What do you think?
Rate this book
The Notion of Authority: A Brief Presentation
Alexandre Kojève has been an often subterranean influence on twentiethcentury thought. With his profound interpretation of Hegel he became a key reference for such varied thinkers as Jean-Paul Sartre, Andr Breton, Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Leo Strauss. He returned to prominence after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the surprise inspiration for Francis Fukuyama's notorious thesis in The End of History.
In The Notion of Authority, written in the 1940s in Nazi-occupied France, he uncovers the conceptual premises of four primary models of authority and examines the practical application of their derivative variations from the Enlightenment to Vichy France. This foundational text, here translated into English for the first time, is the missing piece in any discussion of sovereignty and political authority, ready to take its place alongside the work of Weber, Arendt, Schmitt, Agamben or Dum zil. The Notion of Authority is a short and sophisticated introduction to Koj ve's philosophy of right, while in the context of his biography its significance resides in the fact it captures his puzzling intellectual interests at a time when he retired from the profession of philosophy and was about to become one of the pioneers of the Common Market and the idea of the European Union.
In The Notion of Authority, written in the 1940s in Nazi-occupied France, he uncovers the conceptual premises of four primary models of authority and examines the practical application of their derivative variations from the Enlightenment to Vichy France. This foundational text, here translated into English for the first time, is the missing piece in any discussion of sovereignty and political authority, ready to take its place alongside the work of Weber, Arendt, Schmitt, Agamben or Dum zil. The Notion of Authority is a short and sophisticated introduction to Koj ve's philosophy of right, while in the context of his biography its significance resides in the fact it captures his puzzling intellectual interests at a time when he retired from the profession of philosophy and was about to become one of the pioneers of the Common Market and the idea of the European Union.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2004
21 people are currently reading
822 people want to read
About the author
Alexandre Kojève
35books161followersAlexandre Kojève was a Russian-born French philosopher and statesman whose philosophical seminars had an immense influence on twentieth-century French philosophy, particularly via his integration of Hegelian concepts into continental philosophy. As a statesman in the French government, he was instrumental in the creation of the European Union. Kojève was a close friend of, and was in lifelong philosophical dialogue with, Leo Strauss.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
June 11, 2020
Not a review, but here's the recapitulation of four pure types:
1. Authority of Judge (honesty & impartiality) = of eternity = Plato = Judge
2. Authority of Father (first cause & tradition) = of past = Scholasts =God, Sovereign
3. Authority of Master (decision & action)= of present = Hegel = Lord
4. Authority of Leader (foreseeing & project) = of future = Aristotle = Nobility, Scholar
1. Authority of Judge (honesty & impartiality) = of eternity = Plato = Judge
2. Authority of Father (first cause & tradition) = of past = Scholasts =God, Sovereign
3. Authority of Master (decision & action)= of present = Hegel = Lord
4. Authority of Leader (foreseeing & project) = of future = Aristotle = Nobility, Scholar
March 20, 2020
It might just be that I didn't have the true philosophical vocabulary to appreciate the first half of this book but, as theory can often be, Alexandre Kojeve's The Notion of Authority felt far more obscure than insightful. Kojeve admits multiple times throughout his analysis that it is incomplete, yet even what he does get down seems to be a strange if not utopian conception of authority. Most prominent is Kojeve's insistence on the exclusiveness of force from authority, a take that informs this strange definition of authority (or maybe I should refer to it as 'Authority' instead) and, most problematically, seems to ignore the repressive nature of a demand from Authority. It is a definition that separates authority from violence in politics and might refer to something else outside of our day to day use of the word. But even then, it begs the question as to why Kojeve would create a notion of authority entirely separate from force other than in an attempt to valorize authoritarianism and obscure the violence, active or implied, that it frequently utilizes.
That being said, Kojeve's critical side shines in the book's second half. I must say that I am a sucker for critiques of liberalism, and Kojeve delivers both a somewhat historically interesting and truly insightful criticism of Rousseau and Montesquieu. While I still hold strong reservations of his 'Notion of Authority', the constitutive and 'mixed' forms of authority developed in the book are at the very least interesting in how he manages to synthesize different authorities from an array of philosophical traditions. That along with the temporal dimension of this notion certainly gives this book value to anyone concerned with the philosophy of authority while keeping a critical eye.
