Georg Hegel's Phenomenology Of Spirit

Social scientists often reference Georg Hegel’s work in Phenomenology of Spirit, as he attempts to develop the notion of self and the limits of its autonomy in society. In it, he describes what is often termed the master-slave dialectic. The master-slave dialectic describes the internal, or if taken more literally, the external struggle of recognition between two figures, the master and the slave. Their relationship is at once both reflective and reflexive, as one begins to understand the other as the antithesis of his or herself, giving an identity not only to the other, but also to his or herself. This dialectic places the figures in conflict with one another, where the historically determined means for resolution is the social defeat of

one figure. That figure now assumes the position in the world as the slave, while the other, maintains his liberty as the master. In America in World Civilizations, we have thus far covered the migration and colonization of European powers into the New World across the Atlantic, the Americas. While all explorers ventured to the Americas with the common goal of national expansion, their motivations regarding this expansion were varied. From social and religious, to political and economical, the different forces that drove the European exploration dictated the nature of the interactions the settlers had with the native American Indians. In much the same way that Hegel points to the inevitable contention between two consciousnesses within society, there are several observed instances of unfreedom and domination between Europeans, Indians, and Africans. Though Hegel describes such interactions between a master and slave as codependent, they are also, in a sense, immutable states. In the cases of Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, Pocahontas, and Olaudah Equiano, for example, their positions in society superficially shift from freedom to unfreedom and seem to challenge this dialectic. However, it is clear in the narratives of their lives that they do not ever overcome this unfreedom because they were never free; all three characters were always in a state of subjugation.
To allude to Aristotle’s, another philosopher’s, arguments about the naturalness of slavery, he states: “Now nature has distinguished between the female and the slave […] But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves […].” Barbaric societies, like what many European writers labeled Indian culture in the Americas, according to Aristotle, regarded women in the same plane as they regarded slaves. They were tools, extensions of men that were utilized to advance the agendas of both individual men (ie: father or husband) or a collective of men (ie: soldiers, chiefs). For Pocahontas, this was her function within her society. In the Camilla Townsend text, Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma, there is a vivid description of the various levels of unfreedom that the young Pocahontas faced in her life, both egregious and subtle. Even within the title of the book, it situates Pocahontas in the forefront of a dilemma of men (the plight of Powhatan, her father, and Powhatan people, her patriarchal tribesmen). Such juxtaposition is allusive to the Pocahontas’ role throughout the entire text. The young Pocahontas is described as a mediator, a sort of ambassador for her father and her people, travelling to and fro opposing Indian tribes as well as English settlements. Was this asserting the power and independence of Pocahontas? While certainly, this may deviate from the normative view of servitude, Townsend suggests that Pocahontas merely engaged these men, delivering messages and beginning dialogue between rival factions, yet herself never seemed to gain the respect or acknowledgement of having any power to do so: “But the master, the husband, and the king are not in the habit of pondering the thoughts and feelings of those beneath them. So, too, the English colonizers gazed at Pocahontas and judged her, but did not ask her what she thought.” If this was the status of Pocahontas while she was physically free, it is not difficult to comprehend how her kidnap and enslavement by the Patawomeck tribe only further solidified her un-free position in society. Her kidnap held value for the English and other Indians not because Pocahontas herself was intrinsically important, but because she symbolized the power and authority of both her father and her tribe. This sentiment is echoed even when Pocahontas is assimilated into English culture in the Old World. Upon her marriage to John Rolfe and return to his homeland, Townsend details how, “[…] the British were fascinated by her, adored her exoticism.“ Pocahontas’ life and legacy were marred by her objectification and domination as a mere slave and instrument of male agenda.
Similarly, Olaudah Equiano, the Eboe African who was kidnapped from what is now modern day Nigeria, and brought to various places throughout Africa, the Americas, and Europe, was no more than a bondsman to the many people he served and travelled with in his journeys.

