Abstract

Dialectics is the logic of estrangement. Self-relating negativity, which is at once every difference and its overcoming, is the pulse of dialectics. But what is this self-estranging sameness? For Hegel, the idealist, it is “the absolute concept.” It is more difficult to say what it is for Marx, who is supposed to be a materialist. If Marx were merely relocating self-estranging sameness from the concept to human “genus-being” (Gattungswesen), understood as a historically variable “ensemble of social relations,” this ensemble would harbour a potentiality to become that is at once enabled and disabled by the social divisions of labour and class that they have generated. This interpretation is vitiated by an ambiguity in its invocation of potentiality. If we flatten human genus-being onto historically variable social relations, there is no latency left in it which could be said to be unactualized by existing social practices. But if some aspect of genus-being is held in reserve as an unactualized potential, we risk re-substantializing it as an a-historical essence. It is this ambiguity that leads Marx’s critics to accuse him of invoking a transcendent conception of human essence despite his insistence that this essence is a function of historically variable social relations. I want to parry this criticism by suggesting that Marx’s materialism requires Hegel’s self-estranging sameness in order to dissolve the apparent dichotomy between immanence and transcendence in the potency ascribed to practice. Estrangement and de-estrangement, compulsion and freedom, are not separable moments but twin facets of the same movement. The prospect of de-estrangement emerges only by retrospecting an enabling estrangement.