That being said, Kojeve's critical side shines in the book's second half. I must say that I am a sucker for critiques of liberalism, and Kojeve delivers both a somewhat historically interesting and truly insightful criticism of Rousseau and Montesquieu. While I still hold strong reservations of his 'Notion of Authority', the constitutive and 'mixed' forms of authority developed in the book are at the very least interesting in how he manages to synthesize different authorities from an array of philosophical traditions. That along with the temporal dimension of this notion certainly gives this book value to anyone concerned with the philosophy of authority while keeping a critical eye.
October 1, 2019
Alexandre Kojève žavi پܰ쾱š첹 (tačiau toli gražu ne trivialia) laikysena realybės atžvilgiu. Jei Hannah Arendt, prisiliesdama prie autoriteto problemos, pasitelkia subtilią metaforą, anot jos, autoritetas nėra prievarta lygiai taip, kaip bato kulnas nėra plaktukas, nors rezultatas ir gali būti panašus (Arendt 1995: 118); tai šis rusų kilmės (ir tai norisi pabrėžti) autorius autoriteto fenomeną užkabina už pačių šaknų ir nesidangstydamas poetinėmis įmantrybėmis. Autoriaus žodžiais, autoritetas iš tiesų manifestuojasi ne tada, kai kitą išmetame pro langą, o tada, kai pražūtingas (ir, žinoma, visai netrokštamas) šuolis atliekamas absoliučiai savanoriškai. Šuolis čia - bekompromisis veiksmas, kuriam iššaukti pakanka vien autoriteto egzistavimo.
Galbūt dar labiau pritriankianti metafizinė autoriteto analizė, pateikiama A.II. skyrelyje. Čia aiškiau nei bet kur kitur matome, jog visas veikalas yra savotiškas Hegelio-Heideggerio proanūkis. Kaip ir pono ir vergo dialektiką, taip ir autoriteto fenomeną Kojève antropomorfizuoja, primindamas žmogiškosios būties trapumą. Išskirdamas keturias autoriteto fenomenines (išskirtinai žmogiškas!) formas (tėvas, ponas, lyderis, teisėjas), Kojève jas metafiziniais saitais susieja su ne kuo kitu, o laiku, tiksliau tariant, istorija. Kiekviena forma turi savo šaltinį laiko tėkmėje: tėvas - praeitį, kuri perauga į tradicijos puoselėjimą; ponas - dabartį, kurią machiavelliškai pažaboti gali tik turintysis ù; lyderis - ateitį, kurią įstengia permatyti; teisėjas - amžinybę, kurios tvarumo bei idealumo siekia.
Dialektinė istorijos prigimtis tampa metafiziniu autoriteto skleidimosi pagrindu. Tad autoritetas yra generuojamas ne pačios žmogaus būties, t. y. nėra savaiminis šios būties faktas (tuo jis skiriasi nuo orumo), o užgimsta iš šio žmogaus veiksmų. Paprastai tariant, žmogus negimsta autoritetu, autoriteto titulas nusipelnomas istorinių lūžių metu. Žengiant dar toliau - krikščionybė mus guodžia, jog kiekvienas išlaikome šiokį tokį orumą, tačiau Kojève primena, jog ne kiekvienas galime, tapsime ar turėtume tapti išskirtiniu pavyzdžiu. Istoriją kuria tie, kurie - perfrazuojant jau minėtąjį Machiavelli - geba žmogiškosios, nuolat besiskleidžiančios, istorijos atžvilgiu išlikti šiurkštūs ir stačiokai.
