Volume 4, Issue 4 (2024)
jpt 2024, 4(4): 387-402 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Goldouz F, Raayat Jahromi M. Gadamer’s Philosophical Hermeneutics in the Mirror of Political Philosophy. jpt 2024; 4 (4) :387-402
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-79369-en.html
URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-79369-en.html
1- Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran
Full-Text [PDF 625 kb]
(402 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (531 Views)
Full-Text: (22 Views)
Introduction
In general, two approaches can be considered in the field of hermeneutics—non-pluralistic and pluralistic. In the pluralistic hermeneutical approach, the final or definitive understanding is reproduced based on the author's mentality and in a methodical and absolute manner. This means there is no possibility of different and plural understandings emerging in this approach. In contrast to this approach, Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutic emphasizes the plurality of understanding. In this approach, the process of understanding is described by historicality, linguisticality, and playfulness characteristics. This process takes shape in the context of tradition, history, and culture, leading to a distinct and new understanding each time. This approach contrasts Schleiermacher's thought, which considers understanding a repetition of the author's action [Gadamer, 2004: 180]. Therefore, this paper intends to investigate the potential of Gadamer's hermeneutical approach in the context of political philosophy, namely Totalitarianism and Pluralism, based on convergent and divergent elements.
Totalitarianism and pluralism
Before the 18th century, thinkers divided governments into autocratic and non-autocratic categories. In the 20th century, as new elements emerged, the term totalitarian gradually replaced authoritarianism. This concept was developed by thinkers such as Hannah Arendt, Isiah Berlin, and Karl Popper [Traverso, 2019: 112]. As a twentieth-century phenomenon, totalitarianism is based on the possibilities that modern industry and technology offer and make available to regimes. [Wiener, 2012: 375]. The most important characteristic distinguishing contemporary totalitarianism from dictatorship is the totality of domination [Spiro, 2006: 3]. Systematic planning and organization are carried out in this regard [Iggers, 1958: 191]. New organizations provide control over the thinking of individual citizens [Wiener, 2012: 375]. For this reason, Hannah Arendt considers totalitarianism as a new form of dictatorship [Arendt, 2010: 17]. However, in political pluralism, contrary to the principles of totalitarianism, the pluralistic perspective becomes central. No concept will prevail in political pluralism as the basis for determining policies and laws [Kaul, 2020: 221]. Therefore, in pluralistic societies, the central government is not considered the dominant power, but rather its basic function is to negotiate with diverse groups [Vincent, 2012: 273]. In political pluralism, human individual and social life consists of heterogeneous activities [Richardson, 2009: 133]. Therefore, the distinction between totalitarianism and political pluralism lies in practice [Baehr, 2010: 62].
Examining the relationship between Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics and political totalitarianism
Gadamer distances from methodological hermeneutics by emphasizing the ontological aspect of understanding [Grondin, 1994: 114]. According to Gadamer, the meaning of a text is not limited to the meaning intended by the author. Reproducing the author's intent creates a form of exclusivism. Therefore, based on the absolutist component, the author-centered approach is compatible with totalitarianism. In contrast, Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics emphasizes plurality. In other words, the fusion of multiple horizons and endless agreements between the interpreter's hermeneutical position and the semantic horizon of the text happens [Rahbari, 2006: 146]. Both political and moral actions are based on a hermeneutical position [Dostal, 2002: 79]. Considering the position of prejudices, their eventual and productive aspects, and the negation of subjectivism, the opposition to absolutism and foundationalism is formulated in Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics [Raayat Jahromi, 2012: 151]. Therefore, philosophical hermeneutics is incompatible with fundamentalism.
Rule-governed
In the structure of Political totalitarianism, static political ideologies are formed based on specific methods and rules. The method achieves objective truth in the sense of the absolute. Based on the Rule-governed component, totalitarianism is aligned with the author-centered hermeneutical approach and Wittgenstein's game concept. This alignment is due to the lack of flexibility. But pure regularity is denied in Gadamer's hermeneutical approach and replaced by Flexible rule-governed.
