existence； that it is not bound at all by the particularity everywhere characteristic of existence as
such； and is not tied up with life。 The process of bringing all this out involves a twofold action —
action on the part of the other and action on the part of itself。 In so far as it is the other's action；
each aims at the destruction and death of the other。 But in this there is implicated also the second
kind of action； self…activity； for the former implies that it risks its own life。 The relation of both
self…consciousnesses is in this way so constituted that they prove themselves and each other
through a life…and…death struggle。 They must enter into this struggle； for they must bring their
certainty of themselves； the certainty of being for themselves； to the level of objective truth； and
make this a fact both in the case of the other and in their own case as well。 And it is solely by
risking life that freedom is obtained； only thus is it tried and proved that the essential nature of
self…consciousness is not bare existence； is not the merely immediate form in which it at first makes
its appearance； is not its mere absorption in the expanse of life。 Rather it is thereby guaranteed that
there is nothing present but what might be taken as a vanishing moment — that self…consciousness
is merely pure self…existence； being…for…self。 The individual； who has not staked his life； may； no
doubt； be recognized as a Person； but he has not attained the truth of this recognition as an
independent self…consciousness。 In the same way each must aim at the death of the other； as it
risks its own life thereby； for that other is to it of no more worth than itself the other's reality is
presented to the former as an external other； as outside itself ； it must cancel that externality。 The
other is a purely existent consciousness and entangled in manifold ways； it must view its otherness
as pure existence for itself or as absolute negation。
This trial by death； however； cancels both the truth which was to result from it； and therewith the
certainty of self altogether。 For just as life is the natural 〃position〃 consciousness； independence
without absolute negativity； so death is the natural 〃negation〃 of consciousness； negation without
independence； which thus remains without the requisite significance of actual recognition。 Through
death； doubtless； there has arisen the certainty that both did stake their life； and held it lightly both
in their own case and in the case of the other； but that is not for those who underwent this struggle。
They cancel their consciousness which had its place in this alien element of natural existence； in
other words； they cancel themselves and are sublated as terms or extremes seeking to have
existence on their own account。 But along with this there vanishes from the play of change the
essential moment； viz。 that of breaking up into extremes with opposite characteristics； and the
middle term collapses into a lifeless unity which is broken up into lifeless extremes； merely existent
and not opposed。 And the two do not mutually give and receive one another back from each other
through consciousness； they let one another go quite indifferently； like things。 Their act is abstract
negation； not the negation characteristic of consciousness； which cancels in such a way that it
preserves and maintains what is sublated； and thereby survives its being sublated。
3。 Lord and Bondsman
In this experience self…consciousness becomes aware that life is as essential to it as pure
self…consciousness。 In immediate self…consciousness the simple ego is absolute object； which；
however； is for us or in itself absolute mediation； and has as its essential moment substantial and
solid independence。 The dissolution of that simple unity is the result of the first experience； through
this there is posited a pure self…consciousness； and a consciousness which is not purely for itself；
but for another； i。e。 as an existent consciousness； consciousness in the form and shape of
thinghood。 Both moments are essential； since； in the first instance； they are unlike and opposed；
and their reflexion into unity has not yet come to light； they stand as two opposed forms or modes
of consciousness。 The one is independent； and its essential nature is to be for itself； the other is
dependent； and its essence is life or existence for another。 The former is the Master； or Lord； the
latter the Bondsman。
The master is the consciousness that exists for itself； but no longer merely the general notion of
existence for self。 Rather； it is a consciousness existing on its own account which is mediated with
itself through an other consciousness； i。e。 through an other whose very nature implies that it is
bound up with an independent being or with thinghood in general。 The master brings himself into
relation to both these moments； to a thing as such； the object of desire； and to the consciousness
whose essential character is thinghood。 And since the master； is （a） qua notion of
self…consciousness； an immediate relation of self…existence； but （b） is now moreover at the same
time mediation； or a being…for…self which is for itself only through an other — he ＇the master＇
stands in relation （a） immediately to both （b） mediately to each through the other。 The master
relates himself to the bondsman mediately through independent existence； for that is precisely what
keeps the bondsman in thrall； it is his chain； from which he could not in the struggle get away； and
for that reason he proved himself to be dependent； to have his independence in the shape of
thinghood。 The master； however； is the power controlling this state of existence； for he has shown
in the struggle that he holds it to be merely something negative。 Since he is the power dominating
existence； while this existence again is the power controlling the other ＇the bondsman＇； the master
holds； par consequence； this other in subordination。 In the same way the master relates himself to
the thing mediately through the bondsman。 The bondsman being a self…consciousness in the broad
sense； also takes up a negative attitude to things and cancels them； but the thing is； at the same
time； independent for him and； in consequence； he cannot； with all his negating； get so far as to
annihilate it outright and be done with it； that is to say； he merely works on it。 To the master； on
the other hand； by means of this mediating process； belongs the immediate relation； in the sense of
the pure negation of it； in other words he gets the enjoyment。 What mere desire did not attain； he
now succeeds in attaining； viz。 to have done with the thing； and find satisfaction in enjoyment。
Desire alone did not get the length of this； because of the independence of the thing。 The master；
however； who has interposed the bondsman between it and himself； thereby relates himself merely
to the dependence of the thing； and enjoys it without qualification and without reserve。 The aspect
of its independence he leaves to the bondsman； who labours upon it。
（a）。 Lordship
In these two moments； the master gets his recognition through an other consciousness； for in them
the latter affirms itself as unessential； both by working upon the thing； and； on the other hand； by
the fact of being dependent on a determinate existence； in neither case can this other get the
mastery over existence； and succeed in absolutely negating it。 We have thus here this moment of
recognition； viz。 that the other consciousness cancels itself as self…existent； and； ipso facto； itself
does what the first does to it。 In the same way we have the other moment； that this action on the
part of the second is the action proper of the first； for what is done by the bondsman is properly
an action on the part of the master。 The latter exists only for himself； that is his essential nature； he
is the negative power without qualification； a power to which the thing is naught。 And he is thus the
absolutely essential act in this situation； while the bondsman is not so； he is an unessential activity。
But for recognition proper there is needed the moment that what the master does to the other he
should also do to himself； and what the bondsman does to himself； he should do to the other also。
On that account a form of recognition has arisen that is one sided and unequal。
In all this； the unessential consciousness is； for the master； the object which embodies the truth of
his certainty of himself。 But it is evident that this object does not correspond to its notion； for； just
where the master has effectively achieved lordship； he really finds that something has come about
quite different from an independent consciousness。 It is not an independent； but rather a dependent
consciousness that he has achieved。 He is thus not assured of self…existence as his truth； he finds
that his truth is rather the unessential consciousness； and the fortuitous unessential action of that
consciousness。
The truth of the independent consciousness is accordingly the consciousness of the bondsman。
This doubtless appears in the first instance outside itself； and not as the truth of self…consciousness。
But just as lordship showed its essential nature to be the reverse of what it wants to be； so； too；
bondage will； when completed； pass into the opposite of what it immediately is： being a
consciousness repressed within itself； it will enter into itself； and change round into real and true
independence。
（b）。 Fear
We have seen what bondage is only in relation to lordship。 But it is a self…consciousness； and we
have now to consider what it is； in this regard； in and for itself。 In the first instance； the master is
taken to be the essential reality for the state of bondage； hence； for it； the truth is the independent
consciousness existing for itself； although this truth is not taken yet as inherent in bondage itself。
Still； it does in fact contain within itself this truth of pure negativity and self…existence； because it
has experienced this reality within it。 For this consciousness was not in peril and fear for this
element or that；