Metamodern Individualism Anonymous
Narrative Archaeological Therapy for the Hypermodern Neo-Narcissist
“The neo-definition of narcissism, I feel is the inability to apply in practice the grander purpose of giving Love beyond the Return On Investment for the Self. Narcissism, deriving from Greek Narcissus was a mythological concept appropriated into english in 19th century. Presently, in the mighty entrepreneurial pursuit of a techno-enlightened humankind, it can only be defined as the lack of skill-set in emotional intelligence to distinguish between Self-love and Self-centredness. The failure to distinguish between nurturing the Self and extracting all shining minerals from the core of the Other. It is the practice of objectifying what is most preciously poetic about being Human. It is the confusion — or lack of knowledge — between distorted appropriations of eastern philosophies on non-attachment, with the authentic interpretation that, actually, (or unfortunately), that implies hard work in Honour, Honesty, Nobility. Loving with a capital L is not transactional or fractional. It is not an opt in now, and opt out anytime. It is the most sacred intentional investment the Heart can make in an Other (than the Self) — Lifting up the Other to transcend beyond earthly Humanness and become the most magical version of themselves.
All else, it is just the fucking plague. Let them be healed with compassion.” — Lemos, JC. 2016 — Thoughts on Neo-narcissism
0. Content
1. Context
2. Signposting
3. Definitions: Both Basic and Loose
a) Hypermodernism and Individualism Defined
b) Metamodernism: The state of the Art
4. The History of Individualism
a) Modernism Individualism
b) Postmodernism Individualism
5. Hypermodern Individualism
a) Postmodern limitations
b) Technological Imperatives
c) The Paradox of Hypermodern Individualism
d) The Challenges of Hypermodernity on Individualism
6. Metamodernism and Individualism
a) Metamodernism Individualism: Diunitality and Emotional Inteligence
b) Benefits and Challenges of Metamodern Individualism
7. Conclusion
References
I. Context
In Yoruba culture, and the philosophy of Ifa, it is traditional, to begin with both an offer of thanks to our ancestors, and an intention for our descendants. In order to give thanks to Ifa I would like to present the idea of Ori in brief. This definition will not be exhaustive. Ori means head. Ori means soul. Ori means the calabash that holds both the head and the heart, together. As such this text is a work of scientifically spiritual art. The author desires it to reveal the state of the art of life, and death, and the tensions therein. The reader is engaged in their own work of art in engaging with the text as coded art. Let us now give thanks to some of those who will help us narrate this story.
The metamodern move, defined within, was first situated by author and educator, Masud Zavarzadeh, in 1975. In 1992, Albert Borgmann, a specialist in the philosophy of technology, was the first to suggest the possibility of a “bifurcation” into either Hypermodernism or Metamodernism. The lecturing and writing couple, Arthur and Marilouise Kroker (1990), and more recently philosopher and sociologist, Gilles Lipovetsky (2018), have identified that we live in Hypermodern times with stark impacts on the individual. This wider conversation has so far been discontinuous and missed in the academic dialogue and so we will explore this in a later sections. Much of this missing dialogue comes by way of sociologist and film director Brent Cooper.
Metamodern principles such as diunital, both-and, thinking and emotional intelligence can be used to situate hypermodernism, individualism and technology. Diunital, both-and, cognition was first described by economist and author, Vernon J. Dixon, in 1975. Alexandra Dumitrescu is a writer, researcher and teacher, who first used metamodern as a cultural paradigm, and associated emotional intelligence with metamodernity. By examining the intersections of metamodernism, hypermodernism, and individualism, we explore these concepts and with metamodern tools such as diunital logic and emotional intelligence to create a more balanced, anti-fragile, and integral approach to addressing the problems of our time.
As we’ve seen since the seventies there has been a discussion amongst academics and artists debating the name for the times we live in. We focus in on five key terms: Modernism, Postmodernism, Hypermodernism, Metamodernism and Individualism. We will define Hypermodernism and Individualism, and introduce metamodernism, diunital cognition, and natural intelligence (by way of biophysicist , climate scientist and CEO Jill Nephew) as potential solutions to these challenges.
