Hegel vs. Girard on Human Nature
Which Account Do You Prefer?
Both Hegel and Girard believe that human relationships are inherently conflictual, competitive.
Hegel, however, believes that all relationship struggles are fundamentally struggles for recognition. I want you to recognize my humanity and you the same. In his account, history progresses to a resolution of this conflict, but only by undergoing a master-slave dialectic, in which one person tries to subjugate the other. The only reason this story has a happy ending is because the master doesn’t get what he wants from the slave; it turns out being dominant is over-rated, since true recognition can only come from reciprocity between equals. Initially, “Man is a wolf to man”—as the proverb goes—but eventually Buber’s vision of the I-Thou relationship prevails. Being a wolf proves to be unsustainable.
For Girard, by contrast, we want what others have—simply because they have it. If a person picks up a worthless stone and starts enjoying it, I will want the stone. Scarcity isn’t a fact about the world, but of human psychology, which is endlessly capable of envy no matter how much abundance there is.
Girard’s thought is a cousin of Hegel’s, except that it’s more pessimistic. Envy can’t be resolved; scapegoating is inevitable. Desire is fundamentally mimetic, which means that equality and reciprocity aren’t possible at some theoretical end of history. Instead of a logical resolution of the problem, as Hegel supplies, Girard has to turn to Christian theology, making Jesus’s death on the cross a sacrifice intended to absorb and redirect human evil.
If you follow Hegel to his conclusion, what humans fundamentally want is to feel like equals—and the best way to grant this in theory is through something like the socially democratic state.
If you follow Girard, though, the human need is not to be equal, but to be superior. Equality between people can be achieved only if there is some person or some group who is excluded.
The Hegelian story is obviously more optimistic and idealistic, but which do you think is more accurate? Can the two stories be reconciled? Or do you have a different account of human nature.
In case you missed yesterday’s question, here it is.
Also, check out my thread in tribute to Walter Benjamin
What is Called Thinking? is a practice of asking a daily question on the belief that self-reflection brings awe, joy, and enrichment to one’s life. Consider becoming a subscriber to support this project and access subscriber-only content.
You can read my weekly Torah commentary here.