ABSTRACT
There is no doubt that there is an urgent need to imagine another world in the face of the fall outs of the current world order. The urgency of this need for ‘another world’ or ‘a world in which all worlds fit’ is the primary motivation for this research. In line with this motivation, this work is aimed at examining the concept of prejudice within Gadamer’s philosophy as well as the transmodern project with a view to constructing an understanding of cross-cultural contact that can foreground the possibility of ‘another world’ or ‘a world in which all worlds fit’. The basis for this is that Gadamer’s direct appropriation of prejudice and its impact on the transmodern idea of the bio/geo/body-politics of knowledge challenges the idea of universality as it operates in the current Euro-American cosmovision. This challenge is not in favour of subjectivism or relativism, but in favour of ‘intersubjective dialogue’ and ‘pluriversality as a universal project’. Adopting the philosophical tools of exposition, critique and textual analysis the work seeks to demonstrate that a proper appropriation of Gadamer’s conceptualization of prejudice and of the influence it has had on the transmodern project can serves as the basis for a new principle of cross-cultural interaction/evaluation; the ethical-hermeneutic principle of intercultural contact/evaluation which can guarantee ‘a world in which all worlds fit’. In the addition to this, the work also establishes that: i) the transmodern anti-Cartesianism and resistance of provincial universality are strong influences from Gadamer in their philosophy. Hence, their claim of delinking is not totally true; ii) the transmodern project in taking on board the coloniality question within the context of the bio/geo/body-politics of knowledge is a clear extension and application of Gadamer’s prejudicial philosophy; iii) despite the strength of Gadamer and the transmodern case, Gadamer’s postulation is haunted down by the hegemony of the verbal understanding/factual modes of expression, while the transmodern project is wrong in blaming coloniality solely on foreign agency.
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Title
Page.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. i
Dedication.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ii
Certification.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iii
Approval
Page.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. iv
Acknowledgements.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. v
Abstract.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. vi
Table
of Contents.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. vii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
- Background of the Study…. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2
- Thesis.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3
- Significance of the Study.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3
- Purpose of the Study.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4
- Scope of the Study.. . .. .. .. .. .. .. 4
- Research Methodology.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5
- Definition of Terms.. . .. .. .. .. .. .. 5
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE
REVIEW
2.1 Preamble.. …. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8
2.2 Review of Related Literature. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8
CHAPTER THREE
PREJUDICE AND
GADAMER’S PHILOSOPHICAL HERMENEUTICS
3.1 Preamble.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 54
3.2 Gadamer: A Biographical Sketch.. .. .. .. .. .. 54
3.2 Philosophical Hermeneutics: Its Point of Departure.. .. .. 57
3.2.1 Appropriating Dialectics: The Hegelian Point of Departure.58
3.2.2 A Critique of the Epistemic Superiority of the Natural Science … ….. ….. 59
3.2.3 On Understanding As An Ontological Category: Gadamer’s Appropriation of Heidegger.. .. .. 60
3.3 Gadamer within the History of Hermeneutics.. . .. .. .. 62
3.3.1 On Philosophical Hermeneutics.. .. .. .. .. .. 62
3.3.2 Philosophical Hermeneutics as Both Theoria and Praxis.. .. 63
3.4 Humanism At the Start of Philosophical Hermeneutics.. …… 65
3.5
Understanding as An Ontological Category: Beginning the Historicity of Understanding.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 72
3.6
The Ubiquity of Prejudice.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 74
3.7 Rehabilitating Tradition and the Legitimation of Prejudice.. .. 78
3.8 Historical Effect: The Prejudicial Significance of History.. .. 82
3.9
Fusing Horizons: The Universalist Propensity of Prejudice in Rationality.. .. 84
3.10 Linguisticality and Prejudice: On the Universality of Hermeneutics.87
3.11Prejudice,
Relativism and the Moral/Political Implications of
Gadamer’s Hermeneutics.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 90
3.12 Fundamental Ontology, Truth and Method: Summarizing the Imperative of Prejudicial Rationality.. .. .. .. .. .. 99
CHAPTER FOUR A TRANSMODERN READING OF GADAMER
4.1
Preamble.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 105
4.2 Gadamer and the Critique of the Enlightenment.. .. .. 105
4.3 The Transmodern Project and the Decolonial Turn.. .. .. 107
4.4
Anti-Cartesianism and the Epistemic Foundations of the Transmodern Project .. 112
4.5
The Border of Thought and the Resistance of Provincial Universality.. .. .. 124
4.6 The Precise
point of Intersection between Gadamer and
the Transmodern Project.. .. .. .. .. .. .. 128
CHAPTER FIVE
THE TRANSMODERN
PROJECT AND THE EXTENSION OF GADAMER’S PHILOSOPHICAL LEGACY
5.1 Preamble.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 136
5.2 Prejudice and the Colonial Question in the Transmodern Discourse 136
5.3 Prejudice and the Rethinking of History in the Transmodern Project 143
5.4 Prejudice
and An Alternate Modernity in the Transmodern Project.. .. .. 153
5.5 The Ethics of Liberation:
Transmodern Extension of Gadamer’s Ethical
