Alexandre Kojève | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kozhevnikov (1902-04-28)28 April 1902 |
| Died | 4 June 1968(1968-06-04) (aged 66) Brussels, Belgium |
| Education | |
| Alma mater | University of Berlin University of Heidelberg |
| Philosophical work | |
| Era | 20th-century philosophy |
| Region | Western philosophy |
| School | |
| Institutions | École pratique des hautes études |
| Main interests | Philosophy of history |
| Notable ideas | Subjects ofdesire[1] |
Alexandre Kojève[a] (bornAleksandr Vladimirovich Kozhevnikov;[b] 28 April 1902 – 4 June 1968) was a Russian-born French philosopher and internationalcivil servant whose philosophical seminars had some influence on20th-century French philosophy, particularly via his integration ofHegelian concepts into twentieth-centurycontinental philosophy.[2][3]
Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kozhevnikov was born in the Russian Empire to a wealthy and influential family. His uncle was theabstract artistWassily Kandinsky, about whose work he would write an influential essay in 1936. He was educated at theUniversity of Berlin and theUniversity of Heidelberg, both in Germany. In Heidelberg, he completed in 1926 his PhD thesis on the Russianreligious philosopherVladimir Soloviev's views on the union of God and man in Christ under the direction ofKarl Jaspers. The title of histhesis wasDie religiöse Philosophie Wladimir Solowjews (The Religious Philosophy of Vladimir Soloviev).
Early influences included the philosopherMartin Heidegger and the historian of scienceAlexandre Koyré. Kojève spent most of his life in France and from 1933 to 1939 delivered in Paris a series of lectures onGeorg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's workPhenomenology of Spirit. After the Second World War, Kojève worked in the French Ministry of Economic Affairs as one of the chief planners to form theEuropean Economic Community.
Kojève studied and usedSanskrit, Chinese,Tibetan, Latin andClassical Greek. He was also fluent in French, German, Russian and English.[4]
Kojève died in 1968, shortly after giving a talk to civil servants and state representatives for the European Economic Community (now theEuropean Union) in Brussels on behalf of the French government.[5][6]
| Part of a series on |
| Hegelianism |
|---|
 |
Although not an orthodoxMarxist,[7] Kojève was known as an influential and idiosyncratic interpreter of Hegel, reading him through the lens of bothKarl Marx andMartin Heidegger. The well-knownend of history thesis advanced the idea thatideological history in a limited sense had ended with theFrench Revolution and the regime ofNapoleon and that there was no longer a need for violent struggle to establish the "rational supremacy of the regime of rights and equal recognition". Kojève's end of history is different fromFrancis Fukuyama's later thesis of the same name in that it points as much to asocialist-capitalist synthesis as to a triumph ofliberal capitalism.[8][9]
Kojève's lectures on Hegel were collected, edited and published by Raymond Queneau in 1947, and published in abridged form in English in the now classicIntroduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit. His interpretation of Hegel has been one of the most influential of the past century. His lectures were attended by a small but influential group of intellectuals includingRaymond Queneau,Georges Bataille,Maurice Merleau-Ponty,André Breton,Jacques Lacan,Raymond Aron,Michel Leiris,Henry Corbin andÉric Weil. His interpretation of themaster–slave dialectic was an important influence onJacques Lacan'smirror stage theory. Other French thinkers who have acknowledged his influence on their thought include thepost-structuralist philosophersMichel Foucault[citation needed] andJacques Derrida.[citation needed]
Kojève had a close and lifelong friendship withLeo Strauss which began when they were philosophy students in Berlin. The two shared a deep philosophical respect for each other. Kojève would later write that he "never would have known [...] what philosophy is" without Strauss.[10] In the 1930s, the two began a debate on the relation of philosophy to politics that would come to fruition with Kojève's response to Strauss'On Tyranny.
