Particularistic standards are rules or judgements that treat a person according to who they are or how they are related to the person judging, such as a relative, friend, member of the same group or holder of a given status, and not according to general rules that apply to everyone. The concept comes from the functionalist sociologist Talcott Parsons and is best understood as one half of a pair, with universalistic standards.
What are particularistic standards in sociology?
Parsons set out the idea in his work on pattern variables, developed with Edward Shils in 1951. Pattern variables are pairs of choices that every actor faces in a social situation, and one of them is universalism versus particularism. A universalistic standard applies the same criteria to all, such as exam marks in a fair test. A particularistic standard depends on the relationship, for example a parent who treats their own child as special. A related pair is achievement versus ascription: achieved status is earned through performance, while ascribed status is given by birth or relationship. Particularism usually goes with ascription.
Where do particularistic standards operate?
For Parsons, different institutions use different standards. The family is the clearest particularistic setting. A child is valued for being a son or daughter and not because of what they have achieved, which gives security and emotional support. Friendship, kinship networks and small communities work in the same way. Parsons then argued, in his 1959 essay on the school class as a social system, that school is where children move from this family world to a universalistic one, in which they are judged by the same rules as others, and that this prepares them for work (see his account of school as secondary socialisation and his idea of value consensus).
Examples of particularistic standards
Nepotism, where a relative is hired regardless of qualifications, is the standard example of particularism in a setting that is supposed to be universalistic. Patronage, in which politicians reward supporters, and favouritism towards a pupil a teacher likes, are similar. In some societies, kinship obligations carry great weight in business and public life, and giving jobs to relatives is expected and not seen as corrupt. Ethnic, religious or class discrimination is also a form of particularism, since a person is judged by group membership.
Why does the distinction matter for modern society?
Parsons argued that modern industrial societies need universalistic standards and achieved status because the economy requires that people are allocated to jobs by ability. This is the logic of the functionalist view of meritocracy, and it links to Max Weber’s bureaucracy, which relies on impersonal rules applied equally. Traditional societies, in contrast, were organised around ascription and particularism. Our own idea of meritocracy is therefore tied to this contrast.
How do personal networks affect jobs and opportunities?
Particularism is not confined to traditional societies. Mark Granovetter’s 1973 study of how people find work showed that many jobs are found through personal contacts, and especially through acquaintances, not through formal advertising. Pierre Bourdieu described the value of such connections as social capital. Even in an organisation committed to fair hiring, an informal recommendation or a shared background can tip a decision, so universalistic rules and particularistic practice often exist side by side. This is why sociologists of work and education look closely at how selection is carried out in practice, not only at how it is described.
The distinction is also useful in comparing countries. Where public institutions are weak or trust in strangers is low, people rely more on family and friends for security and advancement, and what outsiders call corruption may be experienced as a legitimate duty to kin.
What are the criticisms of the concept?
Critics say that the neat division between universalism in public life and particularism in private life does not hold. Marxists and conflict theorists argue that supposedly universalistic institutions, such as schools, are shaped by class interests. Pierre Bourdieu showed that the apparently neutral standards of education favour the cultural capital of the middle class (see cultural capital), so that a universalistic standard can conceal a particularistic one. Others note that personal networks still shape hiring and promotion in modern economies. The wider ideas about norms and values are covered in other posts.
