Abstract

Critics of Hegel's social philosophy usually focus their objections on Hegel's account of the relation between civil society and the state. Herbert Marcuse provides the best example of the standard Marxist objection. According to Marcuse, Hegel recognizes the inevitable destructiveness of competing individual interests and handles the problem by giving the state strong political powers. The state imposes restraints on the free play of individuality in the workplace while upholding and protecting the rights of individual freedom. Marcuse objects to this structure because in his judgment the restraints imposed by the state are external to the free individuality they control. The dynamic of competing individual interests cannot produce a common interest and hence cannot establish a basis for real social unity. The rule of the state must stand above this competitiveness, not be involved in it, if the state is to overcome the divisiveness of free individuality. Hence, the law, which embodies the rule of the state, treats every individual as the same, guarantees to each and all the same rights, and imposes on all the same restrictions. But this sameness is an abstraction. Individuals exist with real differences and opposing interests. They live their freedom in competition with the freedom of others and some lose. The law escapes from this inequality and divisiveness by detaching itself from the realities of social living.