Universalism vs differentialism

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salvete,

A few months ago I read a book about contemporary international politics (mainly about the position of the US and the question whether it is an empire or not). A most interesting difference the author of that book made is between universalism and differentialism. He regarded France or the former Soviet Union as universalist states, that is, they extend their own ideals and egalitarian principles to everyone (although France is a liberal state, whereas the USSR was an authoritarian state). He opposed this to Nazi Germany, which was a differentialist state: everyone was inherently different, and nothing could change it. For him, this was one of the prime reasons why Nazi Germany failed to achieve a permanent victory: the conquered peoples could never trickle through the higher echelons.

In this respect, he also looked at Athens and Rome as great powers of the Mediterranean, and said that Athens ultimately failed as an ancient superpower, because its political ranks never opened up to 'foreigners' and minority classes (instead, they became increasingly xenophobic). Conversely, the success of Rome could in part be attributed to its slowly widening scope: although not easy, it was still possible for a Gaul or a German to gain Roman citizenship and enjoy its benefits.

Any thoughts?

Valete!
Draco

[Curio Agelastus]

Salve Draco,

Well, "Ultimately" any empire fails. However, I wonder how the author would have considered the British Empire. People many of the dominions had no chance of reaching the highest echelons of government, but at a provincial level, rule was often conducted through local potentates.

To be honest, while universalism and differentialism is one way of categorising empires, it doesn't seem a particularly accurate way of defining their success/failure. For instance, the Greek Empire didn't succeed because there was no Greek Empire. There were Athenian colonies, there were Corinthian colonies, there were Theban colonies. There was no independent unified Greek state until the 19th century, unless the Byzantine Empire is included, which is quite controversial.

In fact, all empires can be given far more convincing reasons for their success or failure than because they were universalist or differentialist. So, although I think it might work as a method of categorisation, to give it more importance than that seems to be a fallacy, unless I've misunderstood the crux of the argument here.

Bene vale,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve Coruncani,

The author is Emmanuel Todd, a French economist and anthropologist. He is also said to have predicted the downfall of the USSR by the mid-70s. Well, I can only give you an approximate translation of the Dutch title, which would be: "America, decline of an empire". It's much better than most America-books out there because it really goes into detail about economical and philosophical issues, rather than being fixated on the superficial present.

And about Curio's remark: no, I guess by our definitions Athens was not really an empire, but it had the potential to become one. As for the British Empire, the author himself sees in that a unique model in between universalism and differentialism: some groups are accepted, some are not. The whole Athens/Rome-exposition actually served to explore the popular comparison of the US between these two ancient states.

Vale bene,
Draco

[Anonymous]

Salvete omnes et Salve Draco,

I wondering if that book was translated to or even will be in portuguese. May be at least translated to english? Could it be? Well i found in the book store, another interesting book ( may be relative to the topic...): - " A Nova Idade Media" or : "The new middle ages", what is more or less the title in english, i guess...
I don't readed it yet... Did you, Sodales???

PAX ET LAETITIA,

Valete!!
L. Clavdivs Invictvs

[Quintus Pomponius Atticus]

Salve Invicte,

The book is available in French ("Après l'Empire") and English ("After the Empire").

Vale,

Atticus

[Anonymous]

Salve Drago.

I was very intresting in the thought about universalism of somones countries and differintialism anothers one. Adoption many nations and award them wih citezenship in the composition empires had given to it durable and long period of existence - 1000 years. Roma, Bizatium, Russia.
My expretion from the visitings of Moscow during many years - much different nations, faces, languages - for everyone there were place emploiment, bisness,settle. Large megopolice. Without doubt - Roma , as the capitol of emperators, have had the same appearence.