i appreciate your writing so far and largely agree. it’s a bit myopic and arrogant to suggest there is a linear evolution of consciousness, and that metamoderns hold the singular key to what comes next
i agree the hegelian notion of ‘transcend and include’ doesn’t seem to be true in terms of the messy details of reality, there does seem to be something to the idea that development is due to some reconciliation of opposites, a checking of each other’s extremes, and the subsequent manifestation of something that transcends and includes both of them—at the border of chaos and order, progress and tradition, mythos and logos, etc etc. in its concrete details, this may be described as a rhizomatic, fluid and unpredictable change, but i see overarching, dare i say archetypal attractors inform the particulars.
from this high-up view, all of philosophy, both elite and folk, are a recapitulation of perennial wisdom that has been known for millennia, just leaning more to one side of a duality or the other, finding more one-sided facts or buy-in (like science’s success repressing formal and final explanations in favor of the material and efficient) going too far in that direction, and necessitating a compensatory correction (as complexity and chaos theories are reviving essences and telos in more nuanced and evidenced formulations) things both do and do not change.
in terms of postmodernism and metamodernism, i see both as two attempts to be more critical of modernism’s excess faith in itself. postmodernism and its deconstructive focus has been more respected, but as whiteheadian David Griffin argues, a quasi-metamodern, ‘constructive postmodernism’ can be traced back to Jung and Whitehead and undoubtedly many others, but this line of thinking has been more underground, or seen as disreputable, with close ties to New Age thinking. metamodernism seems like a move to try to legitimize this thread of thought in light of contemporary science that no longer validates an emphasis on reduction, randomness, and disparate particulars.
that would be my take for a more humble metamodernism. can’t wait to read yours
Thanks michael. I am sympathetic to your point. I don't find the development to be random but to what extent it isn't is an open question in my mind. Obviously we can speak of the boundaries of what's possible — the outgrowths of the rhizome must derive from the rhizome after all. Marx uses the word determinism to speak about the way in which the modes of production limit the possibility space of relations of production (you're not going to get 21st century memes on a slavery or primitive communist techno-economic base). I think this is a good way of thinking about the limiting factors.
But archetypal attractors is a salacious thought. I'm drawn to it. It would fit within the rhizomatic perspective while allowing us plenty of scope for certain energies to emerge and warp the possibility landscape. It's an interesting thought. As I'll be talking about in a later instalment 4chan might be a more accurate (and scary) image of the attractor than our metamodernism. So the metamodernists could be right but overly-optimistic about the direction of history...
Also interesting take on Jung and Whitehead as constructive postmodernists. That does make sense to me. Jung was following Nietzsche's death of God — really the starting gun of the meaning crisis discourse. He's trying to straddle the sacred and profane that follows. I can see the same in Whitehead from what I know.
I'm a bit confused as to what your actual critique is—and maybe it's in part my own misunderstanding of metamodernism, or a misunderstanding of your argument—but I have never understood these periods defined by a cultural logic to be truly totalizing. People were still dogmatically religious (premodern) in the modern era, etc.
I have always understood metamodernism as a response to the emptiness inherent to postmodernity. A response intended to transcend and include. But that's not the only response to this emptiness—you can also find endless new spaces to consume/find pleasure that temporarily take away the pain of this emptiness because of their novelty.
I am an addictions counselor and see so many clients who just keep moving, from substance to substance, process to process (gambling, social media, etc.), never taking that next step of actually grappling with the logic itself.
In short. I just don't think that metamodernism is meant to be a characterization of the whole of our cultural milieu, but rather the 'cutting edge' of our artistic and philosophical approach to reckoning with the limitations of the previous cultural era. Our zeitgeist will likely never shift much beyond this late capitalist logic completely preoccupied by consumption. Metamodernism is the ethos of those in recovery from the addiction of postmodernity/late capitalism.
I appreciate the input Hal. I don't think you've missed anything major but you are wrestling with my attempts at articulation!
One of the questions I have is: what are we talking about? A cultural logic is a worldview internal to an individual or group — it's a map of the world. A cultural era is a period in time that can be measured by calendars and graphs. Which is metamodernism?
For that matter which is premodern? The religious mindset of the medieval (to brutally lump the whole period in together as unchanging) is very different to that of the 20th and 21st centuries. Is the premodern a cultural era? Then how can it exist in the modern or postmodern eras? So it must be at least partly a cultural logic? Or maybe we should question this connection between the religious and the premodern altogether except to say that certain types of religion (Axial Age religions) emerged in a particular historical era (classical antiquity — though with Islam that's stretching things a little) and endure.
As for Metamodernism, personally I can see the emergence of new types of discourse that are wrestling with the problems of the digital age in new ways. Instead of the ironic detachment we're seeing the more layered forms of irony such as ironic sincerity. I can see this in art. So I'm not trying to dispose of the idea that there is something happening with which some artists are wrestling.
When I try and grasp the slippery thing I am not quite satisfied that I've grasped anything at all. Is there an emptiness inherent to postmodernity? Or is this just something that some people in the period of postmodernity feel? Is it an emerging sensibility rather than a defining feature? Many of the people around me show no signs of suffering from the postmodern emptiness nor have they transcended it.
I hope it is clear to you by now that the reason you are confused by what my actual critique is is largely due to the fact that I'm still figuring it out. It's not a perfectly worked out critique but something I am still trying to grasp and wrestle with. As such I appreciate your input (and, I hope, you patience)
Setting up Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions about the Constrained and Unconstrained Visions and identifying them with Hobbes vs Rousseau seems right but the Hobbes vs Rousseau opposition has always been unconnected to the reality of human society. People are neither good nor bad. From at least Adam Smith theorists have been trying to find institutional structures that provide incentives for individual contributions, support individual freedoms and social support and still limit the harms that might arise from individual incentives. (The recent `Nobel' prize in economiss was about exactly this problem. )
I agree and I think Sowell would also agree. He describes visions as simplified maps of a very complex world and as such they tend to blunt reality. My point in bringing it up was less about the reality of human nature than about the visions and their traditions
i appreciate your writing so far and largely agree. it’s a bit myopic and arrogant to suggest there is a linear evolution of consciousness, and that metamoderns hold the singular key to what comes next
i agree the hegelian notion of ‘transcend and include’ doesn’t seem to be true in terms of the messy details of reality, there does seem to be something to the idea that development is due to some reconciliation of opposites, a checking of each other’s extremes, and the subsequent manifestation of something that transcends and includes both of them—at the border of chaos and order, progress and tradition, mythos and logos, etc etc. in its concrete details, this may be described as a rhizomatic, fluid and unpredictable change, but i see overarching, dare i say archetypal attractors inform the particulars.
from this high-up view, all of philosophy, both elite and folk, are a recapitulation of perennial wisdom that has been known for millennia, just leaning more to one side of a duality or the other, finding more one-sided facts or buy-in (like science’s success repressing formal and final explanations in favor of the material and efficient) going too far in that direction, and necessitating a compensatory correction (as complexity and chaos theories are reviving essences and telos in more nuanced and evidenced formulations) things both do and do not change.
in terms of postmodernism and metamodernism, i see both as two attempts to be more critical of modernism’s excess faith in itself. postmodernism and its deconstructive focus has been more respected, but as whiteheadian David Griffin argues, a quasi-metamodern, ‘constructive postmodernism’ can be traced back to Jung and Whitehead and undoubtedly many others, but this line of thinking has been more underground, or seen as disreputable, with close ties to New Age thinking. metamodernism seems like a move to try to legitimize this thread of thought in light of contemporary science that no longer validates an emphasis on reduction, randomness, and disparate particulars.
that would be my take for a more humble metamodernism. can’t wait to read yours
Thanks michael. I am sympathetic to your point. I don't find the development to be random but to what extent it isn't is an open question in my mind. Obviously we can speak of the boundaries of what's possible — the outgrowths of the rhizome must derive from the rhizome after all. Marx uses the word determinism to speak about the way in which the modes of production limit the possibility space of relations of production (you're not going to get 21st century memes on a slavery or primitive communist techno-economic base). I think this is a good way of thinking about the limiting factors.