Galbūt dar labiau pritriankianti metafizinė autoriteto analizė, pateikiama A.II. skyrelyje. Čia aiškiau nei bet kur kitur matome, jog visas veikalas yra savotiškas Hegelio-Heideggerio proanūkis. Kaip ir pono ir vergo dialektiką, taip ir autoriteto fenomeną Kojève antropomorfizuoja, primindamas žmogiškosios būties trapumą. Išskirdamas keturias autoriteto fenomenines (išskirtinai žmogiškas!) formas (tėvas, ponas, lyderis, teisėjas), Kojève jas metafiziniais saitais susieja su ne kuo kitu, o laiku, tiksliau tariant, istorija. Kiekviena forma turi savo šaltinį laiko tėkmėje: tėvas - praeitį, kuri perauga į tradicijos puoselėjimą; ponas - dabartį, kurią machiavelliškai pažaboti gali tik turintysis ù; lyderis - ateitį, kurią įstengia permatyti; teisėjas - amžinybę, kurios tvarumo bei idealumo siekia.
Dialektinė istorijos prigimtis tampa metafiziniu autoriteto skleidimosi pagrindu. Tad autoritetas yra generuojamas ne pačios žmogaus būties, t. y. nėra savaiminis šios būties faktas (tuo jis skiriasi nuo orumo), o užgimsta iš šio žmogaus veiksmų. Paprastai tariant, žmogus negimsta autoritetu, autoriteto titulas nusipelnomas istorinių lūžių metu. Žengiant dar toliau - krikščionybė mus guodžia, jog kiekvienas išlaikome šiokį tokį orumą, tačiau Kojève primena, jog ne kiekvienas galime, tapsime ar turėtume tapti išskirtiniu pavyzdžiu. Istoriją kuria tie, kurie - perfrazuojant jau minėtąjį Machiavelli - geba žmogiškosios, nuolat besiskleidžiančios, istorijos atžvilgiu išlikti šiurkštūs ir stačiokai.
May 18, 2021
A companion to his work on the Master/Slave Dialectic from the Hegel lectures - its clear this book was composed of notes not meant to be published
May 7, 2015
La tipología de autoridades (del padre, del amo, del jefe y del juez) podría ser útil, pero es resultado de una inducción sobre una base empírica no declarada, y aparentemente muy sesgada. Aunque Kojève pensaba estos apuntes como un memorandum para políticos, hay una complacencia pedante en cuestiones terminológicas que es repelente incluso para el lector medio.
December 19, 2020
A cumbersome recollection of thoughts with the most academic and orthodox approach to philosophy i've ever seen. His notions of authorities, especially that of the master, is even offensive. Yes, it takes force to subjugate one's slaves, fuck off will you.
November 12, 2020
Kısacık bir başyapıt, bir şaheser!
April 10, 2021
The precise categorization makes it a tedious read but the question of democracy throughout is interesting, it's most rewarding in the end when he talks about states needing idealism
December 12, 2020
De la philosophie assez claire malgré l’utilisation récurrente d’abréviations pour les 4 notions centrales (les 4 types d’autorité distingués par l’auteur ou par Hegel, je n’ai pas très bien compris s’il s’agissait d’une œuvre originale ou d’une interprétation de la pensée du Maître). Pour le chapitre sur les applications politiques, j’avoue que j’ai manqué d’attention et que j’ai un peu décroché : ce n’est pas vraiment une lecture de chevet mais plutôt un livre qui se lit un crayon à la main pour prendre des notes et réfléchir au contenu dense qui est donné, ce que je n’avais ni l’intention ni le temps de faire. Je suis donc passée un peu vite sur certains moments, tout en me disant que le texte restait accessible pour peu qu’on ait la disponibilité de le regarder de près.
En tous cas, j’ai bien aimé l’application de la théorie au cas de Pétain et, plus largement, à la question des bienfaits de l’apparence de révolution ou de projet d’avenir en politique, ceux-ci ne devraient-ils rien recouvrir de précis. Cela m’a irrésistiblement fait penser au projet et à la marche macronienne vers un programme bien incertain.
En tous cas, j’ai bien aimé l’application de la théorie au cas de Pétain et, plus largement, à la question des bienfaits de l’apparence de révolution ou de projet d’avenir en politique, ceux-ci ne devraient-ils rien recouvrir de précis. Cela m’a irrésistiblement fait penser au projet et à la marche macronienne vers un programme bien incertain.
