The Six Test Questions for Part IX
This text is a preview of History of the Reception of Hegel, volume II, to be published in 2026 by Reflexivity Press.
1. Which texts of Hegel’s were read? Mostly none directly. The new thematic fields developed out of their own traditions: cybernetics, biology, linguistics, computer science. Where Hegel was cited, it was mostly mediated – through Marx (feminism, postcolonialism), through Critical Theory (ecology), through Kojève (Butler).
2. Were the logical foundations understood? Implicitly yes, explicitly rarely. The structures were rediscovered but not recognized as Hegelian. Luhmann, for example, developed a theory of self-referential systems – while simultaneously criticizing Hegel for an “old-European” philosophy of the subject.
3. Was a distinction drawn between A-structures and B-forms? Yes – but with the opposite sign from postmodernism. The new thematic fields criticized Hegel’s B-forms (Eurocentrism, androcentrism, anthropocentrism) while retaining his A-structures (self-reference, mediation, recognition) – often without knowing it.
4. What was justified in the new themes? A great deal:
- The critique of the subject showed: the “universal subject” was particular
- Complexity theory showed: order arises from below, not from above
- Media theory showed: immediacy is an illusion
- The AI debate showed: thinking is not confined to carbon
5. What was missed? The connection to Hegel was mostly never made. The new thematic fields often understood themselves as anti-Hegelian (Luhmann, Deleuze) or a-Hegelian (cybernetics, cognitive science), even though they rediscovered Hegelian structures.
6. What can we learn? That Hegel’s structures are more robust than his content. The A-structures (self-reference, mediation, emergence, recognition) reappear everywhere – in biology, sociology, computer science, cultural theory. They are not “idealist speculation,” but describe real structures of reality.