Introduction

Universalism implies that it is possible to apply generalized norms, values, or concepts to all people and cultures, regardless of the contexts in which they are located. These norms may include a focus on human needs, rights, or biological and psychological processes and are based on the perspective that all people are essentially equivalent. As an example, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts various rights to all people – e.g., to marry, own property, and access equal protection under the law – regardless of culture or nationality.

Definition

The concept of universalism is prevalent across the social, political, and physical sciences. In the field of psychology, universalism conventionally refers to the idea that the range of human experience – from basic needs and psychological processes to core values – is intrinsic and therefore similar across humans and cultures. Thus, universalism enables not only meaningful comparisons across individuals and groups but also the application of universal laws and rights. If people are fundamentally the same, they are accordingly deserving of equal rights and protections, regardless of differences such as race, class, or gender.

Because universalism is concerned with the identification, measurement, and application of universal laws and principles, it is often guided by a philosophy of science rooted in a post-positivist ontology (Hergenhahn, 2008). In other words, universalism implies that one reality (i.e., “truth”) exists and can be understood through systematic study (Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2010). The precise shape universalism takes, however, differs greatly between scientific fields. There is an important distinction, for example, between universalism as applied to the search for general psychological principles and universalism as observed in fields like international development and political science. In cross-cultural psychology, it is common to look for similarities and differences in the expression of behavior across cultures, assuming that the psychological processes underlying the behavior are similar. For example, a cross-cultural psychologist might study the expression of love and intimacy in marital relationships in several countries, based on the perspective that love and intimacy themselves are common values. A critical psychologist, on the other hand, might endeavor to understand the social structures that best support the adoption of marriage rights, assuming that humans are universally deserving of equal rights. The former is based on the premise that universal laws govern psychological processes, whereas the latter universalizes a particular value (marriage) and normalizes a particular social structure (the family).

Critical psychologists have played an important role in stimulating inquiry into how a universal perspective might facilitate the interpretation of behavior and psychological processes as well as our approach to social and individual level change. Some critical psychologists advocate the value of combining both universal and relativist approaches, recognizing that structural power is ubiquitous, while the inequities it produces differ across contexts (Grabe, 2010). Others reason for the strategic use of universalism especially in the application of human rights and research that contributes to social justice (e.g., Ackerly, 2008; Nussbaum, 2000). Although psychologists may take up divergent stances on debates around universalism, common to critical perspectives is the attention to social and psychological phenomena as embedded within systems of power. Therefore, universalism should not be uncritically applied with no recognition of context. Indeed, a critical framework demands attention to the positionality of the psychologist or researcher as well as the people or phenomena under study.

Keywords

Cultural psychology; cross-cultural psychology; relativism

Traditional Debates

Universalism is an implicit assumption in many areas of traditional psychology. One of the most prevalent debates relevant to universalism concerns its distinction from cultural relativism (Phillips, 2002). The universalism-relativism debate cuts across disciplines, including both traditional and critical psychologies. The nuances of the debate reflect the theoretical and disciplinary position of the debaters, and therefore, the tension between universalism and relativism falls under both traditional and critical debates. In contrast to universalism, relativism holds that psychological processes, norms, and values are socially constructed in relation to particular cultural and historical contexts. Universalists may take cultural variation in behavior and experience into account, but a relativist perspective sees behavior and experience as inextricably embedded within culture. Whereas universalism is consistent with the post-positivist scientific ontology that recognizes a single objective reality, relativism is more aligned with a constructivist or critical ontology that understands truth as relative to a cultural context. Relativists argue that there are many possible “truths,” based on the situated experiences of individuals and groups. In addition, this position maintains that one perspective is no more legitimate or valuable than another. Universalism and relativism have traditionally been conceptualized as dichotomous, mutually exclusive perspectives. More recently, however, psychologists have reconceptualized them as a spectrum, with few individuals identifying as exclusively one or the other.

Relativists question the validity and ethics of universalism within the social sciences. Although universal laws are common within the physical sciences, the similar application of universalism to social sciences may be inappropriate. If individuals and groups can only be understood in relation to their cultural context, then universal theories concerning human psychology are not scientifically valid. The homogenizing tendency of universalism is apparent in social science’s emphasis on similarity and the collapsing of potentially meaningful within-group differences; in universalism, the risk of overgeneralizing is high (Lawson, 1999). Ethical concerns also arise when universalism is uncritically applied to explain the experiences and norms of particular groups. For example, the postulation of a universal experience associated with membership in specific social categories (e.g., woman, child, person of color) threatens to essentialize difference and potentially naturalize inequitable social positions.

Critical Debates

Critical debates concerning universalism have primarily centered on the political implications of defining universal norms and values and on the need to reformulate a universalism that acknowledges difference, both areas where critical psychology has already had a substantial impact. There is significant debate over the politics of representation inherent in attempts to define universal norms and processes. While adherents of universalism may argue that norms of justice can be applied to all people and societies, relativists claim that a universal set of rights entails the imposition of a particular model of functioning onto underrepresented groups. Indeed, universal claims are typically defined by individuals and groups with greater access to structural power. Critics of universalism contend that dominant groups establish universals based on their own limited and privileged perspective, setting up standards that construct others as deviant or dysfunctional. Debates over power and representation foreground a tension between the articulation of common needs and rights and the recognition that those very needs and rights are constituted in relation to particular cultural experiences. A critical question psychologists can ask in response to this debate is whose perspectives are absent in defining what is normative.

In response to the critiques leveraged against universalism, some feminist scholars have articulated a more nuanced conceptualization of the term and have argued in favor of its strategic application in the area of human rights. For example, the categorization characteristic of universalist theorizing can be an important strategic maneuver for subordinated groups. Coalition building, broad-based organizing efforts, and collective solidarity work often rest on universal notions of group experience (e.g., universal womanhood) in order to build membership and group cohesion.

Other perspectives reconcile the universalism-relativism debates through establishing universal standards of equity that simultaneously recognize and maintain cultural diversity. For example, Ackerly, (2008) asserts that a universal principle might be that norms, rights, and psychological processes are culturally relative. Rather than delineating specific lists of rights or normative behaviors, Ackerly argues for the establishment of social structures that expand the life possibilities for all people, so that they experience fewer constraints on directing their own life. In a similar vein, Nussbaum, (2000) argues for the enumeration of universal human capabilities rather than specific human rights. This perspective acknowledges that legal rights are necessary but not sufficient to ensure equity. Critical psychologists have begun to examine the role of institutional resources in the development of capabilities and actualization of rights (Grabe, 2010).