Universal Pluralism: Seeing Both Similarity and Difference

Pears, Edouard Manet

Are people across cultures basically the same, or deeply different?

In a new paper in American Psychologist, Tim Lomas argues that this question is often framed too narrowly. The answer, he suggests, is not either/or. It is both.

Lomas calls this perspective “universal pluralism.” The idea is that human beings do share certain realities by virtue of being human: needs for connection, meaning, security, recognition, and forms of well-being that appear across societies. But these shared realities are not experienced or expressed in identical ways. Culture, language, history, social norms, traditions, family structures, and political conditions all influence how people understand and pursue flourishing. That is why neither universalism nor pluralism is sufficient on its own. Each can distort our understanding when separated from the other.

If we emphasize only what human beings have in common, we risk flattening real differences. A supposedly universal account of happiness, flourishing, or virtue may actually reflect the assumptions of one particular culture, especially when research has been shaped by Western, educated, industrialized, wealthy, and democratic contexts. In that case, “universal” can become another word for “ours.”

But if we emphasize only difference, we risk losing sight of our common humanity. Cultures are not sealed worlds. People across societies can recognize one another’s suffering, hopes, relationships, aspirations, and struggles. Pluralism without any shared human frame can fragment rather than deepen understanding.

Universal pluralism asks us to hold these truths together. It does not split the difference between similarity and difference. It treats them as mutually necessary. We can recognize that people everywhere seek lives marked by meaning, connection, and dignity, while also recognizing that these goods may take different forms across cultural contexts.

For flourishing research, this is important. A global science of flourishing must be broad enough to identify common human goods, but humble enough to ask how those goods are differently understood and lived. It should not assume that one culture has already defined the good life for everyone else. Nor should it abandon the search for shared realities that make cross-cultural understanding possible.

In a divided world, universal pluralism offers a more careful way forward: honor what is particular without surrendering what is shared. Take culture seriously without giving up on common humanity. Study human flourishing in a way that is both globally attentive and locally respectful. That balance is not merely academic. It is part of what a wiser public conversation about human flourishing requires.