Fusion of Horizons vs. Epistemes

I wanted to compare two concepts that seem to come to similar conclusions about meaning.

The first is from Hans Georg Gadamer (Hermeneutics):

In phenomenology, the ‘horizon’ is, in general terms, that larger context of meaning in which any particular meaningful presentation is situated. Inasmuch as understanding is taken to involve a ‘fusion of horizons’, then so it always involves the formation of a new context of meaning that enables integration of what is otherwise unfamiliar, strange or anomalous. In this respect, all understanding involves a process of mediation and dialogue between what is familiar and what is alien in which neither remains unaffected. This process of horizonal engagement is an ongoing one that never achieves any final completion or complete elucidation.

This concept comes most readily (the use of my language here is relevant) from Martin Heidegger in Being and Time. He speaks of what is present-at-hand or ready-to-hand also known as ready-made meaning that is for our use. Heidegger switches from the Cartesian (and for that matter the Platonist) view of ideas and thinking as being seen with sight faculties and instead speaks of consciousness in terms of hands, that thought and intentionality is always towards something in the world, not necessarily an object though, he’s talking about meanings and concepts.

Gadamer goes further with this ‘thinking hand’ and focuses on Human Understanding as it appears to itself, for itself. Understanding is always reaching for, grasping and then letting go. The Horizon it is in sets limits on what can be grasped, reached for or released, especially when looking at the historical meaning of language and signs, which is the main interest of Hermeneutics.

It is here that I will  turn to Michel Foucault’s epistemes:

However, if in any given culture and at any given moment, there is always only one episteme that defines the conditions of possibility of all knowledge, whether expressed in a theory or silently invested in a practice.

In a previous thread on epistemes, I understood this term to mean a collection of discourses within the time we are in, but each collection of discourses forgets the previous episteme, which places a limit on what can be understood and so a careful Archaeological and Genealogical ‘dig’ of ideas and concepts needs to take place in order for us to understand how epistemes change over time.

We are talking about how social norms and scientific knowledge has particular emphasis and goals, with criteria as to what it calls ‘true’ and ‘false’. Science itself is part of an epoch of epistemes. Thomas Khun has a similar notion of a Paradigm, whereby the (relatively) invariant dominant paradigm governing scientific research (supposing that one paradigm always is pervading, except under paradigmatic transition).

So comparing these two notions we can see how they have similarities.

[list=1]
[*]They both explain an experience ‘within’ a particular time frame
[*]They both reveal limitations as to what can be understood
[*]They both validate Hermeneutics and Genealogy as specialist tools for dealing with this problem
[/list]
People come from different backgrounds and it is not possible to totally remove oneself from one’s background, history, culture, gender, language, education, etc. to an entirely different system of attitudes, beliefs and ways of thinking. People may be looking for a way to be engaged in understanding a conversation or dialogue about different cultures and the speaker interprets texts or stories based on his or her past experience and prejudice. Therefore, “hermeneutic reflection and determination of one’s own present life interpretation calls for the unfolding of one’s ‘effective-historical’ consciousness.” During the discourse, a fusion of “horizons” takes place between the speaker and listeners.

We could say this is relativism and that we are rejecting the pursuit of ‘absolute truth’ even if absolute truth is never possible. What Gadamer and Foucault also uncover however, is that there are no fixed essences to signs (probably moreso Foucault), only empty spaces that open up and reform signs, reshape them and transcend yet include themselves.

The better term to use for this type of investigation is perspectivism – this is a dirty word for Analytic philosophers, but it’s really the best possible way to attempt to grasp what is over the horizon, so to speak. Absolute truth may not exist, but history is something we can say ‘happened’ and that we can, by altering our point of view from a dominant authority (our everydayness), see another meaning and possibly grasp it in some way.