The Idea
The idea says that the horizon of human coexistence is not disrupted by religious or cultural difference alone, but because globalization can turn into an inhuman force, and because political fundamentalisms reclose the public sphere. In this sense, the world does not automatically become closer to people; rather, it may become harsher when relations among groups are governed by the logic of domination and fear.
Concise Formulation
The human horizon is impeded by inhuman globalization and political fundamentalisms
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This statement appears to balance the discussion of the possibility of a human horizon by naming what obstructs it. It does not negate the overall project, but defines it with awareness of real obstacles. It thus becomes part of the argument that any talk of a shared future must confront the effects of globalization detached from human dignity, just as it must confront fundamentalisms that narrow the meaning of community and rights.
Why It Matters
This idea helps show that Arkoun is not speaking in idealistic terms about progress, but is linking any human horizon to its social and political conditions. It also reveals his critical sensibility toward a world in which universal slogans are not enough if everyday relations are based on exclusion and mobilization.
Brief Evidence
The idea says that the horizon of human coexistence is not disrupted by religious or cultural difference alone. It is also impeded by inhuman globalization and political fundamentalisms that reclose the public sphere. Thus, the world does not automatically become closer to people; rather, it may grow harsher when relations are governed by the logic of domination and closure.
Reading Questions
- How does the text understand the relationship between globalization and humanity: as an opportunity or as an obstacle?
- Why are political fundamentalisms mentioned here as a barrier to the human horizon?
Degree of Documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear location within the book’s material.