Exclusivism
The tendency toward exclusivism seems natural in totalitarian governments. Exclusivism, which is opposed to pluralism, means that a party or group, by seizing political power, limits the field of interpretation. In totalitarian societies, official ideology gives individuals a passive existence by encompassing all aspects of human life [Shorten, 2012: 46]—exclusivism conflicts with pluralism. Based on the characteristics of Gadamer's hermeneutical approach, such as the negation of absolutism, the negation of pure regularity, and the emphasis on prejudices and historicity, understanding is pluralistic. Hence, the incompatibility of Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics with exclusivism is revealed.
Examining the relationship between Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics and political pluralism
Unlike the fundamentalistic view that reduces every issue to a fundamental principle, pluralism envisages a plural identity for various matters. Multiple political groups and the distribution of power among them are the main characteristics of pluralistic political systems. Political participation through associations determines citizens' contribution to society [Chambers, 2008: 15]. By rejecting absolutism, pluralists make it possible to speak of different understandings. At this point, based on a flexible law, political pluralism adapts to the concept of play in philosophical hermeneutics. Gadamer goal in the phenomenological analysis of the play is to criticize idealistic conceptions of consciousness [Vaezi, 2018: 235]. Gadamer believed that the method cannot encompass all human understanding and existence dimensions. The limitation of the method, in Gadamer's view, is due to this [Gadamer, 2007: 24]. In this respect, the process of understanding in this approach, unlike the author-centered approach, is not criterion-based and is a dialectic that does not accept certainty. Therefore, the pluralistic perspective is revealed in both political pluralism and Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics. In Truth and Method, Gadamer particularly highlights the fact that understanding in German also means "understanding each other" or "reaching an understanding" [Grondin, 2020: 125].
Non-rule-govern
One important characteristic of totalitarian governments is that they are based on absolute rules that are comprehensive and encompass all individuals and institutions. In the critical confrontation of thinkers with such an approach, political pluralism was proposed as a way out of this situation. Political pluralism is opposed to fundamentalism because it accepts differences that are formed based on social, political, and cultural contexts. Gadamer philosophical hermeneutics can also show this flexibility and regulable approach.
Contextualism
Different political groups pursue diverse interests in the political arena based on political pluralism. Contextualism, the opposite of method and Fundamentalism, expresses the consideration of existential contexts and their influence. A contextual and historical perspective justifies the existence of distinctions. In Gadamer’s hermeneutical approach, the contextuality of understanding is considered a pluralizing factor. In political pluralism, different perspectives are also legitimated based on the role of contexts. On this basis, political pluralism corresponds to Gadamer philosophical hermeneutics.
Analysis and review
Gadamer’s hermeneutics is a philosophical system that has specific political consequences. Based on this, Gadamer’s hermeneutics provides the basis for forming pluralistic political systems and societies. In Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics, truth under Hegel's dialectical doctrine is wholeness and integrity. A totality that will never be achieved, and it does not want a complete synthesis [Rajabi, 2020: 59]. Prejudices are constantly revised in understanding and interpretation [Vaezi, 2014: 115]. This approach gives legitimacy to different perspectives, which can also be seen in pluralistic societies. Finally, a degree of rule-govern must be necessary for both philosophical hermeneutics and pluralistic political systems, namely flexible rule-govern which, while transcending philosophical foundationalism and political fundamentalism, prevents the emergence of relativism, chaos, and anarchism in the fields of understanding and politics.