Kojève, a senior statesman in the French government, argued that philosophers should have an active part in shaping political events. On the other hand, Strauss believed that philosophy and politics were fundamentally opposed and that philosophers should not have a substantial role in politics, noting the disastrous results of Plato inSyracuse. Philosophers should influence politics only to the extent that they can ensure that philosophical contemplation remains free from the seduction and coercion of power.[11]
In spite of this debate, Strauss and Kojève remained friendly. In fact, Strauss would send his best students to Paris to finish their education under Kojève's personal guidance. Among these wereAllan Bloom, who endeavored to make Kojève's works available in English and published the first edition of Kojève's lectures in English, andStanley Rosen.
According to his own account shortly before his death, Kojève was a communist from youth, and was enthusiastic regarding Bolshevik revolution. However, he "knew that the establishment of communism meant thirty terrible years.", so he ran away.[12] From now on, he once claimed in his letter toTran Duc Thao, dated October 7, 1948, that his "... course was essentially a work of propaganda intended to strike people's minds. This is why I consciously reinforced the role of the dialectic of Master and Slave and, in general, schematized the content of phenomenology."[13][14] His articles from 1920s, talked positively about the USSR, saw it as something developing new. In an article to magazine Yevraziya, a leftEurasianist journal, he praised the CPSU's struggle against bourgeois philosophy, arguing that it would lead to something new, whether one calls it proletarian or not:[15]
"(...) Marxist philosophy can express the world view of the new ruling class and new culture, and every other philosophy is subject to destruction. (...) Everything currently taking place in the USSR is so significant and new that any assessment of the Party's cultural or 'philosophical' politics cannot be founded on preconceived cultural values or preformed philosophical systems. (...) the question of the Party's 'philosophical politics' can be assessed, it seems, not entirely negatively. (...) Toward the end of the nineteenth century Western thought effectively concluded its development [...] turning into a philosophical school of 'scholasticism' in the popular, negative sense of the term. (...) being a philosopher, one can nevertheless welcome 'philosophical politics' leading to the complete prohibition of the study of philosophy. (...) The Party is fighting against bourgeois culture in the name of proletarian culture. Many find the word 'proletariat' not to their taste. This is after all only a word. The essence of the matter does not change, and the essence consists in the fact that a battle is raging with something old, already existing, in the name of something new, which has yet to be created. Anyone who will welcome the appearance of a truly new culture and philosophy – either because it will be neither Eastern nor Western, but Eurasian, or simply because it will be new and lively in contrast to the already crystallised and dead cultures of the West and East – should also accept everything that contributes to this appearance. It seems to me, for the time being of course, that the Party's policies directed against bourgeois (that is, ultimately Western) culture is really preparation for a new culture of the future. (...)"
Mark Lilla notes that Kojève rejected the prevailing concept among some Europeanintellectuals of the 1930s thatcapitalism anddemocracy were failed artifacts ofthe Enlightenment that would be destroyed by eithercommunism orfascism.[16]
While initially somewhat more sympathetic to theSoviet Union than the United States, Kojève devoted much of his thought to protectingwestern European autonomy, particularly relating to France, from domination by either the Soviet Union or the United States. He believed that the capitalist United States representedright-Hegelianism while the state-socialist Soviet Union representedleft-Hegelianism. Thus, victory by either side, he posited, would result in what Lilla describes as "arationally organizedbureaucracy withoutclass distinctions".[17]
Kojève's views of Stalin, while changing after World War II, were positive. Kojève's interest in Stalin, however, might have been continued, whether positive or negative, after World War II. According toIsaiah Berlin, a contemporary of Kojève and his friend, during their meeting in Paris c. 1946-1947, they talked about Stalin and the USSR. Berlin comments on his relations with Stalin, saying "(...) Kojéve was an ingenious thinker and imagined that Stalin was one too. (...) He said that he wrote to Stalin, but received no reply. I think that perhaps he identified himself with Hegel, and Stalin with Napoleon. (...)"[18]
The most important result of this era was Kojève's work addressed to Stalin,Sofia, filo-sofia i fenomeno-logia (Sophia, Philo-sophy and Phenomeno-logy), a manuscript of more than 900 pages that was penned between 1940 and 1941.[19] In that manuscript, according toBoris Groys, Kojève defended his thesis that the "universal and homogeneous state in which the Sage can emerge and live is none other than Communism" and "scientific Communism of Marx–Lenin–Stalin is an attempt to expand the philosophical project to its ultimate historical and social borders". According to Groys, "Kojève sees the end of history as the moment of the spread of wisdom through the whole population – the democratization of wisdom; a universalization that leads to homogenization. He believes that the Soviet Union moves towards the society of wise men in which every member will have self-consciousness."[20]
According to Weslati, several versions ofSofia, including a typesetted copy, had been completed in the first week of March 1941, and one of them was given to Soviet vice consul in person by Kojève. Soviet consul "... promised to send the letter with the next diplomatic bag to Moscow." However, "[l]ess than three months later, the embassy and its contents would be put to the torch by Nazi troops."[19] It's not known whether Kojève's work had reached the USSR or was burned with the embassy.
