universal, and for another thing they know and will the universal. They even recognized it as thr­own substantive mind; they take it as their end and aim and are active in its pursuit.”

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel has elaborately analysed his favourite concept—the state is the actualization of freedom. Freedom of the individual is not an abstract choice, but only the willing of what is rational, of what the Spirit or Reason or Idea would desire and what the state intends.

So the individual can have freedom only through his membership of state and obedience to it. Why will the individual obey the state?

The state is represented by the absolute Idea. It is his real will to the dictates of the state. What the state dictates that is his real will. The state cannot dictate anything wrong or unjustified. The state has the right to command and the individual must obey those and in this process he will find the fullest freedom.

The individual may obey the state still for other reasons. Hegel rules out the existence of freedom in the case where the individual obeys the order of state out of fear.

When the citizen will obey the dictates of state out of his own accord and when he thinks that the will of the state is real will, and it is also his will, then, and then only, he will have the opportunity to enjoy freedom.

He will subject his will to the will of the state. The citizen will be fully convinced that what the state demands he also desires the same thing. The simple implication is that the individual will identify himself in all respects with the state.

This is the essence of freedom. Hegel observes that the state is the form of reality in which the individual has and enjoys his freedom provided he recognizes, believes in and will what is common to the whole. We now conclude that freedom for Hegel consists in obedience and this obedience must be voluntary.

Barker, doyen of political science, has compared the freedom theory of Hegel with that of Kant. Kant, according to Barker, interpreted freedom as the right to will a self-imposed imperative of duty, and he insisted that every man, possessing by his virtue of his reason such a will, existed and ought to be treated, always as an end in himself and never as merely a means.

In the opinion of Hegel such a concept of freedom is negative, because it wears the face of duty. Again, Kant’s freedom is limited, because he treats every man as an isolated unit. But, according to Hegel, every man is part of the whole and he cannot enjoy liberty or freedom in isolation’ Third objection against Kant’s theory of freedom is it is subjective, because it resides in the inner world of intention and conscience and does not find a free issue outward into objective life.

According to Barker, Hegel’s freedom is positive, it is expansive and it is objective. Hegel’s freedom does not mean absence of restraints. Since it is positive its aim is to develop the self of the individual. Man shows utmost obedience to state simply for the realization of his self.

It is expansion:

It consists in the will to make my outward self adequate to the measure of the fullness of my thinking self. Hegel’s freedom is outwardly expressed, so it is objective. Finally, another feature of Hegelian freedom may be mentioned.

It is creative, because is expresses itself through law, through the rules of inward morality, and through the institutions. Hegelian freedom is a social phenomenon. Kant compared the doctrine of freedom with individualism.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel removed that apparel and placed it in the midst of the vortex of society. The individual will enjoy liberty or freedom, but he will do it in cooperation with others. So it is absolutely a social phenomenon.

This is the obser­vation of Sabine. In his own words “Freedom must be understood as a social phenomenon, a property of the social system which arises through the moral development of the community. Freedom consists rather in the adjustment of inclination and individual capacity to the performance of socially significant work”.

Freedom cannot be supported if the will or desire of the individual is not made to adjust with the general good supported by the general will. Hegel s freedom is thus not an end, it is a means to an end and the end is public good.

There is a very important reason why Hegel makes freedom a social phenom­enon we have earlier mentioned that unintelligent and uneducated man cannot enjoy freedom fully. Only educated and intelligent man can realize that all his desires will never be fulfilled, some will remain unrealized, and he must accept it. That is the individual must have the mentality to make sacrifices whenever required. If anybody thinks that freedom means the ability to satisfy desires, then that will indicate an immaturity of thought.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was not a liberal philosopher and, therefore, in his philosophy there is no Place of liberal concept of freedom. Freedom is not the absence of restraints. Rather limitations and constraints are imposed upon the impulses and desires of individual so that he ran adjust with the rest of the society. He must learn the technique or method of adjusting the private interests with the common good of the society.

