Formal Universalism vs Participatory Universalism

Discussion

Jordan Hall:

" I feel like the west has become caught in a false dichotomy between relativism and formal universalism and that perhaps this concept of participatory universalism can help resolve some gordian knots.

The distinction concerns the ontological status of the universal and, consequently, the relation between universality and particularity. Both claim that reality contains truths, goods, or forms that exceed any merely local or subjective perspective. They differ over what it means for such a universal to be present in the world.

Formal universalism apprehends the universal principally as an abstract form capable of specification independently of any particular embodiment. It begins with multiplicity: many persons, communities, practices, judgments, or instances are compared; their contingent differences are progressively removed; and what remains is identified as the universal. The movement is therefore approximately: particulars → abstraction → universal form → application to particulars.

Once abstracted, the universal returns to the world as criterion. Particulars are judged according to their conformity with it. Equality before law is a paradigmatic example: the law becomes universal precisely insofar as it disregards differences among the persons to whom it applies. The universal is strongest where the particular matters least. Particularity consequently appears primarily as contingency, variation, or circumstance—something that must either be ignored or accommodated without compromising the uniformity of the governing form.

This structure naturally produces institutions organized around rules, rights, procedures, taxonomies, standards, and specifications. Its characteristic question is: Does this particular instance satisfy the universal form? The universal stands above particulars as an intelligible pattern, and justice consists substantially in applying that pattern impartially.

Participatory universalism begins elsewhere. Here the universal is not primarily an abstraction derived from a collection of particulars. It is a real and inexhaustible source in which particulars may participate and which they may genuinely manifest. The movement is therefore approximately: universal reality → participation → particular manifestation.

The universal, on this account, can become more rather than less visible through particularity. Particular differences need not represent deviations from universality, because participation does not require replication. A universal good may take different concrete forms according to the nature, history, vocation, and relations of that which receives it. What matters is fidelity to the reality participated in rather than conformity to a standardized representation of it.

This structure naturally produces institutions organized around relationships, covenants, practices, traditions, vocations, and forms of discernment. Its characteristic question is: Does this particular reality faithfully participate in and disclose the universal good? The universal is present through particulars without being exhausted by any of them, and justice consists substantially in ordering relations so that each particular may participate in that good according to its nature, place, and vocation."

(https://deepcode.substack.com/p/participatory-universalism?)