Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T11:16:00.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relationship between Religion and State in Hegel's Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2015

Oran Moked
Oran Moked*
Affiliation:
Columbia University

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.

To say that Hegel's position on the relationship between religion and state is not easy to categorise would be a vast understatement. Eluding comfortable labels, his ideas on the subject diverge from historically prevalent conceptions, which together are often thought to be exhaustive. On the one hand, Hegel's position contrasts sharply with theocratic doctrines that propose a simple identity of political and religious institutions, or subjugate the former to the latter. Almost equally distant from Hegel's position, however, are liberal and Enlightenment views that urge the complete separation of religion from secular authority and mundane politics.

This tension is characteristic of many of Hegel's writings on the subject, from the earliest to die most mature. On numerous occasions, Hegel voices his vehement opposition to the notion of a radical split between religion and the ‘ethical’ (sittlich) institutions of political power. In an early fragment from 1798 he writes, ‘if the principle of the state is a complete totality, then church and state cannot possibly be unrelated’, and similar sentiments are voiced in many other writings, including Hegel's very last lectures on the Philosophy of Religion from 1831. Yet, at other junctures he contends, rather, that only ‘in despotism church and state are one’. Of all Hegel's extended discussions of the subject, one — in the Remark and Addition to §270 of the Philosophy of Right — lays emphasis on the cleft between church and state; others — in §552 of the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences (Third Edition), the aforementioned 1831 Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, and the final sections of the Philosophy of History — seem, on the contrary, to stress the essential and eventual unity of religious and political life. To reconcile such seemingly contradictory views within a coherent position (even a dialectically coherent one) and salvage Hegel's position from the muddle of apparent contradictions and oblique formulations is therefore a challenge.

Type
Graduate Essay Prize - Winner
Information
Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain , Volume 25 , Issue 1-2: number 49/50 , 2004 , pp. 96 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2004

References

Avineri, Shlomo. Hegel's Theory of the Modern State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Nys, M. J. ‘Philosophical Thinking and the Claims of Religion.’ In New Perspectives on Hegel's Philosophy of Religion, edited by Kolb, David, pp. 19–26. Albany: SUNY Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Dickey, Laurence. ‘Hegel on Religion and Philosophy.’ In The Cambridge Companion to Hegel, edited by Beiser, Frederick C., pp. 301–347. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. Werke, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1971. (Werke 1: Frühe Schriften. 7: Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. 10: Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften III. 16: Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion I.)Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F.. Philosophic des Rechts: Die Vorlesung von 1819/20 in einer Nacbschrift, Hrsg. von Dieter Henrich. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp, 1983.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F.. Elements of the Philosophy of Right, edited by Wood, Allen W., translated by Nisbet, H. B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F.. Hegel's Philosophy of Mind: Part Three of the Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences (1830), translated by Wallace, William. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F.. Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, edited by Hodgson, Peter C., translated by Brown, R. F., Hodgson, P. C., and Stewart, J. M.. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F.. The Philosophy of History, translated by Sibree, J.. New York: Dover, 1956.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F.. Political Writings, edited by Dickey, Laurence and Nisbet, H. B., translated by Nisbet, H. B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Jaeschke, Walter. Reason in Religion: The Foundations of Hegel's Philosophy of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F.. ‘Philosophical Theology and Philosophy of Religion.’ In New Perspectives on Hegel's Philosophy of Religion, edited by Kolb, David, pp. 1–18. Albany: SUNY Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Walter, ed. Hegel's Political Philosophy. New York: Atherton Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. ‘Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason,’ translated by di Giovanni, George. In Religion and Rational Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John. A Letter on Toleration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.Google Scholar
Luther, Martin. Selected Political Writings, edited by Porter, J. M.. Lanham: University Press of America, 1974.Google Scholar
Voltaire, . Political Writings, edited and translated by Williams, David. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar