““I would argue that out of these particularities of interpretive horizons (plural) of each social subject comes the potential for critical reflection. Out of our inconsistencies, or out of the crooked timber of socialization, comes acquaintance with multiple ways of making sense of the world that can be critically reflected against each other. There is no rock of certainty for the contemporary subject but out of overlapping inconsistencies there emerges the awareness that there is no single way of describing the world, no ultimate discourse of truth, no final vocabulary, with which we should attempt to totalize our experience or that of others. In this uncertainty the possibility of utopia appears as a mirage shimmering at the edge of a horizon that is shaped by the summer heat of the illusion of a singular interpretative horizon. In its place there is the multiple vision of a colder less secure social subject. If that subject can create a modest mode of life for themselves that includes this sense of insecurity, they will be less easily attracted to perfectionist totalizing visions, thus this subject is constituted as more dialogically open. If that subject tries to overcome their ontological insecurity, they may be attracted to a singular interpretative horizon that provides all the answers, wherein lies the root of totalitarianism.””