This is an essential precondition of freedom. He never treated freedom as the opportunity to pursue one’s own interests exclusive of others. Man’s real and substantive freedom as distinct from mere formal freedom consists in submitting it and identifying himself with the higher rationality of the state.

This submission must be voluntary. Hegel has always emphasized that the individual is an inseparable part of the whole and his overall progress is to be achieved through his membership of the whole body He is not separate from the whole.

Commenting on this aspect Sabine says. “Hegel characteristically equated individual choice with caprice, sentimentality or fanaticism”.

It is now clear that Hegel does not consider man’s freedom as an essential element. To claim freedom or to be away from the rest of the society is sheer madness. In his judgment an individual is completely merged with the state and by state he meant a unified reorganized state. The man cannot have any existence outside the state.

Submission to the state means submission to the law of the state, because the will of the state is expressed through the law. The law is made to actualize the general interests of the society.

The law of the state can never be wrong or unjustified on the ground that Reason or Absolute Idea or Weltgeist (World Spirit) is embodied in the state. Hegel’s individual is completely at one with the state. Though Hegel speaks of voluntary submission to state’s laws, he apprehends that compulsion might be necessary and that is immaterial.

11. Individual and the State:

In order to have a clear understanding of Hegel’s attitude we are to remember that liberalism or liberal philosophy had no place in his thought system. In Britain and France there developed a liberal tradition and people were well acquainted with it naturally there was strong urge of general public for rights and freedom. But Germany was an exception.

There were autocratic rulers whose first act was to suppress freedom of individuals. Hegel’s acquaintance with this political atmos­phere made him more or less anti-liberal or anti-individual. But he was not at all an enemy of individuals. In his view the state was first and after the state the position of individual.

The Industrial Revolution of England and French Revolution necessitated a laissez-faire doctrine which was another name of economic individualism. So the people of these two countries for several reasons were able to build up strong liberalism in both political and economic spheres. But the tradition of Germany was of different nature.

Sabine comments, “There had been and there continued to be little in the politics of Germany that could give to the idea of individual rights a hold upon the political consciousness of Germany as such. As a theory the philosophy of natural rights was of course fully known to Germans but it remained for them in a sense esoteric and academic”.

The objective of life is the realization of freedom and that objective can be achieved through individual’s identification with the state. Hegel’s state is an ethical whole and a march of God on earth.

In order to reach the stage of the World Spirit the state is the only medium. In his account there is no contradiction between the individual and the state.

Interpreting this concept of Hegel, Harmon observes:

“As the state is necessary to be March of the World Spirit and is a means to that end, so the individual is a means to the end of the state which serves that purpose.” Harmon further says that all men to Hegel are instruments but the ability of all men is not equal. Some men are more wise and able than others.

The individual is completely merged in the state and naturally there is no scope of demanding separate identity. This identification is indispensable for realization of freedom.

The liberalism went on emphasizing the distinction between liberty of individual and authority of the state. Rousseau, by propounding the doctrine of general will, made an attempt to obliterate this distinction and ultimately he forged reconciliation between the two.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel consciously or unconsciously followed the path of Rousseau. The difference between the two would, Hegel believed, invite anarchy. Rousseau said that individuals would be forced to be free. On the other hand, we are told of the identification of man with the idea of state in Hegel’s theory.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel refused to be one with those who supported the French Revolution on the ground that it vindicated the absolute individualism and advocated enmity between individual and state. It was thought by the revolutionaries that state was an evil and an anathema to individual liberty.

So it was necessary to impose restrictions upon the authority of state so that liberty could expand. In Hegelian philosophy there is no place of abstract individualism.

