Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Volkgeist

Universal history is the exhibition of Geist1 in the process of working out the knowledge
of what it potentially is. Just as the seed bears in itself the whole nature of the tree,
including the taste and form of its fruit, so do the first traces of Geist virtually contain
the whole of its own history. What is rational is actual, and what is actual is rational.
Thus what is rational has the potential of actualizing itself, and thus history, far from
being an undifferentiated aggregate of incomprehensible accidents and chance events,
has a rational structure. Thus, the march of reason through history is a complex
dialectical process, in which both individuals and nations are mere tools, unaware of
the import and significance of their own deeds. Changes might be introduced by world-
historical individuals such as Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon, but their roles derive
not from their conscious intentions or political ideas, for they are motivated, like all
other men, by base desires such as ambition, greed, and glory. It is the objective
consciousness of their deeds, and not their subjective intentions, that makes them
historically significant. They are thus unconscious tools in the hand of the Geist. History
is, thus, the development towards the consciousness of freedom as expressed in the
political, cultural, and religious institutions of a nation---Volksgeist. This is expressed
externally through the formation of objective institutions, in particular the State. There
are three basic stages of the movement of Geist through history, each representing a
further evolution of the consciousness of freedom:

1. The Oriental World. The Orientals did not attain the knowledge that Geist, in the
form of Mankind, is free. They only knew that "one is free." But in those terms, the
freedom of that one person was only caprice, whether exhibited as ferocity, a brutal
recklessness of passion, or as mildness and tameness of the desires, either of which is
merely an accident of nature. That "one" was thus only a despot. Hence the Volksgeist
expressed itself through despotism, where only one had rights.

2. The Classical World. The consciousness of freedom first arose among the Greeks, and
therefore they were free, though they, just as the Romans, knew only that "some are
free," not Man as such. Even Plato and Aristotle did not know that. Thus the Greeks had
slaves, and the whole of their life and the maintenance of their splendid liberty was
implicated with the institution of slavery. That fact, on the one hand, made their liberty
only an accidental, transient and limited growth and, on the other hand, constituted it a
rigorous thralldom of our common nature, i.e., of the human. Hence the Volksgeist
expressed itself through the city-state, where only some had rights.

3. The Germanic World. The Germanic nations, under the influence of Christianity,
were the first to attain the consciousness that Man, as Man, is free, that it is the freedom
of Geist which constitutes Geist's essence. This consciousness arose first in religion, the

1
Spirit
most inward region of Geist. Thus all could be free, and hence the Volksgeist expressed
itself through the modern state, where all have rights. However, to prevent the State
from degenerating into a war of all against all, mediation through rational institutions is
required, as the only guarantee against arbitrariness and the threat of tyranny posed by
absolute monarchy and absolute majoritarianism. The history of the world [Zeitgeist] is
none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.....

Johann Gottfried von Herder, Materials for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind

Nature has sketched with mountain ranges which she fashioned and with streams
which she caused to flow from them the rough but substantial outline of the whole
history of man. .One height produced nations of hunters, thus supporting and
rendering necessary a savage state; another, more extended and mild, afforded a field to
shepherd peoples and supplied them with tame animals; a third made agriculture easy
and needful; while a fourth led to fishing and navigation and at length to trade. The
structure of the earth, in its natural variety and diversity, rendered all such
distinguishing conditions inescapable . . Seas, mountain ranges and rivers are the most
natural boundaries not only of lands but also of peoples, customs, languages and
empires, and they have been, even in the greatest revolutions in human affairs, the
directing lines or limits of world history. If otherwise mountains had arisen, rivers
flowed, or coasts trended, then how very different would mankind have scattered over
this tilting place of nations....

Nature brings forth families; the most natural state therefore is also one people, with a
national character of its own. For thousands of years this character preserves itself
within the people and, if the native princes concern themselves with it, it can be
cultivated in the most natural way: for a people is as much a plant of nature as is a
family, except that it has more branches. Nothing therefore seems more contradictory to
the true end of governments than the endless expansion of states, the wild confusion of
races and nations under one scepter. An empire made up of a hundred peoples and a
120 provinces which have been forced together is a monstrosity, not a state-body.

What is the supreme law which we note in all great historical events? In my opinion, it
is this: that, in every part of our earth, all possible development is determined in part by
the position and the necessities of the locality, in part by circumstances and the
opportunities of the age, and in part by the inborn and self-nourishing character of the
peoples.... All events in the human sphere, like all productions of nature, are decreed
solely by time, locality, and national character, in short by the coordination of all the
forces of life in their most positive individuality.

