Universalism vs particularism, what’s that?

Dawn light at the Mataketake Hut

This week I encountered a philosophical conflict I’ve touched on intellectually but never fully conceptualised before – universalism vs particularism. It’s a common dichotomy referred to in political philosophy and I think it’s relevant to where NZ is currently at. I came across this dichotomy because I was trying to understand people’s different points of view going into New Zealand’s 2026 election. The election is already causing strong emotions as our country grapples with a feeling we aren’t going in the right direction but people have very different ideas about which is the correct direction to head in.

I got into a debate about David Seymour and whether he is really interested in the good of all New Zealanders or a much smaller segment of society, and which groups would be advantaged by the unsuccessful Treaty Principles Bill and the successful Regulatory Standards Bill. I saw red because my friend likes David Seymour while I see him as fundamentally supporting unequal treatment of New Zealanders while claiming to focus on equity. And then I got all tangled up in whether treating one societal group, e.g. Māori, differently is appropriate or not appropriate if your goal is equality. And this is where the universalism-particularism concept is very helpful. Let’s start off with the definitions:

• Universalism searches for what is systematic and tries to impose the same rules, laws and norms on all its members so things can run more efficiently. It tries to treat everyone in the same way and says laws apply to everyone including the powerful and rich.
• Particularism considers rules can change according to the circumstances or who is involved. It focuses on what is best for specific groups or situations, such as families or cultures, and takes relationships into account. Particularism recognises different people may have different needs.

Countries and cultures can be categorised on the universalism-particularism spectrum. Somewhat confusingly, individualist cultures (like NZ, USA, Australia, UK, Switzerland, Sweden) are universalistic. These countries look to create rules and policies that can be applied to the whole population and start from a basic precept that all people should be treated equally. In contrast, collectivist cultures (such China, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Kenya, Pakistan) are particularist. These countries don’t expect the same approaches to work for all members of the nation.

Recently in New Zealand, issues around Te Tiriti have highlighted the universalism-particularism schism without referring to the problem in those terms. For example, proponents of ACT’s unsuccessful Treaty Principles Bill argued a universalist perspective – everyone in New Zealand should be treated the same way, irrespective of culture. Therefore there should be no special rights accorded to Māori based on the Treaty, and New Zealand needs guiding principles that equally privilege all cultures. They argued points such as, we need to have a single justice system – how can you try people differently depending on their culture?

However, parties opposing the Treaty Principles Bill argued that Te Tiriti means Māori have the right to special consideration i.e. particularism. The Treaty promised to protect Māori culture and to enable Māori to continue to live in New Zealand as Māori – there needs to be specific consideration of these promises in our legislation and policies. Other particularist arguments in relation to Māori consider addressing past wrongs which have resulted in Māori having much poorer education and health outcomes. To treat people as equal means you need to consider their starting point – if we aren’t all starting with the same advantages, equal treatment doesn’t result in equal outcomes.

Can both universalist and particularist approaches be correct, and can they be combined? I think the answer is, we already do this. We have an overarching universalist approach with a basis of equality for all citizens, while recognising some citizens have suffered historical or other specific inequities which need to be redressed through temporarily unequal assistance. We use this approach with ACC.

If you have an accident you get financial and medical assistance to recover that is not provided to every member of the public. When you recover, your payments stop (although if you have a permanent injury you can be compensated for that, in the same way that disabled people receive long term funding). The ACC particularist approach is justified by the circumstances and maintains the greater goal of equality across society, although complexities arise around whether people disabled from birth, or through illness, receive the same sort of support as those on ACC. However, such questions still come from a universalist perspective of trying to achieve equality across those groups.

The really tricky question, which was why I started down this philosophical meander, is whether our politicians actually have universalist approaches. Do they believe everyone should be equal? Or do some politicians believe particular groups should be more equal than others?

• FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.
• PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them & puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.
• BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and put them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need.
• FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you care for them & sells you the milk.
• PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbours help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.
• RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.
• CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.
• DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.
• PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours decide who gets the milk.
• REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbours pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.
• BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.
• PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbours try to take the cows and kill you.
• LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.
• SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.