Metamodernism Critique Part 4: The Dangerous Ladder
Linear hierarchy is an Achilles Heel
This is the fourth in a series of critical ponderings on Metamodernism. As mentioned in the first instalment there will be a podcast interview with Brendan Graham Dempsey on his Metamodern Spirituality podcast afterwards to chat through some of these criticisms. Previous instalments: Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.
Following up on the last couple of critiques I want to articulate why I feel a discomfort with stage models in general whether that’s Hegel’s Zeitgeists, Marx’s relations of production, Wilber’s developmental hierarchising or the manifold varieties of this among the Metamodernists.
Truth is, I was once rather taken with stage models (to put it mildly). As I discussed in the intro to the series, reading Ken Wilber’s A Theory of Everything (and later Sex Ecology Spirituality) was a transformative experience for me in the not-too-distant past. I was bewitched by the Spiral Dynamics model. I was taken in by the lure of being “second-tier” (everyone pre-Integral stage being first-tier chumps; second-tier thinkers were world-changers). It seemed so intuitively true and enabled such a useful way of talking about world history and of personal and social development.
As time has worn on however I have sobered up from this stagial narrative of history and what once rang like glorious truth to me now sounds like hollow truthiness. I can’t pinpoint exactly why. Perhaps it’s more death by a thousand cuts than any single blow.
One key encounter however was a post-mortem of Ken Wilber’s Integral theory on Rebel Wisdom a few years back. But first, for those who haven’t heard of Wilber or Integral (or for those late to the game like myself), it’s hard to overstate how big a deal it was at the turn of the millennium. One professor, Jack Crittenden (Beyond Individualism) wrote that
“The twenty-first century literally has three choices: Aristotle, Nietzsche, or Ken Wilber.”
As of 2014, Wilber was the most widely translated academic writer [if such he could be considered] in America with 25 books translated into 30 languages.
Integral was even beginning to hit the mainstream. Alanis Morrissette was (and still is as far as I know) a big fan of Integral. Even the American president at the time Bill Clinton was in on it saying:
“If ordinary people don't perceive that our grand ideas are working in their lives then they can't develop the higher level of consciousness, to use a term that American philosopher Ken Wilber wrote a whole book about. He said, you know, the problem is the world needs to be more integrated, but it requires a consciousness that's way up here, and an ability to see beyond the differences among us.”
Wilber was proclaimed the “Einstein of consciousness”. But Integral’s prophesied devouring of the culture never materialised. Wilber got sick and more or less disappeared off the map and Integral faded away (amidst a small scandal storm).
In the Rebel Wisdom post-mortem, Jamie Wheal (Stealing Fire, Recapture the Rapture) gives a great account of what went wrong: hierarchy. Surprise surprise when you create a linear hierarchy of worldviews in which each stage is more awakened and complex than the previous, people want to be on top. Wheal attributes the unravelling of the Integral movement to this hierarchisation. Instead of going out there and doing something (anything) the Integral movement became a dick-measuring competition for who was the most advanced.
In his post-mortem of Integral, Mark Manson (The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F**k, Everything is F*cked: A Book About Hope) reiterates this critique as he talks about the failure of the Integral subculture to productively wrestle with the global problems at the start of the 21st century:
“Major global and social issues were often only referred to in passing as descriptors for a certain level of consciousness development with the overarching implication being that “they” are not as highly developed as “we” are.
We’re “second-tier” thinkers. We’re going to change the world… as soon as we’re done talking about how awesome and “second-tier” we are.”
My fear is that Metamodernism is falling into the same trap as Integral and for the same reasons. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the cultural periodisation of Vermeulen and van den Akker, the developmental psychological model of Freinacht or the “decentration” of cultural logics in Dempsey, they are all creating a linear hierarchy for humanity. If you’re Metamodern you’re more advanced than the Woke and hippie postmoderns and the atheistic, scientism of the Moderns. You are more complex, more psychologically developed and rarer than them. You are at the cutting edge of human evolution. You, by virtue of the thoughts in your skull, are special. And if they don’t recognise it, it’s because they aren’t complex enough to see how special you are.
My fear is that Metamodernism is falling into the same trap as Integral and for the same reasons.
Most strains of Metamodernism (but it’s worth noting — not all! more on that in future instalments) believe in this advanced status of Metamodernism. And they believe that Metamodernism contains these previous worldviews within it. Whether that’s a developmental stage that they pass through or as a “decentration”, each new stage “transcends and includes” the previous stages (for more on this see the previous critique).
Even without the “transcend and include” bastardisation of Hegel’s aufhebung, the post-Marxist cultural theorist version of Metamodernism falls prey to the same problem. By setting up Metamodernism as that which is ahead, above and beyond of the Postmodern, Modern, Premodern, it still creates a linear hierarchy in which the Metamodernists are advanced and special. That is pragmatically dangerous.
Making Metamodernism a singular Zeitgeist sets it up for infighting and failure. It makes Metamodernism vulnerable to the same hypocritical and pathological dynamics you find in hippie circles where you find the doublespeak dick-measuring around the spiritual hierarchies of ego-lessness, compassion and Shadow-work. The Metamodernists are in danger of repeating the failure of Integral — getting caught in the snare of their own theory.
Once again, for anyone, for any Metamodernists (or other critical readers) reading, I’d love to hear your thoughts on any blindspots, oversights, errors, distortions or strawmen you see in this or any other piece in the series. As I said in the intro this isn’t some polished piece of art but a wrestling to articulate something I sense. If I’m mistaken I’d love to know; future pieces can benefit from that knowledge.
Next:
Previous:
This makes this Integral/Metamodern stuff seem like a dysfunctional version of Sufism. The Sufis also believe in developmental stages, in higher consciousness, yet, see this quote from Rumi:
"The one who sees the ray of divine power in the smallest things in the world is a person of high understanding and high aspirations. Such a person respects himself and others and does not disdain the smallest of tasks, for he sees them as manifestations of divine power."
Cuts through any sense of superiority someone may be developing, doesn't it?
I am so out of my depth here, as I struggle to ingest and digest all of these ideas and references, but I am like a kid in a candy store with it all; I don’t know which tempting and seductive morsel to grab and gobble up first! Having come to reading (devouring) philosophy later in life, I am woefully behind the curve. But I have to say, stumbling onto your YouTube channel a few years ago helped light the path for me as I continue to read, learn and try to make sense of it all, fully realizing and accepting the fact that I’ll never get to the end of that path. Thank you! And I also appreciate the comments others have made on your posts too.