Finally, this work is a product of the Black school of metamodernism, which is the product of both alienation, bad faith critique, and plenty of good faith collaboration online and in real life (thank you all). It intends to both adhere to the proposed Black Metamodern Aesthetic, and be a facilitator of the proposed Black Metamodern Manifesto. Black Liberation Matters, none of will be free until we all are free and so may this work lead to the liberation of all sentient beings and the minimisation of all undue suffering, in some small way at least.
Influenced by her multicultural Afro-Cuban background, Rosales’ primary artistic concern focuses on Black female empowerment through a diasporic lens. Her work entwines the oral narratives and deities of West African Yorùbá religion, Greco-Roman mythology, and Christianity. Reimagining hegemonic narratives preserves the memory of her ancestral lineage and functions to champion resilience and question Eurocentric notions of beauty. While her subjects serve as conduits for the internal struggles of a disempowered society, they encourage sympathy, empathy, and empowerment.
In most of Rosales’ work, her subjects are gifted with an ori (one’s inherent destiny). Since Eve represents all women in the African diaspora, her portrait magnifies the chronological ori affixed to her life. In a cyclical pattern, one sees her birth, her travels through the Atlantic slave trade, being sold, her death, and the generational impact of her life on Earth. Enclosing her ori are bursts of flowering figs, denoting the human temptation to seize power.
Courtesy of the artist (@honeiee) https://www.amfar.org/harmonia-rosales/
II. Signposting
“Hypermodernism: “Nihilism in its aesthetic form (skeuomorphism) masquerading as postmodernism.” — Urban Dictionary” Brent Cooper 2020
We will begin with a short definition of terms, beginning with Hypermodernism and Individualism. We will then define Metamodernism and suggest the cultural logic of metamodernism as Diunital and the structure of feeling as Emotional Intelligence (both emotional and intelligent and self-aware).
As Metamodernism has been repeatedly been proposed and developed as a solution to contemporary problems in the academic dialogue for over five decades this paper will aim to include Brent Coopers Missing Metamodernism. In doing so we will outline the observations of Diunital, both-and, cognition from Dixon and Wright, and situate them as a transition between Analytic Intelligence and Jill Nephew’s view of Natural Intelligence by way of Dumitrescu’s identification of Emotional Intelligence as Metamodern.
We will then observe the birth and maturation of Individualism from the modern construction to the failed postmodern deconstruction. Framing the changes with a continuity of dialogue between postmodern, metamodern and hypermodern observers. We reveal hypermodernity to be an intensification of the oscillation between modernism and postmodernism. In doing so we centre the tensions in the similarities and differences between metamodernity and hypermodernity.
Continuing on we explore hypermodernity starting with the failure of postmodernism to prevent hyper-individuality. This will centre that our relationship with technology, via modern and postmodern cultural logics, is largely responsible through the impacts of Hypermodern Individualism such as such as neo-narcissism, hyper-commodification, hyper-individualism, and technological reliance.
We then employ the metamodern principles of diunital, both-and, thinking and Emotional Intelligence to resolve the concerns of Hypermodern Individualism and the technological imperative. To do so we will deconstruct the idea of individualism in a more thorough way than Postmodernism, and in line with academic author, Jason Ānanda Josephson Storm’s (2019), (syn)thesis of negating the negated. While doing so we re-situate technology with the potential of naturalness, reconstructing a new etymology of Individualism that better responds to this metamodern view. In short the individual is only indivisible from their environment and invironment (inner environment). This means the individuals environment is completely responsible for the choices the individual within it are given. At the same time the individual is completely responsible for the choices they make in any given environment.
We then situate the Metamodern Individual in an era of both Hypermodernity and Metamodernity. Borrowing from author Stanley Horners description of the Metamodern individual and relating it to the cultural logic of Dixon and the Natural Intelligence of Nephew we will show that we are indeed as a result of this paper aware of “being aware of being aware” (Horner 2003) of being trapped in the finite game of Hypermodernity
We will then end with the concept of a metamodern ladder. With each (rung/)mode of this axis, ranging from degrees of finite, fragmented hypermodern oscillation to degrees of infinite, integral metamodern diunitality, is at risk of corruption and exploitation via commodification. As such in line with Storm(2021) we need to be able to define the metamodern mode explicitly as exemplified here.
