Universalism is today the most contested aspect of the Enlightenment legacy. For some, it represents an ideal of emancipation through reason, a promise of equality between all human beings. For others, on the contrary, it embodies Western cultural imperialism and the rejection of differences. Is universalism the modern language of cosmopolitanism and individual freedom, or an assimilationist and neo-colonial ideology ?
To get away from caricatures, we need to go back to the 18th century. The Enlightenment does not have a monopoly on the universal. In response to the crisis of Christian universalism inherited from the Middle Ages, the philosophers of the Enlightenment sought to elaborate a universal morality, but they did not develop a univocal universalism - quite the contrary. I propose to identify three competing, and sometimes contradictory, languages of the universal, corresponding to three theoretical and rhetorical operations to universalize philosophical discourse. The first is juridical and cosmopolitan: it posits the abstract equality of individuals. The second is historical : it reflects on the conditions for the development of " civilization ". The third, finally, is critical. It is rooted in situations of domination and advocates emancipation. These three languages do not unfold in the pure sky of ideas, but seek to account for the social, political and cultural transformations experienced by European societies during the 18th century.
With the French Revolution, these languages were redeployed on a more overtly political level : that of citizenship. This opened up many lines of conflict, both theoretical and political. Should we promote a universal Republic of humankind, in the name of the universality of human rights, or seek above all to make citizens' rights effective within a national framework ? And how can we resolve the contradiction of a universalist revolution that excludes so many individuals from active citizenship, and even from freedom ? The legacy of the Enlightenment, properly understood, offers the opportunity to take a reflective look at the conflicting origins of modern universalism.