Hey everyone, I published a new essay called “What (the heck) is Metamodernism?” that is my unique take on things, inspired by many across our network. Would love to hear if and how it lands for folks, including any pushback or contrasting views.
3 Likes
I am not sure metamodernism is sufficiently clearly defined to be anything much at all. Your article is a good example of why (which isn’t a criticism – it’s not your fault that it isn’t clearly defined).
At the end I’m just left thinking it is what happens if you take everything from the last 400 years of cultural evolution, randomly take stuff out and add new things, and then run it all through a food blender. It is a half-hearted yearning for something better, but lacks the teeth to actually make anything new happen.
I should make clear I am not an artist, and I am not talking about art. I’m talking about ideologies and epistemologies. As an artistic movement you’re probably bang on the money.
Yes I saw this on substack and liked it - we need more articles like this that translate the theoretical ideas of metamodernism in terms that less geeky people can understand, and I think you do a good job at making it attractive for such people.
3 Likes
Hi Tucker, and thanks for bringing this here were we have a fairly ready-made group ready to jump in and comment!
My feel for your piece is that it is a very nice collection of things that we would generally like to see in a new culture. If you imagine a new culture, and then hook into the idea that people are calling the emerging culture “metamodernism”, then I guess you have it!
Only one of your aspects that I wouldn’t have: I don’t personally go with your perhaps panentheistic view of wholeness, or its correlates. Apart from that, it’s all a very attractive vision, particularly for those with the leisure and resource to look for those things. Sure, I’m there with you I suppose, just that I can imagine many people who would see this collection as rather privileged. I admit to a lot of privilege; but I very much value equality as an ideal.
As far as the “conventional” definition goes, to me calling it metamodernism (as opposed to any other name for a desirable future culture) makes sense in the context of at least a reasonable grasp of what modernism and postmodernism generally are taken to mean. Otherwise why bother using that particular term?
I agree with you and with the others that the term metamodernism is not yet well-defined, so your take is just as valid as others.
The other side of this, to me, is that part of what matters is what communicates. Once we have swallowed the pill, maybe a postmodern pill, that there simply is no way to communicate effectively to everyone, we all choose, consciously or unconsciously, our audience — perhaps from those we know in the (sub-)culture that we live in or aspire to. And here I think I’m on similar lines to Geoff and Jonah: I’m probably not the audience for this particular piece, but it probably has a good audience in those of a more artistic bent, and those who would like a glimpse of something positive to identify with — something to counteract that rather sick feeling that our “Western” culture is going to the dogs, and rather more rapidly than we were expecting.
As a final point, I’d like to float the idea of looking at this as a kind of story, alongside other stories, and trying out some ontological commoning with other real thoughtful people to see if we can come up with something more like a culture of the future commons. I particularly like your references to the commons.
3 Likes
Nice article @tuckerwalsh. Thank you for posting. As it happens, I had a similar urge to try and put some words around “modernity” a couple of days ago. Here is my effort, shared in a spirit of mutually trying to do the undoable: What Is This Modernity We’re Living Inside? - In Search of Wisdom
1 Like
Hi @GeoffDann, thanks for your share. Have you read Jonathan Rowson’s piece about Metamodernsim?
I think it’s a bit more defined than your analogy, but I get your point that it’s still an emerging phenomenon. I would invite in the possibility that it arises first as a feeling, as an instinct, as a vibe, as a knowing, and also as art - and then words, definitions, ideologies and epistemologies somewhat follow. Maybe the best we can do is sense it with our hearts and in our bones, and allow the words to flow from there.
1 Like
Thanks so much, @Asimong, really appreciate your comments. I do think the essay is intentionally trying to cohere and call in a certain audience, and is not attempting to speak to everyone. And it would be super interesting to see if we could take all the articulations of metamodernism and maybe even with the help of AI distill it down into a “commons language” that can be more widely shared.
I hope you don’t mind, but the response to this is going to be a bit blunt. Metamodernism, as it is described here, is little more than a continuation of postmodernism. It is the work of postmodernists who have not fully accepted why postmodernism has been defeated (politically – philosophically it ran out of ideas some time ago), and are trying to preserve it by dressing it up as “the next big thing”.