Sabine writes:

“The fundamental error in its policy was its attempt to erect paper constitutions and political procedures on the assumptions of individualism”.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s conception of the relationship between individual and state emerged from the fact that individualism could destroy the unity of state. He also believed that the individualism could ultimately become insuperable hindrance on the way of the realization of Reason or Weltgeist through dialectic process and this was the most favourite doctrine of the German idealist.

The disunity of the Italian state and also internecine warfare among the different parts disturbed his mind. Machiavelli also could not support individual freedom. To him there was not the question of individual versus state; it was the state alone which could be the final determiner of everything within its boundary.

So both Machiavelli and Hegel thought almost in the same line so far as the relation between individual and state is concerned. From our foregoing account it may appear to us that Hegel wanted to transform the individual into the slave of the state. But according to many critics this allegation against Hegel is devoid of any solid foundation.

To Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, like many other idealist and absolutist thinkers, freedom was a social affair and people could enjoy it only in collaboration with others. Freedom can never be unilateral. Liberty in the modern state is never unconditional or unregulated.

It is always regulated and the regulations are imposed by the state in the name of public interest. Needless to say that Hegel argued in the same line. So if the authority of the modern state can restrict liberty for common good and if we cannot blame it why should we blame Hegel? Harmon has said that Hegel’s conception of individual and state relation has been wrongly interpreted and by doing this critics have done injustice to him. Fie thought of individuals’ welfare from a quite different standpoint.

Mill’s society consisted of unrelated individuals each pursuing their own interests. Hegel’s society was composed of individuals who constituted a complete whole and all were organically connected with each other.

Identification of individuals with the state does not mean that the state is a dictator or autocrat. Hegel had no intention to award dictatorial power to the state.

We believe that Harmon’s assessment of Hegel’s idea about the relationship between state and individual is right. His only fault (if it is to be treated as fault) is that he thought that the general progress of Germany could be achieved through the machinery of a powerful state.

Both Britain and France reached the goal of considerable development in industrial and commercial sectors and through this development individuals’ rights, liberty and other things got the opportunity of adequate progress.

Germany was deprived of this situation. For that reason Hegel has been found to give priority or maximum importance to the interest of the state. This does not mean that he vehemently opposed to individuals’ cause. He believed that progress of individual could be achieved through the progress of the state. This view cannot be treated as wrong or anti-individual.

An Appraisal of Political Ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

There are three great pillars of German idealism. They are Kant, Fichte and Hegel. But the most important and widely read of them is Hegel. Hegel is both criticized and praised all over. But his number of critics has far surpassed the number of admirers. It is also said that the number of persons who actually understand his philosophy can easily be counted. It is because his philosophy is complex.

Even those who praise his philosophy do not accept his worship of war and its idealization as well as his over lordship of state. In this connection we can remember the observation of Durant: The old philosopher denounced the radicals and dreamers, and carefully hid away his early essays.

He allied himself with Prussian Government, blessed it as the latest expression of the Absolute and basked in the sun of its academic favours. His enemies called him the official philosopher.

Schopenhauer was a great admirer of Kant. He also knew Hegel. But his estimate about Hegel was not of high quality. He said, “Hegel, installed, from above by the powers that be, as the certified great philosopher, was a flat headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily- accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into a perfect chorus of admiration.”

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel claimed that he had revised the law of contradiction and had substituted for it, in the dialectic, a new and fruitful logic. But this claim, Wayper thinks, is unconvincing. His dialectic is not a new form of logic. Long before Hegel the dialectic was discovered and fruitfully applied by Greek philosophers.

One of the central concepts of Hegelianism is contradiction. He discovered contradiction and from that tension in everything and, on the basis of that, he made numerous propositions.

We admit that there are oppositions in many things but those oppositions need not necessarily lead to contradiction or tension. The various oppositions can be expressed in non-contradictory statements. This aspect has been emphasized by many and it is a pity that Hegel overlooked it.

The dialectic is a wonderful instrument. Manifold social and political phenom­ena can be interpreted with the help of dialectic and on the basis of dialectic we can arrive at certain reasonable as well as acceptable conclusions. Dialectic also helps us to acquire mastery over the different stages of social and political development.

