← Back to Library

The method in hegel’s self-censorship

Daniel Tutt · Daniel Tutt · ·11 min read
Commentary by Hex Index staff

Daniel Tutt offers a startling reclamation of a philosopher often dismissed as the courtier of the status quo, arguing that Hegel's most radical ideas were not hidden in his private notes, but systematically excised from his public work to survive a hostile political climate. This is not merely a historical footnote; it is a masterclass in how to read between the lines of political theory to find a 'right of extreme need' that challenges the very foundations of property rights today. In an era where economic desperation is often met with criminalization rather than recognition, Tutt's excavation of Hegel's self-censorship provides a vital intellectual toolkit for understanding the tension between legal formalism and human survival.

The Split Between System and Method

The piece begins by dismantling the common caricature of Hegel as a reactionary defender of constitutional monarchy. Tutt writes, "Marx argued that Hegel is incoherent within his own philosophy, that he is a 'double dealer.'" This framing is crucial because it shifts the reader's focus from Hegel's stated conclusions to the friction between his method and his system. While the published Philosophy of Right appears to endorse the restoration of order, Tutt points out that Friedrich Engels identified a dynamic where the system is perishable, but the method is not. As Daniel Tutt puts it, "With all philosophers it is precisely the 'system' which is perishable; and for the simple reason that it springs from an imperishable desire of the human mind — the desire to overcome all contradictions."

The method in hegel’s self-censorship

This distinction allows Tutt to argue that Hegel's true legacy lies in his dialectical movement, not his static conclusions. The author suggests that reading Hegel only through his published defense of the state misses the "latent political core that pushes his thought towards an egalitarian direction." This is a compelling move, reminiscent of György Lukács's work in The Young Hegel, which revealed how the philosopher's method implicitly rebuked the aristocratic tendencies of his contemporaries like Schelling, even when his public stance seemed to align with them. By focusing on the method, Tutt invites us to see the contradictions not as errors, but as the engine of historical progress.

Any contract or positive right that violates the fundamental freedom of a person is in fact an injustice.

The Radicalism of Extreme Need

The core of Tutt's argument rests on a specific, often overlooked discrepancy: Hegel's lectures versus his published text. In his lectures leading up to The Philosophy of Right, Hegel explicitly discussed Notrecht (emergency rights), arguing that the poor have a right to steal bread to survive. However, in the final published work, this radical concession is largely absent. Tutt writes, "In embracing this conception of the rights of the poor, Hegel argued that the poor have the right to steal and violate the laws of private property if they are facing a threat to their survival such as starvation or deprivation."

This omission is not accidental; it is a calculated act of self-censorship. Tutt notes that while Hegel defended constitutional monarchy in the text, he simultaneously critiqued the "truck system"—a form of payment in goods rather than money that exploited laborers—in his lectures. The author argues that Hegel realized that fully articulating the right of the starving to violate property laws would have been politically impossible in his time. As Daniel Tutt puts it, "In this contrast between the published text of The Philosophy of Right and the lectures on rights we can see that Hegel self-censored his full on support for Notrecht in Philosophy of Right."

Critics might argue that relying on lecture notes to reconstruct a philosopher's true intent is speculative, as lectures are often less rigorous than published treatises. However, Tutt's philological approach, drawing on Domenico Losurdo's Hegel and the Freedom of Moderns, provides a robust textual basis for this claim. The argument gains weight when Tutt connects this historical moment to modern struggles, suggesting that the "right of extreme need" can be invoked to justify citizen action against "apartheid, state repression or genocide."

Historicizing Freedom Against Contract

Tutt extends this analysis to Hegel's critique of contract theory, specifically targeting the justification of slavery and the rigidity of natural law. The author highlights how Hegel rejected the idea that a contract could ever legitimize the subjugation of a human being. "Hegel is therefore an anti-contracturalist because he views the contract as a limitation on possible freedom," Tutt writes. This stands in stark contrast to thinkers like Locke, who justified colonial slavery through the legitimacy of contracts. For Hegel, as Tutt explains, "freedom is the subsumption of every human being into the category of man, including ex-slaves to the extent that he has inalienable rights."

