Hospitality and companionship: friendship as an analogue for good alliances (versión acepada)

0000-0002-5949-1727 Jonas Hols Hospi ali y and companionship: iendship as an analogue o good alliances Rec o unning head : JOURNAL OF GLOBAL ETHICS Ve so unning head : J. HOLST San Jo ge Uni e si y, Za agoza, Spain CONTACT Jonas Hols jhols @usj.es His o y : ecei ed : 2019-04-30 accep ed : 2019-07-01 Copy igh Line: © 2019 In o ma UK Limi ed, ading as Taylo & F ancis G oup ABSTRACT Taking i s s a ing poin in an ancien unde s anding o hospi ali y and gues iendship, he pape o e s a philosophical in e p e a ion o he e hical dimension o alliances. En e ing in o an alliance p esupposes ce ain e hical disposi ions. Fi s is us , which allies de elop o e ime by o e ing each o he es imonies o us wo hiness and by keeping p omises. Inso a as he alliance is de eloped u he in o de o las , he allies will ha e o adjus o changes, p e en con lic , and sol e p oblems oge he which imply, abo e all, join c i ical hinking. The pape a gues ha iendship can se e as an analogue o good alliances, in which he pa ies in ol ed do no only hink abou u he ing hei own p ojec s, bu hey ake in o accoun and ques ion possible laws and u u e consequences, o hemsel es and o o he s ou side he alliance. KEYWORDS E hics; alliance; iendship; hospi ali y; us ; companionship; plu ali y In oduc ion E ymologically, ‘ally’ can be aced back o he Old English e m alien and ‘alliance’ o wo o mo e pa ies’ liaison wi h each o he (Pa idge , 1779). A bond be ween wo people indi idually is usually no called an alliance, which implies a connec ion be ween di e en g oups o associa ions o people, who emain dis inc om each o he as long as he alliance las s. The whole issue o allying each o he and he challenges in ol ed in building an alliance ul ima ely comes down o s iking he igh balance be ween liaison and o he ness. I seems ob ious ha i allies end up me ging in o one, hen he e will be no alliance anymo e, o i will be ans o med in o some hing else. The same happens, i hey mo e oo a away om each o he wi hou b idging he gap and media ing hei o he ness. The pape is s uc u ed in h ee pa s. Based on an ancien unde s anding o hospi ali y and gues iendship, he pape a gues in he i s pa ha ecei ing each o he in us cons i u es he e hical basis o any alliance. D awing on he signi ican ole which A is o le assigns o us in his ision o iendship, he e hical dimension o alliances is explo ed in a discussion wi h mode n posi ions. Following up on his discussion, he pape shows in he second pa how allies a e called upon o adjus o changes, p e en con lic s, and sol e p oblems by accompanying each o he in o de o make hei alliance las . The ele ance o his dynamic unde s anding o alliance building is elabo a ed u he in he hi d pa , which d aws on Hannah A end ’s concep ion o poli ical plu ali y and Emmanuel Le inas’ e hics o hospi ali y wi h a iew o e hinking good alliances in a mode n global con ex . Th ee his o ical examples will se e as s a ing poin s o a philosophical e lec ion on how an alliance comes abou in he i s place, and which e hical disposi ions a e en ailed in he pa ies’ a emp o media e hei di e ences. The i s example is aken om he i s Book o he Old Tes amen , Genesis chap e 18, whe e he Lo d isi s Ab aham, who si s a he en ance o his en benea h he ees o Mam e. He appea s be o e Ab aham in he guise o h ee s ange s, appa en ly o see i Ab aham will ecei e him as is expec ed o a good hos ( Genesis 18). Remembe ing ha es amen in he Biblical sense o he wo d means pac and ha Ab aham is seen as ep esen ing his people, he passage can be ead as a es imony o how he Jewish God, Jahwe, seeks o o m an alliance wi h he whole people o Is ael h ough hospi ali y. As is well-known, Ab aham li es up o he ideal o hospi ali y and o e s his di ine gues s o s ay, sha ing wi h hem some ood om his household. Th oughou his o y humans ha e expe ienced o he ness, bo h in ela ion o he wholly o he and among hemsel es, as an unse ling s angeness which hey ha e ied o media e by ecei ing each o he . Many alliances ha e been o ged a ound a able by allowing he pa ies o sha e some hing wi h each o he wi hou me ging in o one. An alliance is li e ally a liaison wi h he o he , he alien, who comes om ou side he al eady es ablished socie y. In he New Tes amen , Jesus Ch is emphasizes ha his disciples