I find strange at how easily one could relate Hegel’s
philosophies on Lordship and Bondage to the many political policies and
strategies of the modern era. Though it may not be the case, it has always
seemed to me that much of history was consumed deciding the right course of
action in dealing with other foreign powers.
That being said, could Hegel’s thoughts
on Lordship and Bondage be accurately translated into the framework of a
foreign policy?
With the recent presidential debate droning on in the
background, it didn't take much for me to try to make a connection between
Hegel and politics. It is only fitting that I try to bring our class to discuss
what perhaps Hegel would say in regard to foreign policy.
Hegel relates one's consciousness and the outside world through a class warfare model. “The Lord” proves his own self-consciousness
through subjugating the “Bondsman” whose consciousness is denied. With regards
to Mr. Romney, would a modern Hegel deem it crazy to put some 2 trillion
dollars back into our defense budget when it protects the security of America and her future? In his website’s national security page Mitt vows he “will
safeguard America and secure our country’s interests and most cherished ideals”.
In order to protect our countries “consciousness” is it necessary to carry the
big stick?
Professor Johnson spoke during class of risking your life to
prove your own will and how if you die you gain nothing. It would follow that if
we have the means to do so, why should we not ensure our own independence and
success? In Romney’s political scheme, being Hegel’s “Lord” is a necessary role
to fill within our world. Romney’s strategy, I believe, would have the return
of authoritarianism and have us subjugating foreign powers to assert our own dominance.
It is my contention that President Obama’s foreign policy
almost fits this same structure but in an almost role reversal. Instead of
being the Lord, America’s foreign policy would grow to resemble the “Bondsman”
and his struggle for self-consciousness. Under Obama we would no longer have
the ability to assert our own independence through the negation of other
foreign powers. With no “Lord” in existence we would struggle to understand our
countries identity without the ability to manipulate others. Is this feasible
or is it just a dream? Is a Lord necessary for political stability along with
the dialectic method?
Can we analogize a countries foreign policy as a sort of self-consciousness?
Is Obama employing a foreign policy that extends beyond the
realm of Hegel?
An American Century | Mitt
Romney for President. (n.d.). Mitt
Romney for President | Mitt
Romney for President of the United States of
America in 2012. Retrieved October 4,
2012,
from http://www.mittromney.com/collection/foreign-policy
Im not exactly sure I agree completely with your take on applying Hegel to international politics but I still think it is a cool idea. I think that all countries fight for recognition and power and if that was not the case there would not have been as many wars, genocides, and economic competition in the world. The fact is though that politics of the two presidential candidates, the United States is in a way The Lord of the world right now and as close to a hegemonic power that has been seen since the Roman Empire. I do not think that the United States needs to go out of its way to try and carry a big stick to further be recognized. The United States is already in the eyes of the world the predominant power and already recognized and feared as a lord would be.
ReplyDeletei find it interesting how you were able to relate Hegel's theories to foreign policies and politics. I think that what he says is based off of a power struggle. Countries feel the need to prove a point and carry their own weight nowadays. One major example of this which is often used in international studies is the Cold War between the US and the USSR. Both countries felt the need to threaten each other. They wanted to prove that they could use their atomic bombs and nuclear weapons. The arms race was a big deal at this time as each country began to produce more weapons. Basically both sides wanted to be bullies and carry the "big stick". Bullies often have their own insecurities which lead them to out their frustrations on everyone else. This is why there is such a huge struggle with the balance of power, which is also used in international studies. The U.S. is insecure and feels the need to push other countries around. We just feel the need to stick manipulate other territories because of our lack of self confidence.
ReplyDeleteI don't think in any way the United States is struggling for recognition in any part of the world. One can see our recognition in how our popular culture has spread across the world. This is enough for that recognition to transcend in foreign policy recognition because other countries see US ideals and values everyday through this pop culture. I think the US is clearly recognized as one of the dominant predominant power, and I personally think that China is the country that needs the true foreign policy recognition.
ReplyDeleteRomney will make a good Machiavellian prince. From the link you shared, it seems Romney only cares about the statehood of U.S. and his interests in other fledgling states is only for the purpose of balancing powers outside of U.S. States under U.S. pressure will not endanger U.S. in any way. For example, Romney will make alliances with weak states such as Israel and small countries surrounding China so that the slightly bigger threats will not become threats at all.
ReplyDeleteRomney also plans to maintain power of his State (if he gets it) by using a cloak of virtue to hide his intention of taking control of the balance of power in the world. Putting China to the standards of human rights and “fair trade” (no so fair to China) in the U.S. regardless of its apparent adverse effects to Chinese economics is clearly an example.
I agree with you that Romney is planning to dominate other countries in the world like a lord in a relationship of negation. Romney’s U.S. will be recognized as the epitome of political/economic success and be modeled after. Surely, the world under U.S. dominance will be free of major conflicts, or another world war per se. However, this is not the perfect relationship.
Not that I believe this is feasible in reality, but using Hegel’s method, we can say a better world is one in grander peace; neither U.S. nor any other world power is in dominance. The completely rational power balance is one that does not have power conflict. Difference countries do not exist for their own interest but rather for that of the world as a whole; thus negating a relationship of negation. In a world like this, no country needs any military fund whatsoever.