The birth of a new culture

The intellectual movement known as metamodernism attempts to reconcile the pursuit of universal truth with skeptical relativism. Exclusive excerpt from “Die Metamoderne” (Metamodernism).

When a new era in intellectual history is dawning, it is not immediately apparent on the surface. It begins with a widespread unease, the shortcomings of the old paradigm become apparent, but the new paradigm that is emerging is not yet manifest. The first rumblings often come from thinkers and artists who visionarily anticipate a new consciousness before it manifests itself at the level of structures or even practical politics. The question now is how change can be brought about in a meaningful way. People often try to leave the old behind like a step on a staircase they have climbed. The “overcome” step is then fought against or even despised. It would be wiser to preserve the advantages of the old paradigm and integrate them into the new one. In the sense of a synthesis. When the mind expands, it is also able to grasp paradoxes, i.e., to accept the simultaneous validity of seemingly contradictory statements. Metamodernism is an intellectual movement that aims for integration from the outset. It attempts to unite the strengths of the preceding epochs of modernism and postmodernism. While the former tends toward a certain pathos of orthodoxy, the latter sometimes slips into sheer cynicism and grants everything only a perspectival truth. However, metamodernism has grown beyond mere “deconstruction.” It attempts to be constructive and meaningful, while incorporating humor and an awareness of its own fallibility into its considerations. For our time, which has become entrenched in a fanatical opposition of positions on the one hand, but on the other hand suffers from a rapid loss of meaning, an influx of metamodern ideas could be beneficial.

by Maik Hosang

[This article posted on 8/24/2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.manova.news/artikel/die-geburt-einer-neuen-kultur.]

The developments, challenges, and crises of the present—digitalization, the internet, artificial intelligence, climate change, migration pressure, new wars, etc.—are causing many people to feel more or less uncertain about their situation, but also about their view of the future. Will these crises throw humanity back into times of hardship and oppression? Or are the crises a kind of birth pangs of the transition to a new, sustainable, and global human culture? And will both—new beginnings and setbacks—run parallel for a long time until, at some point, sustainable stabilization is achieved globally? Will the beginnings of this possible future emerge as new ideas and structures in the economy, society, and culture? Or will they begin more as experimental, sometimes even artistic attitudes and feelings, as new ways of life and qualities of life, from which corresponding sustainable structures will only crystallize later? Or will both run parallel here as well?

We cannot answer these questions about future developments; the future will decide. However, in order to become more aware of the situation, its dangers, and its possibilities, and thus perhaps even to be able to influence developments individually and together with others, it seems important to at least ask these questions. In order to gain a more differentiated picture and a possible understanding of the situation, it makes sense to follow the discussions on this topic in various cultural and scientific circles. These discussions reveal an exciting self-understanding of what new developments are possible and how we could understand, communicate, and influence them.

Cultures and culture in general are like a constantly changing river, a permanent emergence and disappearance of societies and their self-reflections in language, art, and science.

Nevertheless, it is possible to distinguish and differentiate between larger epochs and/or phases, each of which is characterized by certain cultural patterns—memes, symbols, values, norms, everyday and deep cultural habits, techniques, economic and social forms, etc. Contemporary social and cultural studies and philosophy generally distinguish between three epochs that diverge greatly in their cultural patterns: premodern, modern, and postmodern. In recent years, however, a further differentiation and corresponding terminology has emerged with regard to the present and the future: metamodernism.

Does this herald a new culture and era? That would be desirable, because almost every thinking person wonders why the qualities of modernity and then postmodernity, which prospered for so long, are currently plunging from one crisis to the next and seem to have little potential for resolution.

The cultural philosopher Jean Gebser characterized the emergence of new eras primarily by their ability to transcend the deficient characteristics of previous ones and enable new, more complex, and more integrative qualities and potentials.

New cultures, including metamodernism, are hardly visible at first, as images, words, and even sciences are occupied by the habits of previous cultures. It is therefore worthwhile to follow the traces of the new and make them visible. Jonathan Rowson describes the ramified and initially independent emergence of the signs and concept of metamodernism in more detail in his article, so I will mention only a few salient milestones here and supplement them with further precursors.

What is metamodernism, and how and from what does it arise?

