The core of Neo-Hegelian thought, as envisioned by figures like Deleuze and Negri, isn’t a rigid, linear progression of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Instead, it’s a dynamic, rhizomatic process – a chrono-dialectic. Think not of a single, grand narrative dictated from a central point, but of countless, interconnected resonances, each born from the collision and transformation of preceding moments.
1807: Schelling’s early phenomenology lays the groundwork for a more fluid understanding of being.
Imagine a rhizome – a complex root system that spreads horizontally, without a fixed center. This mirrors the Neo-Hegelian understanding of history and consciousness. Each event, each idea, doesn’t simply follow from the previous one; it emerges from a network of prior conditions, constantly shifting and reconfiguring itself. The “Absolute” isn’t a static truth to be discovered, but a process of becoming, a perpetual unfolding of potentiality.
The concept of intensive difference becomes paramount. It’s not about reducing differences to a single, unifying principle, but about recognizing their inherent multiplicity and their capacity to generate entirely new possibilities.
“The past is not a tomb, but a field of reverberations.” – A.M. Beveridge (hypothetical)
Crucially, Neo-Hegelian thought rejects the notion of the autonomous, rational subject. Instead, subjects are constituted through their engagement with the flow of history and the multiplicity of forces at play. They are resonance nodes within this network, constantly being shaped and reshaped by their interactions. This isn’t a passive acceptance of historical forces, but an active participation in their transformation.
Consider the worker in Marx. They aren’t simply a product of economic forces; they are *constituted* by their struggle, their collective action, and their ability to generate new forms of social consciousness. The worker’s “subjectivity” emerges from the very process of labor itself, creating a constantly evolving reality.
The concept of the multitude – a decentralized, non-hierarchical aggregation of subjects – becomes central. It’s a force of resistance, a collective potential for transformation that emerges from the bottom up, rather than from a top-down political agenda.
The ‘New Materialism’ finds a kindred spirit in this understanding, recognizing the agency of non-human entities – landscapes, technologies, and flows – within this dynamic process.
At the heart of Neo-Hegelian thought lies the principle of immanence – the idea that being is entirely self-contained and doesn’t require any external grounding. There is no ultimate cause or source outside of the process itself. This isn’t nihilism; it’s a radical affirmation of the power of the present moment. The future isn’t predetermined; it’s always being created in the here and now, through the interplay of forces.
This echoes the ancient Greek concept of aporia – the recognition that philosophical inquiry is often driven by contradictions and unresolved tensions. The goal isn’t to find definitive answers, but to embrace the inherent ambiguity and potentiality of the process.
The influence of Spinoza’s monism – the idea that everything is part of a single, interconnected substance – provides a crucial conceptual framework for this understanding.
The Neo-Hegelian synthesis isn’t a static resolution, but rather a *new stage of becoming*. It’s not about arriving at a final truth, but about generating new possibilities and intensifying the dynamic process. The dialectic never ends; it’s an eternal, self-generating movement.
Ultimately, Neo-Hegelian thought offers a powerful framework for understanding history, society, and consciousness – not as fixed structures, but as processes of becoming, constantly shaped by the interplay of forces and the potentiality of the present moment.