Universalism is at once apparent and hidden. It is subtle and not so subtle. In short: we must all look alike and discard or suppress our differences.

Universalism is encountered across the breadth and length of professional life, and in the way in which ideas that are seen as preferred are positioned as better, despite the lofty claims of non-interference. The outsider is in “listening mode” and wants locals to own their processes and initiatives. We walk on language props – the same labelling and concepts – in order to universalise our claims and relations with each other.

Yet sameness in language is misconstrued as sameness in action. Form supersedes substance.

Lurking in the background, despite all the halo effect, lives the asymmetry of power. The conditions that come with the chequebook and the mania for indicators and tools to monitor impacts and demonstrate replicability are all postures and signatures of the funding- patronage model that infects the form of climate and development assistance.

The philosopher Byung-Chul Han in his book Hyperculture suggests that universalism is that which collapses all specificity that comes with local context. When local context, often rich and unique, is collapsed, its aura and essence are destroyed. For Han, “It is a culture of intense appropriation”. Often, policy wonks are caught in ‘hyperculture’ mode. The proliferation of talk-shop platforms for policy wonks amplifies self-importance. Pretending to know is not the same as knowing.

Hyperculture is amplified by social media, which inadvertently breeds a society that is narcissistic and self-referential, in which very little time is dedicated to studying cultures and other forms of life experience, except in modes that take the form of touristic voyeurism. Development assistance can also take on the form of ‘touristic voyeurism’ through site visits.

Hyperculture is now the condition of climate activism and, with it, as is often the case, comes silence about differences rather than openness to differences.

Over time, no capacity for tolerance evolves, as everything contentious and worthy of debate is postponed. Solving unique, local problems through the universalisation of difference, rather than sameness, is kicked down the road. Its most insidious expressions are found in kumbaya rituals among the like-minded.

While there is visibility on commonness, there always emerges polarisation over the nuances of local specificity.

The philosopher Agnes Callard, writing on the philosopher Socrates, has a concept similar to Han’s, which she calls ‘uni-context’ – a scenario in which the ways you should act become the same across different contexts. 

Callard notes that the prevalence of social media and other forms of online communication allows for the collapse of context, with conversations taking place as if one were in a universal room with others.

These forms of being in a universal room find an echo chamber in major climate gatherings, where everything is uprooted from its context.

One can also call this the ‘Zoom effect of collaboration’ – a kind of solidarity for the sake of optics. Solidarity that tolerates difference is true solidarity. We should not underestimate the resilience that comes with difference; that is a far better route to solidarity and to a different kind of universalism. It is better for Marxists to spar with capitalists than among themselves.

Callard also echoes Han in other ways, as she interprets hyperculture as a form of de- siting and de-distancing of cultural experience. One can add to this the politico-economic environment.

In the fields of development and climate action, the economist Lant Pritchett’s work shows how policy universalism can do a disservice to local capabilities.

Often, policy universalism encounters implementation friction, where the local characteristics and nuances begin to kick against universal precepts. But instead of following local ways of doing things, development and climate practitioners no longer see the universal precept as a problem. The problem becomes local incapacity, institutions and culture.

In some respects, universalism is now being tarnished by forms of globalism that have asked us to paper over differences in class, ethnicity, religion and ideology, as well as the value of unique cultural practices, for the sake of universal aspirations.

The tendency to force alignment in ways of being and existence is often an expression and signature of the dominant culture. In this case, it tends to be the Western liberal system. This system is also under attack from within by conservative and right-wing movements.

These movements are attempts to reset forms of globalism and universalism that are seen as threats to local specificities and preferences. Cosmopolitanism now becomes a defensive posture against a counter- cosmopolitan movement.

Universalism, in the climate and development context, needs to revisit this question: Do we need to be beholden to puritanical ideas of climate solidarity? Differences in approach will make us strong, not weak.