The development of modern society, which, unlike pre-modern society, organized numerous areas of life according to the criteria of division of labor, efficiency, and rationality, has always been accompanied by numerous initiatives that have at least partially eluded this logic of efficiency. There was Sebastian Kneipp and numerous other impulses for nature-oriented spirituality and health. There was also the garden movement named after the Leipzig doctor Daniel Gottlob Moritz Schreber in the mid-19th century, the so-called youth movement that emerged at the beginning of the 20th century—including new art forms such as Art Nouveau—and later the cultural awakening of the 1968 movement.

All the people involved in these movements felt a longing for these or those holistic, more fulfilling forms of life and work, art and culture, and they followed this longing in one way or another. However, since the progressive economic, political, and cultural development potential of modernity had not yet been exhausted at that time, these ultimately remained marginal phenomena in various areas that seemed to have no common denominator or focus.

This seems to be changing, however, and a common denominator is emerging. In their essay “Notes On Metamodernism,” published in 2010 in the Journal of Aesthetics & Culture and as a separate book in German in 2014, cultural theorists Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker proposed the category of metamodernism as an overarching category for various tendencies that go beyond the characteristics of both modernism and postmodernism (Vermeulen and van den Akker, 2010; 2014).

They first discovered these new tendencies and qualities in art, particularly in neo-romantic works by young artists. They described this “metamodern sensibility” as a kind of “informed naivety” and “pragmatic idealism,” understanding it as a cultural response to recent global developments and events such as climate change, political instability, and the digital revolution.

They deliberately refer to Plato’s concept of metaxia, which describes a movement between opposite poles and beyond.

Jonathan Rowson further differentiates this meaning of the term, which is important for a concrete and comprehensive understanding of metamodernism, in his contribution and describes it as the cultural in-between, the social or political aftermath, and the mystical or transcendent beyond.

Rowson begins and ends his book contribution with the thought-provoking thesis that metamodernism is also and above all a new feeling, even “a new, more holistic structure of feeling.” And this new structure of feeling is “important because it precedes the structures of thought and society as well as the realms of the political and the epistemological.”

In order to understand the qualities of metamodernism discussed below, as well as their connection to this new structure of feeling, it is helpful to refer to the so-called “iceberg model of culture” (2023). This shows us that a large part of the cultural assets that surround us every day, such as languages and the arts, but also architectural and communication styles, fashions, and technologies, can be compared to the part of an iceberg that is visible above the water.

However, the larger part of an iceberg lies below the surface of the water, and the same is true of culture. This side of culture, which is largely unconscious and therefore invisible to us in everyday life, consists of habits of feeling, thinking, and acting, as well as the corresponding codes, norms, and values.

Max Weber, one of the founders of cultural sociology, already recognized that values are not consciously perceived, but come from the depths of our feelings. However, he had little hope at the time for a rational understanding of this (1904 to May 1988, pages 150 ff.). A later, similarly influential sociologist, the pioneer of social system theories, Talcott Parsons, formulated the assumption in 1977 that emotions are central media of exchange in social systems and, in their significance for the organization of actions in modern societies, have replaced traditional social stratification (according to Baecker, 2004, pages 5 ff.). And Umberto Maturana, also a systemic and interdisciplinary thinker, put it as follows in 1993:

“In the history of the origin of humanity, emotions precede language (…). Culture began when language, as the form of coexistence in consensual coordination of actions and emotions, became part of the way of life (…). It is our emotions that constitute the spheres of action that we live in our various conversations, in which natural resources, necessities, and possibilities then appear” (Maturana, 1993, pp. 21 ff.).

Other terms developed in cultural studies to express these rather hidden but significant dimensions of cultures are deep ideology or deep culture (Galtung, 1991). Similar to the iceberg model of culture, these terms express that crucial qualities of cultures are hardly perceived or reflected on the surface of everyday economic and social life. Since this is not intended to be a theoretical treatise, we will not go into further detail. However, these terms can help us understand that fundamental changes or transformations in cultures and societies are associated with new technologies and concepts, fashions, and art forms, but that the stabilization of a new cultural era is always accompanied by the emergence and establishment of new feelings, attitudes, norms, and values (Fränzle, Hosang, and Markert, 2005).