But archetypal attractors is a salacious thought. I'm drawn to it. It would fit within the rhizomatic perspective while allowing us plenty of scope for certain energies to emerge and warp the possibility landscape. It's an interesting thought. As I'll be talking about in a later instalment 4chan might be a more accurate (and scary) image of the attractor than our metamodernism. So the metamodernists could be right but overly-optimistic about the direction of history...
Also interesting take on Jung and Whitehead as constructive postmodernists. That does make sense to me. Jung was following Nietzsche's death of God — really the starting gun of the meaning crisis discourse. He's trying to straddle the sacred and profane that follows. I can see the same in Whitehead from what I know.
I'm a bit confused as to what your actual critique is—and maybe it's in part my own misunderstanding of metamodernism, or a misunderstanding of your argument—but I have never understood these periods defined by a cultural logic to be truly totalizing. People were still dogmatically religious (premodern) in the modern era, etc.
I have always understood metamodernism as a response to the emptiness inherent to postmodernity. A response intended to transcend and include. But that's not the only response to this emptiness—you can also find endless new spaces to consume/find pleasure that temporarily take away the pain of this emptiness because of their novelty.
I am an addictions counselor and see so many clients who just keep moving, from substance to substance, process to process (gambling, social media, etc.), never taking that next step of actually grappling with the logic itself.
In short. I just don't think that metamodernism is meant to be a characterization of the whole of our cultural milieu, but rather the 'cutting edge' of our artistic and philosophical approach to reckoning with the limitations of the previous cultural era. Our zeitgeist will likely never shift much beyond this late capitalist logic completely preoccupied by consumption. Metamodernism is the ethos of those in recovery from the addiction of postmodernity/late capitalism.
Apologies if I've overlooked something major.
I appreciate the input Hal. I don't think you've missed anything major but you are wrestling with my attempts at articulation!
One of the questions I have is: what are we talking about? A cultural logic is a worldview internal to an individual or group — it's a map of the world. A cultural era is a period in time that can be measured by calendars and graphs. Which is metamodernism?
For that matter which is premodern? The religious mindset of the medieval (to brutally lump the whole period in together as unchanging) is very different to that of the 20th and 21st centuries. Is the premodern a cultural era? Then how can it exist in the modern or postmodern eras? So it must be at least partly a cultural logic? Or maybe we should question this connection between the religious and the premodern altogether except to say that certain types of religion (Axial Age religions) emerged in a particular historical era (classical antiquity — though with Islam that's stretching things a little) and endure.
As for Metamodernism, personally I can see the emergence of new types of discourse that are wrestling with the problems of the digital age in new ways. Instead of the ironic detachment we're seeing the more layered forms of irony such as ironic sincerity. I can see this in art. So I'm not trying to dispose of the idea that there is something happening with which some artists are wrestling.
When I try and grasp the slippery thing I am not quite satisfied that I've grasped anything at all. Is there an emptiness inherent to postmodernity? Or is this just something that some people in the period of postmodernity feel? Is it an emerging sensibility rather than a defining feature? Many of the people around me show no signs of suffering from the postmodern emptiness nor have they transcended it.
I hope it is clear to you by now that the reason you are confused by what my actual critique is is largely due to the fact that I'm still figuring it out. It's not a perfectly worked out critique but something I am still trying to grasp and wrestle with. As such I appreciate your input (and, I hope, you patience)
Setting up Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions about the Constrained and Unconstrained Visions and identifying them with Hobbes vs Rousseau seems right but the Hobbes vs Rousseau opposition has always been unconnected to the reality of human society. People are neither good nor bad. From at least Adam Smith theorists have been trying to find institutional structures that provide incentives for individual contributions, support individual freedoms and social support and still limit the harms that might arise from individual incentives. (The recent `Nobel' prize in economiss was about exactly this problem. )
I agree and I think Sowell would also agree. He describes visions as simplified maps of a very complex world and as such they tend to blunt reality. My point in bringing it up was less about the reality of human nature than about the visions and their traditions