The universal is not a foreign outsider but an intimate point at which each particular finds itself lacking. Through this lack, the universal holds the series of particulars together even when they themselves do not register the connection (McGowan, 2020, p. 58). 

In this presentation, teacher education researchers from Australia, Denmark, Wales and Northern Ireland critically analyse the place of positive forms of universalism in our work.  We aim to engage teacher educators with the cruel optimism that exists within this field – one which often promises redemption, order and completeness (Berlant 2011), but can lead to frustration and anxiety. We identify analytically two positive views of universalism. An abstract form of universalism that claims to be ‘neutral’, and “indifferent to particulars, ’disinterestedly’ deploying an assumed or self-evident truth to all” (Kapoor and Zalloua, 2022, p. 14), and a commonality form of universalism that claims to unify - that is “a series of particulars deemed to share common content” (p. 15). We argue that by adopting these positive views of universalism, there is a risk of creating an illusion or fiction where the abstract form of universalism takes a privileged, specific position that “ends up dominating (other) particulars”(p. 14), whilst the commonality universalism ‘ends up excluding particulars ‘(p.14), that is, despite its claim of inclusivity, there are many exceptions that simply do not fit the universal.

As an alternative perspective, and taking inspiration from Ilan Kapoor and Zahi Zalloua (2022) and Todd McGowan (2020), we offer a theoretical frame that engages with the concept of negative universality – the idea that the actual universal sits at the points of social structure failure, absence or exclusion and not in the false claim of unity and inclusion (pp. 59-60). Through this lens of negative universality, we interrogate the OECD (2019) document, A Flying Start: Improving initial teacher education, which examines the question of ‘How can initial teacher preparation equip teachers with updated knowledge and competences?’ that present the universal in terms of professional knowledge and competence, ongoing updating of initial teacher education curriculum and alignment with school contexts all of which frame, structure and regulate teacher education in different ways and with various consequences.

Our justification for focusing on updated knowledge and competences, is that they aim to fix the positive in universal ways for educators, that is, what they must desire and live up to, how they must do it, and what defines them as a professional teacher. This has led to an almost technicist approach to education (Clarke and Phelan, 2017), creating an absence of critical thinking where the language associated with teaching aligns closely with what we could call an ‘apprenticeship’ model that supports a belief that practice makes perfect. Furthermore, it has been shown how this competence view coupled with universal endeavours can create anxiety, frustration and exclusion as well as reinforce the problems that they are supposed to (dis)solve (Dunn, 2005; Popkewitz, 2011). 

Using the lens of negative universality, provided us with an opportunity to problematise the ways in which (particular) views of teacher knowledge and competences in a ‘universal sense’ dominate and/or exclude certain particulars (Kapoor and Zalloua, 2022, p. 185) in  abstract or common ways. This can lead to the absence, marginalisation, and disavowal of matters that cannot be formulated or translated into standards and standardised in more or less universal ways, for example, ethical-political matters. Put differently; the universal can often be seductive in arresting such matters “in unequivocal or transparent definitions” (Ruti, 2007, p. 492) but, we would like to suggest, that this seduction is not without educational consequences.

This analytical study rejects positive forms of universalism because there will always be someone who could be dominated and become enslaved by masters and there is always someone who does not fit. As Kappor and Zalloua (2022) states: “Both abstract universalism and universalism- as-commonality, suffer from a proclivity toward ideological deception, pretending to be neutral or all-encompassing, but practised in order to privilege and exclude. Both positive universalisms naturalise and dehistoricise, abstracting from the material, historical, and dynamic fields of power” (p. 15). Hence, this study is based on the analytical examination of using an alternative form of universality, a “negative” one, that focuses on what is absent instead of what is present. That said, this form of universality can be understood as a form of negativity, without a positive essence, “that cuts across particulars” (Kapoor and Zalloua, 2022, p. 16) and which splits every thought, concept, and notion from within as well as it points out the dirty secrets, the underlying logics, and partial interests that they always fabricate and hide. It is important to recognise that taking up negative universality as an analytical approach means that it can only be “taken up from a particular vantage point, it is always partial, partisan, engaged …. Partisan (negative) universality is, in this sense, never predefined or given; it is always struggled for, incomplete, and in the making” (p. 18-19). In this study, we begin with an examination of the forms of positive universalism (abstract and common) identified in the above-mentioned OECD (2019) document, especially chapter four, as it focuses on how to equip teachers with updated knowledge and competences. We then use the lens of ‘negative’ universality to identify the (universal) fantasies and promises attached to the views of teacher knowledge and competences. We discuss the role of negative universality in disrupting the ethics and politics of teaching and teacher education as a means for teachers and teacher educators to remain empowered to be critical and willing to question and problematise the existing socio-symbolic educational order (Kapoor and Zalloua, 2022).

Despite many critiques of universalism (Lyotard, 1994; Biesta, 2013), there still exists a belief among politicians and policymakers that universalising particulars set the coordinates for what is important in education and what educators must desire, focus on and live up to in this regard. It is assumed “that structures can be whole and that their determinations of the particulars within them are completely effective” (McGowan, 2020, p. 59-60). Our work articulates how Chapter 4 of the OECD (2019) document illustrates positive universalism. There is a tendency to draw on abstract universalism when acknowledging a diversity of views or approaches, such as aligning teacher education to professional standards. While the common view of universalism is articulated in the views such as meeting individual student needs. Our concern is that these positive universal views of teaching and teaching education are very enticing for educators who risk being caught up in cruel optimistic fantasies (Berlant, 2011). All particulars, no matter how good, come with a dark side that requires our engagement. Our work identifies the opportunities presented by considering a negative view of universality within teaching and teacher education. The negative view allows us to consider the paradoxes, contradictions, and dilemmas that are shut down by the positive frame of teacher knowledge and competences and provides scope to engage in the struggle with what is absent. The challenge is not only how we as teacher educators rethink and reimagine but how we get the public and politicians to engage with negative universality when the positive views of universalism are so enticing. The dark side of education has much to offer educators and researchers seeking to understand the ethical and political constructs of contemporary education policy and practice.

Berlant, L. (2011). Cruel optimism. London: Duke University Press. Biesta, G. J. J. (2013). Receiving the Gift of Teaching: From "Learning from" to "Being Taught By". Studies in Philosophy and Education, 32(5): 449-461. Clarke, M. and Phelan, A. M. (2017). Teacher Education and the Political: the power of negative thinking. London: Rutledge. Kapoor, I. and Zalloua, Z. (2022). Universal Politics. Oxford University press. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition. Manchester University Press. McGowan, T. (2020). Universality and Identity Politics. New York: Columbia University Press. OECD. (2019). How can initial teacher preparation equip teachers with updated knowledge and competences? In A flying start: Improving initial teacher preparation systems (pp. 75-99). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/cf74e549-en Popkewitz, T. S. (2011). Pisa: Numbers, standardizing conduct, and the alchemy of school subjects. In M. A. Pereyra, H.-H. Kottoff, & R. Cowen (Eds.). PISA under examination: Changing knowledge, changing tests, and changing schools (pp. 31–46). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Ruti, M. (2007). The Fall of Fantasies: A Lacanian Reading of Lack. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 56(2): 483-508.