Let me briefly review what those of you who covered this topic in a philosophy class probably remember. There are two figures, let’s call A and B. Both A and B have consciousnesses that are developing and part of the stage of A’s consciousness is the realization that in the B’s eyes, A is not special. In fact, A realizes that according to B, A is simply another object in the universe that is not B, just as for A, B is another object in the universe that has consciousness that is not A. Furthermore, both A and B realize that they are both motivated by desire, a desire that is dangerous and threatens their independence. Indeed, this threat to their independence is so great, that A and B resolve to kill each other and what is more to risk death in order to kill each other. There is a fight, but neither dies because A enslaves B. A then forces B to do all the work. As a result, A becomes both lazy and disconnected from the development of consciousness that he had previously been on. However, B does not. Instead, B continues this development, but not because he has the leisure for self-reflection, but because B’s work becomes an extension of his consciousness. As a result, B has the ability to grasp the truth of the situation and to overthrow A.
Alright, now let’s talk about the context of this passage within the Phenomenology of Spirit. First I have to admit that I cheated in the summary. I used A and B as if those terms referred to two men. However, this obscures one of the aspects of Hegel’s book that makes it so challenging: Hegel simultaneously provides an account of the development of individual consciousness, the consciousness of civilizations, and the world consciousness. That is, for Hegel there is a World Spirit that both our minds and our actions participate in during the passage of history and in the passage of our lives. As a result, it’s important to remember that for Hegel, it’s always History with a capital “H”, for the good reason that it is going somewhere quite interesting, unlike history a lower-case “h” which is simply one damn thing after another.
This teleological conception of history helps explain the conflict between the master and the bondsman. Hegel doesn’t turn away from the awful events in history, in part because it is necessary to examine them in order to understand the direction of history. But after examining them, Hegel has to work in these awful events into the development of truth and freedom. Indeed, Hegel does see as part of the work of history as the increase of freedom. But if that is happening, how to explain slavery?
The implication of this passage - although to be fair to Hegel he by no means demands or even suggests that we should use this passage in such a way – is that it explains the development of consciousness and the eventual increase of freedom that occurs amidst mass enslavement. It also does the work of explaining how the development of consciousness occurs outside the context of cultural and political elites, people that Hegel is often quite happy to focus on (Hegel saw Napoleon ride through his hometown of Jena and then remarked that he saw the world spirit on horseback). Let’s look at Hegel’s description of how the lord and the bondsman have different relationships to work: “the bondsman, qua self-consciousness in general, also relates himself negatively to the thing, and takes away its independence; but at the same time the thing is independent viz. the bondsman, whose negating of it, therefore, cannot go to the length of being altogether done with it to the point of annihilation; in other words, he only works on it. For the lord, on the other hand, the immediate relation becomes through this mediation the sheer negation of the thing, or the enjoyment of it… The aspect of independence he leaves to the bondsman, who works on it.” (§190, trans. AV Miller)
In other words, Hegel sees work, presumably including anything from farming to making horseshoes (it’s possible that affective labor could also work here, but I’m not sure) as an avenue of exercising consciousness. Indeed, for Hegel it is impossible to get at this consciousness merely through oversight, one has to do it. And again, remember that this work is happening in an overtly antagonistic setting: the lord has enslaved the bondsman.
The obvious implication is that we can take this description as a model for how slaves and masters related to each through work in antiquity. But as I hope to explore tomorrow, the context of Hegel’s work means that such a reductive use of work is misleading.