Take a look around you, and you’ll see conflict. Russia vs Ukraine, N. Korea vs the USA, environmentalists vs manufacturers, progressives vs conservatives.
In the early 19th Century, Hegel offered a method for understanding conflict in human history. According to him, a society that contains unresolved conflicts is headed for revolution. No matter how stable a society may appear at any given point, deep conflicts are driving events toward resolution that will give shape to a new social structure. Putting aside the more apocalyptic aspects of his philosophy, Hegel’s method of critique is very nutritious food for thought.
As abhorrent as I might find idealism*, it’s still helpful to note that my outlook on history starts with me. It starts with my own repertoire of categories. So it’s a fun exercise to employ: when looking at a conflict in my world, what opposition am I seeing? For instance, going back to manufacturers vs environmentalists. What I could see in this is the Marxist insight that the open-ended lust for profits is in conflict with a world that his limited resources. Or I could see it as greedy bastards vs noble, possibly holy stewards of the earth. After reviewing some options, I can allow myself to settle on what’s ringing true to me about the situation. As it happens, for me, this conflict is about an opposition inherent to creativity: that when the creative spirit descends, it’s blind to what it’s destroying. So it’s about the fact that creativity fills the mind with a vision of what could be, and the fall out is disregarded. That disregarded piece, according to Hegel and Marx, is destined to upturn the whole apple-cart.
Now that I have my little psycho-social critique, I can ponder resolution or synthesis of the parts, although this game has a firm rule: do not end the story in utopia. This is because every advent of resolution sets the stage for another conflict.
- Idealism isn’t really abhorrent to me, that was just rhetorical flourish.