III. Definitions: Both Basic and Loose
Any definitions given in this text are to be viewed from a metamodern perspective in line with Jason Storm. They are not aiming to be all-encompassing. They are modern in the sense that they give us analytical grounding. They are post modern in this grounding comes from a web of fluid connections and not concrete substance.
One example is the etymological fallacy, which is a result of fragilely fixed categorisations. In this text I will suggest that etymologies change, in perspective at least. The definitions and histories offered are framing the narrative presented by the author. The situating of this perspective into your personal narrative is at your discretion.
i) Hypermodernism and Individualism Defined
Individualism
The etymology of the word “individual” comes from the Latin word “individuus,” which means “indivisible” or “unique.” This reflects the idea that an individual is a distinct, separate entity that cannot be divided or reduced to a part of a larger whole. The term “individualism” is derived from this idea, and refers to a philosophy or political ideology that emphasizes the moral worth and autonomy of the individual.
Individualism is a philosophical and political ideology that emphasizes the moral worth and autonomy of the individual. Individualists believe that individuals are the basic unit of society and that they should be free to pursue their own interests and goals without interference from the state or other individuals.
Individualism is often associated with the belief in the inherent rights and dignity of the individual, and the idea that individuals should be free to make their own choices and decisions without coercion or external control. This philosophy is in contrast to collectivism, which emphasizes the importance of the collective or group over the individual.
It is the authors opinion that the popular usage of the term in contemporary times is not from latin but from English. As in indivi- and dual, or an indivisible duality. While this hides the hint of a metamodern diunitality, unit of two, the hypermodern tendency is to waver ‘over’ the diunital solution in favour of a binary that bypasses tensions.
Hypermodernism:
The etymology of the term “hypermodern” is derived from the Greek prefix “hyper-” meaning “over” or “above,” and the Latin word “modernus” meaning “modern.” The term “hypermodern” therefore literally means “over or above modern,” and is used to describe a state or condition that is seen as an intensification or extension of the processes and phenomena associated with modernity.
Hypermodernity is a term used to describe a cultural, social, and economic state or condition characterized by an intensified pace of change and innovation, the blurring of traditional boundaries and distinctions, and the growing interconnectedness and interdependence of different spheres of human activity. This term is often used in contrast to modernity, which refers to the changes and developments that occurred during the 18th and 19th centuries, and which are associated with the rise of industrialization, urbanization, and the emergence of a global market economy.
Hypermodernism is seen as a continuation or intensification of the processes of modernity, but with a greater emphasis on speed, flexibility, and adaptability. It is often associated with the rise of new technologies, such as the internet and mobile devices, which have transformed the way people communicate, work, and interact with one another.
ii) Metamodernism: The state of the Art
Metamodernism is a cultural, artistic, and philosophical movement that presented itself in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. It seeks to integrate and balance the best aspects of modernism and postmodernism, and emphasizes the importance of perspective, context, and going beyond by adding new ways of thinking and understanding to traditional analytical knowledge. Key elements of metamodernism include its rejection of binary oppositions and polarizations, its emphasis on synthesis and integration, and its focus on diunital, both-and, thinking and emotional intelligence.
