What kind of a "metamodernist" am I, exactly?
Discover more from The Oscillator's Stone
What kind of a "metamodernist" am I, exactly?
Where my work stands relative to one of the internet's most nebulous terms
Some recent happenings in the emerge-o-sphere—the debut of Black Metamodernism, Dave Snowden’s most recent critique of Nordic metamodernism, and a few discussions I have had with various community members on what even classifies as metamodern—have got me thinking: am I in the right community? Do I even want to be considered a part of the liminal web? Am I a “metamodernist?” What does that term even mean?
“What does that even mean” is the best place to start, but it is also perhaps the most confusing place. The term “metamodern” first showed up in 1975, courtesy of Mas’ud Zavarzade, and was initially used to describe what we now call postmodernism. From there, we start to eventually see other cultural scholars using the term to describe the cultural paradigm after postmodernism—a paradigm characterised by not feeling quite at home in either the shiny happy hand-holding of modernism or the teen-spirit stench of postmodernism, but also somehow incorporating the affectual positions of both, often in an oscillatory fashion.
In other terms: the Y2K bug was defeated, and Metamodernity was born. Punks decided that it was cool to have feelings again, but they weren’t gonna give up screaming about it. Amanda Palmer flashed her fancy vintage underwear to her audience before proceeding to sing about how much of a Girl Anachronism she was. LaBoeuf declared via paper bag mask that he is Not Famous Anymore, and that Trump Will Not Divide Us. People started dressing like Normies, Art Hoes, and Margot Tenenbaums.
Enter Hanzi Freinacht—a fictional character cleverly puppeted by theory artists Danel Gortz and Emil Ejner Friis. They were fans of Ken Wilber’s (in)famous Integral Theory, as it were—minus all the culty guru stuff. They wondered: what if we could take the best parts of Integral—it’s diunital thinking, it’s framing of the relationship between subjective, objective, and systemic, and its emphasis on development—and give it a bit more of an empirical background? And, what if we approached the political sphere in this way, too?
I don’t have all of the details as to exactly what happened here, but according to folks like Greg Dember, Jonathan Rowson, and even Gortz himself—the term “metamodernism” stood out to the Hanzi writers as such a zinger that they decided to use it for their project, despite the fact that a near decade of academic discourse—with its own ideas about what metamodernism looked like in the realms of philosophy and politics—was also using the term.
Henceforth, linguistic chaos ensued.
Naturally, at first, I didn’t know that these two metamodernisms were initially unrelated. I figured they were two sides of the same coin. But after about a year into researching metamodernism, I learned just how different the two truly are—thanks in part to being willing to do some deep embodied listening to both camps, and figure out what their core premises were.
Don’t get me wrong: I think the two camps actually have more in common that either might think. However, that all seems to be a happy coincidence. I will discuss the relationship I believe they have to each other in another article, but for now, let’s talk about where I stand relative to all this.
How am I using the term metamodernism in my work?
Am I political metamodernist? No, and for a number of reasons. Suffice it to say that I think synthesising all sides of the political spectrum into one “super-saiyan” political worldview is kinda sus, and might be a bit boring. That being said, I appreciate the idea of looking at politics beyond the labels—and hey, finding some common ideological ground might do humanity some good.
Am I a cultural metamodernist? Sort of. The cultural theory stuff is both the most accessible and the most well-established, so naturally these days I source most of my material from here. I am not immersed in the academic world, however, and as far as I know, academia is allergic to stage theory, Integral, and the idea of a single political ideology defining metamodernism. That’s all well and good—but since I am open to considering those things, that sort of disqualifies me, does it not?
I am a witch, I am a systems thinker…and, I have commitment issues. None of these camps are so enticing that I am willing to 100% marry myself to them.
Am I a developmental metamodernist? Meh, it depends on what you mean by developmental. I am not a clinical psychologist, and I lack the capacity to evaluate the accuracy of any stage theory in that regard—but developmental theories such as Spiral Dynamics, MHC and ECLET do help me make sense of my individual life, and I am curious about how one can understand metamodern cultural phenomena through these lenses. I don’t believe that society and people have only ever developed in a positive way since the beginning of time. History tells us that there are ebbs and flows. The Dark Ages came after the Hellenistic Empires, and The Great Depression came after the Roaring Twenties. The trends that have transpired could have transpired quite differently; we know how they did, but we don’t know how they could have under even slightly different conditions. Cycles also exist. Time is nonlinear. The world is a soup, and we are all beef chunks swimming in strange, chaotic circles. A linear perspective is helpful and necessary—but we are already culturally predisposed to recognising this, so I choose not to focus on it.
