Is Universalism Ethnocentric?
For many years, moral philosophy has been dominated by universalist and particularist ideas, both of which offer some important insights into social relationships of all kinds. Universalism is best summarized by the image of the American "melting pot," which suggests that over time, individuals in a multicultural society tend to share more values, beliefs, and behaviors than not. Ethnocentrism, in contrast, is understood as a particularist view in which differences rather than similarities are valued. It is also important to understand that universal moralism proposes that there are certain behaviors that are always and everywhere morally acceptable or unacceptable whereas particularism and ethnocentrism suggest that there are other actions or attitudes that are valid only within the context of a specific culture.
This research report will argue that in some cultures, there is a link between universalistic perspectives on moral issues and ethnocentrism. This is because what becomes a universal belief or value in a culture tends to represent the views of the majority group within that culture. Majority groups will be shown to be essentially ethnocentric and likely to impose their views on all subgroups within society.
Ernesto Laclau discusses universalism and suggests that universalism is best understood as the effort of a majority or elite to impose via hegemony, its own views and attitudes on all members of society. Universalism, therefore, is an idea and value system that calls for the assimilation of all different groups into a mainstream set of ethical values and beliefs. Universalism as understood by Laclau is therefore a result of hegemony or the use of power by one group to acquire advantages for itself, often to the direct disadvantage of others.
Another definition of universalism was offered by Callahan, who stated that the drive for universalism in the...