2008
Master and slave relation is studied in many perspectives by many famous scientists such as Hegel and Nietzsche, and I believe it is still worthy of studying it profoundly. It is worthy because arguments over power and domination will always be held in any place where there is more than one person. Famous German sociologist Georg Simmel analyses domination and reciprocity concept in his text called “Domination and Freedom” which have a consistent context in itself. However, in my opinion, there are also some unconvincing points. In this paper, I will discuss the leader and led (or master and slave) analysis of Simmel's which he is mistaken to observe these two distant terms like they are the same and my aim will be to define how this issue can be understood differently.
Quoting from Simmel: “All leaders are also led; in innumerable cases, the master is the slave of his slaves” I suppose it is not proper to put ‘master’ into the position of ‘slave’ just because there is reciprocity between them. Of course there will be interaction but in my opinion the man who holds the power to rule and make people do something cannot be equal in any terms with man that are led, metaphorically slaves. This perception of Simmel’s sounds far away from the situation in real world where many led people really believe that they are just the led ones and have no opportunity to become other than that.
Simmel continues: “Said one of the greatest German party leaders referring to his followers: ‘I am their leader, therefore I must follow them’.” I think Simmel misses the fact that leader is not obliged to listen to suggestions of people. His will is to become the master so until becoming one he chooses to listen to them. After becoming a master it is again his choice to listen to them or not. This situation doesn’t turn a leader into a slave, instead his luxury of selection makes him a more powerful master. Maybe we should change the quote of the German leader: I am a candidate to become their leader, therefore I should follow them. selection
Let’s think about a prime minister who is elected with people’s votes in a proper way. People elected him because he promised them what they wanted and under the state laws he became the leader. Unless he breaks the laws, whether he gives people what he promised or not, he will still be the leader of the country for a certain period. One can say that a revolution may be the solution to bring down the prime minister and select someone or some group to get what is promised to them. I would say that in every way possible, including the revolution, some people will be the master and some others will be the slaves. Only the names will change, positions will stay the same. Master and slave interaction will continue in a different form.
Simmel also mentions punishment weapon of the leader: “If the absolute despot accompanies his orders by the threat of punishment or the promise of reward, this implies that he himself wishes to be bound by the decrees he issues.” Although I accept his kind of philosophical explanation, I also find this definition quite weak to see the reality. As a teacher is at the same time a leader, it is acceptable that he says he will punish the students who don’t come to class. His decrees cannot bind him as he is still the man in charge; he has the chance of making a choice to punish or not to. Even after he sets a decree, he can still forget about it and in fact that luxury of selection makes him more powerful.
To conclude, although Simmel’s text called “Domination and Freedom” is consistent in itself and he also makes significant clarifications about the reciprocity of master and slave, in my opinion it is an important mistake what Simmel did which is observing master and slave terms in equal conditions. Master’s bright conditions make him able to make decisions or decide the conjuncture and this situation makes him more powerful comparing to slaves who are in a desperate position, only to accept their leaders’ choices. Through the essay, I hope I could managed to lighten some points which are far from being concrete in the text.
Georg Simmel, Domination and Freedom, p. 207
Georg Simmel, Domination and Freedom, p. 207
Georg Simmel, Domination and Freedom, p. 208
Master and slave relation is studied in many perspectives by many famous scientists such as Hegel and Nietzsche, and I believe it is still worthy of studying it profoundly. It is worthy because arguments over power and domination will always be held in any place where there is more than one person. Famous German sociologist Georg Simmel analyses domination and reciprocity concept in his text called “Domination and Freedom” which have a consistent context in itself. However, in my opinion, there are also some unconvincing points. In this paper, I will discuss the leader and led (or master and slave) analysis of Simmel's which he is mistaken to observe these two distant terms like they are the same and my aim will be to define how this issue can be understood differently.
Quoting from Simmel: “All leaders are also led; in innumerable cases, the master is the slave of his slaves” I suppose it is not proper to put ‘master’ into the position of ‘slave’ just because there is reciprocity between them. Of course there will be interaction but in my opinion the man who holds the power to rule and make people do something cannot be equal in any terms with man that are led, metaphorically slaves. This perception of Simmel’s sounds far away from the situation in real world where many led people really believe that they are just the led ones and have no opportunity to become other than that.
Simmel continues: “Said one of the greatest German party leaders referring to his followers: ‘I am their leader, therefore I must follow them’.” I think Simmel misses the fact that leader is not obliged to listen to suggestions of people. His will is to become the master so until becoming one he chooses to listen to them. After becoming a master it is again his choice to listen to them or not. This situation doesn’t turn a leader into a slave, instead his luxury of selection makes him a more powerful master. Maybe we should change the quote of the German leader: I am a candidate to become their leader, therefore I should follow them. selection
Let’s think about a prime minister who is elected with people’s votes in a proper way. People elected him because he promised them what they wanted and under the state laws he became the leader. Unless he breaks the laws, whether he gives people what he promised or not, he will still be the leader of the country for a certain period. One can say that a revolution may be the solution to bring down the prime minister and select someone or some group to get what is promised to them. I would say that in every way possible, including the revolution, some people will be the master and some others will be the slaves. Only the names will change, positions will stay the same. Master and slave interaction will continue in a different form.
Simmel also mentions punishment weapon of the leader: “If the absolute despot accompanies his orders by the threat of punishment or the promise of reward, this implies that he himself wishes to be bound by the decrees he issues.” Although I accept his kind of philosophical explanation, I also find this definition quite weak to see the reality. As a teacher is at the same time a leader, it is acceptable that he says he will punish the students who don’t come to class. His decrees cannot bind him as he is still the man in charge; he has the chance of making a choice to punish or not to. Even after he sets a decree, he can still forget about it and in fact that luxury of selection makes him more powerful.
To conclude, although Simmel’s text called “Domination and Freedom” is consistent in itself and he also makes significant clarifications about the reciprocity of master and slave, in my opinion it is an important mistake what Simmel did which is observing master and slave terms in equal conditions. Master’s bright conditions make him able to make decisions or decide the conjuncture and this situation makes him more powerful comparing to slaves who are in a desperate position, only to accept their leaders’ choices. Through the essay, I hope I could managed to lighten some points which are far from being concrete in the text.
Georg Simmel, Domination and Freedom, p. 207
Georg Simmel, Domination and Freedom, p. 207
Georg Simmel, Domination and Freedom, p. 208
No comments:
Post a Comment