Examines Hegel’s unique understanding and assessment of capitalism as an economic, social, and cultural phenomenon.

This article aims to shed light on Hegel's conception of colonialism and its implications for the postcolonial reception of Hegel. Drawing on the abundant literature on the topic, it begins by engaging with Hegel's understanding of colonialism through a close reading of relevant passages of his works, in particular the Heidelberg Vorlesungen über Naturrecht und Staatswissenschaft (1817–18), the Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts (1821), the Vorlesungen über die Philosophie des Rechts (1819/20, 1821/22, 1822/23, 1824/25) and the Vorlesungen über die Philosophie (...) der Weltgeschichte (1822/23, 1830). Having mapped and reconstructed Hegel's conception of colonialism through his writings and lectures, the article argues that his account of Europe's modern colonial expansion is based primarily on economic considerations, rather than on civilizational assumptions proclaiming the spiritual superiority of European peoples—to which Hegel nevertheless subscribes. The conclusion explores distinct and divergent postcolonial perspectives for engaging with the contemporary legacy of Hegelianism. It addresses, on the one hand, Tibebu's critical reading of Hegel's philosophical enterprise as ‘the coldest rationalisation of genocidal murder and carnage’ based on ‘paradigmatic apartheid’ and, on the other, Brennan's redemptive reading of Hegel, which values his theoretical contribution to the shaping of 20th century anticolonial thought. After contrasting these two interpretations, the article argues in favour of postcolonial strategies for critical reappropriation and sabotage of the legacy of Hegel's philosophy. (shrink)

Con el §187 de los Lineamientos de la Filosofía del Derecho, Hegel abre un tema también importante para comprender las sociedades capitalistas contemporáneas: ¿Cómo cambia la subjetividad humana, ¿cómo se forma bajo la dirección de una forma social de relación jurídicamente se rige por los principios del individuo privado y de la propiedad y está determinada económicamente por la producción de bienes? Hegel constata una relación dialéctica característica entre los fines de los individuos por un lado y los medios disponibles (...) para ellos en la forma de su propiedad o no-propiedad respectiva. Mientras que estos medios y, por tanto, las relaciones económicas con otros sujetos, desde un punto de vista subjetivo, sólo tienen la posición de medios para sus propios fines privados, a la inversa, el uso de estos medios en las relaciones sociales convierte al individuo en portador de una función de un contexto social, Hegel lo describe como “fin objetivo”, en la medida en que no existe como un fin perseguido conscientemente, sino como un sistema de dependencia mutua de los sujetos privados entre sí. Este escrito investiga esta relación dialéctica con la ayuda de tres preguntas específicas, a saber: ¿Cómo se aplica esta relación en primer lugar al campo de las necesidades humanas, en segundo lugar al campo del trabajo humano y en tercer lugar a la riqueza y la pobreza en las sociedades burguesas? El escrito viene, en parte con Hegel, en parte yendo más allá de él, a la conclusión de que, con todo el desarrollo de las necesidades, con todo el progreso técnico en la producción y con todo el crecimiento de los activos que produce el “sistema de las necesidades”, no tenemos frente a nosotros una historia exitosa de la libertad humana para todos. (shrink)

En este artículo abordaremos el problema de la relación entre el Estado y el capital como una disputa abierta en la modernidad entre la política y la economía. Desde la perspectiva de la filosofía hegeliana de la historia y el derecho, analizaremos la manera en la que la economía tiende en su proceso estructural de expansión espacial global a subsumir y subordinar las funciones administrativas y jurídicas de las formas estatales previas al ciclo sistémico inglés de acumulación capitalista. Para esto (...) analizaremos primero la conceptualización hegeliana de la economía política, para después exponer la manera específica en que esta se traduce en una forma de comportamiento global determinado por los procesos de distribución diferencial del capital y así, finalmente, abordar la manera en la que la economía cumple sus funciones determinantes en la conformación del mercado mundial y la historia universal, teniendo siempre como referencia directa el tiempo histórico en el cual Hegel desarrolló sus reflexiones filosóficas sobre la economía. (shrink)