Active human powers are the springs of human history, and, as man originates from
and in one race, so his body, education, and mode of thinking are genetic. Hence that
striking national character, which, deeply imprinted on the most ancient peoples, is
unequivocally displayed in all their operations on the earth. As the mineral water
derives its component parts, its operative power, and its flavor from the soil through
which it flows, so the ancient character of peoples arose from the family features, the
climate, the way of life and education, the early actions and employments, that were
peculiar to them. The manners of the fathers took deep root and became the internal
prototype of the descendants. The mode of thinking of the Jews, which is best known to
us from their writings and actions, may serve as an example: both in the land of their
fathers and in the midst of other nations they remain as they were, and even when
mixed with other peoples they may be distinguished for some generations onward. It
was and is the same with all other peoples of antiquity---Egyptians, Chinese, Arabs,
Hindus, etc. The more secluded they lived, nay frequently the more they were
oppressed, the more their character was confirmed, so that, if every one of these nations
had remained in its place, the earth might have been regarded as a garden where in one
plot one human national plant, in another, another, bloomed in its proper form and
nature, where in this corner one kind of national animal, in that, another, pursued its
course according to its instincts and character....

Has a people anything dearer than the speech of its fathers? In its speech resides its
whole thought-domain, its tradition, history, religion, and basis of life, all its heart and
soul. To deprive a people of its speech is to deprive it of its one eternal good.... As God
tolerates all the different languages in the world, so also should a ruler not only tolerate
but honor the various languages of his peoples.... The best culture of a people cannot be
expressed through a foreign language; it thrives on the soil of a nation most beautifully,
and, I may say, it thrives only by means of the nation's inherited and inheritable dialect.
With language is created the heart of a people; and is it not a high concern, amongst so
many peoples---Hungarians, Slavs, Rumanians, etc.---to plant seeds of well-being for
the far future and in the way that is dearest and most appropriate to them? . . .

The savage who loves himself, his wife, and his child with quiet joy and glows with
limited activity for his tribe as for his own life is, it seems to me, a more genuine being
than that cultured shade who is enchanted by the shadow of his whole species.... In his
poor hut, the former finds room for every stranger, receives him as a brother with
impartial good humor and never asks whence he came. The inundated heart of the idle
cosmopolitan is a home for no one....

No greater injury can be inflicted on a nation than to be robbed of her national

character, the peculiarity of her spirit and her language. Reflect on this and you will
perceive our irreparable loss. Look about you in Germany for the character of the
nation, for their own particular cast of thought, for their own peculiar vein of speech;
where are they? Read Tacitus; there you will find their character: "The tribes of
Germany, who never degrade themselves by mingling with others, form a peculiar,
unadulterated, original nation, which is its own archetype. Even their physical
development is universally uniform, despite the large numbers of the people," and so
forth. Now look about you and say: "The tribes of Germany have been degraded by
mingling with others; they have sacrificed their natural disposition in protracted
intellectual servitude; and, since they have, in contrast to others, imitated a tyrannical
prototype for a long time, they are, among all the nations of Europe, the least true to
themselves.''. . .

If Germany were only guided by the forces of the age, by the leading strings of her own
culture, our intellectual disposition would doubtless be poor and restricted; but it
would be true to our own soil, fashioned upon its own model, and not so misshapen
and cast down.

Otto Von Bismarck, “Blood and Iron” Speech, 1862

There are members of the National Association [Nationalverein] – of this association that
has achieved a reputation owing to the justness of its demands – highly esteemed
members who have stated that all standing armies are superfluous. Well, what if a
public assembly had this view! Would not a government have to reject this?!

There was talk about the "sobriety" of the Prussian people. Yes, the great independence
of the individual makes it difficult in Prussia to govern with the constitution (or to
consolidate the constitution?); in France things are different, there this individual
independence is lacking. A constitutional crisis would not be disgraceful, but honorable
instead. – Furthermore, we are perhaps too "well-educated" to support a constitution;
we are too critical; the ability to assess government measures and records of the public
assembly is too common; in the country there are a lot of catiline2 characters who have a
great interest in upheavals. This may sound paradoxical, but everything proves how
hard constitutional life is in Prussia. – Furthermore, one is too sensitive about the
government's mistakes; as if it were enough to say "this and that [cabinet] minister
made mistakes,["] as if one wasn't adversely affected oneself.

2
Reference to Catiline, an ancient Roman who conspired against the Senate and plotted to burn the city.
Public opinion changes, the press is not [the same as] public opinion; one knows how
the press is written; members of parliament have a higher duty, to lead opinion, to
stand above it. We are too hot-blooded, we have a preference for putting on armor that
is too big for our small body; and now we're actually supposed to utilize it. Germany is
not looking to Prussia's liberalism, but to its power; Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden may
indulge liberalism, and yet no one will assign them Prussia's role; Prussia has to
coalesce and concentrate its power for the opportune moment, which has already been
missed several times; Prussia's borders according to the Vienna Treaties [of 1814-15] are
not favorable for a healthy, vital state; it is not by speeches and majority resolutions that
the great questions of the time are decided – that was the big mistake of 1848 and 1849 –
but by iron and blood.