In Defence of Hegel's Bullshit

Obviously, Hegel's clearly race-based essentialism doesn't mix well on the twenty-first century palate; however, I think it is important to give Hegel, whose work has influenced every thinker that succeded him, a second look. Unlike Bernier and Kant, Hegel at least allows for the possibility of "progress."

(Note: on many maps, the representation of Africa is drawn smaller, and the Northern Hemispher much larger, which is another act of subtle condescension. On this map, that is somewhat the case as well, however, I loved it so, there it is.)


As an 18th century idealist, he understood the world in a much different way than we do today. At that point in time, there were many philosophers who bought into the concept of historical progression; meaning, over time, with the advancement of culture and philosophy and science, society would become more and more sophistocated, resulting in an absolutely free human being at some point down the line. Thinkers like Francis Bacon--the dude who said "Knoweldge is Power" and believed it literally--calculated this progression from a perspecitve of Cultural Universalism. (In other words, they thought their culture was the culture.) Under this dogmatic metaphysics, epistemology, and ontology, ect., these thinkers did not allow for multiplicity, or variation--there is one truth, one god, and one way to live. Thus, when a dude like Hegel looks down from his high horse, not realizing it isn't high at all but on a horizon, he does so with paternalism, condescension, and a blase attitude toward African people becauce of their difference. (I hesitated to even use the word African, because clearly, at the time, the people signified by that word did not understand themselves to be within such a category, so using it, in a certain way, reinforces the same kind of paternalism that we are trying to undermine in class).

To emphasize this point, I wanted to include a short excerpt from a novella entitled, The Heart of Darkness, written by Joseph Conrad.

"Now when I was a little chap I had a passion for maps. I would look for hours at South America, or Africa, or Australia, and lose myself in all the glories of exploration. At that time, there were many blank spaces on the earth, an dwhen I saw one that looked particularly inviting on a map (but they all look that) I would put my finger on it and say, When I grow up I will go there. The North Pole was one of these places, I remember. Well, I haven't been there yet, and shall not try now. The glamour's off. Other places were scattered about the Equator, and in every sort of lattitude all over the two hemispheres. I have been in some of them, and . . . well, we won't talk about that. But there was one yet--the biggest, the most blank, so to speak--that I had a hankering after"(42 Conrad, emphasis added).

Told within a Frame Narrative, this paragraph comes from a vagabond sailor called Marlow, who is reflecting upon his youth. As a young boy--white, male, and European--he already sensed the power of his priviladge--he could literally go anywhere in the world he wished. From the Western vantage point, explorers literally brought these "blank spaces" into existance within the collective consciousness of their respective countries; the whole concept of "discovery" presupposes that no person had ever been to the place being discovered, when in fact families, communities, people, lived there for centuries, living, dying, thriving, struggling, long before any European "discovered" their land. Undoubtedly, Hegel shared this same sense of empowerment, same sense of self-righteousness. He used that hubris to justify an oversimplified, mean, and unanalytic description of Africa, which I, and anyone who reads it, ought (some things are just true) to find despicable. That same attitude, for generations, justfied colonization, forced-assimlation, slavery, and genocide. Luckily, we are in an age now that recognizes the value in difference; however, there are still lingering palimsets of paternalism, and lingering vesiges of a terribly dehumanzing outlook. Even now, the Western world fails to recognize the contingency of its perspective, or the value of respect, recognition, and kindness for other cultures unlike its own.

In what ways do the conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa parrallel acts of colonization and emperialism? How can we, as an American population, go about building a relationship with foriegn countries that does not in any way efface, ignore, or underestimate the irrefutable damage that the Western powers inflicted, and continue to inflict, upon them? Is such a relationship possible? How do things like community service, missionary groups, and aid organziations go about helping communities in need without reestablishing this paternal diametric?