Skip to main content
Kent Academic Repository

Reception, context and canonicity: The demonization, normalization and eventual proliferation of G. W. F. Hegel in international relations

Molloy, Sean P. (2022) Reception, context and canonicity: The demonization, normalization and eventual proliferation of G. W. F. Hegel in international relations. Leiden Journal of International Law, 35 . pp. 497-520. ISSN 0922-1565. E-ISSN 1478-9698. (doi:10.1017/S0922156521000716) (KAR id:92551)

PDF Publisher pdf
Language: English


Download this file
(PDF/257kB)
[thumbnail of reception-context-and-canonicity-the-demonization-normalization-and-eventual-proliferation-of-g-w-f-hegel-in-international-relations.pdf]
Preview
Request a format suitable for use with assistive technology e.g. a screenreader
PDF Author's Accepted Manuscript
Language: English

Restricted to Repository staff only
Contact us about this Publication
[thumbnail of Molloy_Reception, Context and Cannonicity.PDF]
Official URL:
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156521000716

Abstract

G. W. F. Hegel is one of the most significant philosophers in history yet the reception afforded to him in International Relations (IR) does not compare with his peers, most notably Immanuel Kant. Although by no means absent from IR he cannot be described as a canonical figure. Given his stature in philosophy this comparatively minor interest in Hegel prompts investigation into his failure to enter the pantheon of ‘Great Thinkers’ in IR. The critical-historical investigation of Hegel’s reception in IR undertaken in this article reveals that Hegel, unlike Kant, was cast as an intellectual villain – a blood-soaked Priest of Moloch, whose demonic ideology of state-worship led to the slaughter of the First World War, the rise of the Nazis, and the catastrophe of the Second World War. Condemned by an array of leading intellectuals from John Dewey to Karl Popper, Hegel was side-lined and erased until his work was reconsidered by revisionist scholarship in philosophy and – eventually – in International Relations. From the 1980s, a number of hotly contested, decidedly uncanonical ‘Hegels’ have found expression in IR, from a ‘realist’ Hegel to a postcolonial Hegel. Ultimately, the article argues that the treatment of Hegel reveals that the formation of the IR canons was not an innocent, dispassionate process but rather was imbricated in the great ideological and military conflicts of modernity.

Item Type: Article
DOI/Identification number: 10.1017/S0922156521000716
Uncontrolled keywords: Hegel, History, IR Theory, Reception, Canon
Subjects: H Social Sciences
Divisions: Divisions > Division of Human and Social Sciences > School of Politics and International Relations
Depositing User: Sean Molloy
Date Deposited: 05 Jan 2022 11:43 UTC
Last Modified: 08 Jan 2024 20:03 UTC
Resource URI: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/92551 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)

University of Kent Author Information

  • Depositors only (login required):

Total unique views for this document in KAR since July 2020. For more details click on the image.