Re: [xmca] ego, self, etc.

From: Martin Packer <packer who-is-at>
Date: Mon Feb 04 2008 - 18:44:58 PST

This seems to suggest that Marx knew the Phenomenology well, even if the
influence of the master-slave section is not established:



On 2/4/08 4:41 PM, "Andy Blunden" <> wrote:

> I would be interested to hear from anyone who knows about the reception of
> Hegel in Russia.
> In English, you will not find The Phenomenology of Spirit taken seriously
> or the Master-Slave dialectic more than mentioned until after the French
> have gone crazy over it after WW2; the French only get enthusiastic over
> the master-slave as a result of Hypollite's new translation in the 1930s,
> having previously only had access to very poor translations of Hegel's
> Logic. Marx emphasises the importance of the Phenomenology in his 1844
> manuscripts but I see no evidence that he paid much attention to it later
> or in fact that he ever read the master-slave section. The Hegel that is
> most apparent in Marx is Hegel's early work (though I don't know if Marx
> could have read it, it may be a case of "great minds think alike") and
> Hegel's work on history and law, etc. and the Logic.
> It is very easy to forget, given the prominence that the French gave to the
> Master-Slave dialectic, that so far as I know, no-one paid much attention
> to it before 1937. But maybe it was different in Russia? Plekhanov will be
> the one. I'm just reading LSV's Psychology of Art at the moment, and he
> quotes "Plekhanov" on Art in what is virtually a quotation from Hegel's
> Lectures on Aesthetics. Lenin certainly never read the Phenomenology.
> Andy
> At 03:37 PM 4/02/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>> Paul,
>> Yes, each step in the education of consciousness can only be accomplished in
>> relation with others, and/or in societal institutions. The master/slave
>> dialectic has certainly been one of the most influential of Hegel's
>> contributions, and I'm sure Bourdieu had it in mind.
>> I'm especially partial to those analyses of this part of Hegel's
>> phenomenology that view it not simply as the stage where a person becomes
>> self-aware, but the stage where something we can call a self is *created*
>> for the first time.
>> What influence do you think this had on Vygotsky? His 'Educational
>> Psychology' contains much reference to the importance of interpersonal
>> conflict in development. Elsewhere too?
>> I've explored this somewhat in a paper: Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J.
>> (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not
>> just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 227-241.
>> Martin
>> On 2/2/08 11:47 PM, "Paul Dillon" <> wrote:
>>> But I have a problem with your interpretation of the passage from sense
>>> certainty to more developed forms of consciousness. As I read what
>> you've
>>> written, the dimension of violence in the process is totally absent.
>>> Violence plays a very important role in Hegel's dialectic and at two
>> totally
>>> crucial points of transition: the first being that of the Master-Slave
>>> dialectic, in which the problem of solipsism is resolved through the
>>> subordination of one "self-consciousness" to another.
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
> Andy Blunden : tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
> mobile 0409 358 651
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list
Received on Mon Feb 4 18:47 PST 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 08:03:11 PDT