Conclusion
According to the principles of Gadamer philosophical hermeneutics, the process of understanding is pluralistic. Considering components such as the negation of method, attention to prejudice, hermeneutic position, contextualism, and flexibility in the Play, Gadamer’s hermeneutical approach falls under pluralist approaches. For this reason, Totalitarianism as a non-pluralist approach is incompatible with Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics, and Political pluralism as a pluralistic approach is compatible with it. However, play as an event in Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics confirms the principle of flexible rule-govern and is compatible with the necessity of minimal rule-govern in political pluralism. Just as the hermeneutical circle in the free play of text and interpreter as the logic of dialogue and fusion of horizons is compatible with pluralistic literature in political philosophy. Ultimately, this question remains: how and with what approaches can we establish a greater balance between Schleiermacher and Gadamer’s thought on one hand and political totalitarianism and pluralism on another?
In general, two approaches can be considered in the field of hermeneutics—non-pluralistic and pluralistic. In the pluralistic hermeneutical approach, the final or definitive understanding is reproduced based on the author's mentality and in a methodical and absolute manner. This means there is no possibility of different and plural understandings emerging in this approach. In contrast to this approach, Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutic emphasizes the plurality of understanding. In this approach, the process of understanding is described by historicality, linguisticality, and playfulness characteristics. This process takes shape in the context of tradition, history, and culture, leading to a distinct and new understanding each time. This approach contrasts Schleiermacher's thought, which considers understanding a repetition of the author's action [Gadamer, 2004: 180]. Therefore, this paper intends to investigate the potential of Gadamer's hermeneutical approach in the context of political philosophy, namely Totalitarianism and Pluralism, based on convergent and divergent elements.
Totalitarianism and pluralism
Before the 18th century, thinkers divided governments into autocratic and non-autocratic categories. In the 20th century, as new elements emerged, the term totalitarian gradually replaced authoritarianism. This concept was developed by thinkers such as Hannah Arendt, Isiah Berlin, and Karl Popper [Traverso, 2019: 112]. As a twentieth-century phenomenon, totalitarianism is based on the possibilities that modern industry and technology offer and make available to regimes. [Wiener, 2012: 375]. The most important characteristic distinguishing contemporary totalitarianism from dictatorship is the totality of domination [Spiro, 2006: 3]. Systematic planning and organization are carried out in this regard [Iggers, 1958: 191]. New organizations provide control over the thinking of individual citizens [Wiener, 2012: 375]. For this reason, Hannah Arendt considers totalitarianism as a new form of dictatorship [Arendt, 2010: 17]. However, in political pluralism, contrary to the principles of totalitarianism, the pluralistic perspective becomes central. No concept will prevail in political pluralism as the basis for determining policies and laws [Kaul, 2020: 221]. Therefore, in pluralistic societies, the central government is not considered the dominant power, but rather its basic function is to negotiate with diverse groups [Vincent, 2012: 273]. In political pluralism, human individual and social life consists of heterogeneous activities [Richardson, 2009: 133]. Therefore, the distinction between totalitarianism and political pluralism lies in practice [Baehr, 2010: 62].
Examining the relationship between Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics and political totalitarianism
Gadamer distances from methodological hermeneutics by emphasizing the ontological aspect of understanding [Grondin, 1994: 114]. According to Gadamer, the meaning of a text is not limited to the meaning intended by the author. Reproducing the author's intent creates a form of exclusivism. Therefore, based on the absolutist component, the author-centered approach is compatible with totalitarianism. In contrast, Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics emphasizes plurality. In other words, the fusion of multiple horizons and endless agreements between the interpreter's hermeneutical position and the semantic horizon of the text happens [Rahbari, 2006: 146]. Both political and moral actions are based on a hermeneutical position [Dostal, 2002: 79]. Considering the position of prejudices, their eventual and productive aspects, and the negation of subjectivism, the opposition to absolutism and foundationalism is formulated in Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics [Raayat Jahromi, 2012: 151]. Therefore, philosophical hermeneutics is incompatible with fundamentalism.
Rule-governed
In the structure of Political totalitarianism, static political ideologies are formed based on specific methods and rules. The method achieves objective truth in the sense of the absolute. Based on the Rule-governed component, totalitarianism is aligned with the author-centered hermeneutical approach and Wittgenstein's game concept. This alignment is due to the lack of flexibility. But pure regularity is denied in Gadamer's hermeneutical approach and replaced by Flexible rule-governed.
