The Violence of Acceptance: Fusion of Horizons and the Precarious Idea of Universalism

Introduction

Aristotle, in Book VI of his work “Nicomachean Ethics”, refers to five intellectual virtues. Epistêmê can be translated as scientific knowledge, that is, a methodical process to obtain the truth. Nous refers to the faculty of intuitive understanding, a connection with self-evident truths, through, for example, the development of axioms, allowing access to premises that are not demonstrable at all. Sophia will be seen as the representation of knowledge, of causes and principles, of axiological realities that guide our behaviour – all these virtues are related to what is immutable, which is observed, described, and assimilated as pure knowledge (1139b15–35; Malpas, 2022).

The other two virtues are related to what is contingent. Phronêsis, which can be translated as prudence, is connected with the ideas of action and decision, with praxis, that is, an activity that has an end in itself (1140a25–35; 1140b5–15). Technê, on the other hand, is related to the idea of creation, of creativity (poiêsis) (1140a15–25).

And here we come into contact with the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer, one of the great philosophers of the twentieth century, who defends hermeneutics as philosophy, a hermeneutic rationality that connects with the virtue of phronêsis (Malpas, 2022).

This connection manifests itself in a conscious dialogue with the text, extracting meanings from it and reflecting on those same meanings, accepting our preconceptions in relation to that text.

1. Fusion of Horizons

In his work, Gadamer refers to the expression “fusion of horizons,” which is a true form of hermeneutic universalism – understanding is an essential human need, and interpretation is transversal to all human experiences - and not merely a catalogue of values that condition all human behaviour. Gadamer considers that understanding is a form of negotiation between the subject and the interlocutor in the hermeneutic dialogue, with the aim of reaching an agreement. And this agreement underlies what can be seen as a horizon – that is, understanding is a fusion of horizons, enabling a connection with what was previously unknown or foreign to us (Malpas, 2022; Gadamer, 2006)

Through this view, we can observe international relations as a dialogue, whether in diplomacy or in the interpretation of legal norms applicable to cases, allowing the relationship with the other and the sense of community to influence the functioning of the international system. As mentioned, we cannot set aside our preconceptions; so, for the interpretation of a norm of international law it is necessary to observe a reflexive circularity between the norm, the fact, and the interpreter, in order to achieve the fusion of horizons (Voyiakis, 2011).

Therefore, the idea of “fusion of horizons” may influence international relations theory, allowing us to observe unity in diversity, where each part learns something from the other, without the imposition of a single horizon (Al-Daraweesh & Snauwaert, 2013).

From a normative point of view, the fusion of horizons also underlies a global dialogue on shared ideas, such as Human Rights and environmental protection, requiring agreement and constituting an idea of universality that transcends both our own view and that of the other, presupposing a respect for differences (Kachappilly, 2024).

In this way, the idea of international protection of Human Rights can be seen as a hermeneutic process of fusion of horizons, where the participants, with distinct histories and principles, that is, with different preconceptions, constitute a system and a common normative framework in which their differences are not erased (Voyiakis, 2011).

Socrates and Alcibiades Creator: Zahrtmann. Photo by National Gallery of Art on Unsplash

So, we can clearly think that some discourses on the protection of Human Rights fail to recognize these differences of the other, invoking an idea of universality that is grounded in what one of the parties considers to be true, destroying differences and what characterizes the other. Or even in relation to immigration, where nationals of one State may say they accept the other person, but without accepting what the other represents (for example, their religion, their way of dressing, their food, etc.), thus calling into question one of the essential principles of the Rule of Law: the principle of cultural expression.

This is what Slavoj Žižek (2008) calls “symbolic violence”: we accept the other without accepting what characterizes the other. In our view of universalism, there is always a certain level of exclusion.

As Slavoj Žižek (2008, pp.146) says: “What this means is that the "subject of free choice" in the Western "tolerant" multicultural sense can emerge only as the result of an extremely violent process of being torn out of a particular lifeworld, of being cut off from one's roots”.

2. Philia

In his later works, Gadamer establishes a connection with themes such as friendship and solidarity (Gadamer, 1999; Malpas, 2022). Gadamer distinguishes between “mere friendliness” – a relationship in which there is no true connection between two people, although there is a display of goodwill, with the being relationship based on interest or commitment – and “friendship”, or Philia, which constitutes a relationship between two people where there is a genuine connection, through something difficult to characterize, but marked by the idea of life together and reciprocal co-perception (Gadamer, 1999; Walhof, 2006).

This idea of “friendship” is closely linked to what is called a politics of solidarity, which presumes that members of any political community necessarily have certain things in common and, therefore, solidarities have to do with particular elements that bind specific groups of people to one another (Walhof, 2006).

Thus, in the context of international relations, this idea of “friendship” is essential for reaching agreements, and true deliberations will only be possible among communities characterized by this notion of philia, corresponding to a set of shared practices among States, where each part would learn to see itself through the eyes of the other and where there would be respect for what characterizes the other, without the need to make the other identical (Walhof, 2006).

Therefore, for example, regarding the protection of Human Rights, this view of friendship and fusion of horizons allows us to imagine relations between sates and peoples in which the defence of Human Rights is achieved through a politics of solidarity, where cultural differences are not dissolved but, rather, preserved (Healy, 2006), and not being reduced to the application of norms imposed by the most powerful.

Conclusion

The connection between phronêsis, the fusion of horizons, and philia allows us to have a view of international relations and the defence of Human Rights that goes beyond a merely technical perspective, which we sometimes observe in the current system, for example, through so-called “humanitarian interventions” that end up imposing a given horizon on the subjects of that intervention.

In other words, the Gadamerian view leads us to back up the idea of unity in difference, where there is an attempt to understand what characterizes the other, without calling those same differences into question.

So, a true fusion of horizons is the contrast of symbolic violence, which consists of the acceptance of the other, destroying everything that makes the other genuinely different.

References

1. Al‑Daraweesh, F., & Snauwaert, D. (2013, August 20). Toward a Hermeneutical Theory of International Human Rights Education. Educational Theory, 63 (4). https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12030.

2. Aristotle. (2024). Ética a Nicómaco. (A. de Castro Caeiro, Trans.) Quetzal Editores.

3. Gadamer, H.G. (2009). Friendship and Solidarity (1999). Research in Phenomenology, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.1163/156916408X389604.

4. Gadamer, H.‑G. (2006). Truth and Method (2nd rev. ed., J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.). Continuum.

5. Healy, P. (2006, June). Human rights and intercultural relations: a hermeneutico-dialogical approach. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 32(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453706064023

6. Kachappilly, K. (2024). Fusion of horizons and the search for universality in inter‑religious dialogue. International Journal on Culture, History and Religion, 6(2).  https://doi.org/10.63931/ijchr.v6i2.5

7. Malpas, J. (2022). Hans‑Georg Gadamer. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/ 

8. Voyiakis, E. (2011). International Law, Interpretative Fidelity and the Hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer. German Yearbook of International Law, 54.

9. Walhof, D. (2006). Friendship, otherness, and Gadamer’s politics of solidarity. Political Theory, 34(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591706290515

10. Žižek, Slavoj. (2008). Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. Picador.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein belong solely to the columnist and do not represent the official position of our think-tank. Humanotions cannot be held liable for any consequences arising from this content. Content published on Humanotions may contain links to third-party sources. Humanotions is not responsible for the content of these external links. Please refer to our Legal Notices & Policies page for legal details and our Guidelines For Republishing page for republication terms.