{"id":885,"date":"2026-06-23T17:05:32","date_gmt":"2026-06-23T09:05:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/?p=885"},"modified":"2026-06-23T17:05:38","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T09:05:38","slug":"hrug-open-talk-europes-legacies-of-universalism-and-particularism-a-conceptual-genealogy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/?p=885","title":{"rendered":"HRUG-Open Talk: Europe\u2019s Legacies of Universalism and Particularism: A Conceptual Genealogy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The European Commission frequently presents \u201cEuropean values\u201d as both universally valid and distinctly European\u2014a fascinating tension. In this lecture, Eric Hendriks offers a conceptual genealogy of this paradox, tracing the historical interaction between universalist and particularist currents within European modernity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The European Commission\u2019s contemporary self-universalization belongs to a tradition that emerged from the universalist aspirations of the eighteenth-century French Enlightenment. During the nineteenth century, this tradition gave rise to the political concept of \u201cthe West\u201d in the work of Auguste Comte.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This type of Euro-centric self-universalization has long faced criticism. Chinese scholars and intellectuals, for example, are acutely aware that the European Union\u2019s claims to universality are challenged by the realities of a multipolar world in which there are multiple paths to modernization. Yet the EU\u2019s self-universalized understanding is also contested from within Europe itself. Here, critics invoke the counter ideal of a \u201cEurope of nations,\u201d emphasizing national traditions, historical particularities, and culturally specific forms of political belonging over universalist conceptions of European identity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This contemporary particularism, in turn, belongs to a long intellectual tradition that developed dialectically against Enlightenment universalism. Its roots lie in the Romantic concept of Kultur, which emerged in Britain and the German-speaking world during the early nineteenth century and was closely associated with historical consciousness, nationhood, and cultural subjectivity. By the late nineteenth century, this tradition had acquired anti-Western tendencies and, in the early twentieth century, became globally influential. In China, for example, it shaped the thought of Liang Qichao and many of his contemporaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By reconstructing the intertwined histories of these universalist and particularist traditions, Hendriks sheds light on enduring tensions at the heart of European self-understanding and their significance in an increasingly multipolar world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Eric Hendriks<\/strong> is a Dutch sociologist and critical theorist, a Visiting Fellow at the Danube Institute in Budapest, and Director of the China Initiative of the Telos-Paul Piccone Institute (TPPI), an academic platform based in New York City. He studied at Utrecht, Berkeley, G\u00f6ttingen, and the University of Chicago, earned his PhD from the University of Mannheim, and has held research positions at the University of Bonn and Peking University. His work examines China\u2019s integration into global structures, European-Chinese relations, competing visions of cosmopolitanism and world order, the Romantic strand of conservatism, and Europe\u2018s interregional ideological diversity. Under his direction, the TPPI China Initiative has published papers and organised international conferences on Chinese political thought, including two in New York in 2025 and 2026. His journalistic writings have appeared in NRC, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Quillette, Quadrant, First Things, and Times Higher Education.<br><br><strong>Meeting Topic: HRUG-OTTime: 2026\/06\/26 12:45-14:45 (GMT+01:00) Central European Standard Time &#8211; Algiers<br><\/strong>Click the link to join the meeting or to add it to your meeting list:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\nhttps:\/\/voovmeeting.com\/dm\/yLaDGsJxBDOB#\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"https:\/\/voovmeeting.com\/dm\/yLaDGsJxBDOB#TencentMeeting%EF%BC%9A815-0390-4578\">TencentMeeting\uff1a815-0390-4578<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Abstract The European Commission frequently presents \u201cEuropean values\u201d as both universally valid and distinctly European\u2014a fascinating tension. In this lecture, Eric Hendriks offers a conceptual genealogy of this paradox, tracing the historical interaction between universalist and particularist currents within European modernity. The European Commission\u2019s contemporary self-universalization belongs to a tradition that emerged from the universalist &#8230; <a title=\"HRUG-Open Talk: Europe\u2019s Legacies of Universalism and Particularism: A Conceptual Genealogy\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/?p=885\" aria-label=\"Read more about HRUG-Open Talk: Europe\u2019s Legacies of Universalism and Particularism: A Conceptual Genealogy\">Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-885","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-debates"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/885","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=885"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/885\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":886,"href":"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/885\/revisions\/886"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=885"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=885"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hrug.legal\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=885"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}