In contrast to modernism, which is characterized by a focus on progress, reason, and individualism, and postmodernism, which is characterized by skepticism, relativism, and fragmentation, metamodernism seeks to find a middle ground and to incorporate the best aspects of both modernism, postmodernism and beyond. It rejects the polarizations and dichotomies of these earlier movements, and instead seeks to create a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of the world
The etymology of the term “metamodern” is derived from the Greek prefix “meta-” meaning “beyond” or “transcending,” and the Latin word “modernus” meaning “modern.” The term “metamodern” therefore literally means “beyond or transcending modern,” and is used to describe a philosophical and cultural movement that seeks to integrate and balance the best aspects of modernism, postmodernism, and everything else. There has been a mistaken association between meta- as metaxy, or oscillation, and what is derived above. As we’ll see later this is both a product of binary thinking and conflates metamodernism with hypermodernism
The term ‘metamodernism’ appeared first in academia in 1975 and was “used by critics of philosophy, politics, and social theory (Bunnell 2015). In 1975, Masud Zavarzadeh coined this term in literary theory (Zavarzadeh 1975), announcing its roots in the field of aesthetics, and used it to convey “the transcendence of the typically modernist narrational plane”” (Pipere and Martinsone 2022) Metamodernism then was first presented as a way to regain control of our own personal narratives, that had been bound by the limiting and imbalanced grand narratives of modernism that masqueraded as universal.
Metamodernism as such can be seen as a form of archeological “Therapy” (Storm 2019), a way to bring new perspective to the past and so provide new potentials for the future. Metamodernists often reject the extreme binary oppositions and polarizations of modernism and postmodernism, and instead seek to synthesize these different perspectives in order to create a new and more nuanced understanding of the world. Dumitrescu states “homo metamodernus is a new homo universalis who attempts not merely to list side by side, but rather to reconcile the opposites” (Dumitrescu 2006).
In the seeding of sustainable synthesis our traditional analytical intelligence, which Nephew (2022) holds as mainly “counter factual” (two facts clashing) is borne in large part from habituated use of dichotomous logic (as Kierkegaard’s, Either/Or points us to). The dissection of dichotomy is reaching the limits of diminishing returns and it’s no longer able to respond to (and in many ways unable to take responsibility for) the complexity of the contemporary hypermodern reality. We need new ways of thinking. As a result “The philosophy of metamodernism is the world of ideas and assumptions in opposition to many ideas of previous paradigms” (Pipere and Martinsone 2022)
Fortunately one key element of metamodernism is the concept of diunital thinking.
Diunital, both-and, thinking is a key aspect of metamodernism noted in 1972 by VJ Dixon in a paper called “The Di-unital Approach to Black Economics”. The etymology of the term “diunital” is derived from the Greek prefix “di-” meaning “two,” and the Latin word “unitalis” meaning “unit.” The term “diunital” therefore literally means “unit of two,” and is used to describe a unit or group of two or more things that are considered together as a whole, rather than as separate and distinct entities.
Dixon observered it in the marginalised community of Black Americans. Both Dixon, and later Wright (1992) observed that the double consciousness percieved by deBois was an instance of this cultural logic. Wright observes a similar logic existent in pre-colonial Africa, suggesting its natural universality until the advent of modernity. The term diunital emphasizes the interconnectedness and interdependence of different elements or aspects, rather than the separation and opposition of these elements.
It is often used in relation to the term “dichotomous,” which suggests a division or separation into two distinct categories, and which is often associated with a “either-or” approach to thinking and decision-making. In contrast, “diunital” encourages a more inclusive and integral approach, and emphasizes the value of “both-and” thinking. As in both diunital and dichotomous logic, and not either dichomtous or diunital cognition.
This approach recognizes that many of the problems and challenges we face are complex and multifaceted, and that they cannot be adequately addressed by simple, either-or, solutions. Instead, diunital, both-and thinking encourages us to consider multiple perspectives and approaches, and to seek out solutions that are inclusive and integrative. Early on an unidentified cultural logics was associated with metamodernism. I would like to propose this cultural logic is the systematic inclusion of Diunital Logic with Dichotomous Logic. By incorporating diunital thinking into its philosophy, metamodernism seeks to create a more comprehensive and integrative understanding of the world.
