Kojeve and Coser in Conversation

The concept of "violence" is conventionally associated with negative connotations due to its
inherent capacity to inflict harm and suffering. However, both Alexandre Kojeve and Lewis A.
Coser offer unique perspectives on the idea that violence can serve "positive" functions in
society and history. In this essay, we will assess the validity of their descriptions of the
positive functions of violence and explore the ways in which their accounts complement each
other, as well as the distinctions between their views.

Kojeve, in "Desire and Work in the Master and Slave," adopts a philosophical lens, drawing
upon Hegel's dialectical philosophy to analyze the role of violence in human history. He
argues that violence, particularly in the context of the master-slave relationship, plays a
pivotal role in human development. According to Kojeve, this dialectical struggle, often
characterized by physical and psychological violence, is a driving force behind historical
progress. Violence, in this context, serves as a means to assert dominance, compelling the
slave to work and thereby contributing to the development of culture and society.

Coser, in "Some Social Functions of Violence," takes a sociological approach, recognizing

both the destructive and constructive potential of violence in society. While acknowledging
the negative aspects of violence, he also identifies positive functions. Coser suggests that
violence can serve to maintain social order by suppressing dissent, upholding societal
norms, and reinforcing shared values. Furthermore, he emphasizes that violence can
function as a mechanism for social change, particularly when marginalized or oppressed
groups employ it as a means of resistance and rebellion, ultimately leading to the correction
of social injustices.

Both Kojeve and Coser contend that violence can indeed have "positive" functions in society
and history. They share the recognition that the impact of violence is context-dependent and
can lead to both destructive and constructive outcomes. What makes their accounts
complementary is their common acknowledgment of the multifaceted nature of violence and
the need to consider the specific social and historical contexts in which it occurs.

The primary distinction between their perspectives lies in their focus and approach. Kojeve's
perspective is more abstract and philosophical, centered on the intellectual framework of the
master-slave dialectic. He offers a theoretical explanation of how violence contributes to
human development, highlighting its role in the historical and philosophical progression of
societies. On the other hand, Coser adopts a more practical and empirical approach by
analyzing concrete examples of violence's functions in society. His work provides a
sociological examination of how violence can be a mechanism for maintaining social stability
and driving societal change.

In essence, while Kojeve provides a broader theoretical framework, Coser delves more
deeply into the practical manifestations of violence in societal contexts. Kojeve's perspective
is more abstract and theoretical, whereas Coser's perspective is grounded in the concrete
realities of human societies.

In conclusion, both Kojeve and Coser challenge the common-sense notion that violence is
purely negative by offering thought-provoking insights into its potential positive functions in
society and history. They both emphasize the importance of understanding the contextual
nature of violence and its complex implications. While their perspectives differ in terms of
focus and approach, they complement each other by providing a comprehensive
understanding of the multifaceted role that violence can play in human societies. By
acknowledging the dual nature of violence, as both a destructive and constructive force, they
encourage a more nuanced and thoughtful exploration of this contentious topic, ultimately
contributing to a richer understanding of its role in society and history.

I hope you like it!!!