In his autobiography, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, he begins with a detailed description of life in his homeland. He describes a culture that had a hierarchal, patriarchal system, not unlike that of Pocahontas’ tribe. There is an established government, with chiefs and judges, one of which, is his father. It is important to note that while Equiano states that he was slated to claim the status of “grandeur”, he never reached that point in his narrative before he was kidnapped and sold as but another slave in the Middle Passage. Thus, early life for Equiano, while perhaps better than some of his counterparts, was still of the same class, dictated by the governance of these socially superior figures. Similar to Pocahontas too, Equiano eventually regained a “free” status. But unlike Pocahontas who is still bound by the voyeuristic gaze of the men surrounding her, Equiano’s unfreedom stems from the social stigma and struggle of being non-white European. As he recounted during his time in the Barbados, “as I knew there was little or no law for a free negro here […].” The social intolerance of African people, while different in the Caribbean from in England or America, was still clear.

Equiano’s time in England was by far more favorable than the conditions he endured on American or Caribbean soil, yet he notes, “Soon after my arrival in London, I saw a remarkable circumstance relative to African complexion, which I thought so extraordinary, that I beg leave just to mention it […].” In the same way, that Pocahontas never fully escapes the bounds of slavery, Equiano too, regardless of his technical status as a free or not, never avoids subordination by whites in any setting.
Lastly, Cabeza de Vaca’s account too, illustrates the transformative nature of unfreedom. Cabeza de Vaca’s upbringing is unique from that of Pocahontas and Equiano in that he enjoyed a relatively privileged upbringing. Alvár Núñez Cabeza de Vaca was born into a hidalgo (Spanish nobility) family, which enabled him the opportunity to travel to America, in 1527, with Pánfilo de Narváez’s expedition to the Florida Gulf Coast. In Andrés Reséndez’s text, A Land So Strange: The Epic Journey of Cabeza de Vaca, he provides little detail into the early life of Cabeza de Vaca, making it difficult to derive any form of unfreedom from that period. The book instead focuses on the events leading up to and during the voyage, which provides a few examples of the servitude-like inferiority that Cabeza de Vaca faces as an adult. The first instance is his role within the expedition. Though Cabeza de Vaca was considered one of the officers of the crew, he still ranked below several crewmembers such as fellow castaways, Castillo and Dorantes, and obviously below the Governor, Narváez. In fact, Reséndez points to a particular moment where, “[Narváez] also saw an opportunity to shame his Royal Treasurer in public.” Narváez was not reticent about asserting his authority over his men, especially, the oft-dissenting Cabeza de Vaca. As aforementioned, the transition from corporeal autonomy to bondage only served to aggravate the severity of unfreedom for individuals. For Cabeza de Vaca, his capture and enslavement by different Indian tribes was revelatory; he eventually understood the extent of his unfreedom within this new society. Reséndez compares this unfreedom that Cabeza de Vaca experiences to the unfreedom that women like Pocahontas endured, where the men demanded grueling amounts of labor production from the women, yet the women enjoyed none of the social or economic prosperity that one might think would result from their work. He also compares Cabeza de Vaca’s (and that of his fellow Spaniards’) unfreedom to that of the African slave, Estebanico, noting, “[…] the fact that the white Europeans were also enslaved must have reduced the disparities. Indians, not Spaniards, exercised the ultimate authority now […] Estebanico became just another slave largely undistinguishable from his former masters.” This allusion to the endeavors of African slaves continues, as Cabeza de Vaca found himself in a quandary between ostensible freedom and apparent unfreedom when he is given the title of shaman. Though his exalted status was definitely better than absolute slavery, it can be interpreted through the text that their “powers” were nothing short of exploited by various Indian groups. Whatever intellectual or spiritual knowledge the castaways provided was gratefully taken for as long as it could be provided, while making clear that, “Although the outsiders appeared to lead the procession, real power remained in the hands of Indian lords who chose to stay in the background.” What would have become of Cabeza de Vaca and his companions if their medical rituals had failed seems to point to imminent regression into marked inferiority and slavery.
Though the background and accounts of the lives of Pocahontas, Olaudah Equiano, and Alvár Núñez Cabeza de Vaca are drastically different, they are interconnected by their shared experience in unfreedom.

Though to some extent all three may have seemingly lived, for a brief period of time, individualistically, they are still bound to the social, cultural, familial, and political restraints that mitigate their supposed independence. As Hegel suggests in his master-slave dialectic, all people are subjected to this greater social machine, a static dichotomy. Therefore, their tangible enslavement is not a break from their own sovereignty, but rather is an awakening and acceptance to the pervasive unfreedom and social defeat they have always

faced.