Am I a member of the Vervaekean Religion That’s Not A Religion? I don’t believe Vervaeke openly identifies as a metamodernist, but many of those on the liminal web who do just so happen to also be fans of his work. I certainly support his project, and I owe Vervaeke’s Awakening From The Meaning Crisis for encouraging me to pursue collaborative mythopoetic work and to more deeply study the cognitive science of religion. I find his work fascinating and necessary. No, not all of us are currently experiencing a “meaning crisis,” but some are, and those people matter. We need to find a way to reconcile science and subjectivity (as Gregg Henriques’ UTOK model does), because the rift between the two effects our society on a mass scale—even if it does not directly effect certain demographics. That being said, I don’t see a Religion That’s Not A Religion as a replacement for Religions That Are Religions. Secularists deserve their own spiritual niche; abolishing religion for the sake of ‘human progress’ would be a total fascist move (and I don’t believe Vervaeke intends to do this). If ever I see the RTNAR going in that direction, imma head out.
Am I a ‘Black Metamodernist?’ Well…not exactly. I am both Black and interested in metamodernism, and there are plenty of metamodern works of art created by Black people—Donald Glover, Solange Knowles, and Moses Sumney, to name a few—that I incorporate into my understanding of metamodern philosophy. But Germane Marvel’s “Black Metamodernism” project, as far as I’ve seen, takes an entirely different approach than I do. It seeks to cross-pollinate certain elements of the various types of metamodernism with elements of African philosophy. In theory, this is pretty cool and much needed. So far, I’m in agreement with some of his statements, and deeply critical of others—but I don’t think it’s fair to critique projects before they’ve had a chance to solidify their ideas. For now, I shall remain largely uninvolved with Marvel’s work, for a number of reasons—but that could change in the future.
So, what am I?
I am a witch, I am a systems thinker…and, I have commitment issues. None of these camps are so enticing that I am willing to 100% marry myself to them. I want the developmental awareness of Nordic metamodernism, the faction-transcending possibilities of political metamodernism, the observational and categorical precision of cultural metamodernism, and the African philosophy of Black Metamodernism.
I don’t need stage theory to tell me about development, for I was born a babe and became an adult. I don’t need cultural theorists to tell me what it feels like to watch FLCL or listen to “Come On! Feel The Illinoise,” because I liked those things before I knew what Vermeulen and Van Den Akker were calling them. I don’t need a map of complexity, because I am complexity. I don’t need Integral Theory to tell me that all truths are partial, because I have been interested in nondual spirituality since I was a teenager.
Yet how much further can I go when I am willing to bring a map along for the adventure? How much more skillfully can I navigate the world, support those whom I love, and teach magick when I strive to inform myself beyond what I personally think, believe, or even fully understand?
Here’s the kind of metamodernist I am, if you can even call me that:
The world is both a beautiful and terrible place. Sometimes I feel hopeless, and that’s okay. Sometimes I feel hopeful, and that too is okay. One thing I am confident in is that life imitates art. Art is a form of folk psychology and can even be used in a clinical context to resolve issues that impede our development. Humans develop, and there are general patterns to that development, but there is no single, homogenous pathway that all humans must take in order to develop the “right” way (speaking as a neurodivergent person whose developmental needs were not met, because I was expected to develop along a neurotypical trajectory).
We need to be making art together—and not just the kind that can be analysed by cultural theorists. We need to be living art together. We need to recognize the value of our subjective experiences, and how they help us relate to the complex systems of which we are a part. We need to be meeting people where they are at, and we need frameworks that are going to help us do that—even if those frameworks aren’t “scientifically verified” or accepted by academic institutions. We need to be incorporating the philosophies of historically marginalised groups if we want to claim that our perspective is a “grand synthesis” of a vast array of perspectives.
If that all makes me a metamodernist, then go ahead and call me one. But it is not something that I can honestly claim to be (not even ‘ironestly’). It is a lens that is useful for helping me understand the manner in which I sometimes wish to meet the world, the way I want to approach ritual practise, and the way I want to express myself.
But it will never encompass all of that which I am—for not a single word contains such power.
Are you a fan of The Oscillator’s Stone?
Now’s your chance to join the conversation!
Introducing 𝚆𝚈𝚁𝙳𝙲𝚁𝙰𝙵𝚃: A Course in Metamodern Magick
A mental health crisis. An ecological crisis. Disinformation and the “post-truth” world. Wealth inequality & manufactured scarcity.
Why worry about magick at a time like this?
What our world needs now more than ever is a mythopoetic revolution—a way of reconnecting with the planet and with each other. We need new ways to collaborate when solving complex issues. We need to return to what makes us human.
Performing ritual is one of the most crucial human things with which we have lost touch. Contemporary cognitive science has found that ritual behaviours evolved as an important evolutionary tool, one that has contributed to our ability to adapt and survive during times of abundance and instability alike.
If you know that you have a magick inside of you that can help to change the world, but you need a space where you can develop—alongside like-minded individuals—the discernment, intuition, and self-reflexivity needed to practise it…
…Then welcome to 𝚆𝚈𝚁𝙳𝙲𝚁𝙰𝙵𝚃.
