Rousseau's General Will and Hegel

from Increase resolution on the concept of deliberation Rousseau’s General Will and Hegel

Hiroki Azuma compares Rousseau's general will with [[Hegel's]] interpretation. Hegel has not been mentioned in the conversation so far, but could be an important key. Consider the relationship. Indeed, it is an important perspective that Hiroki Azuma compares Rousseau's "general will" with Hegel's thought when he discusses "general will 2.0. Hegel's thought considers the nature of "will" in a different interpretation from Rousseau's "[[the general will]]" and has a unique influence on the process of consensus building today. Based on this, we will discuss its relevance to Hiroki Azuma's "the general will 2.0.

1. the difference between Hegel’s “absolute spirit” and “general will

   • Rousseau’s “general will” refers to a “public will” that transcends individual private self-interest and pursues the interests of society as a whole. On the other hand, Hegel, through his concept of “Absolute Geist,” saw will as a process of historical development in the relationship between the “individual” and the “whole. He emphasizes that the essence of “freedom” is the self-realization of individual freedom and will within the community the process by which the spirit merges with absolute freedom through “self-knowledge”.
   • For Hegel, the general will is not merely a public agreement, but a process of ethical development and self-awareness of history, culture, and community as a whole. The formation of the will is therefore always generated in the dynamic relationship between the individual, society, and history, and is not an agreement or will fixed at a particular point in time.

2. rousseauian “general will” and hegelian “will-formation”.

   • Rousseau attempts to form a “general will” through conscious deliberation of “the public good” that transcends individual opinion. Hegel, on the other hand, believes that the formation of the will is naturally formed by history and the ethical development of the community, as opposed to the aggregation of individual opinions or mere agreement through deliberation. In other words, while Rousseau considers the “general will” to be something that should be consciously formed, Hegel sees it as “an unconscious process through the development of history and community.”
   • Hiroki Azuma’s “General Will 2.0” proposes to capture the will of contemporary society as a whole by accumulating unconscious behavioral data. This is different from the Rousseauian “conscious deliberation” to form the general will, but rather closer to the Hegelian “unconscious process. However, East’s “General Will 2.0” does not assume historical and philosophical development of the mind like Hegel, but focuses on the dynamic change of the will, as it aims to reconstruct the “will of the whole” using big data and digital technology.

3. hegel and “general will 2.0

   • Hiroki Azuma emphasizes Hegel’s “unconscious development of will” because “General Will 2.0” is not merely a process of deliberation, but seeks a “total will” that can be objectively captured through data. In Hegel’s view, the will develops in historical processes and communities, but Azuma seeks to reproduce the wholeness of that will through the accumulation and analysis of behavioral data in a digital society.
   • Although “General Will 2.0” does not directly deal with the process of historical will formation in the Hegelian sense, it has something in common with Hegel’s idea of self-development of will in that it deals with the “total will” that is formed unconsciously. In other words, it can be said that Hiroki Azuma’s “General Will 2.0” is an attempt to capture the overall will, which is close to Hegel’s absolute spirit, through objective data analysis using digital technology.

4. uniqueness of Hiroki Azuma’s “General Will 2.0

   • Rousseau’s “general will” is formed by individuals consciously deliberating the public good, but Hiroki Azuma believes that such conscious deliberation is difficult to maintain in the complexity and diversity of modern society. Therefore, he proposes an original approach to extract “general will” from unconscious data in a manner similar to Hegel’s unconscious and historical process.
   • However, unlike Hegel’s process of historical development and the formation of ethical communities, “General Will 2.0” is solely focused on the holistic understanding of will using modern technology, and aims at a new model for the formation of “unconscious will” in the digital age. In this respect, it differs neither from the Rousseauian process of deliberation nor from the Hegelian development of history and the psyche, but rather seeks a unique form of consensus building for the modern data society.

In summary, Hegel’s perspective on the self-development of will and the ethical development of community are relevant as unconscious processes that lead to “General Will 2.0,” but Hiroki Azuma focuses on will formation through data analysis in the digital society rather than its historical-philosophical aspect. While Hegel’s thought provides a theoretical background for understanding the process of unconscious will formation in response to “General Will 2.0,” it is considered to be treated as a foundation for reconstructing consensus building in the data age with Hiroki Azuma’s unique approach.

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ルソーの一般意志とヘーゲル using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.