 In both individual and historical forms, the second stage of this developmental narrative is presented as a negation of the first, and the third stage, in turn, as the negation of that negation. The triadic structure of this argument has been read as confirming Stirner’s Hegelian formation and commitments (Stepelevich: 1985), but might also be seen as embodying a self-conscious parody of Hegelianism. In this context, Stirner has plausibly been understood as offering both a provocation and a knowing attempt at humour, utilising a dialectical structure in order to advance his own anti-Hegelian position. (De Ridder: 2008.)