CONCRETE UNIVERSALITY AS A CRITICAL TOOL: HEGEL, ADORNO, CÉSAIRE

Abstract and concrete universality denote two ways of uniting elements. Abstract universality unites by ‘abstracting’ from/denying differences, concrete universality does so by establishing ‘concrete’, i.e. differentiated and mutually supportive, relations. While Hegel proclaimed the specific structure a concrete social whole and a concrete way of thinking ought to have, Adorno and Césaire made Hegel’s concept more flexible and used it as a critical tool. They show that the abstract/concrete universality distinction can serve to a) show how society hurts individuals by making them fit pre-determined, abstract roles, denying and repressing their different characters, identities and needs, and b) highlight the abstract way universal values like freedom and humanity are defined by law, and contrasting this definition with what those concepts could mean concretely. It is undeniably important to have the (abstract) universal, legal status of a free and equal human being. And yet, to truly and concretely actualize the humanity and freedom of each, human beings also need to be treated differently, depending on their group histories, circumstances, and their position within the social system. While Adorno primarily analyses the way abstract, economic concepts hurt individuals, Césaire seeks to collectively fill the abstract universal notion of humanity with the help of the experience of oppression.