Political particularism
As particularism (of particles, diminutive of Latin pars, part ') is in political science, history and political philosophy refers to a state of political systems (companies, state systems, groups ) in which smaller units primarily towards the whole about their interests and rights to enforce or claim this at least. The tendency that the elements of the periphery of a system relative to the center or common institutions gain weight, can be called particularism. The particularism are therefore opposed both centralism as universalism.
As less clear fixed term objectives particular interests and perceptions of social groups within a larger whole, the only or primarily only that (mostly political) articulate their own point of view politically, without intergroup aspects ( cf. Volonté générale ) taken into account. Such term use presents particular interests mostly focus the concept of the common good over and is also often connotes negative. However, the formulation of individual interests than individual interests is not incompatible per se with the common good. Thus, a balancing of conflicting vested interests, a basic characteristic of politically responsible action just for representative democracy.
- 2.1 Feudal separatism in Europe
Systematic Political Science
Intrastate particularism
Particular interests here are the individual interests of groups of a population or of a State. There are three different sizes within the community ( State):
As particularism thus a phenomenon in political science referred to in the win less the interests of individuals, but rather the interest groups ( pressure groups ) and lower government units compared to the state as a whole as of weight that the control and monitoring of the whole is sustainable difficult. The complete disintegration ( resolution) of the entire structure or state is designated as a radical individualism. The federalism of the FRG is not seen in political science as particularism, although warned of tendencies to do so. The antonym for particularism as a political phenomenon is the centralism.
International particularism
The currently best known particularistic theory on a global scale is propagated by Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations (German clash of civilizations ). There, the world is divided into civilizations or religious- ethnically defined cultural groups, each of which represents its own, in most cases with conflicting interests.
History
Particularism in history is closely related to the political science term. Here particularism is seen as fragmentation or dissolution phenomenon of centralized power by strengthening local or regional powers. The result is that many small individual powers and individual opinions arise, seek the independence of a central power. The best-known example of particularism in history is Germany in the 19th century. While in Europe created nation states, the German territory long remained fragmented in many small principalities and kingdoms. The inception of particularism is also the year in 1122, called upon conclusion of the Concordat of Worms. After Frederick II in 1231, the so-called prince law adopted and thus the princes in Germany approached more rights, one speaks of the complete particularism or a sub- division of Germany into small dominions. This was the origin of federalism in Germany. The individual interests of those rulers of these territories not want to lose their power, prevented for a long time a unification. Therefore particularism also referred to the pursuit of individual parts of the country to enforce their interests at the expense of a larger political entity, as it did in the 18th and 19th centuries, for example, Prussia.
Feudal particularism in Europe
Social phenomenon
As a social phenomenon particularism is addressed mainly in the context of the concepts of pluralism and universalism ( according to Max Weber and Talcott Parsons ).
Antonym for universalism in political philosophy
The Political Philosophy of particularism, especially as a counter term is used to universalism, often in a derogatory manner. The dispute between particularist and universalist comes to the question of whether there are values that apply to all people and are justified, or whether values are pending group settings that are different from, depending on the cultural, ethnic or religious affiliation. Especially under the concept of justice, the opposing positions were expressed.
The discussion compares well with the two Aristotelian conceptions of justice: while the communitarians are of the opinion that justice is only something if you see it in respect of that which people consider as well (proportional fairness), my Universalists that meet abstract and independent of these conceptions of the good exist. For example, the human rights are universalist, without respect of persons, and thus their origin, religion and cultural affiliation. Particularists would be objected in principle that such human rights are too abstract construct that would apply only to the particular cultural world. Particularistic positions are represented mainly by communitarianism ( Michael Walzer, Alastair McIntyre, Amitai Etzioni ), while the universalism of liberal, socialist, and the so-called value - conservative representatives of the rod is held.