A Humble Guide to Navigating the Illusion of Universal Values in Post-Modern Diplomacy

A Peruvian can be freer than a US citizen.

No, it is not a joke, or an attempt to rage-bait. It is the simple fact that the concepts we assume to be universally shared are anything but universal most of the time. Thus, the understanding of freedom emerges as a subjective construct within the post-modern reality. Common grounds we assumed to share have been artificially constructed by those who questioned how to live a good life in antiquity. Later on, the system of values was built on the ideologies. In the case of freedom as all universal values, this construction collapses into a living, divergent political simulacrum as discussed by Jean Baudrillard (1994). 

While I preferred to cover freedom as my primary example, the argument advanced here is not limited to freedom alone. The same analytical framework can be applied to other values commonly treated as universal, such as democracy, human rights, sovereignty, equality, and so on.

Living in a post-modern world means that no matter how precise our definitions appear, we are unlikely to mean the same thing, especially in an international context. Despite its Sisyphean nature, the relentless efforts of humans throughout history to create a shared series of values to improve the quality of life will always remain utterly precious.

After coming to terms with this reality, we can begin questioning how diplomacy and universal values can be reconstructed across these widening gaps of understanding.

If bridging these gaps is possible at all, the precondition to do so relies on an ancient imperative: knowing oneself.

Any effort toward self-understanding must begin with a set of guiding questions:

1. How do I define freedom?

2. How is freedom defined by the family, community, religion, or political culture to which I belong?

3. Through which narratives, institutions, and educational frameworks has this understanding been formed?

4. To what extent does the version of freedom presented by the state function as a political simulacrum rather than a lived experience?

In 2014, GlobeScan conducted a survey titled Perceived Freedom Index among 17.000 people from 17 countries, representing diverse demographics. The index was topped by Peru, where 35% of Peruvian participants agreed that ‘’They lived in a country where freedom of speech, conscience, religion, marriage, and freedom from government interference are embraced and protected.’’ Meanwhile, despite being a longstanding democracy, the United States ranked twelfth.

The Perceived Freedom Index is one of many examples proving that freedom is perceived less as a universal and more as a locally interpreted concept.

Moreover, Azimovich (2025) argues that freedom in the East and West is perceived in two extreme forms. While the East prioritized the spiritual freedom of a person, the West emphasized individual freedom since adopting the Hegelian perspective. 

This directly challenges the central promise of modernity.

''When we look at the fundamental characteristics of modernity, it becomes clear that it represents a mode of thought grounded in reason and knowledge; one that limits concepts according to basic rational principles; takes universally valid knowledge that is testable, shareable, verifiable, and subject to scrutiny as its criterion; engages in critique and reconstruction; aspires to universality; takes into consideration the temporal dimension of time, especially the future; enables the individual to see themselves as both a person and a citizen; and, by delineating shared spaces for collective life in every respect, allows people to come together on common ground (Özcan, 2022; p. 168).''

In a post-modern diplomatic environment, freedom does not exist as a neutral value but as a socially produced and institutionally mediated self-understanding. As Jean-François Lyotard (1984) famously defines the post-modern condition as “incredulity toward metanarratives/grand narratives,” the very possibility of shared normative meaning that once strengthened diplomatic language is fundamentally destabilized. Therefore, without first recognizing the nature of our own values, any attempt at international dialogue risks projecting self-certainty as universality.

Statuette of a Buddha 1885 Emily Sargent Associated Names Emily Sargent Artist, American, 1857 - 1929. Photo by National Gallery of Art on Unsplash

The awareness of these circumstances takes us to the next stage: understanding the other without presuming universality or persuading. Undoubtedly a challenging task, this requires an open mind to reflect on what the other party really means when they use freedom in a diplomatic context. One must be mindful of the other party’s different lived experiences, which in some cases may differ radically due to historical traumas and institutional realities. In this sense, diplomacy becomes less about affirming common principles and more about mapping the boundaries of meaning within which the other operates. Such an approach demands reflexivity. To interpret the other without collapsing difference into moral hierarchy, diplomatic actors must remain aware of their own value formations for the reasons discussed above.

Moreover, the questions directed toward the other to enhance self-understanding and situational analysis must be both contextually consistent and intentional. On this basis, the following questions must be directed toward the other:

1. How is freedom defined in their own terms?

2. How is this understanding of freedom shaped by family, community, religion, and political culture?

3. Through which historical narratives, state institutions, media discourses, and educational frameworks have this definition of freedom been constructed?

4. How are legitimacy and political authority justified within this framework?

It is important to remember that the answers to these questions neither need to be accepted nor judged by the party that directs them. In an ideal world, the aim of diplomacy in a post-modern context would be to navigate differences by first acknowledging their existence rather than attempting to erase or to assimilate. The ultimate objective would be to enable peaceful coexistence and, in doing so, improve the functioning of international relations and the quality of people’s lives.

In other words, in the absence of shared values, diplomatic common ground can be seen as minimal, provisional, and purpose-driven.

Since the attempt to understand the other does not necessarily require consensus, the central challenge of diplomatic communication becomes the matter of translation. At this stage, comparison plays a key role. Identifying differences requires a delicate and systematic approach. Ideally made from a third-person perspective that allows distinctions to be observed without turning them into judgements. Against this backdrop, the following questions can guide this shift:

1. When diplomatic actors from different countries use the same vocabulary, are they referring to comparable meanings, or merely employing shared terminology without shared substance?

2. Which concepts resist translation across normative frameworks?

3. Can diplomatic communication function without resolving these differences, and if so, on what minimal and provisional grounds can cooperation be sustained?

It is essential to comprehend that these artificial common grounds can no longer be rebuilt upon shared values alone. We must instead emerge from shared vulnerabilities, mutual risks, and pragmatic interdependence. Climate insecurity, migration, economic instability, and technological disruption, particularly the ethical challenges of AI advancements, create essential opportunities for international cooperation.

Navigating the illusion of universal values does not require abandoning values altogether, but relinquishing the expectation that they carry identical meanings across contexts. The concept of a common ground, where it exists, is fragile, negotiated, and temporary. Yet it is precisely within these modest spaces that peaceful coexistence remains possible.

Bibliography

1. Azimovich, S. A. (2025, March). The evolution of the concept of freedom in Eastern and Western philosophical thought: A comparative analysis. Zien Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. https://zienjournals.com

2. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation (Glaser S. F., Trans.). The University of Michigan. (Original work published 1981) https://dn720006.ca.archive.org/0/items/baudrillard.-1970.-the-consumer-society/Baudrillard.1981.Simulacra-and-Simulation.pdf

3. GlobeScan. (2014, April 11). A deeper look at freedom: How perceptions differ across countries and groups. https://globescan.com/2014/04/11/a-deeper-look-at-freedom-how-perceptions-differ-across-countries-and-groups/

4. Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.(Original work published 1979)

5. Özcan, S. (2022). The problem of postmodern knowledge in the context of Jean François Lyotard’s thoughts. SDU Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Social Sciences, (55), 167–182. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sufesosbil/issue/69783/1076988

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed herein belong solely to the columnist and do not represent the official position of our think-tank. Humanotions cannot be held liable for any consequences arising from this content. Content published on Humanotions may contain links to third-party sources. Humanotions is not responsible for the content of these external links. Please refer to our Legal Notices & Policies page for legal details and our Guidelines For Republishing page for republication terms.