ecei ed him as a s ange ( Ma hew 25, 35–38), al hough he spi i ual bond o lo e, agape, which he con eys o his disciples ep esen s much mo e han an alliance, as i ex ends o humani y as a whole and e en beyond li e. S ill, hospi ali y plays a ounda ional ole in he o ma ion o he Ch is ian communi y, pa en ly expounded in he Eas e scene o he las suppe , whe e Jesus and his disciples a e ecei ed in a house and consolida e hei bond o lo e ( Luke 22, 7–23; Hil b unne , 156–170). The hi d his o ical example is he one which comes closes o he mode n meaning o alliance as a s a egical and o en empo a y a angemen be ween pa ies ha ing an explici agenda o eaching a common goal oge he : Mos o he ancien Hellenic ci y-s a es we e, o a g ea e o lesse ex en , buil on alliances o gues iendship. Gab iel He man has o e ed a ho ough mapping o he ancien G eek wo ld as being ‘c iss-c ossed wi h an ex ensi e ne wo k o pe sonal alliances linking oge he all so s o apoli ical bodies (households, ibes, bands, e c.)’ (He man , 6). People o he same household o ci y– s a e we e no conside ed o be allies, as alliances ga e ise o connec ions ac oss he al eady es ablished limi s o he ci y-s a es and ac oss bo de s by b inging s ange s oge he , who would en e in o a i ualized o m o iendship wi h e hical obliga ions owa ds each o he . Wha he h ee ancien examples show is, i s o all, ha be o e an alliance has been buil o e en en isaged, he o he mee s us as a s ange o as an alien, ‘a igh ening symbol o he ac o di e ence as such’, as he Ge man hinke Hannah A end has pu i (A end , 301). In c i ical momen s, when gues iendship u ns in o enmi y, as i happens in he G eek agedies, o when he disciples be ay Jesus, he igh ening e ec o aliena ion h ea ens o des oy e e y possibili y o communica ion. An alliance is a agile ela ion. Ye , i is mean as a way o o e coming he di e ences be ween he pa ies appea ing as s ange s o each o he and so make hei p esence less ‘ igh ening’ and hei in e ac ion wi h each o he bene icial. Fo his ans o ma ion o come abou and make he alliance wo k, he allies need ‘ okens o us ’, pis a, as he ma e ial i ems and signs o us wo hiness a e called in G eek (He man , 46–50, 147–149; Kons an , 33). The ancien G eek wo d o us is pis is, which is also employed in he New Tes amen as ha ing ai h in God, who elies on hospi ali y in o de o es ablish an alliance wi h humans, who canno ela e o he wholly o he , bu only as He appea s in his aliena ion, in his coming o h as o he . The wo ini ial examples om he Bible clea ly cons i u e asymme ical ela ionships be ween God and humans, whe eas alliances in he ancien G eek wo ld we e po ayed as liaisons o ecip oci y be ween equals. S ill, any alliance, whe he in e p e ed eligiously o e hically, sp ings om ecei ing and showing us in he alien o he . 2006 Hospi ali y and us : he basis o a good alliance and i s e hical implica ions  2  3  42005 2002 1976 2002 1997 I is wi hin his social con ex o hos s and gues s, ecei ing and o e ing each o he gi s, ha he i ues o us and hospi ali y made sense in he ancien G eek wo ld. A is o le inds us embedded in he human ela ionship mos akin o an alliance, philia o iendship: As he saying goes, you canno ge o know a man ill you ha e consumed he p o e bial amoun o sal in his company; and so you canno admi him o iendship o eally be iends, be o e each has shown he o he ha he is wo hy o iendship and has won his con idence. (A is o le , 1156b) In his passage, in which A is o le employs philos o iend and a de i ed wo d o pis is o con idence, he e m philia is no un ela ed o he ne wo ks o i ualized alliances analysed by He man, who unde lines ha ‘ he seman ic ange’ o philos, he G eek wo d o iend, is some imes so wide ha i also co e s s ange s, gues s and allies (He man , 10). Like an alliance, iendship is ounded on us , which only comes abou o e ime. By d awing on p o e bial wisdom, A is o le calls a en ion o a well-es ablished ac among ancien G eeks ha i akes mo e han a summe o build a solid iendship, and he indi ec ly poin s o he se ing, in which he ounding ac o iendship usually akes place: The house whe e he iends supposedly mee o si down and ha e a meal oge he . Al hough A is o le’s analysis o philia co e s o he mo e pe sonal ela ionships han alliances, his e e ence o an old saying in he quo ed passage implies a mo e ancien social con ex cons i