Dr. Nephew (2022) does some thorough work, using a similar approach to Dixon and Wright, and forms a split between Analytic and Natural Intelligence. Dichotomous logic is a part of the analytic intelligence and diunital cognition is the bridge to natural intelligence. Natural Intelligence being made up of kinds of intelligence including artistic intelligence and the metamodern emotional intelligence (Dumitrescu 2006). I would like to suggest that the structure of feeling associated with metamodernism is Emotional Intelligence. The kind of metamodern structures of knowing and feeling that comes as a result of moving beyond “the limitation of Rationality and not its dissolution (Habermas, 1992; Lyotard, 1991)” (Koutselini 1997)
Following either or both these approaches into metamodernity challenges the traditional framing of technology as “other” and more than human. By recognizing the interconnectedness of the individual, nature, and technology, metamodernism offers a more nuanced and diunital approach to Individualism. One that seeks to balance the benefits of technology and Hypermodernity with the importance of human connection and community.
In the following sections , we explore how metamodern principles, including diunital, both-and, thinking can be applied to the problems of Hypermodernism, Individualism and our use of technology. We will consider the potential benefits of this approach, as well as some of the challenges and limitations that it may face. By examining the intersection of metamodernism, Individualism, and technology, we will seek to provide a new and more nuanced understanding of these complex and interconnected issues. Next, however, we will trace the rise and rise of individualism.
“To put it briefly,
The first principle in the ontological discourse features paradoxical, though holistic, simultaneity caused by oscillation.
The epistemological discourse exhibits the second principle of the paradoxical understanding of truth and grand narratives and the third principle, metaxis-based thinking and dia/polylogue.
The fourth principle of axiological rhetoric speaks of the negotiation between rhizomatic and hierarchical social relations and values.
The fifth methodologically oriented principle showcases pluralism as a possibility of telling one story in several ways.
The sixth transversal principle of metamodernism manifests the coexistence of previous stages of metamodernism as ‘parallel universes’ and acknowledges the interlinkage of components from previous stages as the determining force of metamodernism.”
(Pipere and Martinsone, 2022, Metamodernism and Social Sciences: Scoping the
Future)
IV. The History of Individualism
i)Modernism Individualism
Modernism is a cultural, artistic, and philosophical movement that emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and which is often characterized by a focus on the rejection of traditional forms and conventions, and a belief in the inherent value and dignity of the individual. Modernists sought to break with the past and to create new forms of expression that were more attuned to the complexities and contradictions of the modern world. One of the key features of modernism is its newfound emphasis on the autonomous, independent, and indivisible individual.
Postmodernism on the other hand is a cultural, artistic, and philosophical movement that emerged in the mid-20th century as a response to the perceived limitations and excesses of modernism. According to Borgmann “Postmodern is principally known as an intellectual and architectural movement. In economics there is also a sense of closure and transition … — post-industrial, post-capitalist” (Borgmann 1992). On the other hand author and academic Wright (1997) sees postmodernism as “anti-modernism”, the tools of modernity turned against itself. A useful insight applied at times in Storms: Metamodernism: The Future of Theory.
For Borgmann the foundations of Modernism was much earlier stating in that “The columbian discovery of the new world ruptured the finite and survivable geography of the Middle Ages. The Copernican solar system, decanted the earth from its privileged position in the universe. And the Lutheran reformation shook the foundation of divinely established authority” In answer to this threefold deconstruction He cites three texts as the key to the modern restoration. “Bacon’s New Atlantis,(1627), Descartes’s Discourse on Method (1937), and Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government (1960) “. He observed they would “urge a new fundamental agreement, one that razes the tottering and constricting medieval structures and beings anew of a solid fundament”
Bacon focussed us on suffering: “Human Misery was for him,” Writes Borgmann “as it remained for us, a needless and insufferable scandal that was to be overcome through the domination of nature”. For Descartes: “The modern triumph of procedure over substance”, the procedure of the analytic method, made for “unshakable foundations” demanding a “fearless clearing away of all existing institutions”. Asserting analytical intelligence to be a “Constructive method of irresistible cogency” For Locke on the other hand the “social implications of the modern project” had “recast political power by deriving it from its ‘’original,’ i.e., it’s fundamental, condition. This he found in Nature, governed by reason.”
