Where Did Hegel Go Wrong on Race?

Hegel Bulletin 45 (1):23-42 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Where exactly did Hegel go wrong on race? Moellendorf helpfully tells us that Hegel's treatment of race begins systematically in the Philosophy of Subjective Spirit and that he went wrong philosophically in the use of the biological category of race. This is basically correct but requires precisification. This article considers why Hegel's category of race is not unambiguously biological. Race's biological status can be problematized from the standpoint of contemporary biology and from the standpoint of Hegel's system. The textual placement of Hegel's systematic discussion of race in the philosophy of spirit makes clear that Hegel conceived of race in spiritual terms. Hegel took race to be a biospiritual category. Hegel was clearly committed to the now-controversial proposition that there is such a thing as human biological race, that there is a plurality of biological human races. He regarded race as a robust natural kind. His preferred list of races includes Caucasians, Negros, Mongolian, Malaysians and Americans. One noteworthy feature of his understanding of race's physical aspect was his focus on the formation of the skull and the face. At the same time, he clearly held that there were other deeper physical differences that accounted for the spiritual differences of race. Hegel was perfectly clear that race has a spiritual as well as physical aspect. He held that that the members of racial groups essentially shared certain fundamental, heritable, moral, intellectual and cultural characteristics with one another that they did not share with members of any other race and that these differences were such as to support an objective ranking. This shows that Hegel took the category of race to be the sort of category we today would characterize as ‘racialist’. Hegel's concept of race was the racialist concept of race.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,990

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Why Social Constructionists Should Embrace Minimalist Race.Michael Hardimon - 2022 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 60 (S1):37-53.
Race Concepts in Medicine.M. O. Hardimon - 2013 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (1):6-31.
Rethinking Race: The Case for Deflationary Realism.Michael O. Hardimon - 2017 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Race: Deflate or Pop?Adam Hochman - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 57.
Janus‐faced race: Is race biological, social, or mythical?Adam Hochman - 2020 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology 1.
Race and Racism in Hegel.Sandra Bonetto - 2006 - Minerva - An Internet Journal of Philosophy 10 (1).
Minimalist Biological Race.Michael Hardimon - 2017 - In Naomi Zack (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Race. New York, USA: Oxford University Press USA. pp. 150-9.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-03-15

Downloads
35 (#445,801)

6 months
35 (#118,027)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Michael Hardimon
University of California, San Diego

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The heart of racism.J. L. A. Garcia - 1996 - Journal of Social Philosophy 27 (1):5-46.
On Race and Philosophy.Lucius Outlaw - 1995 - Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 18 (2):175-199.
Hegel: A Biography.Terry Pinkard - 2000 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 63 (2):414-416.

View all 14 references / Add more references