I never went through a postmodern stage. I went straight from modernism to something very different in a very short space of time, and at no point did postmodernism seem to me to be anything other than a pack of ill-motivated lies made up by deeply cynical people. I disagree with most of what Hanzi Freinacht says, and I believe he implied I am a fascist (it wasn’t to my face, but more than one person made me aware of the reference). I could be wrong…maybe he was referring to somebody else. The Metamodern Community Has a Fascist Problem — Let’s Talk about What We Can Do about It | by Hanzi Freinacht | Mar, 2025 | Medium
Not quite so romantic, eh? Apparently I have never got over my “allergy” towards postmodernism and wokeness. I prefer to describe it as having a fully functioning immune system.
I was not familiar with the essay, which I have just read.
However, one defining quality of postmodernism is that it is modernism turned in on itself: the tools of reason questioning their own reasonableness; the idea of progress noticing, as a kind of progress, that it is indeed an idea.
This I agree with, but would describe it in terms of McGilchrist’s hemispheres. Modernism was a creation of the left hemisphere. Postmodernism is also a creation of the left hemisphere, but it is a wholly destructive thing – it is what happens when the left hemisphere goes mad and starts butchering its own flawed creations, without ever reconnecting with the right hemisphere’s capacity for attempting to make any sense, with catastrophic results.
Can you tell I am a little bitter? That’s because the only religion I have ever had has been a commitment to seek and defend the truth. I have spent my whole life trying to defend the truth from postmodern attempts to deny and distort it (originally from the left, then from the right too). “What truth?”, says the pomo. “Who’s truth?” As if there is no such thing as the truth. At that point I was usually banned by the postmodern “fact checkers” for challenging their toxic propaganda. And worse. I’m not famous, but I am well known enough in the foraging world to have been worth them doing their best to “cancel” me. I never backed down. I never stopped defending the truth. Now they are being routed and the job needs to be properly finished. The epistemological disease must not be allowed to come back.
Some see Nietzsche as a kind of postmodern prophet writing before the 20th century;
Of course he was. That was the moment the rot really set in.
Ontologically, metamodernism oscillates between the modern and the postmodern. It oscillates between a modern enthusiasm and a postmodern irony, between hope and melancholy, between naïveté and knowingness, empathy and apathy, unity and plurality, totality and fragmentation, purity and ambiguity.[23]
In which case I want nothing to do with it. Oscillating between wrong and more-wrong is not going to help. What we actually need to do is go back to the point in modernism where the original structural defect occurred, fix it, and find a new path forwards from there. This does not involve oscillating between modernism and postmodernism. It means throwing all of that out, starting again, then picking through the wreckage of modernism and postmodernism to see what might be useful for the rebuild.
My problem with metamodernism as it is being described here is that it does not clear the conceptual space for a restart. It doesn’t conclusively rid us of all the bad things that need to go. Rather, it attempts to smuggle postmodernism into the new paradigm, as well as some problematic bits of modernism (such as unreformed metaphysical naturalism like that of UTOK).
And Lyotard does not say there can be no metanarratives of big stories, just that we are right to be sceptical about them (and surely that’s sound advice?).
Why is that sound advice? I am making my own proposal for what this new paradigm could look like ( The Praeternatural and the New Epistemic Deal. This is my proposal for making 2R a reality - General - Second Renaissance Forum)
The first principle of my proposed New Epistemic Deal is this:
1: Ecocivilisation is our shared destiny and guiding goal.
Ecocivilisation represents a vision of a society that harmonises human activity with ecological principles. This is not a utopian ideal but a necessity dictated by the realities of ecosystems and evolution. The claim that ecocivilisation is our destiny is pre-political, transcending specific ideologies or systems. The precise social, political, and economic structures of ecocivilisation are not part of this definition, but the core premise is clear: civilisation must work ecologically to endure.
This realisation, however, is insufficient on its own to inspire a mass movement. The challenge lies in how we navigate the path forward. Choosing a “least bad” route demands careful thought and collaboration, as well as a willingness to embrace complexity. Yet, despite the uncertainties and debates about how to proceed, we can and must agree on this: ecocivilisation is our ultimate goal – a commitment to creating a world where humanity thrives within the limits and laws of nature.
Does this qualify as a metanarrative or big story? Looks like it to me. Should we be skeptical of it? I don’t think so. I think we desperately need something to believe in – a new way of galvanising people and society for a new start.