December 20, 2023
Lo he releído y he aprendido un par de cuestiones que antes daba por hechas. Por tanto, es importante leer y releer esta obra, merece la pena.
Para mí, es un ensayo muy importante por doys cuestiones: nos introduce la génesis del pensamiento de Alexandre Kojève y, además, da un enfoque distinto al concepto de autoridad que hemos podido ver anteriormente en autores como Foucault, Gadamer, Hobbes, Hegel...etc.
Kojève renueva el concepto de autoridad revisando los distintos conceptos clásicos de esta. A través de Hegel, Platón, Aristóteles y los escolásticos, Kojeve trata de fragmentarlas y buscar su razón de ser.
Es un libro fantástico para entender la autoridad, más allá de premisas estériles y crear un ensayo capaz de ser una regla a la que remitirnos para saber la génesis autoritaria de cada sistema político.
Diría que es un libro relativamente asequible para todo público y no muy difícil de leer si se tiene la paciencia suficiente.
Para mí, es un ensayo muy importante por doys cuestiones: nos introduce la génesis del pensamiento de Alexandre Kojève y, además, da un enfoque distinto al concepto de autoridad que hemos podido ver anteriormente en autores como Foucault, Gadamer, Hobbes, Hegel...etc.
Kojève renueva el concepto de autoridad revisando los distintos conceptos clásicos de esta. A través de Hegel, Platón, Aristóteles y los escolásticos, Kojeve trata de fragmentarlas y buscar su razón de ser.
Es un libro fantástico para entender la autoridad, más allá de premisas estériles y crear un ensayo capaz de ser una regla a la que remitirnos para saber la génesis autoritaria de cada sistema político.
Diría que es un libro relativamente asequible para todo público y no muy difícil de leer si se tiene la paciencia suficiente.
May 17, 2023
An interesting look into the philosophy of authority. I can’t say that I agree with everything said, I can’t even claim to have completely wrapped my mind around everything said, but there is a lot to ponder and deepen my own thoughts on the nature of authority.
One thing that is important to keep in mind is that to understand what is being said you have to pay attention to how Kojève defines the words he is using, because it is often different than, and sometimes completely at odds with, the general connotation of those words. This is unfortunately common when reading any book that was written more than just a few decades ago, and is especially the case when the book has been translated.
One thing that is important to keep in mind is that to understand what is being said you have to pay attention to how Kojève defines the words he is using, because it is often different than, and sometimes completely at odds with, the general connotation of those words. This is unfortunately common when reading any book that was written more than just a few decades ago, and is especially the case when the book has been translated.
January 30, 2023
An interesting tentative probing at "Authority" as a concept for metaphysical study (metaphysical, ontological, and phenomenological more precisely). Predates Arendt and other explorations (which only focus on authoritarianism specifically). Clearly not meant for publication and just internal circulation to colleagues and friends etc. Notion is the key word. Frustrating repeats of "this requires an exhaustive study we don't have time for here..." and variations on that. Not sure if another author has tried to roll Kojeve's four "pure" types of authority into a full academic exploration.
January 5, 2022
No entiendo bien el respeto casi venerando que leo en algunas ocasiones hacia Alexandre Kojève. Esta uno tentado a pensar que lo hegeliano goza de una pátina de respetabilidad y una presunción de profundidad que ni el más vitriólico Schopenhauer puede disolver. Este ensayo, que se presenta dividido en partes como fenomenológico, metafísico y ontológico, comienza con una selección bastante arbitraria de cuatro tipos de autoridad, que el autor eleva a categorías absolutas y excluyentes. A partir de ellas, more geometrico, es capaz de demostrar hasta la inevitabilidad de que Islero matara a Manolete en Linares. En realidad, los razonamientos son resultados muchas veces de apriorismos (el más pesado, para mi gusto, el que se empeña en afirmar la inmutabilidad de lo justo en cualquier lugar y tiempo) y, lo más divertido, cuando le obligan a llegar a conclusiones incompatibles con la realidad, le echa la culpa a la realidad: "(...) Sin embargo, admito que esa consecuencia de nuestros análisis casa mal con la realidad histórica. Aún así, la deducción parece ser correcta. La cuestión debería ser estudiada más a fondo" (p. 151). No hay más preguntas, señoría.