That is, we come to know of their nature. But Hegel used this instrument in order to make the state or nation-state all-powerful. The German state, he declared, was the embodiment of Reason or World Spirit or, in his own words Weltgeist. Even according to Hegel, the German state is the manifestation of highest civilization, morality, freedom and nationalism or nationalist feeling.

This worship of the state is absolutely unacceptable. Wayper comments, “We may very well doubt the value of a method of analysis which enables Hegel to worship the state as God and Marx to damn it as the Devil”.

In the hands of the Greek philosophers the dialectic was used for the analysis of academic issues and it had earned undiluted praise. But Hegel used it to make the German state omnipotent.

Hegel’s conception of freedom is not also above criticism. Freedom lies in the identification of the individual with the World Spirit embodied in the state. Hegel, by announcing this, denied the separate status to the individual.

Barker calls Hegelian freedom positive, creative etc. From the standpoint of philosophy both Hegel and Barker are right. But to us it is still a mystery.

How an individual will come to enjoy freedom by completely identifying himself with the state? How will he be able to get freedom by sacrificing his individuality at the later of all- embracing-Leviathan-like state? We do not deny the importance of obedience, but absolute and unconditional obedience can never constitute the foundation of freedom.

Although Hegel does not deny the right to criticize the government, in his philosophy there is no such scope.

Whom will he criticize?

What will he criticize?

The answers to all these questions are not available from the political philosophy of Hegel. The concept of God has created a lot of enthusiasm from the dawn of civilization. It is simultaneously a controversial concept.

Notwithstanding, the idea of God is live in the mind of everyone. But the tragedy is this controversial and even physically non-existent idea constitutes the central part of Hegel’s philosophy.

From the study of Hegel we come to know that God is an earthly matter and everyone can get access to it. He has unsuccessfully mixed the unreal idea with a real idea— the state. This is the greatest part of the weakness of his philosophy.

Furthermore. Hegel’s argument for absolute sovereignty both in national and international sphere if implemented will create a great damage to the survival of mankind and growth of civilization.

“The Juggernaut” writes Wayper “passing in triumph over the crushed bodies of its devotees, has become an offence to civilized consciences, and the Deity incarnate in sovereign states which are strongly attached to the practice of mutual throat-cutting and who can therefore only advance through the suicide as it were of different forms of itself, is not a Deity which can command our respect”.

Another serious allegation against Hegel is his utterances that the state, individu­als their rights and privileges are absolutely undemocratic. He vehemently opposed people’s participation in the law-making process.

He had great doubt about the consciousness and ability of persons. To allow all persons to participate in the affairs of the state is irrational.

He was the forerunner of corporate organization of modern fascist state by his emphasis that the individual should be politically articulate only as a member of the social group or class.

According to Hegel, individual as an isolated ordinary citizen had no recognition. He did not think that isolated individuals should have any importance. Hitler and Mussolini thought in the same line.

Speaking of the sovereignty of the people Hegel said, “So opposed to the sovereignty of the monarch, the sovereignty of the people is one of the confused notions based on the wild idea of the people.

Taken without its monarch and the articulation of the whole which is the indispensable and direct concomitant of monarchy the people is a formless mass and no longer a state.” The democratic doctrine that people are the state is rejected by Hegel as a “perversity” and “rule”.

Indirectly, Hegel was the believer in anarchism. How? He wanted to build up a strong state. But if all states were strong that would lead to anarchy in the international arena. All would try to exert power by virtue of sovereign authority. In support of this view we may quote Ebenstein.

“Hegel advocates the strong state- on the model of the Prussian police state of the nineteenth century. Yet when it comes to the question of how states are to live together, Hegel is an enthusiastic anarchist. In fact, he is nihilistic enough to deny relations between states have anything is common with morality such as regulates conduct between individuals”.