u ed by gues iendship and i ualized alliances. A gandoña has a gued ha in a dynamic ela ion, such as an alliance, which pe mi s allies o coope a e in some a eas while compe ing in o he s, mu ual us be ween he pa ies lays he basis o u he ing hei join p ojec , ag eeing on common e ms and coping wi h p oblems o coo dina ion (A gandoña , 220–221). Wi hou us , which is he good in en ion and sus ained a emp by all pa ies o communica e, nego ia e, and b idge di e ences, he alliance is in dange o b eaking apa a any ime. E en in he mos p agma ically concei ed alliance, es ablished exclusi ely o sho - e m unc ional pu poses, he allies need o see beyond hei own p agma ism and us each o he , no me ely as a means o some hing else. I he o he is no seen as us wo hy in he sel , dis inguished by in eg i y and good will, hen she will jus be one mo e exchangeable ‘good’ in he ba gaining, and he e is no hing s able o which he bond o he alliance can be ied. T us is he e hical co ne s one o an alliance, which is no up o nego ia ion. Allies o e each o he signs o us as a gi h ough es imonies o u h ulness and by doing ‘some hing good o ano he , solely o he o he ’s good (pe sonal de elopmen : he anscenden dimension), hus in i ing us om he o he pa y’ (A gandoña , 223–24). A is o le coins a simila insigh when he s a es ha he e is an e hical o m o iendship based on u ili y, which iends do no en e in o h ough a con ac , bu i is a gi ha hey o e each o he (NE VIII, 13, 1162b). Despi e being me ely iends o u ili y, which A is o le ega ds as in e io o being good iends, hey s ill deposi us in each o he in o de o main ain hei ela ion, and hey may also wish each o he well acco dingly. The e ms o he ela ion a e no ixed om he s a , as in a legal o m o u ili y- iendship, bu a e le open by he pa ies, who wan o gi e each o he some leeway when i comes o se ling how much each is supposed o make up o o epay in ela ion o he o he . Mo e han close iends, who wan o ge o know each o he independen ly o any sha ed business, he pa ne s become allies h ough his o m o u ili y- ela ion, in which hey may do hings o each o he ’s sake, ye hey emain keen on doing some hing use ul oge he , which pays o o u he s hei join p ojec . Each has decided o en e he ela ion eely and is he e o e also ee o lea e i again, when i has ei he come o a na u al end o p o en no o pay o . In ei he case, hey may also s ay oge he and ede ine hei ela ionship by en isioning a new common objec i e. Al hough A is o le cen e s on business and ade in his discussion o his so o u ili y-pa ne ship, he emphasizes ha he pa ne s wan o con ey o each o he a ce ain libe al spi i o gene osi y and o gi ing eely wi hou coun ing e e y con ibu ion ha hey make o hei common cou se. While hey a e clea abou wan ing hei sha e o he ba gain, he pa ne s s ill s and oge he and wo k o hei common cou se. A he highes le el o de elopmen o mo al u ili y- iendship we can imagine he iends main aining a common pool o esou ces, which hey a e ee o d aw om as expedien and expec ed o eplenish and expand as app op ia e. A his poin he iends a e no longe sepa a e ade s ba gaining agains each o he , bu pa ne s on he same side ba gaining in common o hei good agains hi d pa ies (Alpe n , 313). The pa ne s in his so o good alliance do no necessa ily oppose o ba gain agains hi d pa ies, al hough i may come o ha . S ill, he ension be ween an e hos o gene osi y, on he one hand, and a p agma ic conce n o p oducing use ul esul s, on he o he hand, appea s o be inhe en in any alliance and is one o he p incipal causes o con lic be ween he pa ies in ol ed. Each pa y may end owa ds being mo e e hically noble o mo e p agma ically ealis ic, and i his di e ence o ension in how hey iew hei ela ion and wha hey expec om i is no nego ia ed o esol ed, i will p obably lead o disillusion and up u e. In he good alliance he allies sha e an e hical ou look, based on us and ac s o hospi ali y, which makes he ela ion in o a gi , o e ed in gene osi y mo e han pu e u ili y. U ili y is s ill a conce n in a good alliance, which means ha a ension emains, bu i is he hesis o he pape ha i can be esol ed h ough a join c i ical dialogue, which he allies should be willing o engage in, i 1934 2002 1999 1999 1983  1 hey wan hei alliance o las . Be o e we each ha s age, we shall see how A is o le inco po a es he e hical aspec s o hospi ali y in o his