Universalism and Particularism
Discuss the concepts of universalism and particularism. How was each overcome to contribute to the rise of the nation state?
Before the concept of the modern nation state could arise, there were two conditions that needed to be overcome, universalism and particularism. Let us first discuss the aspirations to universality that existed for Europe for the vast majority of the middle ages. Universality implies an overriding authority over the state, and in fact all governmental states. It came partly from the perceived legitimacy (that has in fact prevailed until even world war II with the Germans calling themselves the “Third Reich”), of the roman empire to rule all of Europe and the world. This was blended with the catholic church and the papacy. The aspiration to universality came from the belief that one god should rule the heaven’s, one pope should rule over the universal church, and one emperor should rule the secular world.
For much of this time the Holy Roman Empire was the closest Europe ever came to universalism. The Holy Roman Empire had the potential for much of history to spread their empire across all of Europe, but there were several issues that prevented it from doing just that. First, the Holy Roman Empire never really held central control over the territory that it technically owned. This was largely because of the lack of infrastructure, communication, and adequate transportation, all essential parts of a large functioning empire. What this resulted in was a fractured Europe filled with a vast array of duchies, cities, and bishoprics which all held a high degree of autonomy. Secondly, the Holy Roman Emperor was not deemed to be chosen by god and thus did not possess divine attributes. This separation of power between the church and the state had several effects on how the Holy Roman Empire was able to expand and its ability to assert a perceived legitimate claim to power over the world.
For the majority of human history, whenever one power succeeds in establishing an empire, the ruler of that empire is deemed to be chosen by the gods. This is something common throughout the whole world, whether it be Egypt, China, or even the Incas and Aztecs before they came in contact with Europe. It gives the ruler of the empire legitimacy, but more than that, it gives the empire a divine purpose to civilize the barbarian states not part of the empire. There are two possibilities for a state not part of the empire, either it follows the same religion as the empire, in which case the emperor has the legitimate argument that they are the rightful divine rulers of that state, or the outside country does not follow the same religion, in which case it is the emperors divine duty to convert them to the true religion. Both of these outcomes result in the empire establishing a claim to power and are almost always supported by their own people when they take over the offending state.
While for much of the European middle age, societies aspired to universalism, the reality of the situation was closer to particularism. When discussing the reasons that the Holy Roman Empire was never able to establish central control of Europe the lack of transportation and communication was brought up. This led to a society in which individual people has next to no connection to the empire that they technically belonged too. Instead it led to the Feudal system in which most people worked on land that did not belong to them. The lord that owned the land that they worked on would be the only connection to nobility or government that they would likely have for the entirety of their lives. Because of the lack of transportation most people lived their entire lives within 20 miles of where they were born and so had no opportunity to see how things were done outside their village. While these lords all technically held fealty to the Holy Roman Emperor, the reality of the situation was that they held a vastly greater degree of power over their people than the emperor did. If a Nobel decided that they didn’t want to do what the emperor said they more than likely would be able to get away with it. This was a result of the combined factors of the inability of the Holy Roman Empire to quickly project their centralized power, but also a result of the military times. For most of the middle ages the defensive weapon of a castle was almost impenetrable. This meant that if a Nobel wanted to disobey the emperor all they would have to do is lock themselves away in their castle until the emperor’s army got tired and gave up. The invention of cannons and artillery eliminated this advantage to a large extent and allowed centralized powers to exert greater control over their territory and people.
With the decline of universalism suddenly smaller states could consider themselves to be nation-states because they no longer were technically controlled by a faraway religious or secular power. These smaller states had a much higher degree of nationalist sentiments because their culture, language and connection were much greater. With the decline of Particularism, centralized power was able to be maintained and so one set of laws could be enforced throughout the entirety of the territory controlled by that state. One set of laws and one government as well as nationalist self-identification was the foundation of a functioning nation state. While the decline of universalism and particularism were not the only reasons for the rise of the nation state, it was certainly an important factor in the creating the world we know today.