“Though garbed in high-sounding philosophical term, Hegel’s political theory contains all essential elements of fascism, racialism, nationalism, the leadership principle, the government by authority rather than consent, and above all, the idolization of power as the supreme test of human values”.

It is definitely not the question whether he believed in totalitarianism. But the mere fact is that his various arguments clearly state that he had sufficient weakness for an all powerful or omnipotent state and he believed that such a state could solve all the deep-rooted problems which plagued the German state from various directions. It is not important what was in his mind, it is more important what he has written.

So far we have criticized Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. But something can be said in his favour. Sehopenhauer, who released a vitriolic tirade against Hegel, even admits the importance and worth of this giant philosopher.

He has said that Hegel exerted tremendous influence on German literature. His logic and argument stupefied Germans. Even the highly educated Germans could not avoid his influence. Many have thought to combat his influence, but unfortunately none has come forward. Nobody thinks in a constructive way how to challenge the philosophy of Hegel.

The two most important ideologies of the twentieth century is communism, or, according to many, totalitarianism and fascism. Hegel is regarded as the father of these two antagonistic ideologies.

The basis of the materialistic interpretation of history is dialectic and Hegel is the modern interpreter of the dialectic method. Marx, it is true, freed dialectic from the clutches of Idea or Weltgeist, but the principle of dialectic remains the same. Marx has acknowledged his indebtedness to Hegel.

From historical materialism comes communism. Hence Hegel’s dialectic, Marx’s dialectic and communism—all are tied with the same rope. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis of Hegel are not basically different from those of Marx.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel borrowed the concept of dialectic from the Greek philosophy and applied it in the analysis of state, civil society etc.

He also explained civilization and other concepts with the help of dialectic. The central part of Hegelian dialectic is contradiction. It is interesting that Marx borrowed both dialectic and contradiction from Hegel and applied it to the interpretation of progress of society and not to the progress of Idea or Spirit.

There are also other aspects to Marx’s indebtedness to Hegel.

R. S. Peters, in his article Hegel and the Nation State, makes the following observation:

“Hegel’s concep­tion of nations as dominant expressions of what he called the self-developing self-consciousness of the world mind, was transformed by Marx into the conception of social classes fulfilling a historic mission. And just as Hegel thought that individu­al’s interests and ideals were identical with those of this state, that there could be no morality between states, and that states would be at war with each other, so Marx thought that the individual’s interests and ideals were those of his class, that there could be no morality between classes….and that class war is inevitable, the dynamic of social change”.

The influence of Hegel upon Marx is really tremendous and such an influence of one philosopher upon another is seldom found. In his Thesis on Feurbach Marx has said that philosophers have interpreted the society and history but the point is how to change it. That is, the main concern of Marx was to change the society and also the nature of history. We hold the view that both Hegel and Marx have done it.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel has interpreted the nature of history and civilization through the glasses of Idea or Reason and he has done it with the help of the instrument of dialectic.

Marx proceeds to recommend the technique of social change. In both cases, R. S Peters says, clarity and truth have been sacrificed.

Assessing Hegel’s political philosophy, Maxey observes that his views and methodology have deeply affected the social sciences. His rejection of social contract theory has opened a new gate of world-thought.

Social and political institutions including body politic are not the creation of a particular contract, that is, they are not artificial, but they are a natural growth. The contract theory dominated the political thought of Europe for several centuries.

Hegel’s rejection of social contract theory as the origin of state has created a new horizon in the realm of political science and partially other branches of social science. It is now believed that society has evolved and the evolution has brought society to the present stage. The credit for this should go to Hegel.

Both liberals and conservatives received inspiration from Hegel. The emergence of laissez-faire doctrine after the Industrial Revolution was a landmark. It assidu­ously advocated for non-intervention of the state in the economic activities of the individuals. But when the fruits of industrialization were grabbed by a microscopic faction of society and growing disparity went to the point of in-toleration a number of men pondered over how to save the society from the evil consequences of industrialisation.