“These notions lead us to expect an encompassing and stately common order. However, “The threat is a celebration of the individual, the unencumbered and autonomous human being. Nature and reason are little more than indistinct backdrops for the individual.” “The latter,” the individual “ is the real fundament of a new social order”.” (Borgmann 1992). More recently Lipovetsky situates contemporary individualism within the long history of modernity. He notes that individualism is not a completely new phenomenon, and can be traced back to Greek antiquity and the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. (Lipovetsky 2018)
According to Lipovetsky, this early form of individualism was democratic in nature. It was also tied to the idea of self-realization, with individuals being encouraged to develop their own unique talents and abilities. Lipovetsky agrees with Borgmann, in that it was “in the 18th century that the “individualist ideology” was fully constituted”. It brought together a “system of idea-values, which, for the first time, posed the free, self-sufficient individual … equal to others, as the supreme value of society.” (Lipovetsky 2018)
As such from this point modernists understood the individual to be the basic unit of society, and that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests and goals without interference from the state or other individuals. This being the case, the individual was also freed from the previous all-encompassing “stately common order”. This emphasis on the individual was in contrast to the more collectivist and communitarian ideologies that had prevailed in earlier periods, and it reflected the growing freedoms and autonomy that were associated with the rise of modernity.
Lipovetsky also notes that the promise of individualism was limited by four factors: Lingering religious morality in the face of assertive secularism; “Secular religions” (Aron 1952) posing as “messianic ideologies” (Lipovetsky 2018) demanding individuals live for collective ideas, such as nationalism, communism, revolution and more recently activism; Education which oscillated from too authoritative and too lax, lead to repressive complexes on the one hand and “child-kings” Lipovetsky (2018) on the other; and finally social inequality and the bondages of racism, sexism and agism that ran counter to individualisms claims to equality.
The emergence of modernism was closely also tied to the broader changes and developments of the modern period, including the rise of industrialization, urbanization, and the growth of a global market economy. These changes created new opportunities and challenges for individuals, and they also contributed to the fragmentation and alienation that were often associated with the social and political changes that these developments often brought about. Modernists sought to respond to these changes and challenges through their art and literature, and to create new forms of expression that were more attuned to the complexities and contradictions of the modern world.
It is at this point that post/anti-modernism began to be expressed by individuals freed from the old grounding traditions and left adrift in a new world. The emphasis on the individual in modernism was also reflected in the art, literature, and philosophy of the period. Modernists often focused on the subjective individual, and on the ways in which individuals could use art and culture to express themselves and to explore their own inner worlds. Modernist writers, artists, and thinkers rejected the traditional forms and conventions that had governed artistic expression in the past, and instead sought to create new and innovative works that explored the individual’s experiences, emotions, and thoughts. This emphasis on the individual can be seen in the works of modernist writers such as James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, and T.S. Eliot, and in the paintings of artists such as Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse.
Zavarzadeh first coined use of the word metamodern in 75. He wrote a paper relating to the literary arts. As such we ought to see ourselves as both the authors and the protagonists of our own stories to give his work practical relevance in day to day life. Doing so also gives a glimpse into why in contemporary times we have accepted a collaborative modification (co-modification if you will) of our personal narratives. Zavarzadeh notices that the “Modern discoveries in physics, depth psychology, other behavioural sciences and life sciences” evidence that the non-fictional world is “as wild, hidden, dark, unpredictable and strange as fiction.”
The basis of a nature governed by reason began eroding, in a similar way to Nietzsche and Kant, Zavarzadeh noticed that the condition of “certainty was replaced by a condition of probability — randomness and uncertainty” that has lead to a nihilistic relationship to Fact and Truth, both now doubted for possessing the property of a “stable eternity”. This academic view of ”post-absurd world” Zavarzadeh has come to reflect itself in our collective reality. A world in which Donald Trump was POTUS after Barack Obama, Kanye West is a ‘black White supremacist’ presidential candidate for 2024, and Elon Musk can afford to feed the world and instead chooses to buy Twitter, in the hope for one App to rule them all in the aim of dangerous and misguided longtermism (Kaspersen 2022).