de ini ion o wha is good in iendship. Like an alliance, u ili y- iendship is ex endible o la ge g oups and ci y-s a es, A is o le ema ks, and is mos o en a ela ionship o opposi es which p o e o be mo e use ul han wha is alike: ‘In a way oo iendship o he opposi e is o he good, he pa ies desi ing each o he because o he mean. Like allies, hey desi e each o he because in his way a single mean is c ea ed om he pai ’ (A is o le , 1239b). A is o le compa es he pa ies o pieces o he same gi i em, allies (symbola), which is he e m o he okens o us sha ed by gues iends since ancien imes. Ye , by iewing he iends hemsel es as allies, A is o le mo es he a en ion om he hings sha ed, he okens, o he pe sons desi ing o mee and sha e hei li es oge he in us . They hemsel es a e like s ange s o each o he , limi ed and po en ially menacing, bu h ough an alliance buil on hospi ali y, which A is o le also ca ego izes unde iendships o u ili y, hey ge o complemen and balance each o he ’s ex eme endencies. Each piece aken on i s own may appea , o use A end ’s cha ac e iza ion o he alien, o be a ‘ igh ening symbol o di e ence as such’, ye aken oge he , in iendly in e ac ion wi h each o he , hey can each each a balanced s a e. Jona han Whi e has amed his a gumen as a de ense o he in insic alue o an alliance: ‘By os e ing he encoun e o di e se iews and encou aging comp omise be ween hem, an alliance helps cu b he excesses o which each cons i uen pa y may be p one, hus aising he quali y o hei decisions’ (Whi e , 599). Howe e , he p oblem wi h his kind o a gumen , Whi e a gues, apa om assuming ha pa ies canno cu b hei own excesses wi hou es ablishing alliances, is ha i ames pa isanship as being o e ly limi ed and ‘one-eyed’. I is ue ha pa ies o wha e e kind can also emb ace di e si y and each comp omises ou side alliances. Ye , A is o le’s hough ul simile o he iends being complemen a y allies highligh s an e hical dimension o allying o he s, which disappea s i we ocus exclusi ely on ‘ os e ing he encoun e o di e se iews and encou aging comp omise’ in alliances. Like iendship, he good alliance en ails mo e han ha . In o de o complemen each o he , allies will ha e o lea n om each o he and ecognize, as hey go along, hei own limi s o weak poin s. Allies a e no necessa ily p one o ‘excesses’ no a e hey ex emely ‘sho - sigh ed’, as Whi e seems o sugges , bu hey a e s ill limi ed and end o see e e y hing om wi hin hei own ci cle, which is also why any pa y en e ing in o an alliance would usually expec mo e om an encoun e wi h o he allies han jus di e se iews and comp omises. In o de o explo e u he he e hical dimension opened up by hese ini ial e lec ions, he discussion o he in insic alue o alliances will be aken in o he nex phase: The ocal poin o an alliance in he i s phase is on opening he doo o ecei e o he pa ies, media e di e ences by o e ing es imonies o c edibili y and compa ibili y so as o p epa e he way o each a mean h ough ag eemen s. In he second phase, inso a as he alliance is de eloped u he , allies will ha e o accompany each o he in o de o adjus o changes, p e en con lic s, sol e p oblems oge he , and possibly enego ia e some o he condi ions on which hei alliance was o iginally buil , i hey wan o keep he alliance ali e. In p ac ice he wo phases a e in e wined: Building us is no consolida ed once and o all in he i s phase, bu i is de eloped o e ime which in ol es om he s a con inuous adjus men and p oblem sol ing. S ill, in he i s phase he allies cen e mo e on o he ness in e nally in he alliance and on how o b idge he gap be ween each o he in o de o es ablish a basis o hei common cou se, whe eas in he second phase hey s and mo e alongside each o he acing o he ness ou wa dly in ela ion o o he s. Once mo e, A is o le’s ou line o he e hical signi icance o iendship p o es o be pe inen o ou mode n discussion o he in insic alue o good alliances. And again, when ouching upon he pu pose o accompanying each o he in iendship, A is o le quo es an ancien p o e bial ph ase: ‘ o hose in p ime o li e, o assis hem in noble deeds – “when wain oge he go” – o wo a e be e able bo h o plan and o execu e’ (A is o le , 1155a). The ph ase, ‘when wain oge he go’, is p onounced by Diomedes in Home ’s Iliad o unde sco e he ad an age o accompanying each o he on a mission, because i a wa io goes on his own, he will see less and may no ac