We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 June 2015
Recently our particular end of history has been characterized as the coming of age of a post-communist, liberal nation-state system and global political economy. On this interpretation of history and international relations, the philosophy of world history is no longer needed, since the meaning of history, its goal and end, are already known. In essence, we have arrived at the Kantian regulative ideal of perpetual peace, not in the form of a world state, but of an international order in which commerce can take over the role of war and deterrence in ensuring progress. In this paper, I will be arguing for a different understanding of the end of history, one which recalls the philosopher's attention to world history as the realm of the self-relation of spirit most in need of philosophical comprehension. In order to do this, I will be examining the differences between Kant's treatment of history and war in the critical philosophy, and Hegel's speculative transformation of that treatment in his own work. It will be argued that in Kant's work a posited end of history serves to undermine the philosophical comprehension of history, by removing that comprehension from history. Whereas in Hegel's work the experienced end of history opens up the understanding of history by acknowledging the philosopher's identity with his time. The paper falls into three sections. In the first part I will present a reading of Kant's philosophy of history and war, and try to illustrate its consequences for attempts to theorise and moralise about world history in the present. In the second part I will demonstrate how Hegel's philosophy of history and war differs from Kant's, giving us an alternative starting point for our contemporary comprehension of the end of history. Finally, I will comment on a recent Hegelian reading of world history by Hayo Krombach, Hegelian Reflections on the Idea of Nuclear War.
1 Krombach, H Hegelian Reflections on the Idea of Nuclear War (London, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Yovel, Y Kant and the Philosophy of History (Princeton, 1980)Google Scholar.
3 This is nicely illustrated in Pompa's, Leon essay “Philosophical History in Kant and Hegel” in Hegel's Critique of Kant edited by Priest, S (Oxford, 1987)Google Scholar.
4 Kant, , Metaphysics of Morals Part I translated as The Metaphysical Elements of Justice by Ladd, J (Indianapolis, 1965), pp 127-9Google Scholar.
5 All these texts are to be found in Kant: Political Writings edited by Reiss, H (Cambridge, 1991)Google Scholar.
6 See Kant, The Metaphysical Elements of Justice, pp 138 Google Scholar-41.
7 Kant: Political Writings, p 108.
8 Ibid, pp 51-2.
9 Ibid, p 115.
10 Ibid, pp 112-3.
11 Ibid, p 114.
12 The ambiguities of Kant's position are usefully highlighted in Andrew Hurrell's article, “Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations”, Review of International Studies Vol 16, No 3, 1990 Google Scholar.
13 Kant: Political Writings, p 115.
14 Hutchings, K “The Possibility of Judgment: Moralising and Theorising in International Relations”, Review of International Studies Vol 18, No 1, 1992 (forthcoming)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Ashley, R K “Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique”, Millenium Vol 17, No 2, 1988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 The rigid politics/morality divide is nicely illustrated by a collection of essays arising from a conference of strategists and philosophers: Nuclear Deterrence: Ethics and Strategy edited by Hardin, R, Mearsheimer, J J, Dworkin, G and Goodin, R E (Chicago and London, 1985)Google Scholar.
17 Examples of this can be found in the work of Charles Beitz and Andrew Linklater, who attempt to bridge the traditional dichotomies by drawing on the work of Rawls and Habermas respectively. See Beitz, Charles Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton, 1979)Google Scholar; Linklater, Andrew Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations (London, 1990 Google Scholar).
18 In the course of this debate international relations theorists have turned to Marx, Gramsci, Habermas, Derrida, Foucault and Feminism (judging by editions of journals such as Millenium since the mid 1980s). However, Hegel has not generally been identified as a source of possible renewal within the discipline.
19 Smith, SB Hegel's Critique of Liberalism (Chicago and London, 1989), p 164 Google Scholar.
20 Harris, EE and Paolucci, H in Hegel's Social and Political Thought, papers from the Biennial Meeting of the Hegel Society of America (Humanities Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Watt, S “Hegel On War Another Look”, History of Political Thought Vol 10, No 1, 1989 Google Scholar; Verene, D P “Hegel's Account of War”, Hegel's Political Philosophy: Problems and Perspectives edited by Pelczynski, Z A (Cambridge, 1971)Google Scholar.
21 Eg Flay's, J C response to Harris and Paolucci in Hegel's Social and Political Thought; S B Smith Hegel's Critique of Liberalism, pp 156-64Google Scholar; Vincent, A “The Hegelian State and International Politics” Review of International Studies, Vol 9, 1983 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Grounds for all of these different interpretations can be found in the closing sections of the Philosophy of Right trans Knox, T M (Oxford, 1967), pp 208-15, 321–340 Google Scholar.
23 Hegel, Philosophy of Right, p 215, 338 Google Scholar.
24 Ibid, p 222.
25 Krombach, Hegelian Reflections, p 82 Google Scholar.
