Frequently Asked Questions: Politics and Accusations
Back to the overview of all questions.
Was Hegel the State Philosopher of Prussia?
He was a professor in Berlin and made no secret of it. Whether he justified the Prussian state is another question.
The Philosophy of Right appeared in 1820, two years after the Carlsbad Decrees, under censorship. Its preface contains sentences that can be read as currying favor. Its content, however, demands things that did not exist in Prussia: trial by jury, public proceedings, representation by estates, freedom of the press within limits. The state Hegel develops is a constitutional monarchy — Prussia was an absolute one.
His monarch has little to do: he dots the i, signs what the administration has prepared. This is not a glorification of the crown but its disempowerment through incorporation into an order.
Whoever nonetheless reads him as an apologist must explain why, after his death, the Prussian government dissolved his school and removed his students from the universities.
Continue: The State · Commentary on the Philosophy of Right
“What is actual is rational” — does that mean everything that exists is good?
No, and the sentence says something other than what it seems to say.
For Hegel, “actuality” is a technical term, not a word for everything that happens to occur. What is actual is what corresponds to its concept — a state that is really a state, not merely an apparatus of power that calls itself one. What fails to meet this standard is, for him, mere existence, and the sentence says nothing about existence.
Hegel himself made this clear in the Encyclopedia: no one, he said, could fail to notice that much of what exists is at the same time merely apparent, contingent, and rotten.
The second half of the sentence is usually left out: “what is rational is actual.” This is not conservatism but its opposite — what corresponds to reason asserts itself.
Continue: Actuality · Commentary on the Logic
Was Hegel a Forerunner of Totalitarianism?
The charge dates from the Second World War, and it does not hold up under scrutiny.
Popper raised it in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies: Hegel, he claimed, had deified the state and paved the way for fascism. The evidence consists of quotations that are in part composite, in part torn from context — this has been demonstrated in the scholarship and is conceded even by Popper’s defenders.
On the substance, what tells against the charge is that Hegel’s state rests on rights that no totalitarian system tolerates: property, freedom of conscience, choice of profession, judicial review.
On National Socialism in particular. Its doctrine rests on two propositions, both incompatible with Hegel. The first divides humanity into biological races — Hegel nowhere names physical characteristics as an explanatory ground, and in the Phenomenology he takes apart the doctrines that attempt this. The second places deed and force above law and reason — Hegel makes respect for codified law the touchstone of whether a people has attained political maturity.
To this must be added what he takes over from Christianity and the French Revolution: the concept of the human being as such. In the Philosophy of Right he writes that it no longer matters whether someone is called a Frenchman, a German, a Jew, or an Italian — this has been sublated in that concept.
This does not settle the history of Hegel’s reception: through Marx, Hegel influenced movements that became totalitarian. But an effect is not an intention, and whoever holds thinkers liable for their successors would have to do the same with Rousseau, Nietzsche, and Kant.
Continue reading: Popper and the Open Society · The State
For anyone who wants to pursue the charges in detail: the history of reception includes an excursus on the intellectual-historical roots of fascism. It works through nine thinkers, from Gobineau to Heidegger — with Hegel as the supposed one among them.
A second question is how Hegel’s readers actually behaved. An excursus on the Hegelians under National Socialism traces this — down to Adam von Trott zu Solz, who grounded his resistance in that same philosophy and was executed for it.
Did Hegel claim there was an “end of history”?
Not in the sense the phrase is usually taken to mean.
Hegel says that history is progress in the consciousness of freedom, and that by his time this progress had reached a point at which the principle of freedom is recognized. He does not say that nothing happens anymore.
He even says the opposite explicitly: every philosophy is its own time comprehended in thought, and no one can think beyond their own time. At the end of his lectures, he sends the students out into the world to keep working there — which would make no sense if everything were already concluded.
The familiar version of the “end of history” comes from Kojève and Fukuyama, not from Hegel.
Next: World History · Is Hegel’s system complete?
Was Hegel a German Nationalist?
No — the very precondition for nationalism in the later sense is absent in him.
The nationalism of the nineteenth century founds states on descent, language, and ethnic identity (Volkstum). Hegel’s state is founded on right: it is the existence of freedom, and whoever lives within it is a person, not a fellow member of a Volk. The determinations of the Philosophy of Right apply to human beings, not to Germans.