Exclusivism
The tendency toward exclusivism seems natural in totalitarian governments. Exclusivism, which is opposed to pluralism, means that a party or group, by seizing political power, limits the field of interpretation. In totalitarian societies, official ideology gives individuals a passive existence by encompassing all aspects of human life [Shorten, 2012: 46]—exclusivism conflicts with pluralism. Based on the characteristics of Gadamer's hermeneutical approach, such as the negation of absolutism, the negation of pure regularity, and the emphasis on prejudices and historicity, understanding is pluralistic. Hence, the incompatibility of Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics with exclusivism is revealed.
Examining the relationship between Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics and political pluralism
Unlike the fundamentalistic view that reduces every issue to a fundamental principle, pluralism envisages a plural identity for various matters. Multiple political groups and the distribution of power among them are the main characteristics of pluralistic political systems. Political participation through associations determines citizens' contribution to society [Chambers, 2008: 15]. By rejecting absolutism, pluralists make it possible to speak of different understandings. At this point, based on a flexible law, political pluralism adapts to the concept of play in philosophical hermeneutics. Gadamer goal in the phenomenological analysis of the play is to criticize idealistic conceptions of consciousness [Vaezi, 2018: 235]. Gadamer believed that the method cannot encompass all human understanding and existence dimensions. The limitation of the method, in Gadamer's view, is due to this [Gadamer, 2007: 24]. In this respect, the process of understanding in this approach, unlike the author-centered approach, is not criterion-based and is a dialectic that does not accept certainty. Therefore, the pluralistic perspective is revealed in both political pluralism and Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics. In Truth and Method, Gadamer particularly highlights the fact that understanding in German also means "understanding each other" or "reaching an understanding" [Grondin, 2020: 125].
Non-rule-govern
One important characteristic of totalitarian governments is that they are based on absolute rules that are comprehensive and encompass all individuals and institutions. In the critical confrontation of thinkers with such an approach, political pluralism was proposed as a way out of this situation. Political pluralism is opposed to fundamentalism because it accepts differences that are formed based on social, political, and cultural contexts. Gadamer philosophical hermeneutics can also show this flexibility and regulable approach.
Contextualism
Different political groups pursue diverse interests in the political arena based on political pluralism. Contextualism, the opposite of method and Fundamentalism, expresses the consideration of existential contexts and their influence. A contextual and historical perspective justifies the existence of distinctions. In Gadamer’s hermeneutical approach, the contextuality of understanding is considered a pluralizing factor. In political pluralism, different perspectives are also legitimated based on the role of contexts. On this basis, political pluralism corresponds to Gadamer philosophical hermeneutics.
Analysis and review
Gadamer’s hermeneutics is a philosophical system that has specific political consequences. Based on this, Gadamer’s hermeneutics provides the basis for forming pluralistic political systems and societies. In Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics, truth under Hegel's dialectical doctrine is wholeness and integrity. A totality that will never be achieved, and it does not want a complete synthesis [Rajabi, 2020: 59]. Prejudices are constantly revised in understanding and interpretation [Vaezi, 2014: 115]. This approach gives legitimacy to different perspectives, which can also be seen in pluralistic societies. Finally, a degree of rule-govern must be necessary for both philosophical hermeneutics and pluralistic political systems, namely flexible rule-govern which, while transcending philosophical foundationalism and political fundamentalism, prevents the emergence of relativism, chaos, and anarchism in the fields of understanding and politics.
