The Hermeneutics of Polarized Ideologies. Conflict, (Ir)rationality and Dialogue

Gonçalo Marcelo

Abstract


This article devises a social hermeneutical framework to make sense of the problem of the conflict of polarized ideologies. First, it discusses the problem of irrationality in belief and behavior, arguing for a contextual and non-reductionist account of rationality. Second, it shows how a social hermeneutical approach can provide a useful toolbox for social epistemology. Third, drawing from Paul Ricœur’s notions of the conflict of interpretations and of constitutive and pathological ideologies, it redescribes pathological ideologies as totalizing systems of beliefs in which subjects fall under the spell of a mechanism of hermeneutical delusion, leaving them in a state of ideological bias. Finally, it discusses the possibility of tackling the problem of hermeneutical delusion and polarized ideologies through fostering hermeneutical dialogue geared towards mutual understanding.

Keywords


Conflict of Interpretations; Hermeneutical Delusion; Ideology; Social Hermeneutics

Full Text:

PDF

References


Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958).

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, trans. W. D. Ross, in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).

Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, How to Have Impossible Conversations. A Very Practical Guide (New York: Lifelong Books, 2019).

Luc Boltanski and Ève Chiapello, The New Spirit of Capitalism (London: Verso, 2017).

Quassim Cassam, Conspiracy Theories (Cambridge: Polity, 2019).

John Cook, “The 5 Characteristics of Science Denialism,” 17 March 2010, online: https://skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html.

António Damásio, Descartes’ Error. Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain [1994] (London: Penguin, 2005).

Scott Davidson and Johann Michel (eds), “L’herméneutique du soi/Hermeneutics of the Self,” Études ricœuriennes/Ricœur Studies, vol. 1/1 (2010), online: https://ricoeur.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/ricoeur/issue/view/2.

Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee, “Denialism. What Is It and How Should Scientists Respond?,” European Journal of Public Health, vol. 19/1 (2009), 2-4, online: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn139.

Miranda Fricker, Epistemic Injustice. Power & the Ethics of Knowing (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007).

Alvin Goldman and Cailin O’Connor, “Social Epistemology,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 28 August 2019, online: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/.

Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society [1962] (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1991).

Carolyn M. Hendricks, Selen A. Ercan and John Boswell, Mending Democracy. Democratic Repair in Disconnected Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020).

Axel Honneth, “A Social Pathology of Reason. On the Intellectual Legacy of Critical Theory,” in Pathologies of Reason: On the Legacy of Critical Theory, trans. James Ingram (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), 19-42.

Martin Hoofnagle and Chris Jay Hoofnagle, “What is Denialism?,” 30 April 2007, online: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4002823.

Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013).

Richard Kearney & Melissa Fitzpatrick, Radical Hospitality: From Thought to Action (New York: Fordham University Press, 2021).

Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics [1985] (London: Verso, 2001).

Finlay Malcolm, “The Rationality of Fundamentalist Belief,” Journal of Social Philosophy (2021), 1-20, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12440.

Gonçalo Marcelo, “Making Sense of the Social. Hermeneutics and Social Philosophy,” Études ricœuriennes/Ricœur Studies, vol. 3/1 (2012), 67-85, online: DOI: 10.5195/errs.2012.131.

—, “Critique des idéologies, critique des utopies,” Études ricœuriennes/Ricœur Studies, vol. 9/1 (2018), 28-41, online: DOI: 10.5195/errs.2018.430.

Lee McIntyre, How to Talk to a Science Denier. Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2021).

Johann Michel, Homo Interpretans. Towards a Transformation of Hermeneutics. (London/New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2019).

Chantal Mouffe, Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically (London: Verso, 2013).

Rik Peels, “Extreme Beliefs. The Epistemology and Ethics of Fundamentalism,” ERC funded Project, online: https://extremebeliefs.com.

Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now. The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress (New York: Viking, 2018).

Hilary Putnam, The Collapse of the Fact-Value Dichotomy and Other Essays (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004).

Paul Ricœur, Le conflit des interprétations (Paris: Seuil, 1969).

—, Freud and Philosophy. An Essay on Interpretation, trans. Denis Savage (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1970).

—, Interpretation Theory. Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1976).

—, Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, ed. and trans. John B. Thompson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).

—, Lectures on Ideology and Utopia, ed. George H. Taylor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).

Alison Scott-Baumann, Ricœur and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion (London: Continuum, 2009).

Mona Simion, “Resistance to Evidence and the Duty to Believe,” Forthcoming in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.

Nicholas Smith, Strong Hermeneutics. Contingency and Moral Identity (London/New York: Routledge, 1997).

Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism. Examining the Politics of Recognition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).

—, “Self-Interpreting Animals,” in Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, Human Agency and Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 45-76.

George H. Taylor, “Why Ideology and Utopia Today?,” in Stephanie N. Arel and Dan R. Stiver (eds), Ideology and Utopia in the Twenty-First Century. The Surplus of Meaning in Ricoeur’s Dialectical Concept (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2018), 217-35.

Jan-Willem van Prooijen, Talia Cohen Rodrigues, Carlotta Bunzel, Oana Georgescu, Dániel Komáromi and André P. M. Krouwel, “Populist Gullibility. Conspiracy Theories, News Credibility, Bullshit Receptivity, and Paranormal Belief,” Political Psychology (2022), 1-19, online: https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12802.

Michael Walzer, Interpretation and Social Criticism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987).




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/errs.2022.595



Copyright (c) 2022 Gonçalo Marcelo

License URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/


This journal is published by the University Library System, University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

ISSN 2156-7808 (online)