He even explicitly opposed the ethnic-nationalist (völkisch) current of his time. His quarrel with Fries, the spokesman of the Burschenschaften (the nationalist student fraternities), was precisely about this — and it was Fries, not Hegel, who combined hostility to Jews with German ethnic chauvinism.
That Hegel assigns the Prussian state a role in world history is a different matter: it follows from his construction, not from ethnic belonging. The Greeks and Romans had held the same role before it.
Continue: The State · World History
Did Hegel Glorify War?
No, but his statements on the subject are uncomfortable, and one should not explain them away.
Hegel treats war as a fact of history and refuses to dismiss it as simply an evil. He describes what it brings about: he shows that property and life are finite, and binds people to something that reaches beyond their private concerns. In this sense he speaks of its ethical significance.
This is not a recommendation. Hegel nowhere calls for war, does not consider it desirable, and demands that it be waged within limits — prisoners of war are to be spared, civilians are not to be attacked, peace remains the goal. The idea that a state should seek war in order to renew itself is not his.
Even so, something remains that one must simply bear: whoever interprets war ethically gives it a meaning it does not have for those who suffer it. This has been held against Hegel, and rightly so.
Continue: External Constitutional Law · World History
Is master and slave the eternal relationship between human beings?
No — in Hegel it is a stage that is overcome.
The section appears in the Phenomenology and spans only a few pages. It shows how two self-consciousnesses encounter one another, how one submits — and how the relationship reverses: through labor, the servant gains a relation to the object that the master lacks. In the end, neither is free, and the relationship falls apart.
The extraordinary influence of this section goes back to Kojève, who in 1930s Paris declared it the key to the whole philosophy. Through him it influenced Sartre, Lacan, Fanon. That is a substantial history of influence — but it says more about the readers than about Hegel’s own emphasis.
Anyone who reads the Philosophy of Right no longer finds this relationship: there, slavery is wrong because a human being, as a person, cannot be a thing.
Next: The Phenomenology · Kojève and the French Interpretation
Was Hegel Patriarchal?
In his statements about women: yes, and this should not be glossed over.
He assigns the family to woman and the state and science to man, and he grounds this in an alleged natural disposition. The comparison he chooses for this—plant and animal—is condescending even by the standards of his own time.
What is notable is that the opposing position had already been worked out. Theodor Gottlieb von Hippel published Über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Weiber (On the Civil Improvement of Women) in 1792—within the circle around Condorcet and the circle around Paine, Godwin, and Wollstonecraft, whose Vindication appeared in the same year. Hippel opens with the statement that men and women are equal, and even among the well-disposed this was rare at the time.
Hegel knew this circle. He is thus not simply a child of his time: he had a choice, and he decided otherwise.
But as with his statements about Africa, the following holds: his own concepts speak against him. Whoever conceives freedom as the determination of spirit and recognition as its condition cannot exclude half of humanity from it without contradicting himself. This is precisely how Hegel has been read from a feminist standpoint—against his own sentences, with his own tools.
Continue: The Family · Recognition
What About Hegel’s Statements on Africa?
They are the gravest charge against him, and one must know them. But they are something other than what they are usually taken for.
In the Lectures on the Philosophy of History there are statements about Africa that follow the prejudices of his time and in part go beyond them. They rest on travel reports that he took over without checking them.
What they target. What Hegel condemns in Africa in 1830 is slavery — and specifically the slavery existing there, not merely the European kind. According to his sources, the entire continent was pervaded by the relation of master and servant, without a state having emerged in which freedom takes on institutional form. His judgment hangs on this.
What does not appear in it: race. Hegel never invokes physical characteristics as an explanatory ground. On the contrary: in the Phenomenology he takes apart phrenology and physiognomy — the doctrines that seek to infer the inner from the outer — with considerable sharpness. Whoever wants to read character from the shape of the skull, he says there, turns spirit into bone.
And his standard applies equally to all: every people has passed through the relation of master and servant, none has fully overcome it, and each can overcome it. This is a matter of degree, not of origin.
