The Movement of the Whole
This text is a preview of History of the Reception of Hegel, volume II, to be published in 2026 by Reflexivity Press.
We stand at the end of a 44-year period that transformed philosophy more fundamentally than any epoch since Hegel’s death. The question with which we began was: Can one still read Hegel after Auschwitz? The answer that has developed through the 23 chapters of this volume is complex: Yes—but not as before.
Hegel was politicized. The Western bloc read him through the lens of totalitarianism critique, the Eastern bloc through that of historical materialism, the Third World through that of decolonization. These three readings did not coexist peacefully—they fought each other, excluded each other, each claiming to be the true interpretation of Hegel.
Hegel was regionalized. What had been primarily a German-French affair in the 19th century now became global—but in fragmented fashion. Each bloc, each region, each ideological current developed its own image of Hegel, often without knowing of the others, mostly without communicating with one another.
Hegel was fragmented. The postmodernism of the 1970s and 1980s shattered the idea of a comprehensive view, a totality, a synthesis. What remained were fragments—recognition without system, dialectic without reconciliation, negativity without sublation.
But at the same time—and this is the dialectical point—Hegel was confirmed. Not in his content, not in his philosophy of history, not in his theory of the state. But in his structures. Self-reference, dialectic, recognition, mediation, emergence—these structures were rediscovered in entirely different contexts: in cybernetics, in systems theory, in complexity research, in neuroscience, in AI research. Often without Hegel being cited. Often without the discoverers knowing that they were rediscovering Hegelian structures.
The movement of the whole was thus paradoxical: Hegel was negated and preserved at the same time—exactly as his own method prescribes. Sublation had become real.