Based on interviews with members of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) Guidelines for Mental, Neurological and Substance Use Disorders, this article adds empirical depth to understanding the contingent and strategic nature of universality in relation to mental health. Differently from debating whether or not mental health is global, the article outlines the people, ideas, and processes involved in making it global. Thematic analysis of interviews carried out with nine (out of 21) members of the original mhGAP GDG identified six intersecting strategies that enable the construction of universality in global mental health (GMH): 1) processes and practices of assembling expertise; 2) decisions on what counts as evidence; 3) framing cultural relativism as nihilistic; 4) the delaying of complexity to prioritize action; 5) the narration of tensions as technical rather than epistemological; and 6) the ascription of messiness to local contexts rather than to processes of standardization. Interviews showed that differently from the public-facing consensus often presented in GMH, GDG members hold contrasting and contingent understandings of the nature of universality in relation to mental health diagnoses and interventions. Thus, the universality of mental health achieved through the mhGAP Guidelines is partial and temporary, requiring continuous (re)iteration. The article uses empirical data to show nuance, complexity, and multi-dimensionality where binary thinking sometimes dominates, and to make links across arguments 'for' and 'against' global mental health.
Keywords: Global mental health; mhGAP; standardization; universality.