With respect to the later 20th century, one has to speak not of the presence of Hegelianism as an operating philosophical current but only of studies on Hegel and of an experience of the Hegelian philosophy, to which, however, almost no orientation in philosophy was foreign. The repeated encounter of Western culture with Marxist thought after World War II brought to the fore the political, ethical, and religious implications of Hegelianism; and a marshalling into opposing camps analogous to that of the earlier crisis of the school took shape. There were no orthodox Hegelians, but there were denominational critics of Hegelianism, especially Roman Catholics, whose cognizance of Hegel’s painful development invoked, despite their differences, a certain fellow feeling with him.

In the centre were found scholars of a liberal and radical frame of mind but with varying orientations with respect to historical interpretations. Karl Löwith, a German philosopher of history and culture, saw Hegel as the initiator of the “historicist” crisis in modern thought, culminating in Marx and in Kierkegaard; and to this he contrasted the metahistorical perspective reflected in the Nietzschean motif of the “eternal return,” based on the ideal of a Goethean serenity. In France, Alexandre Kojève, noteworthy for his effort to harmonize Hegel with Martin Heidegger, proposed a reinterpretation of the Phenomenology as a manifesto of the emancipation of “man the servant” from all alienations. Jean Hyppolite, author of an outstanding commentary on the Phenomenology, usually presented a restrained humanistic interpretation of the Hegel of Jena. This renaissance of the study of Hegel conditioned the thought of some of the major thinkers of France. Particularly notable, however, was the Hegelian conditioning of German philosopher-sociologists such as Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse. The former was sometimes regarded as the most Hegelian thinker of the mid-20th century because he sought to bring again to the fore Hegel’s dialectic, understood in a new anti-intellectualistic sense, as a method for the solution of contemporary social problems. Marcuse, a partisan of a Diltheian interpretation, approached the position of the first Hegelian left, ending up in what critics saw as a neoromantic anarchism. The major merit of both of these thinkers lies in their incisive analyses of aspects of modern consumer societies, especially American—though their proposed remedies remain uncertain.

The major interest, however, in Hegel interpretation during this period was displayed by the Marxist camp. Marxist interpretation of Hegel had permeated the entire history of Hegelianism (notwithstanding the fact that the critical activity of young Marx against Hegel had been vehemently conducted and had led to various effects). This interpretation had settled upon the distinction made by Engels between the method and the system of Hegel’s philosophy—i.e., between the dialectic considered as a revolutionary “principle of movement” that achieves fulfillment in human culture, and the system, regarded, on the other hand, as reactionary because idealistic and conservative. With varying emphases on critical issues, this interpretation was continued in subsequent Marxist thinkers—from the Russians Georgy Plekhanov and Vladimir Ilich Lenin to Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin—the latter of whom affirmed the complementariness of historical and dialectical materialism.

Many Marxist scholars, especially in the countries of eastern Europe, remained favourable to the traditional line of Engels; and above all György Lukács, a Hungarian philosopher and literary critic and author of a volume on the young Hegel, did so. With the intention of revealing the romantic and irrationalistic presuppositions of Nazism, Lukács reevaluated, in German culture, the tendency of the Enlightenment and of democracy, which he recognized in the young Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, in Friedrich von Schiller, in Friedrich Hölderlin, and in the young Hegel—in whom he saw, however, a reactionary involution.

A secondary tendency, which drew attention in France with the work of Louis Althusser, drew Marx close to structuralism, a school that sought through a “human science,” to probe the systematic structures evinced in cultural life. In this school Marx’s humanism is viewed as a temporary, Feuerbachian phase, surpassed by commitment to the scientific observation of the structure of bourgeois society. Such structuralistic interpretation of Marxism thus ran the risk of departing from a due emphasis on the historical substance of Marxian materialism.

The latter motive was, on the other hand, the essential aim of a third Marxist current, in Italy, initiated by Galvano della Volpe, a critical aesthetician who discussed the relationship between bourgeois and socialist democracy and championed, in aesthetics, a critical and antiromantic Aristotelianism. This current was continued by Mario Rossi, who asked one to read again in full the texts of Hegel and Marx, to reconstruct the related movements, and to compare the materialistic conception of history with more recent philosophical currents such as structuralism, sociology, and the logic of the sciences.

A conclusion of a theoretical-systematic nature concerning Hegelianism has become not only impossible but also inopportune, because its possible interest has been effectively replaced by that of the sheer history of the movement. The latter has shown how the substantial ambiguity of the philosophy and dialectic of Hegel can be resolved only when its claim to be able to solve all problems on a theoretical level and to achieve a “circular” decisiveness in its arguments—which violates the conditioning specificity of historical facts—is refuted. It is then the scholar’s task to explore the limits of Hegel’s thought as well as its conditioned inadequacies—but also its merits, which are above all those of having expressed and documented the major part of the cultural problems of modern civilization.