Although Hegel is increasingly recognized as an important figure in the history of political economy, his economic views are never strictly economic. In contrast to other modern thinkers, his primary concern is not the economic efficacy of different practices or institutions but the extent to which they enable and promote the development of human freedom. In this article, I argue that Hegel's pioneering critique of modern liberal economy plays out simultaneously at a more empirical level, corresponding to the properly economic (...) dimension of his analysis, and at a deeper, logical level, which grounds and guides his position. Moreover, I argue that the tendency to favour the first of these levels, found in most of the literature on Hegel's economic thought, reduces the Philosophy of Right's main argument to a more or less vigorous plea for economic interventionism. Against this kind of reading, I show that a renewed focus on the text's logical structure reveals a different and more radical philosophical proposition, which has yet to be fully acknowledged. In particular, I argue that Hegel's dialectical logic leads him beyond the liberalism‐interventionism debate, towards a qualitatively different conception of social and economic relations. (shrink)

Although Hegel is increasingly recognized as an important figure in the history of political economy, his economic views are never strictly economic. In contrast to other modern thinkers, his primary concern is not the economic efficacy of different practices or institutions but the extent to which they enable and promote the development of human freedom. In this article, I argue that Hegel's pioneering critique of modern liberal economy plays out simultaneously at a more empirical level, corresponding to the properly economic (...) dimension of his analysis, and at a deeper, logical level, which grounds and guides his position. Moreover, I argue that the tendency to favour the first of these levels, found in most of the literature on Hegel's economic thought, reduces the Philosophy of Right's main argument to a more or less vigorous plea for economic interventionism. Against this kind of reading, I show that a renewed focus on the text's logical structure reveals a different and more radical philosophical proposition, which has yet to be fully acknowledged. In particular, I argue that Hegel's dialectical logic leads him beyond the liberalism‐interventionism debate, towards a qualitatively different conception of social and economic relations. (shrink)

Although Hegel is increasingly recognized as an important figure in the history of political economy, his economic views are never strictly economic. In contrast to other modern thinkers, his primary concern is not the economic efficacy of different practices or institutions but the extent to which they enable and promote the development of human freedom. In this article, I argue that Hegel's pioneering critique of modern liberal economy plays out simultaneously at a more empirical level, corresponding to the properly economic (...) dimension of his analysis, and at a deeper, logical level, which grounds and guides his position. Moreover, I argue that the tendency to favour the first of these levels, found in most of the literature on Hegel's economic thought, reduces the Philosophy of Right's main argument to a more or less vigorous plea for economic interventionism. Against this kind of reading, I show that a renewed focus on the text's logical structure reveals a different and more radical philosophical proposition, which has yet to be fully acknowledged. In particular, I argue that Hegel's dialectical logic leads him beyond the liberalism‐interventionism debate, towards a qualitatively different conception of social and economic relations. (shrink)

En el presente artículo se realiza un análisis de ciertas instituciones fundamentales para la mediación entre el Estado y la sociedad civil, según los Principios de la Filosofía del Derecho de Hegel. Dicho análisis se limita a la esfera privada de la sociedad civil, y por ello se explica especialmente el carácter mediador del sistema de las necesidades, de los estamentos sociales y de la corporación. Se aborda la sociedad civil hegeliana desde el punto de vista del interés privado y, (...) consecuentemente, se analiza, en primer lugar, el sistema de las necesidades y, en segundo lugar, la corporación. El análisis del sistema de las necesidades conduce a desarrollar la mediación del trabajo, de los estamentos sociales y del papel que cumplen en la sociedad civil la administración de justicia y la “policía”, de acuerdo con la Rechtsphilosophie hegeliana. Por su parte, la presentación de la corporación como mediación ética en la esfera privada, lleva a explicar el tipo de reconocimiento intersubjetivo que se produce en este ámbito, así como también la dimensión política intrínseca a la práctica corporativa. (shrink)

Gender greatly impacts access to opportunities, potential, and success in corporate leadership roles. We begin with a general presentation of why such discussion is necessary for basic considerations of justice and fairness in gender equality and how the issues we raise must impact any ethical perspective on gender in the corporate workplace. We continue with a breakdown of the central categories affecting the success of women in corporate leadership roles. The first of these includes gender-influenced behavioral factors, such as the (...) requirements and expectations of gendered verbal and nonverbal communication styles as well as appearance. We move on to address the impact of family on corporate leadership opportunities and success, discussing the asymmetrical evaluation of an individual’s potential, authority, and competence based on gender stereotypes of familial obligations and expectations. Finally, we address how gender impacts access to networking and sponsorship opportunities and the long-term effects of systematic limitations on women’s inclusion in the upper echelons of corporate leadership. We conclude with a summary of the questions and issues raised by our discussion and direct individuals to consider how different ethical systems and moral requirements might influence their interpretations of gender and leadership in the corporate workplace. (shrink)