sa is ac o ily in ime, whe eas i an ally is he e by his side, one o he wo will see wha is bes ( Iliad X 224–226). Diomedes is clea ly no hinking o a deep- el iendship, bu o he so o alliance o companionship, which enables wo o mo e people o see hings mo e clea ly. A is o le p esen s a philosophical ein e p e a ion o his passage by pu ing emphasis on he expansion o he iends’ p ac ical and cogni i e capabili ies as hey go oge he and accompany each o he along he way. He unde lines ha he wo iends a e in hei p ime, ye a ull- ledged companionship, such as he one he desc ibes, gi es hem a chance o eaching e en highe and becoming mo e compe en in ac ion and hinking han i each o hem had been on hei own. Whi e akes his o be one mo e a gumen in a o o he in insic alue o alliances: On his accoun , a good alliance en iches he ou look o all pa ies in ol ed and allows hem o see beyond hei own limi a ions. Taking his s a ing poin in a poli ical 2013 2018 Companionship and c i ical hinking: e hical challenges in good alliances 1934  5 con ex , Whi e de elops a double a gumen agains his accoun : I is di icul o see why he pa ies should no me ge and become one single pa y, gi en ha ‘ he pooling o hei esou ces allows his ype o epis emic ad ance’ which leads o ‘an enligh ened consensus’. Fu he mo e, compa ed o he e lexi e and complex ision o eali y o which a success ul alliance gi es access, pa isanship appea s o be so ‘incomple e’ ha i akes away he aison d’e e o any adi ional poli ical endea o which is commi ed o de ending a pa y’s ideals and i s o e s’ p inciples (Whi e , 599–600). No wi hs anding Whi e’s coun e a gumen s, highligh ing he in insic e hical alue en ailed in es ablishing an alliance does no necessa ily esul in a pic u e o pa isanship as being so ‘one-eyed’ ha pa y membe s could no longe also see o hemsel es and meaning ully de end hei iews. Al hough an alliance, analogously o iendship, may help heigh en he allies’ awa eness o hei own ac ions and hinking, i emains limi ed in i s own way and does no sol e all he p oblems o he allies. Wi h ega d o Whi e’s i s poin o c i ique, i could be a gued, based on he unde s anding o alliances de eloped in his pape , ha pa ies me ging oge he will no longe bene i om he complemen a y s andpoin coming om ou side which he o he ally ep esen s. I is p ecisely because allies do no me ge in o one, bu ins ead media e hei o he ness ha hey can keep hinking c i ically and ac ing be e han hey would ha e i le o hei own de ices. A is o le de elops his poin u he in his e lec ions on wha good iends con ibu e, when hey a e oge he . I hey a e so excellen ha hey possess all he i ues equi ed o ac and hink well, wha could hey possibly ha e, A is o le asks himsel , o o e each o he ? He inds an answe in he insigh which he had al eady p esen ed by ein e p e ing Diomedes’ wo ds on companionship: ‘We a e be e able o obse e ou pee s han ou sel es, and hei ac ions be e han ou s’ (A is o le , 1169b). Because o his asymme y in human ela ionships, allies can ecei e and gi e in o ma ion abou each o he which is no easily accessible o any o hem on hei own. Like iendship, a good alliance b oadens he ho izon o he allies and p omo es hei c i ical hinking so ha wha one o hem may no see o ealize becomes be e obse able and clea e when hey go oge he , co ec each o he , o sha e a common ision. E en ually, Whi e lea es behind he a gumen s o he in insic alue o alliances and ocuses ins ead on he ins umen al alue o alliances as ‘an ex ension o he pa isan p ojec a he han some hing ha calls i in o ques ion’. He ecognizes ha ‘ he ac ha he pa ies a e publicly wo king oge he in pu sui o common goals gi es an e hical dimension o hei ies’ (Whi e , 605), bu as he iews alliances as some hing me ely empo a y wi hou a las ing impac on he allies, he e hical dimension does no eally change any hing in he pa ies’ ou look, and hey basically emain he same. Al hough sympa he ic o Whi e’s well-a gued ision o pa isanship and alliance building in poli ics, we shall a gue ha he e hical dimension, p ope o an alliance, en ails a ela ionship o he o he as o he which implies us and c i ical hinking. I he o he me ely becomes an ex ension o mysel , hen I will ha dly lea n any hing new om my allies, and he alliance becomes limi ed o wha I could ha e lea ned on my own. Such alliances will su ely end soone han la e wi hou lea ing