𝚆𝚈𝚁𝙳𝙲𝚁𝙰𝙵𝚃 presents an opportunity for witches, philosophers, and artists alike to join forces in the exploration of metamodern esoteric philosophy.
Through group practices, historical analysis, guided meditations, and more, we'll dive into a multitude of mysteries, myths, and important inquiries--all of them designed to unlock ways of being that are all but lost to the modern human.
To learn more, check out this post, which answers the three essential questions:
Why learn about magic during a metacrisis?
What is the basic template from which a magickal practise is built?
How will this course approach the cultivation of magickal practise, and how will I know if it is right for me?
Check it out below~
What kind of a "metamodernist" am I, exactly?
Love your work Scout, so much so.
I found Brendan’s response to Dave Snowden’s haphazard and rather shallow and misplaced bad-faith take on metamodernism to be quite apt. https://www.brendangrahamdempsey.com/post/a-response-to-dave-snowden-s-meta-mugglism
Also, most of the folks I know who have read The Listening Society (the first book by Hanzi Freinacht) would describe it as very progressive (super duper left in its directionality, yet inclusive of all society) rather than merely synthesising all sides of the political spectrum into one “super-saiyan” political worldview.
I’ve lifted a few snippets:—
“Metamodern politics aims to make everyone secure at the deepest psychological level, so that we can live authentically; a byproduct of which is a sense of meaning in life and lasting happiness; a byproduct of which is kindness and an increased ability to cooperate with others; a byproduct of which is deeper freedom and better concrete results in the lives of everyone; a byproduct of which is a society less likely to collapse into a heap of atrocities.”
“Building—or cultivating—the next and deeper layer of social welfare requires the ongoing posing of two questions: How can good conditions and prerequisites for human flourishing and “thrivability” be brought about? How can this be done in a manner that is open, democratic, non-manipulative—without a “creepy” undercurrent of control?”
“It is by looking at deep psychological issues, the inner development of each of us, and how such properties are generated within society, that we address the core of society’s problems.”
and
“Point being: we’ll never have a harmonious, kind and functional society without extensive inner work being done by many or most of us on a regular basis. And this is where the neo-monastic institutions would be of help: At major transit stations and periods of crisis in life, people would be supported to do the hard work that inner integration requires.”
I guess what I am suggesting is that metamodern politics is often reduced into some sort of centrist middle position that integrates all views—but I think this isn’t quite accurate. But these things have a way of accruing new meaning, or becoming hijacked or subject to memetic drift.
I *love* your conclusion very much. Likewise I struggle with the labels. My friend Joe and I find ‘metamodern’ to be a useful dispositional heuristic (Joe created a playful ‘manifesto’ on it a few years back https://www.joelightfoot.org/post/the-metamodern-solarpunk-manifesto). We struggle with metamodernism alone though, for we have felt that the generally ‘pro civ’ aspect of it doesn’t encompass the sensibilities of Indigenous knowledge systems, and metamodernism itself can sometimes needlessly dismissive of ritual and magic. There’s also an element of infinite games, tricksterism, solarpunk and more—all stars in the vague constellation that might serve as beacons as we stumble our way into the ‘reconstruction that follows the deconstruction’ of post modernism.
I shall leave this overly long comment with gratitude for your work, and a poem by the late Tom Christensen, shared in a private message forum, dubbed “Metamodern #3 ”
~~~
We discovered the emptiness of belief.
The debris of contingent truths,
our honored chaos,
gave us only stillborn visions.
··
Still, somehow,
that was achievement,
for those leaving certainty behind.
··
For us in the mess created,
the loss of all foundations,
what was there to do?
··
Some of us still live in the debris,
honoring it as liberation,
and it is, liberation from.
··
But liberation to,
is what calls the others of us.
Freedom to build on nothing,
with nothing,
ending up with
fabricated truths again.
··
This time though,
we know its Maya,
and know that Lila cannot dance,
without illusion.
··
Oh, lovers of illusion,
creators of tomorrow,
weave, sew, lay on the strokes,
build the roads that are not there
and lead us into the tomorrow
we love for.
Love this Scout. I’ve been pondering similar questions. The need to identify with something, to belong to something doesn’t allude me, and I entered metamodern spaces with this desire, but nowadays I like to think of my work as “deeply informed by” Metamodernism. And my artistic endeavors seek that metamodern “structure of feeling” that already existed within me before I found the term and the large body of adjacent works. To me, being in the midsts, the dancing mercurial middle, is what is the most important, building my capacity to hold that middle ground is much harder than aligning with any one set of understandings, cripplingly so sometimes. I’ve been considering making an alter to the middle way, the sacred third, to hold that tension with me, because it is a lot sometimes. Thanks again for sharing.