Legacy.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 163
5.6 Transversality and the Intercultural Imperative.. .. .. 165
5.7 Towards Pluri-versality: A Précis of the Transmodern Project.. ..170
CHAPTER SIX
GENERAL
EVALUATION
6.1
Preamble.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 180
6.2 Assessing Gadamer’s Position on Prejudice.. .. .. .. .. 180
6.2.1 On the Exclusivist Tendency of Gadamer’s Hermeneutics.. 196
6.3 Appraising the Prospects of the Transmodern Project.. .. . 201
6.3.1 On Native agency and the Making of the Coloniality of Power 208
6.4 From an Ontology of Polarized Units to an Ontology of Complementarity … ….. 213
6.5
Towards An-other Principle for
Cross-Cultural Evaluation/Interaction.. .. 221
6.5.1 The Pragmatic Principle of Cross-Cultural Interaction/Evaluation.221
6.5.2 The Logical Principle of Cross-Cultural Interaction/Evaluation224
6.5.3 The Ethical-Hermeneutic Principle: An-other Principle of Intercultural Contact. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 227
6.6 Summary and Conclusion .. .. .. .. 230
BIBLIOGRAPHY.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 237
CHAPTER
ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the
Study
Given the fall outs
from the current world order, a certain strand of contemporary philosophy makes
the case for another world. In their estimation, ‘another world is possible.’1
For some others within this school of thought, the alternative to the current
world order should aim at creating ‘a world in which all worlds fit’.2
Yet for another group, they seek ‘worlds and knowledges otherwise’.3
For these schools of thought, the current world order is Euro-American and it
possesses an exclusivist cosmovision. On this count, the current world order
rather than seeking to arrive at a world in which all worlds fit just elevates
the ideals of a particular world as a standard for other worlds to follow. In
more specific terms, it is the Euro-American vision that has been universalised
for all to follow. But the economic crises that greeted the West between 2007
and now places a lot of doubt on the continued efficacy of this cosmovision.
The grand narrative which this vision held that “…once situated humanity in
some continuing stream of meaning has faltered amidst existential doubt or
economic and political ruins…”4 This places before us therefore, the
urgent need for an alternative cosmovision. The urgency of this need is one
motivation for this research.
Bearing in mind the
fact that the world in which we live today is a global village, it becomes
obvious that any effort at a new cosmovision cannot afford to ignore the
demands for ‘a world in which all worlds fit’. Arriving at this world is
primarily a practical task. But before this task can be executed in practice,
it must redefine itself at a theoretical level or better still as a theoretical
endeavour. It is within this context of theoretical redefinition that Gadamer
and the transmodern engagement with prejudice is appropriated in this research.
More precisely, Gadamer’s direct appropriation of prejudice and its impact on
the transmodern idea of the bio/geo/body-politics of knowledge challenges the
idea of universality as is the case in the Euro-American cosmovision. This
challenge is not in favour of subjectivism or relativism, but in favour of
‘intersubjective dialogue’ and ‘pluriversality as a universal project’.
Establishing these as genuine theoretical, as well as philosophical alternative
upon which to achieve the practical task of building ‘a world in which all
worlds fit’ is yet another motivation for this research.
In establishing the
epistemic potency of these positions for a new world order, something further
engages the attention of this study. As has already been stated above, Gadamer’s hermeneutic
philosophy and its prejudicial base5, alongside its impact on the
transmodern concern for ‘pluriversality as a universal project’6 are
the favoured theoretical apparatus for achieving this new cosmovision. But
then, a study of the transmodern project and its emphasis on delinking from the
dominant macro-narratives projected by the West needs a closer scrutiny to establish how true the transmodern
project is to this claim of delinking. The compelling force of this need is yet
another motivating point for this research.
1.2 Statement of the problem
The idea of the possibility of another world is an idea
which was developed, partly, as a reaction to the effects of the ‘clash of
civilizations/cultures’. In the aftermath of the ‘clash of cultures’ came the
rhetoric of ‘cultural interaction/contacts’ as alternative to the clash of
cultures. But an observation of the world order, as it stands, still shows that
the idea of ‘cultural interaction’ has not really proven to be a true
alternative to ‘the clash of cultures’; rather it has only succeeded in
moderating and covering over the naked force that ‘the clash of cultures’
portend. This is the case because, under the guise of cultural interaction,
‘super-cultures’ have continued to valourise aspects of their cultures and to
hold them up as ideals/universals for other (smaller) cultures to follow. The
broad problematique of this research is therefore, that of finding a basis for
sustaining the identity and uniqueness of smaller-cultures in the face of the imposing
presence of ‘super-cultures’. Based on this, the main question for this
research is: is it possible to find a basis on which all cultures can interact
and be appreciated in their uniqueness without losing sight of the common good
for humanity and the planet? Or better still, can there be any basis for
creating a world in which all worlds fit? To answer this question properly, the
research is guided by the following questions:
- Are
there any identifiable connections between Gadamer’s postulations on prejudice
and the philosophy of the transmodern project?
- Has
the transmodern project been able to extend Gadamer’s philosophical legacy in
any way?