much o an impac . Whi e may be igh ha i an alliance jeopa dizes a pa y’s p ima y commi men s and pu s in o ques ion i s co e alues, hen i may do mo e ha m han good. S ill, i an alliance is supposed o mee e hical challenges esponsibly, he allies should make oom o dissen and c i ical hinking o nego ia e di e ences and cu b excesses; no me ely wi h a iew o i s own imp o emen , bu as much o be mind ul o possible laws and u u e consequences o o he s ou side he alliance. In ou global con ex oday, he es o how good an alliance is should no only look a he in e nal cohe ence and s a egic ad an ages o he allies, as Whi e asse s, bu also ake in o accoun he ex e nali ies which he explici ly lea es ou . Conside ing ha globaliza ion exposes s ill mo e people all o e he wo ld o alien o he s, good alliances may p o e o be easible ways o es ablishing bonds be ween people in all hei plu ali y by in i ing hem in o ‘spaces o espec ul and open dialogue bo h wi hin and ac oss bo de s’ (Bandy and Smi h , 12). Such a dialogue would also en ail c i ical, especially sel - c i ical, hinking which challenges s e eo ypes, indi e ence, and inhumane ways o ac ing and hinking by exposing all pa ies in ol ed o human plu ali y. Hannah A end once claimed ha plu ali y is he law o he ea h. I ha is ue, hen i is a law which has been iola ed so many imes and in so many ways ha nobody could e e ha e kep coun o i . A end he sel became a i s -hand wi ness o one o he mos inhumane egimes e e seen on ea h, The Ge man Nazi Pa y, which sough o e adica e human plu ali y as such, u ning e e y s ange in o an enemy, as P imo Le i once s a ed (Le i , 9). Wha would be he opposi e o Nazism? How sa egua d plu ali y agains a emp s o educing humani y o a homogenous singula i y and ea ing he es o humani y as unwo hy ‘ aces’? A end de ined plu ali y by i s ‘ wo old cha ac e o equali y and dis inc ion’ which she claimed sp ang om human speech and ac ion as such (A end , 175): Wi h wo d and deed we inse ou sel es in o he human wo ld, and his inse ion is like a second bi h […] I may be s imula ed by he p esence o o he s whose company we may wish o join, bu i 2018 1934 2018 Re hinking good alliances in a mode n global con ex 2005 1996 1998 is ne e condi ioned by hem. (A end , 176–177) Wha she igno es in his passage, howe e , is ha i is no up o e e y newcome , howe e esou ce ul he o she may be, o be inse ed in o he human wo ld. A bi h, be i he i s o he second one, e e y newcome is in he hands o o he s and needs o be ecei ed, i she is o lead a li e among o he people, whose p esence and company is no me ely s imula ing, bu absolu ely necessa y o human plu ali y o eme ge. In some passages o he wo k, A end seems o be eluc an ly awa e o his, especially when she speaks o e e y newcome being a s ange and claims ha ‘[T]he wo ld becomes inhuman, inhospi able o human needs’, when i dissol es and loses all pe manence (A end , 11). A end knew ha a pe son may dis inguish he sel h ough speech and belie e ha she is equal o e e ybody else, bu i he e is no one he e o ecognize and ealize his, o e en wo se, i he majo i y o people we e indi e en o iolen ly ied o unde mine he humani y in he name o a o ali a ian o de , hen equali y and dis inc ness emain abs ac , un ealized po en iali ies. No wi hs anding he awa eness o he wo ld becoming inhospi able o millions o people, who became aliens, neglec ed and abandoned unde and a e he Second Wo ld Wa , she ne e ound a place o hospi ali y and e hics in he hinking. I was le o F ench philosophe Emmanuel Le inas o ind he e hical o mula o an an ido e agains he xenophobia, diagnosed by Le i, who saw i as a la en in ec ion in all people. Le inas ound an an ido e in ‘ he powe o welcome, o gi , o ull hands, o hospi ali y’ (Le inas , 205), which makes he ‘inse ion’ o humans in o a plu al wo ld possible in he i s place. Acco ding o Le inas, e hics begins by becoming awa e o he o he as a s ange and ecei ing him o he in he spi i o hospi ali y, which means o ecei e he o he in such a way ha he o she is no u ned in o an objec o a possession o be manipula ed. The o he emains a gues , an alien o he , who anscends he hos ’s economy o consump ion and app op ia ion by calling i in o ques ion. In To ali y and In ini y, which eads like ‘an immense ea ise on hospi ali y’ (De ida , 70), Le inas ollows wo di e en oads o p esen he c ux o his book, subjec