top of page
Search

How did we get here? [Part One]

  • Writer: Josh
    Josh
  • Sep 11, 2024
  • 3 min read

We live in a metamodern world, but how did we get here?


Greg Dember defines metamodernism as:

"a (conscious or unconscious) motivation to protect the solidity of felt experience against the scientific reductionism of the modernist perspective and the ironic detachment of the postmodern sensibility" [1]

Therefore, to understand our metamodern moment, we have to first look back at where we've come from.


Modernity


The predominant mode of thinking in the early 20th century was modernism. Riding on the wave of the enlightenment and industrial revolution, the traditions of religion were fast fading and sidelined as superfluous. The disestablishment of long-held social and ethical norms was driven by the rise of capitalism and individualism. Modernism is characterised by the ‘death of God’ [2] and an unwavering belief in human progress and our ability to think our way through all of life’s problems.

 

Basically, think of modernism as a plucky student who thinks they’ve solved the grand mysteries of life because they’ve sat through a couple of lectures.


Postmodernity


The naïve optimism of modernity came crashing down in the wake of two world wars and continued global tensions. In its place came the cynicism and deconstructionism of postmodernity. Postmodernism is critical of any attempts to unlock the grand narrative of reality, denigrating truth claims as power plays, and instead promotes relativism and pluralism. It is characterised by the ‘death of the author’ [3] and sees the role of interpretation as the primary locus of meaning.  

 

Basically, think of postmodernism as our plucky student who takes a year off from studying to travel the world and soon faces existential dread as they realise that not everyone thinks the same way as they do.


Metamodernity


Postmodernity provided some helpful correctives to modernity, yet there’s only so far cynicism and deconstructionism can take you before the snake begins eating its own tail. Novelist David Foster Wallace called this out early on:

"All we seem to want to do is keep ridiculing the stuff. Postmodern irony and cynicism’s become an end in itself, a measure of hip sophistication and literary savvy. Few artists dare to try to talk about ways of working toward redeeming what’s wrong, because they’ll look sentimental and naive to all the weary ironists. Irony’s gone from liberating to enslaving.” [4]

Whilst postmodernism was able to poke fun and offer critiques, it was unable to offer constructive solutions to life’s problems. And how could it? Once the author is dead, it’s not long until the audience begins to wonder when they will be on the chopping block. Ultimately, replacing truth with irony is like a man who builds a house on sand (that sounds somewhat familiar).

 

So, in steps metamodernity. The latest attempt to make sense of life and human experience by oscillating between the poles of modernity and postmodernity. As Luke Turner summarises:

“Whereas postmodernism was characterised by deconstruction, irony, pastiche, relativism, nihilism, and the rejection of grand narratives (to caricature it somewhat), the discourse surrounding metamodernism engages with the resurgence of sincerity, hope, romanticism, affect, and the potential for grand narratives and universal truths, whilst not forfeiting all that we’ve learnt from postmodernism.” [5]

Why does this matter?


Many churches operate as though the way to combat postmodernity is to return to modernity. Christians have good reason to be wary of the effects of postmodernism, with its disregard of institutions (like the church) and dismissal of truth claims (like the gospel). Sadly, all too many have walked away from the faith having been led down a road of endless deconstructionism. In this light, modernity looks appealing – it seems safer with its emphasis on objectivity and embrace of metanarratives. After all, if we could return (or remain) in modernity, then we would only be one step closer to returning to Christendom, right?

 

Yet, to return is impossible. Cultural change is a one-way street, and even if we could go back, we would be woefully naïve to do so. To reject the critiques of postmodernism is to look back with rose-tinted spectacles on modernity. The postmodern age has some helpful correctives to offer, with its emphasis on epistemic humility and our need to listen and learn from different perspectives to our own. It’s equally helpful in it’s insistence that we’re not always as rational as we like to think and that we are shaped by our emotions and experiences as much as by logical enquiry. To reject postmodernism wholesale then is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

Besides, we need to not expend all our energy on a battle than everyone else has already moved on from. Rather than looking backwards, Christians would be better served facing the cultural challenges posed in the here-and-now. It may seem daunting to face forward into the metamodern world, but it may also yield surprising gospel opportunities…



[2] Thanks Nietzsche

[3] Thanks Derrida




Comments

bottom of page