Shelved as 'abandoned'
February 6, 2022I might return to this at some point after reading more accessible and somewhat more concrete discussions of the matter. I don't doubt that the work has real value, but I'm not at all sure it has a lot of value as an introduction to the topic.
July 30, 2017
Rather Good.
December 22, 2014
an interesting book with an innovative subject, at the time it was written in 1942.... Here we encounter the first problem of the book, it's date, the author wrote this political essay at a moment of political turbulence (the second world war) and this is reflected in the examples he uses which makes it a bit outdated at times. Another issue is that the author consistently refers to the state of research on the matter of authority (in the theoretical sense) that might as well (and probably has) have changed already.
But having said that the book remains relevant and fascinating. Kojève analyses the concept of authority and he claims it has been studied incompletely until he noticed it. He identifies four main theories on authority: the theory of the father (from the christian scholasts), the theory of the master (from Hegel), the theory of the leader (from Aristotle) and the theory of the judge (from Plato). All which claim to represent the ultimate authority. Kojève contradicts this convincingly that they are all equally relevant, representing the four pure forms of authority all based on different premises and equal in legitimacy depending on the context.
He goes on to analyse the phenomenological (putting emphasis on the time dimension of each, eternal, past, present and future), metaphysical and ontological aspects of these four base authority forms and their implications on political, ethical and psychological level (both for the authority and those living under it). Included in the end is a personal analysis of Marshal Pétain the ruler of the viché france regime under which Kojève lived and worked as an example of his approach of authority.
the essay is still very relevant and is worth reading for another view on politics to diversify your views and analytic toolbag. Halass what is very disappointing is that the ontological, metaphysical, the ethical and psychological parts of his analysis have not been developed and studied as extensively as the rest of the book. But despite this it remains very fascinating and worthwhile to read.
But having said that the book remains relevant and fascinating. Kojève analyses the concept of authority and he claims it has been studied incompletely until he noticed it. He identifies four main theories on authority: the theory of the father (from the christian scholasts), the theory of the master (from Hegel), the theory of the leader (from Aristotle) and the theory of the judge (from Plato). All which claim to represent the ultimate authority. Kojève contradicts this convincingly that they are all equally relevant, representing the four pure forms of authority all based on different premises and equal in legitimacy depending on the context.
He goes on to analyse the phenomenological (putting emphasis on the time dimension of each, eternal, past, present and future), metaphysical and ontological aspects of these four base authority forms and their implications on political, ethical and psychological level (both for the authority and those living under it). Included in the end is a personal analysis of Marshal Pétain the ruler of the viché france regime under which Kojève lived and worked as an example of his approach of authority.
the essay is still very relevant and is worth reading for another view on politics to diversify your views and analytic toolbag. Halass what is very disappointing is that the ontological, metaphysical, the ethical and psychological parts of his analysis have not been developed and studied as extensively as the rest of the book. But despite this it remains very fascinating and worthwhile to read.
Shelved as 'to-keep-reference'
October 18, 2016"Sólo algo más: quien tenga el perverso deseo de comprobar la complejidad del libro de Kójeve, no tiene más que hojear algunas páginas de la edición que —casi como una rareza� publicó la editorial Nueva Visión en 2005. Posiblemente todavía queden un par de ejemplares en Guadalquivir o en la librería de Pablo Pazos. Son —sacando el Prólogo� apenas 100 páginas de letra tan apretada y minúscula que sumadas a la complejidad expositiva de Kójeve dan por resultado un texto de temible y azaroso abordaje. Consejo: si usted quiere defender a un empleado suyo que ha sufrido en otro empleo —de carácter estatal� un exceso de autoridad o una arbitrariedad típica de un Estado en manos de personas indeseables que sólo quieren causar males y daños de todo tipo a quienes no juran fidelidad inalterable a sus postulados dictatoriales y perseveran en gestos de libertad que no podrán sino perjudicarlos, no acuda a Kojéve. Hay caminos más simples. Un buen abogado, por ejemplo."
