Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:43:53.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Democracy Out of Joint? The Financial Crisis in Light of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2013

Karin de Boer
Karin de Boer*
Affiliation:
University of Leuven, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The financial crisis that currently besets Europe not only disturbs the life of many citizens, but also affects our economic, political and philosophical theories. Clearly, many of the contributing causes, such as the wide availability of cheap credit after the introduction of the euro, are contingent. Analyses that aim to move beyond such contingent factors tend to highlight the disruptive effects of the neoliberal conception of the market that has become increasingly dominant over the last few decades. Yet while the financial sector has received most of the blame, and rightly so, few commentators seem willing to take into account the role played by representative democracy in its current form. Even if it is granted that actual democratic policies fall short of what they ought to achieve, contemporary representative democracy itself is seldom regarded as part of the tangle it was supposed to resolve. David Merill touches upon this issue when he notes, in the preceding issue of this Bulletin, that ‘the economic dilemmas faced today may be ultimately the consequences of state failure’. The state that has failed to regulate the markets is described as ‘weak’ and ‘subject to external blows, blind to its ends, merely one actor among many in the events of the day’ (Merill 2012: 28). Yet Merill does not seem to consider this weakness to be an inherent feature of the constellation of which contemporary democracy is a part.

There are, of course, excellent reasons not to take this path. First, representative democracy has in many cases proved to be the best way of preventing small elites from acquiring political power, and many of the impressive social and political achievements of the twentieth century are the result of democratic processes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , Autumn/Winter 2012 , pp. 36 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2012

References

Avineri, S. (1972), Hegel's Theory of the Modern State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crouch, C. (2004), Post–Democracy. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
De Boer, K. (2010), On Hegel: The Sway of the Negative. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G.W.F. (1956), The Philosophy of History, translated by Sibree, J.. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Hegel, G.W.F. (1991), Elements of the Philosophy of Right, translated by Nisbet, H.B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (abbreviated as PR).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G.W.F. (2011), Lectures on the Philosophy of World History I, translated by Brown, R.F. and Hodson, P.C.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heiman, G. (1971), ‘The Sources and Significance of Hegel's Corporate Doctrine’, in: Pelczinski, Z.A. (ed.), Hegel's Political Philosophy: Problems and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 111–135.Google Scholar
Herzog, L. (2013), Inventing the Market: Smith, Hegel and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honneth, A., (2000), Suffering from Indeterminacy: An Attempt at a Reactualization of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, translated by Ben-Levi, Jack. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Honneth, A., (2001), Leiden an Unbestimmtheit: eine Reaktualisierung der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie. Stuttgart: Reklam.Google Scholar
Honneth, A., (2010), The Pathologies of Individual Freedom: Hegel's Social Thought, translated by Löb, L.. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1998), Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Guyer, P. and Wood, A.W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. (2008), ‘The Legacy of Medieval Constitutionalism in the Philosophy of Right: Hegel and the Prussian Reform Movement’, History of Political Thought 29, 601–634.Google Scholar
MacGregor, D. (1996), Hegel, Marx, and the English State. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, K. (1994), Early Political Writings, translated by O'Malley, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merill, D.C. (2012), ‘The Great Financial Crisis: An Ethical Rejoinder’, Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 65, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neocleous, M. (1998), ‘Policing the System of Needs: Hegel, Political Economy, and the Police of the Market’, History of European Ideas 24/1, 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuhouser, F. (2000), Foundations of Hegel's Social Theory: Actualizing Freedom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, A. (1999), Hegel's Idea of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinkard, T. (2000), Hegel: A Biography. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, R. (2008), Hegel's Practical Philosophy: Rational Agency as Ethical Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S.B. (1991), Hegel's Critique of Liberalism: Rights in Context. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Wartenberg, T. E. (1981), ‘Poverty and class structure in Hegel's theory of civil society’, Philosophy and Social Criticism 8, 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westphal, K. (1993), ‘The basic context and structure of Hegel's Philosophy of Right’, in: Beiser, F. C. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Hegel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 234–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winfield, R.D. (1988), The Just Economy. New York / London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wood, A. (1999) Hegel's Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar