Aspring Woes: Well-intentioned Uniformity

By: Jonathan Seidel 

Hellenistic universalism and the origin of creedal marginalisation to dogmatic religiosity (christians+muslims) and modern uniformity (communism+nazis)

Universalism is generally lauded as pluralistically respectful and particularism as rigid and central. Yet, this is considerably misdefined and misappropriated. For example: Christianity though considered universal is really particularistic because in order to be saved one has to believe in Jesus. Judaism actually is a little more universal legally as the Noahide laws are much closer to natural law, meaning that outsiders can be rewarded. This essay will analyse the history of “universalism” or universal particularism and its dogmatic conformity. 

The ancient world was filled with diverse groups that practiced different strands of theology. Yet, was lacking a universalistic drive to convert everyone. The Persian Empire famously permitted people to act as they wished under Persian law. Logically, expanding a kingdom will result in invading other countries but of those countries are allowed to live peacefully they will be loyal. Despite destroying the first Temple there seems to be a lack of religious coercion by the Babylonians so much so that a huge community blossomed in Babylonia. It was the desolated Israel that lost its community entirely. 

The Greeks were the first to demand conformity. Hellenism was seen as a light onto the world. Everyone should embrace this ideology. They weren’t about physical force but cognitive persuasion. This model was very effective. Force was supplied when the Jews refused to heed hellenism which is where the Hanukah story enters the scene. The Romans were the same as the revolt had much to do with religious mitigation more than secular independence. Yet it may be noteworthy that both revolts occurred under tyrannical rulers. Athenian Democracy and Roman Republic wished for political influence not religious marginalisation. This fed into religious warfare and into the political order of the twentieth century.

The universalistic idea stems from believing that you have all the answers and all must follow suit because why should anyone do otherwise. There is a certain compulsion to share this idea. When it is ill-received expectations are ruined transforming into defensive antagonism. There is a reactionary brick wall that will not be toppled. It becomes my way or the highway. If you do not conform you will be elsewhere. It is a dangerous game but when the conviction is monolithic with an apparent superiority complex it denounces all pluralistic forms as inadequate. 

This version of thought established monism in furthering a singular way of life. Add a theological component and it increases the emotive desire. Hellenism had no room for Torah, for otherness so the greeks were happy to incorporate the Jews, just not their Judaism. The romans had similar qualms but when the empire took power it became even more monistic. In the beginning Caesar and his successors supported Jewish ethnicity. Unlike the Greeks, the Romans maintained their paganism. Even if the destruction of the temple was duly political, the great revolt squashed by Hadrian has hellenistic seasoning labeled all over it. His universalisation ideology pinned Judaism to the wall. 

The universal current extended into christian proselytising. The ultimate damnation for not accepting Jesus led to a crusade against the ‘other’. Jews were specifically targeted for christ killing but even more for their solitude rejection of christ. Yet, christians also persecuted heretics and muslims. Ironically, muslims acted similarly in persecuting jews and christians. This began as early as the 400s when Constantine converted and the church fathers rose. Muhammad is infamous for telling the Jews convert or die. Islamic anti-semitism found use in subjugating Jews. Their universalisation scheme especially on religious grounds mounted a monistic force that isolated all who regrettably disagreed. 

This in turn was revived by the communists who though were not necessarily world conquerers saw their nationalistic vision as paramount. Though there was goal to spread communism globally the inherent opposition overall by world restricted communism to fringe countries. Still, in Russia the nationalisation forbid otherness and Jews, though similarly in Greece, were allowed to live, their Jewishness was prohibited. Nazi Germany was more Roman and christian. The people themselves were a problem. The nazis did not just target Jews but gypsies as well, all those that were un-aryan. A globalising project that similar to communism has bursts of strength in certain areas but mitigated heavily in the west. The nazis brutally targeted Jews beyond their practice. Similar to christianity it was not the religious expression of Jew insofar as it was his being. Both these facets sought a sole goal to propagate monism whether in the form of communists or aryans. The Jew had no place to survive in either location.

The universalising project borders on discrimination. It is not a pluralistic relativism that permits anything but a sole arbitrator of conformity. Today liberalism plays that role. It marks those who conform as correct and others as wrong. McCarthyism was one such example of anti-communist, only democracy is okay. Then fighting wars overseas in the name of democracy disallowing other cultures to do as they please. In recent years it has been the liberal political side that is deemed correct and the conservatives the enemy. The left today is pushing for a universalisation project in all forms of social alteration to fit their narrative. They are utilising coercive fear mongering to get people in line. One such method is through censorship and protesting other voices. Universities propagate liberal agendas and students riot conservative lecturers. 

What about Jewish universalism? Concerning forced conversions the only evidence is in the Hasmonean period and to specific groups though the latter is more for legitimisation than uniformity. It can be argued that the Hasmonean universalism is indebted to hellenistic advances and not a central Jewish claim. Judaism differs from these groups because of its particularism and centrality. Jewish Universalism is preached but as a valuational asset not a coercive tactic. The works of Sacks Greenberg and Kellner point to a universalisation that is about more a religious phenomenology of Jewish relation to the world. There is a lack of proselytising and persuasion. Soviet Russia is the only comparison and yet it isn’t at all. Communism was a nationalistic strand that outlawed anything different. Jewish nationalism in this case is less dangerous to other nations and more problematic to other denominations. Jewish nationalism seeks to restore a religious legitimacy isolating liberal Jews outside the frame.  

Each of these cases presents a universalism but it would better be defined as a universalist particularism. A universalist universalism would be a pluralistic libertarianism. The idea of a universalist universalism is rare because particularism always temps to compel a position. Ironically, the idea of democracy is to permit diversity and a universalism but it fails because it forces democratic ideals. Thus democracy and Judaism can be seen inversely as particularist universalists as those who have a singular range of thought but utilise that to promote diversity. There is a strong move where the particularist demonstrates concern for the other and enables proper pluralism but it remains to be seen if democracy can follow through. Judaism as of its rabbinic rejuvenation fostered a permissible diversity and even today other forms of belief are accredited but democracy shuns other structural movements. Communism, fascism among others are denigrated. Democracy is the sole solution to human equity. Though democracy enables diversity, at its genus is monistic. 

Each of these identities is dogmatic. It believes, it possesses the sole truth. Many atheists point to science as the truth provider but then that will lead to a dreadful universalism. We mock the ancients but they had it right. There was a respectful peace religiously that unfortunately was overturned by philosophical creedal monism. The ancient world was not perfect but we can take a page from the Persians and the Jews. The idea of universalism is not to denigrate your own claim but to permit others into the fold. There is a limit but that does not mean that there is an inappropriate direction of diversity. A particularist strand that makes room for the other. Were the Persians or Jews perfect at this? Not necessarily and today Jews still struggle with internal acceptance. Yet, overall, there’s a metric of acceptability no matter where you’re from, you are simply judged by what you do!