In 1999,Le Monde published an article reporting that a French intelligence document showed that Kojève had spied for theSoviets for over thirty years.[21][22]
.jpg)
Although Kojève often claimed to be aStalinist,[23] he largely regarded the Soviet Union with contempt, calling its social policies disastrous and its claims to be a truly classless state ludicrous. Kojève's cynicism towards traditional Marxism as an outmoded philosophy in industrially well-developedcapitalist nations prompted him to go as far as idiosyncratically referring to capitalistHenry Ford as "the one great authentic Marxist of the twentieth century".[24] He specifically and repeatedly called the Soviet Union the only country in which 19th-century capitalism still existed. His Stalinism was quite ironic, but he was serious about Stalinism to the extent that he regarded the utopia of the Soviet Union under Stalin and the willingness to purge unsupportive elements in the population as evidence of a desire to bring about the end of history and as a repetition of theReign of Terror of the French Revolution.[25]
According toIsaiah Berlin, Kojève was not fond of the idea of a state of Israel. Berlin's several different accounts, like the ones published in the Jewish Chronicle in 1973, inThe Jerusalem Report in October 1990, and in his interview withRamin Jahanbegloo in 1991 (also published as a book), are about his meeting with Kojève.
According to the 1973 account, "ten years ago or more" he was "dining in Paris with a distinguished historian of philosophy who was also a high official of the French Government", namely, Kojève.[26] 1990 account also records that they were talking inRussian.[27] While talking, the issue of Israel andZionism was also discussed. Kojève, who "was plainly taken aback" at Berlin's defence of Zionism, asked Berlin:[26]
"[...] Jews [...], with their rich and extraordinary history, miraculous survivors from the classical age of our common civilisation – that this fascinating people should choose to give up its unique status, and for what? To becomeAlbania? How could they want this? Was this not [...] a failure of national imagination, a betrayal of all that the Jews were and stood for?"
In return, according to the interview with Jahanbegloo, Berlin replied: "For the Jews to be like Albania constitutes progress. Some 600,000 Jews in Romania were trapped like sheep to be slaughtered by the Nazis and their local allies. A good many escaped. But 600,000 Jews in Palestine did not leave because Rommel was at their door. That is the difference. They considered Palestine to be their own country, and if they had to die, they would die not like trapped animals, but for their country."[28][29] "We reached no agreement.", records Berlin.[26]
In a commentary onFrancis Fukuyama'sThe End of History and the Last Man, thetraditionalist conservative thinker[30][31]Roger Scruton calls Kojève "alife-hating Russian at heart, a self-declared Stalinist, and acivil servant who played a leading behind-the-scenes role in establishing both theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and theEuropean Economic Community" and states his opinion that Kojève was "a dangerouspsychopath".[32]
Kojève's correspondence withLeo Strauss has been published along with Kojève's critique of Strauss's commentary onXenophon'sHiero.[11] In the 1950s, Kojève also met the rightist legal theoristCarl Schmitt, whose "Concept of the Political" he had implicitly criticized in his analysis of Hegel's text on "Lordship and Bondage".[additional citation(s) needed] Another close friend was the Jesuit Hegelian philosopherGaston Fessard, whom with also had correspondence.
In addition to his lectures on thePhenomenology of Spirit, Kojève's other publications include a little noticed book onImmanuel Kant and articles on the relationship betweenHegelian andMarxist thought and Christianity. His 1943 bookEsquisse d'une phenomenologie du droit, published posthumously in 1981, elaborates a theory of justice that contrasts the aristocratic and bourgeois views of the right.Le Concept, le temps et le discours extrapolates on the Hegelian notion that wisdom only becomes possible in the fullness of time. Kojève's response to Strauss, who disputed this notion, can be found in Kojève's article "The Emperor Julian and his Art of Writing".[33] Kojève also challenged Strauss' interpretation ofthe classics in the voluminousEsquisse d'une histoire raisonnée de la pensée païenne which covers thepre-Socratic philosophers,Plato andAristotle, as well asNeoplatonism. While the first volume of the previous work was still published during his life-time, most of his writings remained unpublished until recently. These are becoming the subject of increased scholarly attention.
The books that have so far been published are the two remaining volumes of theEsquisse d'une histoire raisonnée de la pensée païenne (1972, 1973 [1952]),Outline of a Phenomenology of Right (1981 [1943]),L'idée du déterminisme dans la physique classique et dans la physique moderne (1990 [1932]),Le Concept, le Temps et Le Discours (1990 [1952]),L'Athéisme (1998 [1931]),The Notion of Authority (2004 [1942]), andIdentité et Réalité dans le "Dictionnaire" de Pierre Bayle (2010 [1937]). Several of his shorter texts are also gathering greater attention and some are being published in book form as well.
The End of History does not itself resolve the tension within the idea of equality — the ideal of equal recognition that is rationally victorious with the End of History embodies elements of market justice, equal opportunity, and "equivalence" in exchange (the "bourgeois" dimension of the French Revolution). But it also contains within it a socialist or social democratic conception of equality of civic status, implying social regulation, welfare rights, and the like.
From Kojève Lacan learnt not only a version of Hegel but also the techniques of seduction and intellectual enslavement with which this charismatic teacher, who defined himself as a 'Stalinist of the strictest obedience', enthralled and mesmerized his students.
(...) There was a French philosopher called Monsieur Kojève. He was originally Russian. We talked Russian. He was a very interesting man. He said to me: "You're a Jew. The Jewish people probably have the most interesting history of any people that ever lived. And now you want to be Albania?" And I said, "Yes, we do. For our purposes, for Jews, Albania is a step forward.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link)(...) The purpose of Zionism is normalization; the creation of conditions in which the Jews could live as a nation, like the others. Alexandre Kojève, whom I spoke of before, once said to me:"The Jews have the most interesting history of any people. Yet now they want to be what? Albania? How can they?" I said: "For the Jews to be like Albania constitutes progress. Some 600,000 Jews in Romania were trapped like sheep to be slaughtered by the Nazis and their local allies. A good many escaped. But 600,000 Jews in Palestine did not leave because Rommel was at their door. That is the difference. They considered Palestine to be their own country, and if they had to die, they would die not like trapped animals, but for their country." That's what I mean. I don't want Jews to stop living where they live. If they do not mind being a minority, that is in order. There is nothing wrong with being a minority. Some people feel minorities to be a disturbing element—T. S. Eliot, for example, or the Frenchintégralistes who influenced him. Minorities are often a valuable stimulus to the majority, a leaven, a source of fermentation. But nobody should be forced to be a minority. If you don't want to belong to a minority, and you want a normal life, you can fully attain it only in a country whose culture is yours. This path must be opened.
