Re: FW: [xmca] Arne Raeithel's "genealogy"

You have a point Greg. Hegel most certainly read Rousseau.
The famed master-servant narrative is a kind of parody on
Rousseau's state of nature. Hegel's theory of the state was
also built in opposition to the Contrat social. But to say
that Hegel built his theory in opposition to Rousseau is not
to deny that Rousseau was an inspiration and a source for
Hegel. ROusseau was the premier philosopher of the French
Revolution and Classical German Philosophy arose as a direct
response to the French Revolution. What has to be kept in
mind though is that the ideas for which Hegel is remembered
begin from the aftermath of Roberspierre's Terror. The sight
of the entire cultured classes of France going under the
guillotine was not welcomed by educated Germans, even though
they became supporters of Napoleon.

Rousseau if of course also noted for his writings on the
raising of children.

My only problem is that I keep sending Bruce updated
versions. I'll try to slip in Rousseau.

Andy

Gregory Allan Thompson wrote:
> As for the Frenchies, I think Durkheim, in The Elementary
> Forms of Religious Life, has an argument that is in striking
> parallel to Vygotsky's arguments about the way that culture
> ratchets up the individual (to use words I've read Tomasello
> use). It is in the introduction, I think, where Durkheim says
> something about the "congealed forces" that are contained in
> culture. Furthermore, Durkheim's book presents an argument
> that is essentially the same argument as Hegel's, in that both
> present a social ontology of the subject. For an overview and
> for how this most important argument has been neglected - see
> Ann(e?) Rawls' paper "Durkheim's epistemology : The neglected
> argument". But aside from drawing parallels, I can't speak to
> how Durkheim might have influenced CHAT.
>
> But in a related line, I wanted to make the case for Rousseau
> before Hegel. Having recently read/taught Rousseau, (Smith),
> Hegel, and then Marx, in that order, I was really struck by
> the links between Hegel's (/Marx's) and Rousseau's ideas. Let
> me make the argument here and let you decide whether there is
> a there there and it's not just that I'm reading Hegel back
> into Rousseau.
>
> There are three places of connection: the notion of radical
> historical breaks having a transformative effect upon the
> individual (i.e., making a new type of individual possible);
> the notion of private property as a socially mediated moment
> and a moment which transforms the possibilities of the
> individual; and third, the notion that man in society lives
> "in the eyes of his fellow men" (compare to Hegel's notion of
> "recognition"). The first comes through in his "Discourse on
> the ARts and Sciences" and more so in his "Discourse on
> Inequality". Unfortunately people read him upside down as if
> he is arguing that civilization corrupts society (hence "the
> noble savage"), when what he is really saying, imho (and in
> the opinion of many others), is that when man enters into
> society, man is transformed from a being for whom morality and
> corruption are irrelevant and into a being for whom these
> things are real. I take this idea of historical contingency to
> be a central theme for Hegel and for Marx, and this notion of
> phylogenetic history is what Vygotsky takes up in his history
> of ontogenetic development. So Rousseaus seems particularly
> important to Vygotsky by three degrees of separation.
>
> At the same time, I should mention that I haven't documented
> this linkage in material terms (don't know if Hegel would have
> read Rousseau) even in a circumstantial way (i.e., I can't
> even say that he "likely" would have read Rousseau). I'll
> raise this at the next staff meeting to see if anyone has any
> thoughts/knowledge about whether or not Hegel read Rousseau.
> I'm particularly interested in it because I have been trying
> to figure out ways to link up Hegel and Durkheim in their
> oddly similar nnotion of a social ontology of the subject (as
> mentioned above). They seem so dissimilar in their backgrounds
> that it seems odd that they would engage with such a similar
> argument (and my sources tell me that it is unlikely that
> Durkheim would have read Hegel, given D's time and place).
>
> In light of this, I would propose Rousseau as a figure in the
> French milieu but probably without a direct line to Hegel -
> unless anyone has evidence that can draw this line for us? (or
> refute Rousseau's influence on Hegel, Marx, and Vygotsky
> altogether).
>
> -greg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Greg Thompson
> Ph.D. Candidate
> The Department of Comparative Human Development
> The University of Chicago
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, 
Ilyenkov $20 ea
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca