The uni-context

This is a philosophical theory by Agnes Callard that argues humans have a desire for larger contexts, and the advents of radio, television, and most notably the internet have contributed to making a singular, universal context. You can read Agnes describe the implications of the uni-context in this interview. I think it is really interesting, and wanted to describe how I relate it to concepts I’ve been thinking and writing about.

Moral Universalism

The uni-context has universal norms and values. This is the philosophical idea of moral universalism, where a moral system can be applied to anyone in similar circumstances, divorced from any societal context. The internet’s moral system is one where we shame one another to enforce its norms, and in the process gives the uni-context a culture of public call-outs, “cancelling”, and where growth can be really illegible. It relies entirely on punitive justice, and lacks the forgiving nature of relationships built upon repeated interactions.

Another explanation Callard gives for why the uni-context is so negative is that the topics that work in a universal context are the ones with near-universal consensus, and what is “good” tends to be more context dependent than what is “bad”. This may have contributed to things like the rise of culture war politics.

One last way, Callard discusses, in which the uni-context becomes negative is by expanding our “evaluative field”. Aspects of our lives that previously “just were” are now in contrast with the entire global populace. It’s increased how many comparisons we do by merely making the contrasts more legible. (although the spreading of “liberal values” I’m about to mention below also play a part)

Liberal Universalism

There is an interesting parallel between the concept of the uni-context and liberal universalism. Both collapse multiple local contexts into a single universal context; one socially and one politically. The uni-context goes hand in hand with liberal universalism: if we’re going to have a global context with universal norms and values, it only follows that the whole globe should do politics and markets in a universal fashion as well. Unfortunately, the negativity and lack of forgiveness then seeps from the uni-context into our nations’ laws as well.

Identity

Callard describes identity as superseding character, by suggesting that identities are parts of you that are instantly and unavoidably legible, and thus “universal”, whereas character requires repeated interactions to fully understand, which is uncommon in the uni-context. I think Agnes takes a very essentialist perspective on both character and identity here that I strongly disagree with. However, I do agree that reduced interactions with specific individuals leads to us dumping each other into essentialist labels.

So within the uni-context, there is still diversity across identities, and each can have their own culture. I find this in tension with the idea of the uni-context, and preserving the diversity of culture will require consistent and intentional effort, or the abolition of the uni-context. Admittedly it’s hard to mentally imagine the complete homogenization of culture given how diverse peoples’ opinions and interests still are, and I believe people already are making the consistent and intentional efforts required to preserve some, but not all, distinct cultural identities.

Free Speech

Privately-owned platforms like Twitter and YouTube get a lot of criticism for their policies on speech, with figures like Elon Musk calling for free speech absolutism, seeing any restrictions comparable to censorship. I think society’s desire to move towards a uni-context helps explain why we consolidated into a handful of websites. The more niche communities previously making up the internet, like the various forums that existed, mirrors the multiple local contexts society used to hold. These would be distinct communities with their own rules and values, and being banned from a forum would have less reach. It was our same desire to move towards a uni-context that made being banned so dire - you’re cut off from the context.

Early IRC culture, which created terms like the eternal September and “netiquette”, also represent an early attempt at the uni-context and moral universalism.

Evaluating the uni-context

Callard argues that because we’re in the uni-context, we’re not equipped to evaluate it, but recounts that people she’s explained the theory to think it’s bad. It’s an interesting dilemma that calling it bad both falls into the same moral universalism that’s part of the uni-context, as well as the focusing on the negatives of the uni-context over its positives.

All that said, I do think we can advocate for and attempt to move in the direction of making contexts multiple and local again (in other words, rewilding), and indeed under this framework I think a lot of my writing could be said to be doing just that.