Haiti. The passage that weighs most heavily against the charge stands in these same lectures. Hegel writes that one cannot deny Africans the capacity for education — they had adopted the principles of Christianity, spoken movingly of the freedom they thereby gained after years of spiritual bondage, and in Haiti even formed a state according to these principles.
He means the revolution under Toussaint Louverture: the only slave uprising in history from which a state emerged. Hegel speaks of it with recognition, and at a time when the European powers were isolating Haiti. Someone who considers a group of people naturally incapable does not speak of them this way.
Peter Anton von Arnim, who worked out this passage in his essay Hegel Against Racism, also names the reason why the question matters: it is not about salvaging Hegel’s honor, but about defending the dialectic against those who reject it. If the method led to racism, the method would be worthless — and Hegel himself would have objected to separating method from result.
What remains. The sources were poor, the judgment hasty, and the statements have had an effect. That is an error in substance and not to be excused — but it is not racism; it is a false application of his own standard. Hegel’s concepts speak against these passages, not for them, and anticolonial thinkers have turned his analysis of mastery and servitude against him.
Furthermore: the lectures are not authorized texts but transcripts, which his student Gans assembled into a book. This mitigates nothing, but it explains why some formulations read differently across different years.
Continue: World History · Master and Servant · Hegel Against Racism (French)
Was Hegel Eurocentric?
He was freedom-centric, and that is something else.
His standard is not origin but the degree to which freedom has become real in an order. By this standard he would prefer any nation in the world that stood further along that path — and he did so wherever he found it: Greece over Persia, Rome over Greece.
That he saw Europe as furthest ahead after the French Revolution follows from this standard and from what he could know. His sources were those of the Berlin of 1830, and he updated them semester by semester as new ones appeared.
One can criticize these sources, and with them his judgment. That is fair and was in his own spirit: he understood the philosophy of history as scientific work, whose results are to be corrected once the foundation changes. What is harder to hold against him is his readiness to draw far-reaching conclusions from narrow reports.
Next: World History
Was Hegel a Christian?
He believed himself to be one, and the Church disagreed.
Hegel described his philosophy as divine service and treats Christianity as the absolute religion — the one in which God is no longer something beyond, but becomes man. The Trinity is, for him, the correct representation of what logic develops conceptually.
He insists only that representation and concept are different forms of the same content — and that philosophy is the higher of the two. This means religion is sublated: preserved and surpassed at once.
Both sides found this too little. To the orthodox he counted as a pantheist, because his God does not exist separately from the world; to the rationalists he counted as a theologian, because he spoke of God where they said reason. After his death his school split apart on precisely this question.
Continue: Religion · The Hegelian School
Why is Hegel so thoroughly misunderstood?
Three reasons converge, and the second is the most consequential.
Language. Hegel uses technical terms from Wolff’s metaphysics and Kant’s critique, reworked by contemporaries who are barely read today — Reinhold, Jacobi, Hamann. His readers in 1820 were familiar with them; we are not. On top of this, he stretches his sentence structure because the ordinary form is not enough for what he wants to say. Clarity was not his strength, neither in print nor in the lecture hall.
In other languages, translation adds a further layer. Reliable English editions of the major works were long unavailable; anyone studying Hegel often read a version that was already an interpretation.
The architecture of the argument. Hegel presents a position by penetrating it from within — he accepts its premises and shows where it contradicts itself. Anyone who reads only one section takes what is being presented as his own opinion.
For him, an intermediate result is never the result. It belongs to the result, but it is not the same thing — and this is precisely where most of the quotations used against him arise.
Add to this the concept of sublation [Aufhebung], which is rarely read in its full sense: sometimes as mere reconciliation with what has been overcome, sometimes as its elimination. That both are meant at once — overcoming and preserving — is usually lost.
Political appropriation. During his lifetime, German nationalists attacked him for his lack of patriotism, while conservatives despised him for his closeness to the French Revolution. After his death, he served the liberal youth before 1848 as a banner and the emerging labor movement as a target. Under Bismarck he was nearly forgotten. In the First World War he was declared an expression of the German will to power; in the Second, a forerunner of National Socialism.
Each of these attributions contradicts the previous one. This is no accident: whoever needs a philosophy as a weapon does not read it.
Next: Common misunderstandings of the Logic · The impact
Back to the overview of all questions · onward to the impact