Pág. 123
Pág. 123
June 3, 2023
4.5/5
April 19, 2017
Kojeve was an influential French Hegalian/post-modernist political philosopher in the post-WW2 era. He was distinctive in playing a large role in French government and administration as well as being a significant philosopher. This work is a short chapter/essay on the idea of Authority that was recently published. For readers not familiar with European postwar philosophy, this sort of work is an acquired taste that takes time to plow through and is almost certainly best appreciated within the broader context of the author's work.
Authority has proven a fascinating topic for a broad range of thinkers from political theorists and philosophers to organization researchers and business writers. For example, Max Weber's work on authority and bureaucracy (part of "Economy and Society") has had a long run of interest in the US, even as the empirical research traditions involving have moved away from European roots. Authority and related constructs have been important for understanding the non-coercive bases of action in both public and private organizations. Why people willingly follow directions in part depends on the perceived legitimacy of the directions they receive (or presume) in a situation. Some treat this as authority while others have noted difference "bases of power" or different determinants of influence. Different definitions abound. In any given situation, the basis of authority can be complex and several aspects of authority may be implied.
Most theorists who address these ideas come up with some sort of typology or framework - sort of a scorecard to understand the different forces at work in a situation. The actual basis for action may be a pure type or a mix of different types. Kojeve presents his own typology with four different types of authority: 1) Father; 2) Master; 3) Leader; 4) Judge. These four types are arrived at after a phenomenological analysis of how authority presents itself to an observer in different lived experiences. These types can be combined in a variety of ways - which are also examined - and each different composite type has its only meaning and issues. These types are also mapped onto different major philosophical positions (Plate; Aristotle; Scholasticism; Hegal) and also analyzed for the temporal dimension that each type implies. The presentation gets complex as the author sorts out the various arguments and provides tentative bases for further development. This renders the chapter more of a draft than a final product. The book concludes with a case analysis of sorts that applies these ideas to the political context of Vichy France in 1942, when the work was written.
I am glad I read the book and will keep thinking more about the typology. This is not a casual read, however, so caveat emptor.
Authority has proven a fascinating topic for a broad range of thinkers from political theorists and philosophers to organization researchers and business writers. For example, Max Weber's work on authority and bureaucracy (part of "Economy and Society") has had a long run of interest in the US, even as the empirical research traditions involving have moved away from European roots. Authority and related constructs have been important for understanding the non-coercive bases of action in both public and private organizations. Why people willingly follow directions in part depends on the perceived legitimacy of the directions they receive (or presume) in a situation. Some treat this as authority while others have noted difference "bases of power" or different determinants of influence. Different definitions abound. In any given situation, the basis of authority can be complex and several aspects of authority may be implied.
Most theorists who address these ideas come up with some sort of typology or framework - sort of a scorecard to understand the different forces at work in a situation. The actual basis for action may be a pure type or a mix of different types. Kojeve presents his own typology with four different types of authority: 1) Father; 2) Master; 3) Leader; 4) Judge. These four types are arrived at after a phenomenological analysis of how authority presents itself to an observer in different lived experiences. These types can be combined in a variety of ways - which are also examined - and each different composite type has its only meaning and issues. These types are also mapped onto different major philosophical positions (Plate; Aristotle; Scholasticism; Hegal) and also analyzed for the temporal dimension that each type implies. The presentation gets complex as the author sorts out the various arguments and provides tentative bases for further development. This renders the chapter more of a draft than a final product. The book concludes with a case analysis of sorts that applies these ideas to the political context of Vichy France in 1942, when the work was written.
I am glad I read the book and will keep thinking more about the typology. This is not a casual read, however, so caveat emptor.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.