Max Weber examined this phenomenon in relation to the emergence of modernity and described it very impressively in his work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” (1904 to May 1996). Using numerous concrete studies, he shows that modern industrial society was not solely the result of new technologies—such as the printing press, the steam engine, the weaving machine, etc.—but also required new emotional and value structures in order to establish itself. Many of these technologies had already been discovered to some extent in China, but did not lead to the emergence of modernity there. This required the emotional and motivational complexes that Weber briefly referred to as the “Protestant ethic.” He describes very impressively how these sublimations of Christian meaning structures in originally predominantly Protestant areas produced the particularly success-oriented rational qualities of action and enterprise that distinguish modern industrial societies from pre-modern everyday worlds.

Vermeulen and van den Akker (see above) were the first to clearly characterize the metamodern as a cultural development that follows modernity and the postmodernism that followed it, integrating qualities of both in new ways. It is therefore helpful for understanding the metamodern to take a brief look at modernity and postmodernism. The following remarks were inspired, among other things, by works reflecting on the emergence of metamodernism by Lene Rachel Anderson (2019), Daniel Görtz et al. (2021), and Jonathan Rowson and Pascal Layman (2021).

The emergence of modernism has already been briefly described on the basis of Max Weber’s work “The Protestant Ethic.” Based on this, we can understand it as a social epoch organized by certain cultural feelings, values, and codes, as well as by associated worldviews, techniques, economic, and social structures.

Modernity emerged in the wake of the Enlightenment, industrialization, and democratization, and is characterized by values such as science and reason, progress, freedom, and universal human rights.

Humanity owes many achievements to modernity: universal education, modern medicine and technology, but also freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of art, and freedom of assembly. It freed the human individual from pre-modern dependencies of a spiritual or political nature and encouraged people to use their own minds. In nations governed by modern values, there are equal rights and, at least potentially, equal opportunities for development for all, regardless of gender, race, or religion. All of this must be preserved and made accessible to all people as far as possible.

An insight by Jürgen Habermas is interesting for the development of the concept and self-awareness of metamodernism. In his “Philosophical Discourse of Modernity,” he argues that modernity also first recognized itself in cultural, artistic, and aesthetic developments that were new in comparison to the pre-modern era. He writes:

“This explains why the terms ‘modernity’ and ‘modernité’ have retained a core aesthetic meaning to this day, shaped by the self-image of avant-garde art” (Habermas, 1988, 8).

Over the course of more than 300 years, modernity went through various phases. It experienced its heyday in the 20th century until the mid-1970s. Since then, critical reflections on modernity have become increasingly prevalent as a result of sensitive awareness of certain ecological, social, and psychological problems that have not disappeared despite the economic miracle of Western industrial societies. These were first formulated by French cultural scientists, who also gave their name to the intellectual and cultural movement that emerged from them. Jean-François Lyotard was particularly influential in this regard with his 1979 work “The Postmodern Condition.”

The skeptical view of postmodernists relativizes the modern belief in progress and knowledge in several respects. They show that knowledge is always context-dependent and that so-called truths must therefore always be questioned in terms of the power structures that produce and interpret them.

Michel Foucault, in particular, examined these intertwining of knowledge and power and, in his cultural-historical investigations, came to the conclusion that it is important to “understand that power is not located in the state apparatus and that nothing in a society will be changed if the mechanisms of power that function outside the state apparatus, beneath it, alongside them, at a much lower, everyday level, are not changed“ (Foucault, 1976, p. 95).

Umberto Maturana, quoted above with his insights into the cultural significance of emotions and feelings, sums it up similarly:

”Our present difficulties do not exist because we lack sufficient knowledge or technical skills; our present difficulties are the result of a lack of sensitivity (…), a loss we suffer from our involvement in the conversations of possession, power, control over life and nature that determine our patriarchal culture” (Maturana, 1993, p. 21 ff.).

In order to dissolve this amalgamation of knowledge and power, postmodernism calls for the recognition of a diversity of equally valid perspectives and an ironic to skeptical distance from all claims to truth. Postmodernism holds up a mirror to the deep ideological self-evident truths of modernity hidden beneath the surface of the iceberg of modern culture. It enables us to see their unconscious, self-evident feelings, norms, and imaginary worlds, as well as hidden power structures.

However, these modern-critical positions of postmodernism in turn give rise to new one-sidedness such as relativism, arbitrariness, and skepticism. The justified rejection of unconscious or repressed power hierarchies easily leads to the rejection of meaningful hierarchies of competence and values. And the emphasis on the contextuality of all knowledge and speech quickly turns into meaningless arbitrariness in all thought and action.