i i y as hospi ali y. Along bo h lines o hinking, i is he o he , who o e s e e y subjec he powe o ecei e in hospi ali y. Acco ding o he i s line o hough , which Le inas ollows mos o en, he alien o he speaks o e e y hos om a anscenden posi ion compa able only o God. This e ela o y ac , as Le inas calls i , is eminiscen o he scene a Mam e, whe e Ab aham inds himsel obliged o ecei e he h ee godsend gues s, who a i e a his en . Following his eligiously inspi ed unde s anding o e hics, he O he b eaks i esis ibly h ough e e y kind o egoism and demands o be ecei ed. The O he can be igno ed, bu only because He has al eady made his p esence el . Howe e , he e is ano he way in o Le inas’ e hics o hospi ali y, which may no be comple ely sepa able om he i s one, bu i opens up ano he way o a mo e dialogical ela ionship ha could lead in o a c i ical e hinking o alliance building. The i s oad in o Le inas’ e hical hinking leads o an ambiguous one-way ela ion o he O he , who appea s o come bo h om abo e like a godsend isi o , and om below like a poo widow. I is bo h a ela ion and a non- ela ion in which he ego is o ced wi hou o ce o o e hospi ali y (Le inas , 47). Wi hin he con ex ha conce ns us, i is di icul o see how an endu ing alliance can be es ablished on an essen ially asymme ical ela ion in which he pa ies in ol ed emain dis an and sepa a e. Ye , when Le inas le s he sepa a e e ms o he e hical ela ionship, he I and he O he , app oach each o he , he opens up ano he way in o his hinking ha elies on ancien G eek hinking: The o he emains p esen in his speech and o e s a key, as Le inas says wi h e e ences o Pla o and A is o le, o unlock his own speech which u ns in o a c i ical dialogue, when I espond o he wo ds di ec ed a me (Le inas , 97). In his con ex , Le inas iews he Pla onic concep ion o o al dialogue as a su plus o signi icance, and he A is o elian analysis o he in ellec as enabling he human soul o go beyond i s own con en (Le inas , 51). By opening mysel up o he o he , I le mysel and my own li e o m be ques ioned. I I go one s ep u he and in i e he o he in, I espond by o e ing mo e han wha I al eady con ained which cons i u es, acco ding o Le inas, he c i ical po en ial o ue esponsibili y. O e ing mo e han wha you hough ha you con ained and hus anscending you con ained hough s is a sign o he ue goodness o ‘ iendship and hospi ali y’ (Le inas , 305), as Le inas concludes in To ali y and In ini y. In his e lec ions on he e hics o us in alliances, A gandoña al eady poin ed owa d he anscenden dimension o gi ing ‘solely o he o he ’s good (pe sonal de elopmen : he anscenden dimension), hus in i ing us om he o he pa y’. Howe e , Le inas ba ely ouches on he pa ies’ esponse o he signs o us which hey o e each o he , i.e. he s ops sho be o e a iendship o an alliance is de eloped. A end , on he o he hand, d aws on ancien adi ions o alliance building and elabo a es on he pledges and p omises which bind oge he he allies: The mu ual con ac by which people bind hemsel es oge he in o de o o m a communi y is based on ecip oci y and p esupposes equali y; i s ac ual con en is a p omise, and i s esul is indeed a ‘socie y’ o ‘cosocia ion’ in he old Roman sense o socie as, which means alliance. Such an alliance ga he s oge he he isola ed s eng h o he allied pa ne s and binds hem in o a new powe s uc u e by i ue o ‘ ee and since e p omises’. (A end , 170) Despi e igno ing o aking o g an ed he ini ial ac s o hospi ali y in alliance building, A end de elops u he he implica ions 1998 1970 1991 1997 1991 1991 1991 1991 1990 o hese i s ounding ac s which en ail he making and keeping o p omises be ween equals, who ‘combine and en e in o las ing alliances wi hou losing hei iden i y’ (A end , 171). This means ha he allies emain dis inc and hus sa egua d he wo- old cha ac e o human plu ali y. The basis o emaining dis inc is laid in he hospi able ecep ion o he o he , and A end adds an impo an aspec o his pa o he ela ion be ween allies: She compa es i o he A is o elian concep o poli ical iendship, which embodies a espec o and ega d o he o he pe son om he dis ance (A end , 243). The o he pa o he ela ionship, which sa egua ds human plu ali y, is he bond be ween he allies, buil on mu ual con idence h ough ecip ocal ‘combining and co enan ing’, which u nishes hei equal s a us. A end ’s app oach o alliances is explici