Hermeneutical Horizons and Fusion of Two Horizons

Hans Georg Gadamer developed a distinctively dialogical approach that became a major contribution to the development of 20th century hermeneutics and our present day interpretation. Gadamer most influential work Truth and Method has dual purpose of confronting narrow views of scientific method as the sole route to the truth. Truth and Method is an account of what Gadamer consider to be the hermeneutical experience of understanding in which he emphasized on language and tradition.

Gadamer does not prescribe norms and groups for interpretation but describe the hermeneutical experience as a dialogical “play” between the past and the present text and interpreter. It is not reducible technique but an ongoing process with no final conclusion. Understanding in interpretation occurs through “fusion of horizons” between the subject matter and the interpreter position. Interpretation according to Gadamer, is a gradual perpetual and creative interplay between horizons.

What Earnest Fuchs and Gerhard Ebeling label the hermeneutical circle is seen by Gadamer as fusion of Horizons, mainly the horizon of the text and that of the interpreter. Interpretation or hermeneutical understanding, for him, mediates past and present. It brings together the horizon of the past and horizon of the present. In this fusion of Horizons, the first pole is the past i.e. the horizon of the text. Second pole is the present, i.e. the horizon of the interpreter.

According to Gadamer, the act of interpretation, therefore, does not so much unlock the past meaning of the text. He argues that the psychologistic attempt to ascertain author’s intention is not a part of this, for in the act of written “meaning has undergone a kind of self-alienation” and must be “stated anew” or reawakened to spoken language by the reader. For example, when we study those passage Paul reflect on his past life such as Romans 7, Philippians 3, we do not study all Paul’s life but the text he wrote speaks to us in our present situation rather than recreate the original or author’s past situation. Gadamer states, “To understand it (text) does not mean primarily to reason one’s way back into the past but to have a present involvement in what is written.”

He argues that the objective as idealized in scientific method can only provide a limited degree of certainty and can never fully capture the intended or original meaning of the text. What is present in a text has become detached from the placement of its origin and author. For Gadamer, Interpretation is a living dynamic in which one does not merely follow rules in the scrutiny and interrogation of the text. But also allows to draw one into their own world, while the interpreter remains rooted in the present. For him what matters most is our involvement or relationship with a text particularly as a response to our question. Hence, Gadamer understanding of Hermeneutical Horizons and the Fusion of Two Horizon may be summarize as follows: 

1. 1. Gadamer’s hermeneutics move from the author’s to a union of text and readers with present rather than the past. He correctly sees the place of a reader in the hermeneutical process. 
2. A Fusion of Horizons is required because the historical life of tradition depends on being constantly assimilated and interpreted so that every interpretation has to adapt itself to the hermeneutical situation to which it belong.
3. The Fusion of Horizons is the means whereby we regain the concept of the historical past in such a way that they also include our own comprehension of them. 4. The Fusion of Horizons is such that the interpreter’s own horizon is decisive, yet not as a personal standpoint that s/he mediates or enforces but more as an opinion. 

Gadamer’s Fusion of Horizons is therefore an important correction to the psychologist school. Yet, there are several weaknesses inherent to this theory. 

1. It is not so clear how Gadamer avoid the danger of subjective interpretation. For him there are two controls against subjectivity – the past Horizon of text and the present community of the interpreters. However, there are no clear criteria for avoiding subjectivism. In fact each moment of reading can produce a new and innovative understanding. 
2.  In addition, Gadamer did not develop a method for distinguishing true or false interpretation as the critic points out that systematically distorted communication can twist the meaning of the text. 
3. Furthermore, he has an uncritical view of the role of the readers on interpretation. It is difficult to see how he can avoid polyvalence (multiple meaning) since each present situation or perspective is free to guide the text wherever it wishes. 

Hence, Vanhoozer point out that in such a method there can never be “one formula for hermeneutical fusion” because understanding is dominated by the different horizons of the readers.

---

Source: 
Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2010.

Robinson, J.C. Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. New York: Routledge, 2007.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description with Special Reference to Heidegger, Bultmann, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein. Paternoster Press: Grand Rapids, 1980.