Its evident as Zavarzadeh observes “daily experience eludes simple meaningful/meaningless reality testing”. The old dichotomies no longer apply. This is one of the main messages of the new DC Black Adam film. A film continuing the hyperrealism of our modern day gods, a reality set forth by Alan Moore. We are told the world isn’t black or white, good or bad, and neither is the liberator we need.
“A metamodern narrative” of the human condition is one that has “zero degree of interpretation” according to Zarvadeh. It is what it is-ing through the apocalypse, as the meme goes. Necessitated by “The mistrust of the epistemological authority” of an author whose way of seeing the world demanded only the kind of analytical intelligence dichotomous logistics (Either/Or Kierkegaard) affords us.
“What used to be almost universally recognizable as fictional and associated with the conjured illusion of reality in the fictive novel has become everyday lived reality on the international, national and individual levels.” For the individual then as author of their own life “ A crisis in the perception of reality has taken place” leading to a strange fate. “The alienation, deracination and victimization once symbolically incorporated into the concentrated experience of modernist fiction are now
universal conditions.”.
Finally, the role of commodification and consumerism cannot be underestimated for the impact it played upon individualism after the second world war. Through “permanently appealing to desires” all ideals of collectivism have been “dethroned by those of privacy, pleasure, and individual happiness “ (Lipovetsky 2019) In fact commodification and consumerism are products of this Invidualitisic Ideology. The idea of the freedom of the individual in self-determinacy leads to the idea of the free market, where everything can be bought and sold, including consumerism and commodification itself.
ii) Postmodernism Individualism
According to Borgmann (1992)“Postmodern is principally known as an intellectual and architectural movement. In economics there is also a sense of closure and transition … — post-industrial, post-capitalist” He noticed that on all three fronts they were “united in rejecting the aggressive realism that comes from Bacon, the methodological universalism that has descended from Descartes, and the liberal individualism that is Locke’s bequest” (Borgmann 1992) So while modernism emphasized the indivisibility, autonomy and independence of the individual, postmodernism offered challenges and critique to explore the ways in which individuals are shaped and influenced by the social, cultural, and political forces that surround them.
In postmodernism, the idea of the modern, autonomous, independent, and indivisible individual is seen as problematic and limited. Postmodernists argue that individuals are not truly autonomous or independent, but are instead products of the social, cultural, and political contexts in which they live. From this perspective, the idea of the modern individual as a self-contained and self-sufficient entity is seen as a myth or a illusion, and postmodernists sought to expose and challenge this myth.
The critique of the modern individual in postmodernism can be seen in the art, literature, and philosophy of the period. Postmodernist writers, artists, and thinkers often reject the traditional forms and conventions of modernism, and instead create works that are fragmented, ironic, and self-referential. This reflects the idea that the individual is not a fixed and stable entity, but is instead a complex and constantly shifting product of the social and cultural forces that surround them.
This brought to the fore in American style by Borgmann “The ambiguity of individualism is laid bare in Louise Erdich’s Love Medicine, a portrait of a broken Native American community in North Dakota. All of its members, whether gloomy of gallant, resigned or resourceful, bear the scars inflicted by rugged individuals. At the same time they are kept at the outer margins of commodious individualism. But as Robert Bellah and his coworkers have urged, individualism has been, if less brutal, no less debilitating in the seeming privileged and protected white middle class of this country.” (Borgmann 1992)
V. Hypermodern Individualism
i) Postmodern limitations
The main failure of the postmodern critique was it did not avoid sleepwalking into hypermodernity despite Borgmann’s concern. Perhaps by then it was too late, Upon reading Borgmann’s early paper on The Postmodern Economy, in which he mapped on coming fork in the road Goldman wrote these words to surmise and introduce Borgmann idea:
“Postmodern society may become “hypermodern,” a society in which the already pernicious influence of modern technology will become still more pervasive and dominating. Or it may be “passing through” domination by modern technology to a “metamodern’’ state, a state in which technological action will be “context sensitive and historically reverent,” carefully and respectfully (rather than aggressively) realistic, attentive to different “voices of reality.” (Goldman in the Cutcliffe, 1996, introduction of Bormann)
Elsewhere postmodernism has been criticized for its perceived limitations and excesses, particularly in relation to its impact on Individualism. Some critics argue that postmodernism goes too far in its critique of the modern individual, and that it undermines the value and dignity of the individual by reducing them to a product of social, cultural, and political forces. From this perspective, postmodernism can be seen as a form of nihilism or skepticism that denies the existence of objective truth or meaning, and which leaves individuals adrift and isolated in a chaotic and meaningless world.