ly poli ical, and she bases he unde s anding on documen s o ea ly Ame ican his o y, whose au ho s concei e o hei sha ed en e p ise o building a ‘New Wo ld’ as g owing ou o ‘ he join con idence we ha e in each o he ’s ideli y and esolu ion’ (A end , 173). The ea ly Pu i an iew o compac and consen elied hea ily on he Old Tes amen and ‘ he co enan o Is ael’, ye , as we ha e seen, and as A end also unde sco es, he asymme ical ela ion be ween God and man, who ecei es and consen s o he law coming om abo e, does no lead in o an alliance buil upon dis inc ness, equali y, and ecip oci y. Only a Commonweal h, whose ep esen a i es a e ‘ eely chosen by he consen o lo ing iends and neighbou s’ (A end , 176), sa egua ds human plu ali y, which needs such e hical disposi ions as us and espec in o de o shine o h. In he end, plu ali y is no gi en as a law bu eme ges h ough he so o human in e ac ion exempli ied by iendship, which becomes an analogue o he good alliances analysed in he pape . Based on a ein e p e a ion o he A is o elian no ion o iendship, he pape has ou lined he e hical dimension o good alliances: They a e ounded on us , which he pa ies o e each o he as a gi ha anscends he p agma ic exchange and calculus o cos s and bene i s. Gi ing noble es imonies o us wo hiness in gene osi y and ecei ing he alien o he in hospi ali y lays he ounda ion o he good alliance, which he pa ne s en e in o in o de o achie e esul s and each a common goal. Ye , inso a as hey sha e an e hical ou look, which goes beyond me e u ili y, hey can media e hei o he ness in a join c i ical dialogue, in which hey communica e, nego ia e, and esol e hei possible di e ences. The in insic alue o alliance building lies in he allies’ po en ial o balancing, en iching, and anscending each o he ’s ways o ac ing and hinking h ough a c i ical dialogue, which is analogous o he in e ac ion be ween iends. In e hinking alliances in a global con ex , Le inas and A end end up employing iendship as an analogue o he so o good alliance, which espec s he o he ness o he o he while a he same ime opening he pa ies up o ques ioning hei own and each o he ’s li e o ms. Recei ing he alien o he is an opening up o e e y o he as a s ange . A good alliance sa egua ds human plu ali y which is no gi en as a law. In o de o plu ali y o shine o h, i needs e hical disposi ions which emb ace i in i s wo- old cha ac e o dis inc ness and equali y. Disclosu e s a emen No po en ial con lic o in e es was epo ed by he au ho . ORCID Jonas Hols h p://o cid.o g/0000-0002-5949-1727 Re e ences 1990 1998 1990 1990 Conclusion Alpe n, Kenne h D. 1983. “A is o le on he F iendships o U ili y and Pleasu e.” Jou nal o he His o y o Philosophy 21 (3): 303–315. A end , Hannah. 1970. Men in Da k Times. London: Cape. A end , Hannah. 1976. The O igins o To ali a ianism. New Yo k and London: Ha cou . A end , Hannah. 1990. On Re olu ion. London and New Yo k: Penguin Books. A end , Hannah. 1998. The Human Condi ion. Chicago and London: The Uni e si y o Chicago P ess. A gandoña, An onio. 1999. “Sha ing Ou in Alliances: T us and E hics.” Jou nal o Business E hics 21: 217–228. A is o le. 1934. Nicomachean E hics. Camb idge: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess. A is o le. 2013. Eudemian E hics. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Bandy, Joe, and Jackie Smi h, eds. 2005. Coali ions Ac oss Bo de s: T ansna ional P o es and he Neolibe al O de . Lanham: Rowman & Li le ield. De ida, Jacques. 1997. Adieu à Emmanuel Lé inas. Pa is: Galilée. He man, Gab iel. 2002. Ri ualised F iendship & The G eek Ci y. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Hil b unne , O o. 2005. Gas eundscha in de An ike und im F ühen Ch is en um. Da ms ad : WBG. The Holy Bible. 1982. Nash ille: Thomas Nelson. Home . 2007. The Iliad. Ann A bo : The Uni e si y o Michigan P ess. Kons an, Da id. 1997. F iendship in he Classical Wo ld. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Le i, P imo. 1996. Su i al in Auschwi z. The Nazi Assaul on Humani y. New Yo k: Touchs one. Le inas, Emmanuel. 1991. To ali y and In ini y. Do d ech : Kluwe Academic Publishe s. Pa idge, E ic. 2006. O igins. A Sho E ymological Dic iona y o Mode n English. 4 h ed. London and New Yo k: Rou ledge. Whi e, Jona han. 2018. “The E hics o Poli ical Alliance.” B i ish Jou nal o Poli ical Science 48 (3): 593–609.