Conclusion
According to the principles of Gadamer philosophical hermeneutics, the process of understanding is pluralistic. Considering components such as the negation of method, attention to prejudice, hermeneutic position, contextualism, and flexibility in the Play, Gadamer’s hermeneutical approach falls under pluralist approaches. For this reason, Totalitarianism as a non-pluralist approach is incompatible with Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics, and Political pluralism as a pluralistic approach is compatible with it. However, play as an event in Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics confirms the principle of flexible rule-govern and is compatible with the necessity of minimal rule-govern in political pluralism. Just as the hermeneutical circle in the free play of text and interpreter as the logic of dialogue and fusion of horizons is compatible with pluralistic literature in political philosophy. Ultimately, this question remains: how and with what approaches can we establish a greater balance between Schleiermacher and Gadamer’s thought on one hand and political totalitarianism and pluralism on another?
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Philosophy of Politics (Analytical)
Received: 2024/11/21 | Accepted: 2024/12/28 | Published: 2024/12/30
Received: 2024/11/21 | Accepted: 2024/12/28 | Published: 2024/12/30
References
1. Arendt H (2010). Totalitarianism. Solasi M, translator. Tehran: SALES. [Persian] [Link]
2. Ashouri D (2013). Political encyclopedia. Tehran: MORVARID. [Persian] [Link]
3. Baehr P (2010). Hannah Arendt, totalitarianism and the social sciences. Redwood: Stanford University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.11126/stanford/9780804756501.001.0001]
4. Chambers S, Carver T (2008). William E. Connolly: Democracy, pluralism and political theory. London: Routledge. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9780203934364]
5. Dostal RJ (2002). The Cambridge companion to Gadamer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/CCOL0521801931]
6. Gadamer HG (2004). Truth and method. Weinsheimer J, Marshall DG, translators. New York: Continuum. [Link]
7. Gadamer HG (2007). The Gadamer reader: A bouquet of the later writings. Palmer RE, editor. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. [Link]
8. Grondin J (1994). Introduction of philosophical hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Link]
9. Grondin J (2020). From Heidegger to Gadamer, in the way of hermeneutics. Hosseini Beheshti MR, Hosseini SM, translators. Tehran: NEY. [Persian] [Link]
10. Iggers GG (1958). The cult of authority: The political philosophy of the Sain-Simonians a chapter in the intellectual history of totalitarianism. New York: Springer Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-94-015-0929-9]
11. Kaul V, Salvatore I (2020). What is pluralism?. London: Routledge Press. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9780367814496]
12. Raayat Jahromi M (2012). Continental and culturalized philosophy of language: A comparative survey on Wittgenstein and Gadamer's ideas about language. Tehran: Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought. [Persian] [Link]
13. Rahbari M (2006). Hermeneutics and politics. Tehran: KAVIR. [Persian] [Link]
14. Rajabi A (2021). A reflection on the difference between the hermeneutical approaches of Gadamer and Heidegger to the problem of finitude of truth. Philosophy. 18(2):43-65. [Persian] [Link]
15. Shorten R (2012). Modernism and totalitarianism: Rethinking the intellectual sources of Nazism and Stalinism, 1945 to the present. London: Palgrave Macmillan Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1057/9781137284372]
16. Spiro H (2006). Totalitarianism. Nouri H, translator. Tehran: PARDISE DANESH. [Persian] [Link]
17. Traverson E (2019). The new faces of fascism. Broder D, translator. London: Verso Publication. [Link]
18. Vaezi A (2018). An introduction to hermeneutics. Tehran: Research Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought. [Persian] [Link]
19. Vaezi A, Ghaedi E (2015). Levels, elements and functions of the hermeneutic circle. Philosophy. 12(2):107-125. [Persian] [Link]
20. Vincent A (2012). Theories of state. Bashirriyeh H, translator. Tehran: NEY. [Persian] [Link]
21. Wiener PP (2012). Dictionary of political thoughts. Deihimi Kh, translator. Tehran: NEY. [Persian] [Link]
22. Williams MS (2009). Moral universalism and pluralism. Richardson HS, editor. New York: New York University Press. [Link]
23. Zabetpoor Gh (2008). Book review of Hermeneutics and Politics. Journal of Political Science. 11(42):205-214. [Persian] [Link]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |