Political Science

Universalism and particularism are used interchangeably in defining rules applied in globalization. They elaborate on the emphasis laid on relationship and rules existing between different societies. These define different cultures. These cultures when adopted have benefits and problems. Formal rules are applied when governing institutions in the case of universal culture. There are certain social which are applied in the case of particularist culture. It is based on relationship building (Winter, 1994). It is of help to deduce the difference between particularist and Universalist.  In the case of universal culture, an agreement or a contract is based on legal form. Particularist is concerned with cultivation of relationship prior to adopting an agreement or contract. The detail of a contract in this case is formulated after building trust. Particularist negotiators may partake universalistic decision on rules are being rushed. On the other hand, particularist is concerned with relationship building. This can be considered as time wasting and at the same time frustrating. This is why the difference of these two cultures should be well highlighted (Thompson, 2004). There are certain countries which emphasis on formal rules while others consider relationship building. Some of those countries which are based on relationship include China. Those which lay emphasis on formal rules include Canada, United States, United Kingdom and Australia. Universalism and particularist have both benefits and problems (Jeffrey, 2001).

United States is one of the nations which adopt Universalist. Barrack Obamas philosophies have been attributed to particularist while McCain has been viewed as a Universalist. This is the observation made by Gregory Scoblete. This is his assessment of which can not be substantiated. Universalism has been associated with many weaknesses. This context will highlight the applicability of universalism in foreign policy (Bilal, 1998).

George Kennan put forth the concepts of particularism and universalism. This was during the cold war. Kennan was an official during Trumans reign. Kennan was concerned about the events which took place during the cold war. John Lewis who was an historian analyzed Kennans universalistic approaching in resolving the differences between various nations. Conflict was assumed to fade away if all nations had adopted a universalistic approach of which every country was entitled to certain standards. The viewpoint of a Universalist varies from that of a particularist (Steger, 2003).

Universalist considers Americas security in terms of freedom. American security in this case is attributed to certain concepts. Diversity of American values all over the globe is considered as one of the factors determining American security. Universalist can also be considered to take effect when American institutions are spread all over the globe. This is not the same argument for a particularist (Samuel, 2004).

Threats to United States are not contributed by political diversity according to a particularist. The political diversity in the world is not seen as a cause of threat to United States. There are some phenomenons which are expected to persist considering the fact human remains fallible. Amongst these are misrule, tyranny, corruption and autocracy. These are doomed to persist in the international relations defined by the countries across the globe. Particularist is considered to be realist while executing governance. Particularist is interested with international cooperation (Meunier, 1999). The issue of tyrants does not matter in this case. Particularist is bound to tolerate to the enmity spread in the world. This was analyzed by Gaddis in his book entitled Strategies of Containment. Universalism is practiced by many people across the globe.

The Universalism philosophy is adopted by many people. Amongst those who adhere to this philosophy include conservatives, socialists, liberals, communists, neoconservatives. Others in this category include progressives. Universalism is believed to be widely spread across the globe (Nairn, 2008).  Universalists are too many and hence the list is indefinite. Universalists agree upon one thing but not many items. Peace would prevail around the globe if all countries adopt the ideology of universalism since they will agree on only one thing. There are some problems with universalism (Sererino, 2007).

In the view of John McCain, the values of America should be spread and exported. McCain is considered to be a Universalist by Gregory. There are various kinds of Universalists. Others consider leadership of the entire world by applying certain principles. These types of Universalists have different principles to McCains. Amongst those with different principles of have a rule over the entire world includes neoconservatives (Kam, 2006). The applicability of military force is the thought of neoconservatives in spreading the values of America. Neoconservatives look down on international institutions. UN is one of the international organizations despised by neoconservatives. This is contrary to Old time liberals who do not believe in use of force in having things done (Veena, 2005). They believe in democracy which involves talks. They also consider international institutions as the core to global peace.

There is also the problem that, it is not easy to highlight on the values and main principles being focused. It has been in the minds of many universalisms to forget on the issue of American principles. They do not confuse that American principles are based on universal law which is not the case. American principles are based on specific history and custom but not universal law. Whatever is perceived to be universal in the west is not automatic that it will be considered universal in the East. In the East there is no universal value which occurs in the West. The reason behind this difference is the varied history and custom (Willets, 2004). Most principles are based on Western culture. Problems occur in the eve of exporting these principles to non-Western nations. Those in non-Western countries may not nurture the concepts of Freedom and Democracy applied in Western countries. The non-Western countries are left .to decide on their own. They argue that whatever works on Western countries will automatic work in non-Western countries (Miller, Elwood, n.d).

In trying to export the values of America to foreign nations may bring about more problems. In such a case the problems are not solved but more is added. The principles in America can not out in foreign nations such as those in Middle East where people do election for the sake of it. Democracy does not prevail in these countries. They are organized in extremist group. The election of Hamas got the Western countries in a surprise. This should not be the case since Palestine is bound by their culture but not the western culture. Palestine adopt a different culture defined by intolerance, Muslim, hate culture, extremism of religion and anti-Semitism. Exporting American values to such a culture may bring more problems (Ruggie, 2003). In such a case, positive results can not be attained. Hatred and violence are bound to erupt in such a case.

There are some principles and values which can not be exported. This is another problem of universalism. Exporting the principle of democracy may be impossible. This is because some of the countries do not act from the majority rule. Western countries believe in democracy but this is not the case for non-Western countries (Grunzel, 2001). Those are who not from Western countries disagree from those principles exported from Western countries.