I think this means that metamodernism has to reckon more clearly with its defining structural and cultural limitations in metamodernity. Since that context is both modern and postmodern but without necessarily having any higher-order synthesis or funky oscillation beyond our own projection, metamodernism struggles to create distinctive normative vision without losing its conceptual fidelity to metamodern context and sensibility.
Yes. Because it is still postmodernism.
1 x -1 = -1
Modernism x postmodernism = postmodernism.
Gregg Henriques’ Theory of Knowledge
A Unified Theory of Knowledge which equates genuine spirituality (the mystical – the occult) to belief in aliens, “higher dimensions” and the afterlife.
Metamodernism as it is being described in this essay is not fit to provide foundations for the Second Rennaissance that is so desperately needed. I am growing ever more convinced that the only way to make 2R happen is to draw some very clear red lines about what the essence of the old paradigm is, and what needs to go.
These three things need to go:
(1) Growth-based economics
(2) Metaphysical materialism
(3) Postmodern antirealism
What we require is not some romantic combination of these things. Rather, all of them need to be very clearly identified as The Problem, and banished from the new paradigm.
I believe this is what is needed to make 2R reality. Hanzi Freinacht apparently thinks that makes me a fascist. This might have something to do with his agenda of trying to get as many people as possible to “the postmodern stage of development” as a stepping stone to his vision of metamodernism.
Am I a metamodernist? Some people have insisted that I must be. I am not convinced.
We can ask AI to do that right now:
At its core, metamodernism is the dialectical movement between modernist idealism and postmodern skepticism, allowing for a renewed pursuit of meaning, truth, and progress while maintaining self-awareness, irony, and flexibility. It is not a rejection of postmodernism but an evolution beyond it—embracing both playfulness and sincerity, both critique and construction, both doubt and devotion.
Summary of Its Conclusions
- We oscillate between opposing modes – rather than settling in certainty, we navigate between irony and sincerity, detachment and engagement, knowing and unknowing.
- Truth is real, but incomplete – no single narrative has the final word, but that doesn’t mean we abandon meaning altogether. Instead, we integrate perspectives dynamically.
- Metaxy (in-betweenness) is our natural state – rather than resolving tensions, we live within them creatively. This applies to culture, identity, politics, and epistemology.
- We can believe again—carefully – postmodernism deconstructed grand narratives, but metamodernism allows us to reconstruct them with humility, knowing they are contingent.
- Complexity thinking replaces binary thinking – systems, networks, and emergence take precedence over rigid categories, allowing for nuanced approaches to knowledge, ethics, and governance.
- Sincerity beyond irony – we acknowledge postmodern cynicism but move past it, embracing playfulness while still committing to higher values and serious projects.
A Working Definition of Metamodernism
“Metamodernism is the oscillation between modernist idealism and postmodern skepticism, enabling a dynamic and paradoxical engagement with meaning, truth, and progress in an age of complexity.”
I am no metamodernist. From the perspective of my own understanding of what the new paradigm needs to look like, my response to the points above are:
-
We need to build a new epistemological system from first principles, and it must provide stability, not oscillation.
-
Truth is real, and science has the final word with respect to the structure of objective reality. Although clearly science is incomplete and the world keeps changing.
-
This can’t be a general rule. Sometimes “tensions” need to be resolved by admitting certain things are wrong. Each case must be taken on its own merits.
-
Does science count as a grand narrative? If so, then quite a lot of it is not contingent. It’s just true.
-
Again the devil is in the detail. Sometimes binary thinking is necessary. There are only two biological sexes. This is binary, and it is just one example. There are countless others.
-
That sounds remarkably like failing to admit that it was never legitimate in the first place. See Chomsky’s criticism of Postmodernism - YouTube
In that video, Chomsky accuses the founders of postmodernism of being primarily interested in their own careers, influence and material wellbeing, and of producing what was basically “fake knowledge”. Can you see how from my point of view, metamodernism appears to be the “bargaining stage of grief” for bereaved postmodernists?
I don’t think so, though I wouldn’t know what label would make sense given what you shared. Thanks for offering your thoughts.
1 Like
I have decided to adopt “Realist Revolutionary” – giving “2R” another meaning.
(Mind and Cosmos. A summary courtesy of ChatGPT - General - Second Renaissance Forum)
Rowson is also completely familiar with McGilchrist - it is his company that publishes “The Matter with Things” and promotes McGilchrist extensively.
McGilchrist and I also share a book distributor. When I described my forthcoming book to the guy who runs Central Books he made the connection himself.