Universalism and Historicism: A Conflicting Inheritance of the Enlightenment

ABSTRACT

Enlightenment thought and its contemporary followers usually support two contradictory principles simultaneously. The first is universality. Truth is universal because it is truth for all. Claims to universality are made in logic and science, but also in areas that are culturally or politically controversial. Recently, universalism has become a key term to express a fundamental critique of identity politics. For much of European history, Christianity provided such a universal truth. But with the decline of its cultural hegemony and the rise of particular nation-states, conflicting truth claims became weapons in violent conflicts, leading Hobbes to argue that dangerous truth claims must be neutralized by robust political power. In the eighteenth century, rationalism became more optimistic, interpreting universalism as cosmopolitanism based on universal reason and progress through history. The second principle is historicism, which is the self-reflexive look at the historical origins of universal claims and theories. Historicism emerged in the nineteenth century as a response to the application of rationalism to history. It challenged the universal claims of the French Revolution, emphasizing instead the unique value of each historical entity. This revealed a fundamental paradox: when universalism becomes self-reflexive, it recognizes that it has non-universal historical origins, thereby undermining itself. After the devastation of World War II and the Holocaust, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) represented a significant effort toward a new universalism. It sought to establish human rights as universal principles for the emerging world order. But history repeated itself: Historicism once again weakened confidence in human rights. The enemies of human rights take advantage of this weakness. We therefore have to live with the paradox that universalism is necessary because humanity shares a single world, but that historical self-reflection is also unavoidable. In other words, the Enlightenment principle of universalism must accept historicism as an integral part of itself.

KEYWORDS:

• Enlightenment
• universalism
• historicism
• human rights

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

^1. Hegel, for example, stated in Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte, S. 529: “Solange die Sonne am Firmamente steht und die Planeten um sie herumkreisen, war das nicht gesehen worden, daß der Mensch sich auf den Kopf, das ist, auf den Gedanken stellt und die Wirklichkeit nach diesem erbaut” (“Never since the sun had stood in the firmament and the planets revolved around it had it been perceived that man’s existence centres in his head, i.e. in Thought, inspired by which he builds up the world of reality”).

^2. Buck-Morss, Hegel, Haiti and Universal History; French, Born in Blackness.

^3. Kant, Kritik der Urteilskraft, §68, 248: “Nur so viel sieht man vollständig ein, als man nach Begriffen selbst machen und zu Stande bringen kann” [“Only so much can be well understood, as one can make and bring about by oneself according to concepts”].

^4. Boehm, Radikaler Universalismus, 44–62.

^5. Arendt, Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy; Vollrath, Die Rekonstruktion der politischen Urteilskraft.

^6. In Germany this school of thought is referred to as Historismus. In the English language, two terms are used without a clear distinction: historism and historicism, the latter being more common. Karl Popper uses the term historicism in an idiosyncratic way to indicate the belief in a predetermined direction of history. See Scholtz, “Historismus, Historizismus,” 1145.

^7. Marx, “Das Elend der Philosophie,” 497.

^8. Cassirer, Die Philosophie der Aufklärung, 263ff.

^9. Myers, Resisting History, 21ff.

^10. Schulz, Philosophie in der veränderten Welt, 469–522; Schnädelbach, Philosophie in Deutschland 1831–1933, 51ff.

^11. Ranke, Über die Epochen der neueren Geschichte, 7: “Jede Epoche ist unmittelbar zu Gott, und ihr Wert beruht gar nicht auf dem, was aus ihr hervorgeht, sondern in ihrer Existenz selbst, in ihrem eigenen Selbst” (“Every epoch is directly related to God, and its value rests not at all on what emerges from it, but in its very existence, in its own self”).

^12. Meinecke, Historism, liv.

^13. Hegel, Vorlesungen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Philosophie III, 462.

^14. Dilthey, Traum über Raffaels ‘Schule von Athen’, 225.

^15. While defending historicism, Troeltsch became increasingly concerned about its irrational political impact during the Weimar Republic. See his “Krise des Historismus” (1922); and Graf, Ernst Troeltsch, Theologe im Welthorizont.

^16. Sternhell, “The Crisis of Relativism,” 315ff.

^17. René Cassin, quoted in Morsink, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 333.

^18. Glendon, A World Made New; Will, “La contribution chinoise à la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l’Homme,” 7.

^19. At some difficult point, Chang suggested his partners should have a break and study Confucianism for a couple of months. See Humphrey, Human Rights, and the United Nations, 297.

^20. Adami, “Reconciling Universality and Particularity,” 22–37.

^21. Mazower, No Enchanted Palace, 7.

^22. Power, A Problem from Hell.

^23. General Assembly Resolution 76/262, 20 April 2022.

^24. Mutua, Human Rights, 154: “The adoption in 1948 by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the foundational document of the human rights movement—sought to give universal legitimacy to a doctrine that is fundamentally Eurocentric in its construction. Sanctimonious to a fault, the Universal Declaration underscored its arrogance by proclaiming itself the common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations. The fact that half a century later human rights have become a central norm of global civilization does not vindicate their universality. It is rather a telling testament to the conceptual, cultural, economic, military, and philosophical domination of the European West over non-European peoples and traditions.”

^25. Salil Shetty, at https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/decolonizing-human-rights-salil-shetty/.

^26. U.S. Foreign Secretary Warren Christopher said in his address: “we cannot let cultural relativism become the last refuge of repression.”

^27. Tharoor, “Are Human Rights Universal?”

^28. Mishra, From the Ruins of Empire, 306.

^29. Snyder, “God Is a Russian”; See also Sedgwick, Against the Modern World.

^30. Palmer, “The Rhetoric of Unity,” 821–31.

^31. Bartsch, Plato Goes to China.

^32. Bell, The China Model; See also his article in Le Monde, 30 April 2010.

^33. Larkin, “China’s Normfare and the Threat to Human Rights,” 2285–322. For a different, more liberal voice from China, see Jilin, “Universal Civilization, or Chinese Values?” 61–94.

^34. It became known as “Document No 9,” dated April 12, 2013. Full text at https://www.chinafile.com/document-9-chinafile-translation.

^35. Appiah, “The Importance of Elsewhere.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Benedikt Haller

Dr. Benedikt Haller is a retired German diplomat. His postings included Moscow, Minsk, St. Petersburg, Washington, Paris, Tel Aviv, and Rome. His professional focus was on strategic, disarmament and East-West issues.