A Word for Irresponsible Power
Master-Slave Dialectic • phrase • (mah-ster sleyv dahy-uh-lek-tik)
Definition: A discourse for cultivating and elevating irresponsible people
Origin: German
The German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is considered one of the greatest philosophers of western civilization and he is largely known for the two types of dialectics that he theorized: the master-slave dialectic and a transcendent dialectic focused on Aufheben. The former still shapes America today and explains our current political and cultural turmoil.
A dialectic is commonly considered a conversation or interaction between two or more people that helps people discover the truth. Instead of the truth being an idea in our minds or religious dogma, in a dialectic the truth is found through interacting with others. The great philosophers of Ancient Greece -- Plato, Socrates, Aristotle -- all used a dialectical approach to decipher the truth. In Hegel’s two dialectics, he theorized one dialectic that encouraged the transcendence of our limitations in the pursuit of truth, and another that suppressed transcendence and disregarded the truth.
In a previous newsletter, we discussed Aufheben and the importance of cultivating a transcendent dialectic, but I will summarize the concept here. In a dialectic with Aufheben, there will be a thesis that will serve as the status quo, and the antithesis that will challenge the status quo. The goal of this dialectic is not for the thesis or the antithesis to prevail and dominate the other, but for them to synthesize into something new that transcends their previous limitations.
The act of synthesizing is called Aufheben and the word translates into English as meaning “to preserve, to destroy, to transcend, and to lift up.” There is no English equivalent to Aufheben, so for English speakers it is easier to see the clash between the thesis and antithesis without the potential for transcendence. This linguistic void inclines us to believe that victory can only occur by destroying or suppressing the “other.” The “other,” which can be either the thesis or antithesis, now becomes a threat and not a source for transcendence. This destructive, regressive relationship brings us to Hegel’s master-slave dialectic.
The Irresponsible Master
In the master-slave dialectic the conversation is between the oppressor and the oppressed, and in the original German it is known as the Herrschaft und Knechtschaft—Lordship and Bondage—dialectic. This dialectic is not between two parties with an equal degree of influence, so the nature of the discourse is entirely different. The “master” has no desire to transcend; they want to prevent transcendence so that they can remain the “master.”
In the master-slave dialectic, the “master” has all of the authority and none of the responsibility. The “slave” has all of the responsibility and none of the authority. For example: if a plantation in the antebellum South has a bountiful harvest of cotton one year, the “master” will claim responsibility for the success. If the harvest is low the following year, then the “slave” is to blame. In this dialectic, the “master” declares that the responsibility of all failures resides with the “slave” or the “other,” and the “master” has the authority to claim responsibility for all the successes.
By living to dominate and oppress the “slave” or the “other,” the master can cultivate an irresponsible existence. Being irresponsible becomes their existence, and they will fight, as if their life depends on it, for the authority to sustain their irresponsible way of life.
The “slave’s” existence is the opposite since they carry the responsibility of their oppressive society, but none of the authority. Despite the hatred of their enslavement and yearning to be free, the responsibility forced upon the enslaved actually reinforces their belief in their ability to liberate themselves. Their forced work makes the “slave” physically and mentally stronger, and the irresponsibility of the “master” makes the “master” weaker. Rebellions, revolutions, and liberating movements will become inevitable, and when the “slave” prevails they will attempt to form a societal dialectic where people must have authority and responsibility.
Philosophers speculate that the Haitian Revolution inspired Hegel’s master-slave dialectic.
As a society shaped by the trans-Atlantic slave trade, much of American life has been shaped by the master-slave dialectic, and it still influences America today.
America’s Irresponsible Dialectic
In the United States, our democracy was crafted by European-colonizers who believed that Europeans were destined to dominate the world. Regardless of whether these European-colonizers were slaveowners or not, the society they built in America elevated Europeans to the position of the “master” and non-Europeans became the “other” or the “slave.” America has a foundational dialectic that prevents transcendence and empowers irresponsible white Americans.
Much of the United States’ interpretations of democratic freedoms come from the perspective of the “master,” and this systemic irresponsibility still imperils America today.
When Americans talk about “free speech,” we often interpret it as the right to say whatever we please with the underlying assumption that good things will inevitably occur. This understanding of freedom or free speech seems desirable, but its foundations are the capacity to direct blame upon the other and evade responsibility for the times when your speech negatively impacts society.
Countries who have experienced genocides and the rise of fascism have cultivated an understanding of dangerous speech and found ways to healthily regulate speech to protect marginalized communities and reduce violence. America does not have these discussions about “free speech” because our ethnocidal society is structured to allow the ethnocider to sustain power while being irresponsible.
Likewise, America’s interpretation of the second amendment exists to cultivate irresponsible gun owners. White Americans are encouraged to have guns without any training or regulations that encourage them to be responsible gun owners for the betterment of society. When an American shoots up a school, concert venue, or grocery store, the Republican Party and the National Rifle Association defend these acts of terror as the price we have to pay for freedom.
America’s master-slave dialectic condemns us to suffer from the irresponsible terror created by ethnocidal Americans who aspire to live as the “master.” This regressive dialectic manifested in letzter Menschen storming the Capitol on January 6 in order to “take back their country” and keep Donald Trump—a living embodiment of irresponsible power—in the White House.
A large segment of America is going to fight as if their existence depends on sustaining the master-slave dialectic. The growing influence of American minorities, or the “other,” and the increased demand that people must be held responsible for their actions poses an essentialist threat to their irresponsible way of life. As non-ethnocidal Americans come together, we must cultivate a dialectic that both holds people accountable and transcends America’s irresponsible dialectic.
