Master And Slave Dialectic Analysis

Within this essay, I am going to argue that there is in fact no winner from Hegel’s dialectic of the Master and Slave dialogue. This is due to the Slave gaining more knowledge from its experiences than the Master, although the Master has gained the authoritarian position. Therefore, they are both successful but also must admit defeat in some way such as losing independence as the Master does. However, an obvious objection towards this could be that the Master has still won and has ultimate authority over the slave. In response to this it can be argued that as the slave forfeited the battle, the master did not truly win. I will use reference to the Master and Slave dialectic rather than the dialectic of Lordship and Bondage throughout my essay. …show more content…
This fight is necessary as without it, the two forms of consciousness will constantly reflect back onto one another and therefore never reach recognition of their own self-consciousness. As they are the same, they have no individuality and thus are indistinguishable. This then explains why for Hegel, the fight then occurs as both forms need to distinguish themselves as self-conscious and individual. These two separate forms both have a necessary desire of recognition from the other as this is what will validate themselves as a being and not simply an other "supersede this otherness of itself". This means that both forms are necessary and essential to one another but are also a threat to the others self-conscious recognition. ‘that is, it exists only in being acknowledged." “Self- consciousness exists in and for itself when, and by the fact that, it so exists for another.” This is due to needing an other to recognise your own self-conscious. Although as I previously mentioned, having an other means that there is a threat to their own freedom or subjecthood as it could limit the extent of your own self-consciousness. For example, for a human to truly know they are a human, an other is needed for them to observe and reflect upon themselves. This reciprocal recognition is necessary, Hegel argues for self-consciousness, as how …show more content…
This is further illustrated when the Master depending on the Slave is observed more closely. An example of this is the Master is now depending on the Slave for its goods as I have just mentioned. However, this further means the Master is also losing its previous purpose of recognising its own self-consciousness. This is because the Slave is now an unequal object, so the Master cannot have the reciprocal recognition it previously aimed for. Therefore, after the battle has been won the Master is still no longer recognising himself as another self-conscious being. This then shows that the aim of the battle has been lost after it has taken place. This could then question if the original choice of possible outcomes was the correct one. In winning the battle to become Master, the Master is actually negating their original desire which has been lost due to their success. Hegel states “But just as lordship showed that its essential nature is the reverse of what it wants to be, so too servitude in its consummation will really turn into the opposite of what it immediately is; as a consciousness forced back into itself, it will withdraw into itself and be transformed into a truly independent consciousness.” meaning that the Master is simply now becoming a Slave of the Slave which they created from winning the battle. The Slave has become of their own individuality whereas the Master has