Metamodernism can be understood as a cultural movement that reflects both the weaknesses of modernism and postmodernism mentioned above. It integrates and transcends modernism and postmodernism, while at the same time connecting both in a reflective way with certain qualities of the pre-modern era from which modernism had to distance itself in the course of its struggles for liberation: values such as community and transcendence.

To illustrate this, here are a few examples of how certain one-sidedness of previous eras could be combined in metamodernism:

• Modernism believes in progress, reason, and objectivity. Postmodernism doubts these ideals and emphasizes relativity, diversity, and irony. Metamodernism oscillates between these poles and seeks a synthesis that takes both perspectives into account.
• Modernism strives for a universal truth that is valid for everyone. Postmodernism rejects this possibility and accepts only local, contextual, and constructed truths. Metamodernism attempts to find a new form of truth that is both absolute and relative, based on experience, feeling, and empathy.
• Modernism trusts in the grand narratives of history, politics, and art. Postmodernism deconstructs these narratives and reveals their contradictions, fractures, and power relations. Metamodernism invents new narratives that are aware of their own fictionality but still seek to create meaning and sense.

The combination of pre-modern, modern, and postmodern qualities also gives rise to new, sometimes paradoxical linguistic codes such as ironic seriousness, pragmatic idealism, informed naivety, and magical realism.

Since these are still unfamiliar to our thoughts and feelings, which are trained in modern and postmodern codes, here are a few examples:

• • Ironical seriousness: for example, a discussion about questions of meaning in which the participants ask serious questions about the meaning of life while also making humorous allusions to spiritual topics.
  • Pragmatic idealism: when people advocate for social or political change by choosing pragmatic approaches based on idealistic values. This could be a group that promotes sustainable lifestyles by implementing and recommending concrete steps to reduce their ecological footprint.
  • Informed naivety: An example of informed naivety could be an art exhibition that appears naive and simple at first glance but reveals complex social or philosophical messages upon closer inspection.

Magical realism: when fantastical elements are embedded in realistic settings in literary works or films to convey metaphorical or allegorical meanings.

• An example would be a novel in which people in an everyday world are confronted with magical events that symbolize psychological conflicts.

In contrast to the skepticism and arbitrariness of postmodernism, metamodernism recognizes and accepts qualities such as progress, humanism, love, dreams, and visions in a new, reflective, and power-free way.

Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows (2004) come to similar conclusions in their investigations into the limits of modern growth. Since their words are a very nice example of early metamodern thought leaders—their first publication on the “limits of growth” appeared in 1972—we quote them here in more detail:

“In our search for ways to encourage peaceful change in a system that naturally resists its own transformation, we have tried many means. We have tried the most obvious ones — rational analysis, data collection, systems thinking, computer modeling, and clear words. These are the means that everyone trained in science and economics automatically understands. They are useful, necessary, but not sufficient.

We do not know what will be sufficient. But our conclusion leads us to other means that, in our experience, are not optional but essential for any society that hopes to survive in the long term. These are often considered too ‘unscientific’ and therefore not taken seriously in the cynical public arena. They are: visioning and networking, truth-telling, learning, and loving.

In industrial culture, it is not permissible to talk about love except in the romantic and trivial sense. Anyone who talks about the capacity of human beings to practice practical brotherly and sisterly love, love of humanity as a whole and of our planet, is more likely to be ridiculed than taken seriously (…).

Individualism and short-sighted interests are the biggest problems facing contemporary societies and the deepest cause of their unsustainability.

Love and compassion, institutionalized in social forms, are the better solution. A culture that does not believe in these better human qualities, that does not discuss and develop them, suffers from a tragic limitation of its possibilities (…). Sustainable transformations will be those that express and nurture the best rather than the worst aspects of human nature (…). Humanity cannot succeed in its adventure of reducing its footprint to a sustainable level without a spirit of global partnership. Collapse cannot be avoided unless people learn to see themselves and others as part of an integrated global society. Both require compassion, not only for the here and now, but also for those far away and in the future. Humanity must learn to love the idea of a living planet for future generations.”

(Meadows, Randers and Meadows, 2004, pages 269 ff.; translation by Maik Hosang)

Maik Hosang, born in 1961, is a social ecologist and co-founder of the model project “LebensGut Pommritz,” where he also lives. He is also the author of numerous books.

The De-Generation

Smartphones and AI are weaning us off using our brains — and independent thinking is becoming a dying cultural skill.

June 28, 2025 by Tom-Oliver Regenauer