At that crucial moment Hegelian theory of state appeared as a great saviour. He attributed a new role to the state as a plausible basis for programmes of reforms. He thought that the state must do something positive for general welfare. Hegel’s concept of nationalism was interpreted by conservatives as economic nationalism.

Many have interpreted his nationalism as parochial. But it can be pointed out with certainty that his nationalism was not meant for Germany alone. We may not agree with his philosophy of theory of state and conception of freedom but we must admit that he was a great patriot.

There is no shadow of doubt that the Oxford Idealist philosophers T. H. Green, Bradley and Bosanquet were in one way or other influenced by Hegel. Sabine maintains “Hegelianism was an important factor in the revision of English liberal­ism by Oxford idealists”.

English liberalism of the earlier period could not meet the demands of the post-industrial society of England. A new liberalism was needed and it was combined with idealism. A major part of Hegel’s idealism was absorbed into Oxford idealism.

Absorption of Hegelianism into idealism gave it a new philosophy. Green gave the leadership of the revision of liberalism.

Green observed that the utilitarian’s reduced the state to the status of social events. But the industrial society of Britain wanted that the state should play a more positive and constructive role.

We do not want an all embracing nature and power of state. But at the same time the state should not be a helpless spectator in the face of numerous social, political and economic issues and problems. It has something to do and idealism has said this.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a philosopher of extraordinary mind and intelligence. Schopenhauer’s estimation that he was an illiterate is absolutely baseless. Sabine observes that his mind had an extraordinary breadth of grasp.

He was mainly a philosopher, but he had clear conceptions of different branches of knowledge. He knew history and he had a good command over literature. In Hegel was united the ‘common good’ concept of Rousseau and tradition and religious vision of Burke.

Conclusion to the Political Ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel:

In the form of conclusion few more words may be said. Berki has said that Hegel’s thought “represents one of the biggest watersheds in the entire intellectual tradition.”

His “giant shadow over our horizon after 150 years.” There is an “immense influence” of Hegel’s thought on modern political thought. Berki further observes that liberalism through the views of Green, Bernard Bosanquet and some others “has absorbed into itself a large does of Hegelianism.” Even Marxian socialism is heavily indebted to Hegelianism.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel glorified the state. But what we see in the present day is nothing but Hegelian concept. The Industrial Revolution of Britain made the state powerful and she established colonies throughout the world particularly in Asia and Africa.

The United States is the most powerful state in the present world system. There is a glorification of state in the present day world system though in different form. But that is immaterial.

The Cold War or conflict between USA and erstwhile Soviet Union centred around the idea of all-powerful state. So what is the wrong with Hegel? Many critics say that Hegel was the Godfather of Hitler. But this estimation is unjustified.

If there were no Hegel, Hitler could have been a great dictator. Hitler used Hegelian theory of state in order to subterfuge his real motive. The first decade of the twenty first century has just passed and in this era we find the revival of Hegel’s glorification of state and war. In the second half of the twentieth century there was bipolarism the division of the world into two power blocks.

After the fall of Soviet Union the world came to witness the domination of a single superpower and it has come to be called “unipolarism.” Here again there is the overwhelming preponderance of a single state—USA. This particular state is controlling the military and financial affairs of the world. Most of the states of the world are—in one way or other—subservient to USA. Politically they are sovereign. But in the strictest sense of the term they are incapable to taking independent political and economic decisions.

The small and weak states of the globe are dependent on USA. Literally, none is glorifying USA. But everyone hesitates to call a spade. USA declares war and after that it justifies its action.

We blame Hegel, but are we blaming USA for its declaration of war against Iran? Hegel did not denounce war. Bernard Shaw, the top ranking member of Fabian Society, hesitated to denounce war. Why should Hegel alone be blamed?

Upload and Share Your Article: