Hegel Contra Sociology

by Gillian Rose

Gillian Rose is among the twentieth century’s most important social philosophers. In perhaps her most significant work, Hegel Contra Sociology, Rose mounts a forceful defence of Hegelian speculative thought. Demonstrating how, in his criticisms of Kant and Fichte, Hegel supplies a preemptive critique of Weber, Durkheim, and all of the sociological traditions that stem from these “neo-Kantian” thinkers, Rose argues that any attempt to preserve Marxism from a similar critique and any attempt to renew sociology cannot succeed without coming to terms with Hegel’s own speculative discourse. With an analysis of Hegel’s mature works in light of his early radical writings, this book represents a profound step toward enacting just such a return to the Hegelian.

Genres: Philosophy, Sociology, Theory, Nonfiction, Social Science

261 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1981

About the author

Gillian Rose (20 September 1947 – 9 December 1995) was a British scholar who worked in the fields of philosophy and sociology. Notable facets of this social philosopher's work include criticism of neo-Kantianism and post-modernism, along with what has been described as "a forceful defence of Hegel's speculative thought."

(from Wikipedia)

Reviews

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a tough book to read, not that far from Hegel in it's density and difficulty. So for me it was slow going, and something I've periodically returned to over the past 6 months as I've gradually begun to figure it's complexities out. This review, then, is really only the vaguest outline.
The first chapter of the book demonstrates how basically the entire discipline of sociology, as well as most Marxism, remains trapped within various forms of the Kantian dualism between facts and values. Classical sociology is in its various guises concerned with the estrangement of human values from practice within a modern industrial, bureaucratic and capitalist society. But it's methodology tacitly presupposes this very estrangement.
The rest of the book goes on to show how Hegel attempted to overcome the presupposition of that estrangement. Values aren't transcendental and independent ideals we read the world against, but they are already immanent within human practices.
Rose herself ends by suggesting a "critical Marxism" which aims at a closer appreciation of the culture of capitalist society, rather than just dismissing it tout-court as a completely alienated or ideological expression of capitalist economic relations.
The major problem with Hegel, as both he and Gillian Rose were aware, is that the Kantian dualism is seen as endemic to bourgeois property relations. Hegel was no communist, so his reconciliation in absolute knowledge remains rather abstract and vague. Rose wants something more radical than Hegel, but again, she doesn't want to lapse into the kind of messianic vision of class-consciousness held by Georg Lukacs because she thinks that just reproduces the estrangement between the ideal and the real as a historical rather than ethical "ought". What this means for actual politics isn't really clear.
As far as I could tell, the outcome is therefore inconclusive.

[Jesse · Rating 2 out of 5]

After reading her beautiful memoir, this is incredibly disappointing. A tendentious reading of all of Hegel's works through some of his early responses to Kant and Fichte, bookended by weak accusations that many prominent thinkers, such as Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Adorno, Lukacs, and Habermas, were all (neo-)Kantians. I think that accusation could definitely be made to stick to Durkheim, Weber, and Habermas, but not by her.

[Bren · Rating 5 out of 5]

i may be marking this as 'read' but i dont think ill be finished reading this for a while - so many insights onto not just hegel but the whole of philosophy in the two centuries after him. well worth reading through and returning to. the dissection of his entanglements with the Greeks is my favorite section, i think, a noteworthy corrective to the obsessions that many academics still have with that part of phil. i fw u gillian rose

[Rhesa · Rating 4 out of 5]

A work to demonstrate that Hegelian philosophy is needed to overcome classical dichotomy in sociology, namely: erklaren/verstehen, holism/individualism, naturalism/anti naturalism etc. A difficult read but rewarding one.

[saml · Rating 3 out of 5]

spectacularly difficult, not insofar as each sentence fails to "go together" with the sentence that proceeds it, but insofar as each fails to obviously follow from the previous with any kind of necessity. it is also organised slightly centrelessly. but still, i really do understand the excitement about this book

[Micah Enns-Dyck · Rating 5 out of 5]

In many ways, this is Rose at her most clear and explicit. Still a very challenging read. A brilliant re-reading of the traditon of German idealism, and of the (somewhat dubious) influence that tradition has had on modern social thought. A fierce argument for a true reckoning with actuality and its (re)formations.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

about two or three times a year, when emotional life reaches a certain degree of vehemence, i’ll pick up an abstract work of theory with commendations from the right kind of leftists in a discipline whose conventions and constitutive debates i only somewhat understand, because i find that the intensity of focus it takes to read my customary minimum of twenty pages/day crowds out the anguishes more effectively than any other form of writing can (though movies absolutely win out here; i’ve seen thirty-five in the last month). this is why i put down edith wharton’s house of mirth—the apotheosis of the realist novel, with glittering prose and sequences of meaning so clearly comprehensible as to feel familiar, even predictable—and instead spent the last two and half weeks with hegel contra sociology, which is pretty much the complete opposite. true to the “severe style” whose use in hegel she spends much of one chapter expounding, rose gives us 225 pages of dense, multi-angular, purely descriptive abstractions, and then closes with 10 pages of highlight-every-other-sentence clarity that retroactively organizes the mess of expositions which precede it. i won’t claim to have understood everything in this book, or to have found obvious political applications for what i did, but if you’re also a critical theory dilettante with strong inner resolve (don’t be shy…), you too can get enough out of the experience to feel sufficiently rewarded.

[Shulamith Farhi · Rating 5 out of 5]

A life-changing book that I wish I had read earlier. The chapter on the causality of fate is a k.o. against standard ways of posing moral questions. The first chapter is a slog, but you’ll be happy you pushed through.

[Pavel · Rating 5 out of 5]

"[. . .] daß es viel kürzer sein würde, wenn es nicht so kurz wäre."

[L. A. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very thought provoking but less substantial than i would have hoped. In particular i was hoping for more friction with sociological theoreticians. The way that tends to go in this book is essentially that the sociologists are post-kantians and inherit various types of baggage from this and the outcome is essentially that theyre undialectical. This argument is made through this maneuver that ive seen less sophisticated versions of where rose projects marx back onto hegel, turning him into a critic of bourgeois property relations and culture, and then claiming that marx doesnt understand hegel properly when describing hegel as idealist. Her contention is basically that what is necessary for marxism to bear proper fruit (not like that icky french revolution) is a theory of revolutionary consciousness and how it would apprehend the apparent antimonies of the material motion of capital (as described in marx's critique of political economy) in bourgeois society and the cultural and ideological experience of living under that same society. I do agree that this would be great to have, i get the impression that rose considers this to be an academic question removed from the sphere of political activity (which doesnt appear directly in this book at all).

However, thats a lot of words for what is mostly confined to the conclusion. Most of the book is a detailed reading of hegel against kant and fichte along with a clear discussion of the speculative mode of reading hegel, which i thought was pretty great and insightful. A lot of this will stick with me for a while. I saw a friend once describe this as "gnomic fun" and i definitely agree

[Mariam Rawwas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honestly, the structure of this text is a little confounding. We begin with a history of philosophy of sociological theory in its relation to Kantian epistemology, positing a cipher for differentiating Durkheimian methodology from a Weberian one (at the level of values versus validation), before considering later critiques and revisions of the sociological treatment of Kant, in Adorno, Lukács, Habermas, Althusser, et al. We then move to a rather lengthy exposition trawled from Hegel's corpus as he considers property, religion, art, and the law. Overall, it's a pretty straightforward reading, showing how Hegel's dialectic moves by charging each moment with one-sidedness and therefore falsity. Rose also presents Hegel's reading of Antigone without comment, eliding Lacan's critique of the reading in Seminar VII. This takes up the overwhelming majority of the text, and we only return to the original discussion very briefly at the end - this is what I wish had been expanded upon more. And it's not so much to sociology that we return, caught as it is in the structure/agency antinomy, unable to reconcile action, society, and ethical life in the manner of Hegelian mediation, but rather to the "sociologization" of Marx, if I'll be allowed the neologism. Rose finds the original sin in Marx himself, and I certainly agree, that to charge Hegel with idealism is to forget that, for Hegel, the very opposition between materialism and idealism is a false one. I really think I should read The Broken Middle if I want a better exposition of Rose on Hegelian mediation.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having heard of this book from several sources for some time, I finally got around to reading through it. While my reading was at times brusque, I found it to be an enriching engagement with Hegel, although the book has some oddities that should likewise be addressed.

First, it needs me said that the title is misleading. Truthfully, sociology doesn't really factor into this text. At best, I'd say that this is an account of the relation between Fichte and Hegel first, Kant and Hegel second, and "science" and Hegel third.

The same goes for the chapter titles throughout the book- they're misleading and don't describe what is going to actually happen in the chapters.

What you get instead is a remarkable analysis of Hegel considered as a truly systematic philosopher. Throughout Rose draws strong connections between the different phases of Hegel's thought and demonstrates how one might go about reading the lecture courses in line with the earliest writings. In point of fact, I disagree with her assessment of some of these lecture courses (grounded as her analysis is in the outlook of the Lectures on Religion, which to me stand out as the exception) and prefer to think about Hegel as a dynamic philosopher who changes his outlook. However, I cannot deny the power and utility of this analysis that sees him as a consistent thinker throughout.

[kid · Rating 4 out of 5]

as a ‘hegel commentary’, i appreciate that the chapters map onto hegel‘s main works (apart from the first and last that more or less set the stakes of rose’s project and provide a very good critique of the kantian legacy and of some frankfurt school figures as well), which is great for following and comparing how the different ‘appearances’ of hegel’s system relate to one another. contrary to her reputation, i found rose can be very clarifying in some aspects of hegel (especially on the speculative). likewise her critique of lukacs and adorno concept of reification is helpful and a great companion to her lectures which didn’t really touch on this (i haven’t read melancholy science yet).

as a standalone piece of critical theory, which it most certainly is, i do not much to say except that i am not in a position to fully appreciate it. warrants many revisits and a deeper engagement.

[Karlos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gillian Rose offers, in the 'severe style,' a rigorously argued reading of Hegel that is relentless in emphasizing the speculative in Hegel's thought, whether that be through reconsidering the copula 'is' as speculative ('the real is rational;' 'the state and religion coincide'); explicating representation as re-presentation, re-cognition as mis-re-cognition; or considering the ways something like 'relation' does not at all times imply 'identity' or 'reciprocity.' While this reading is situated as 'contra Sociology,' it provides plenty reason (much more than can be stated here) to engage with Hegel more seriously, especially if one is to make social thought think the Absolute.

[Igor · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rose’s magnum opus. An important book, in need of careful reading and re-reading. A critique of Kant, but also a critique of Hegelianisms.. through the critique of sociology and the misreadings of Hegel by sociological theorists.

[Zarko Cicovic · Rating 5 out of 5]

hard but best

[Ezra Schulman · Rating 4 out of 5]

going to argue to my profs that my moodle response posts are written in "the severe style"

[Jamie Tommins · Rating 5 out of 5]

After reading this one realizes, well of course Marx misread Hegel, how could he not when he Stood Him On His Head?

[Kira · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is heading for 5 stars so far. What a stroke of luck.

[Jonathan Norton · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jolly good.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

her dialectics are so good! like snapping jaws that leave nothing be!