This section is particularly potent because it reframes the concept of rights not as a static legal grant, but as a historical process. Tutt argues that natural law errs by "freezing history and the struggle for freedom." Instead, Hegel insists that freedom must be understood as a "historical process of recognition that is achieved in concrete social struggle." This aligns with the broader Hegelian project of understanding the actual as rational—not by accepting the status quo, but by recognizing the rational potential within the struggle to change it. The author's insistence that "the original contract is the result of a historical struggle that is ongoing and therefore not completed" serves as a powerful reminder that legal frameworks are never final, but always subject to the demands of human dignity.

Bottom Line

Daniel Tutt's commentary successfully excavates a radical, egalitarian core from Hegel's work that has been obscured by centuries of conservative interpretation. The strongest part of this argument is the evidence of self-censorship regarding the Notrecht, which transforms Hegel from a defender of the state into a theorist of survival against oppressive property regimes. The biggest vulnerability lies in the reliance on the distinction between lecture notes and published texts, a gap that some scholars might view as too wide to bridge with certainty. Nevertheless, the piece offers a vital lens for understanding how political theory can harbor revolutionary potential even when its public face appears deeply conservative. Readers should watch for how this framework of 'emergency rights' is applied to contemporary debates on poverty and civil disobedience.

Deep Dives

Explore these related deep dives:

  • Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

    The article centers on interpreting Hegel's philosophy and political thought, particularly the tension between his method and system. Understanding Hegel's biography, intellectual development, and historical context would provide essential background for grasping the self-censorship argument.

  • The Phenomenology of Spirit

    The article references Lukács's reading of this work as an 'implicit rebuttal to the aristocratic direction of Schelling.' Understanding this foundational text's structure and arguments illuminates Hegel's dialectical method that the article argues contains latent radical potential.

  • György Lukács

    Lukács is cited multiple times for his interpretation in 'The Young Hegel' regarding Hegel's method, his implicit theory of the proletariat, and his reading of the Phenomenology. Understanding Lukács's Marxist-Hegelian approach provides crucial interpretive context for the article's argument.

Sources

The method in hegel’s self-censorship

by Daniel Tutt · Daniel Tutt · Read full article

The Hegelian formula, 'what is rational is actual; and what is actual is rational' is something of an enigma. Does this formula represent an unqualified blessing on the political status quo, and should it be understood as a reflection of the implicit conservatism of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right where he embraces constitutional monarchy? Or does such a reading miss the subtlety of Hegel’s dialectical thinking. This phrase would certainly be a reactionary position if Hegel were to be read as embracing an anthropological conception of the subject of history or a subjectivism in which actuality is construed as the empirical subject of history embodied in the king or monarch.

But Hegel’s subject of history is not the king and nor is it found in any appeal to a more bland anthropological humanism. Marx argued that Hegel is incoherent within his own philosophy, that he is a “double dealer.” For Marx, Hegel is split between a latent political core that pushes his thought towards an egalitarian direction and a more reactionary core in line with the status quo. Engels pinpoints a similar dynamic in Hegel when he claims that there is a split between Hegel’s method and system: the system is the more explicit and latent political adherence to the status quo, i.e., in The Philosophy of Right Hegel infamously defends “constitutional monarchy” against the restoration and against the divine right of kings. That the absolute idea must be realized in a representative monarchy is clearly something that Engels rejected, but at the same time, one of Hegel’s strengths was to reject unrealizable ideals. Here is how Engels argues that we must read Hegel beyond the limits of his system:

With all philosophers it is precisely the “system” which is perishable; and for the simple reason that it springs from an imperishable desire of the human mind — the desire to overcome all contradictions. But if all contradictions are once and for all disposed of, we shall have arrived at so-called absolute truth — world history will be at an end. And yet it has to continue, although there is nothing left for it to do — hence, a new, insoluble contradiction. As soon as we have once realized — and in the long run no one has helped us to realize it more than Hegel himself — that the task of philosophy thus stated means nothing but the task that ...