- Are
the positions of Gadamer and the transmodern project with regard to prejudice
tenable in any way?
- Are
there any specific practical imports of Gadamer and the transmodern concerns
that can aid in dismantling the current Euro-American cosmovision (colonial
matrix of power) and fostering a collaborative approach to building a new world
system and cross-cultural contact?
1.3 Thesis
The thesis of this research is: A proper appropriation of
Gadamer’s conceptualization of prejudice and of the influence it has had on the
transmodern project can serve as the basis for a new principle of
cross-cultural contact/evaluation; the ethical-hermeneutic principle of
intercultural contact/evaluation which can guarantee ‘a world in which all
worlds fit’.
1.4 Significance of the Study
This research is
significant at two levels: the levels of theory and practice. At the level of
theory, the significance of this research includes: (i) it demonstrates the continued
fruitfulness of the works of Gadamer and the transmodern project and assesses
continuing points of similarity and difference between them in order to refine
and extend their legacies. It is hoped that the fertility and
acuity of the present contribution will stimulate more thought and dialogue on
the rich and enduring value of Gadamer’s and the transmodern’s scholarships;
(ii) it challenges the conventional one-dimensional truth base for universality
and objectivity. By so doing, it rethinks the concept of universality and
objectivity and upholds the idea that the focus should be on ‘pluriversality as
universal project’ and ‘intersubjective dialogue’. These are considered as
appropriate theoretical apparatus that can foreground the possibility of ‘a
world in which all worlds fit’.
At the level of
practice, the significance of this study revolves around the fact that the
hermeneutic philosophy of Gadamer and its root in the transmodern project
produces the ethical-hermeneutic principle of cross-cultural contact/evaluation
which can dismantle the current world
order and is a collaborative approach to building a new world order/cosmovision.
1.5 Purpose of the Study
The
purpose of this work is to examine the concept of prejudice in Gadamer’s
philosophical hermeneutics and how it forms the basis for the philosophy of the
transmodern project with a view to constructing an understanding of
universality that can foreground the possibility of ‘a world in which all
worlds fit’.
1.6 Scope
of the Study
The scope of this research is tied primarily to Hans Geroge Gadamer’s postulations on prejudice. This research focuses on Gadamer’s main works: Philosophical Hermeneutics and Truth and Method. These works will also be supplemented with ideas from his other works Hermeneutics, Religion and Ethics; and Reason in The Age of Science. Importantly too, this research is also moderated by the postulations of the transmodernists, especially as evidenced mainly in the works of Enrique Dussel, and supported by the works of Walter Mignolo, Anibal Quijano, Ramon Grosfoguel and Nelson Maldonado-Torres.
1.7 Research Methodology
This is basically a qualitative research. Materials were sourced
from journals, libraries and online sources. The expository method was used to
lay bare the basics of the positions interacted with in this research. The
critical method is used to ascertain how tenable the basic positions that the
research is interacting with are. It is also used to make all the necessary
connections between the various currents of thought we shall be engaging here.
The historical method is used to trace the origin of the ideas engaged with in this
research. Textual analysis is also employed in this research.
1.8 Definition of
Terms
Prejudice:
The word ‘prejudice’
etymologically breaks down into pre-judice or pre-judgment. All judgements are conditioned by pre-judgements.
This is an older, pre-modern sense of prejudice which this research adopts. Whereas
the familiar understanding of prejudice is unreflective judgment or over-hasty
reasoning, resulting in the bigotry of purely subjective opinion or the
unreflective parroting of purely received wisdom. The point being made here is
that judgements are made possible not by an abstract and neutral reason but a
set of pre-reflective involvements with the world that stand behind judgements
and in fact make them possible.7 Cosmovision:
This is an amalgam of the words ‘cosmos’ and ‘vision’. It refers to a vision of
the world; a conceptualization of the world. The idea to be highlighted here is
that the current vision of the world is Eurocentric which, is just one and an
incomprehensive vision of the world. Interculturality:
This, as used here, suggests the intercultural; it is the nominal form of the
adjective – intercultural. It refers precisely to the dialogue between cultures
in this age of increasing global awareness.
Transversality:
This refers to a kind of dialogue that violates the discourse rules of the
established order. It is a type of dialogue that sets out from a place other
than a mere dialogue between the learned experts of the academic or
institutionally dominated worlds.8 It is a dialogue that has its
nexus of discourse at the fringe of civilization.
Pluriversality:
This concept stands in opposition to the concept of universality. Universality
emphasizes the common features of things hence, suggesting uniformity.
Pluriversality, on the other hand, comes to the fore when various local
histories connect through their common experiences as the basis for a new logic
of knowing.9
Hermeneutics: This term describes basically the art of interpreting texts. The notion of hermeneutics as developed in contemporary philosophy embraces not only the problems concerning the interpretation of texts – literary, philosophical or religious – but also the careful consideration of both the cultural and historical conditions that form the horizon of the text; that constitutes the interpreter’s horizon of ‘pre-understanding’.10
HANS-GEORG GADAMER ON PREJUDICE AND THE TRANSMODERN PROJECT