Additionally, some critics argue that postmodernism’s emphasis on the social and cultural construction of the individual can lead to a lack of accountability and responsibility. If individuals are seen as products of their social and cultural contexts, then they may be less likely to take responsibility for their actions and choices. This can lead to a culture of victimhood, in which individuals blame external factors for their problems and challenges, rather than taking responsibility for their own lives and actions.
Overall, the limitations of postmodernism in relation to Individualism are complex and contentious, and there is no consensus among critics on this issue. While some people argue that postmodernism undermines the value and dignity of the individual, others argue that it offers a more nuanced and realistic understanding of the individual, and that it can help individuals to navigate and adapt to the rapid changes and uncertainties of the global economy and society.
Nevertheless the hypermodern “bifurcation” predicted by Borgmann takes shape. We respond to Baudrillardan Hyperreality of the world, Orwellian fiction made real, with the Hypernormalisation reactions depicted by Adam Curtis, all the while recognising all is not as it seems. Borgmann noted half a century ago that the postmodern project fails because “It is distinctive of the modern temperament that it has remained unaware and uncritical of the totality of the modern project and of its underlying truth.”
To find this underlying truth he points us back to the roots of modernity as he frames it “Modernism is the conjunction of Bacon’s, Descartes’s and Locke’s programs, the fusion of the dominance of nature, the primacy of method, and the sovereignty of the individual.” As such “We can begin, however, to bring the hidden truth of the entire scheme and story to the fore by giving it a title. The title is technology.” (Borgmann 1992)
Two Years before Borgmann’s relatively optimistic bifurcation possibility the Kroker’s noticed that hypermodernity was already here. I’ll quote from Brent Cooper who notes that Kroker et al.(1990) “labelled America’s postmodern culture as going hypermodern, describing our sense of “vibrating between poles of despair and delight” with a “high speed oscillation between meaning and meaninglessness, control and chaos” (p. 443). Such language is coincidently exactly the “oscillation” framing of metamodernism used by Luke Turner, and Vermeulen and van den Akker, but applied in a different way. Kroker’s piece thus serves as a jumping off point for the present article, and provides confirmation for Borgmann’s bifurcation.” Cooper (2020)
ii) Technological Imperatives
For Borgmann the role of modernity had another protagonist beside the individual he saw that “Technology in its modern guise and disguise began as the Baconian promise of liberating humanity from the hardness of life and endowing it with the riches of the earth, and it commenced with the Cartesian commitment to achieve liberty and prosperity in a methodical, scientific way.” (Borgmann 1992) Spirituality had failed in medieval life to offer us salvation from suffering. And so we reignited our search for liberation using the same tools that had lead us to heliocentrism and the new world. Extrospection, Science and Technology.
Zavarzadeh (1975) identified this with the narrative that “Each individual in our time is more a knight errant engaged in a bewildering quest of the self in an atomized society than a ‘ typical ‘ person routinely engaged in a battle with a cohesive society characterized by solidly established and clearly recognisable manners and values”
As such throughout the modern and postmodern periods, technology has played a key role in increasing Individualism and autonomy. In modernism, the rise of industrialization and the growth of the global market economy created new opportunities for individuals to pursue their own interests and goals, and to create new forms of identity and community. The development of new technologies, such as the printing press and the telegraph, enabled individuals to communicate (McLuhan 1962) and connect with others in ways that were not possible in the past, and to access new forms of knowledge and information.
In postmodernism, the growth of the internet and the development of new forms of communication and media further expanded the capabilities and reach of individuals. The internet has given individuals unprecedented access to information and communication, and has enabled them to connect with others around the world in real-time. This has created new opportunities for individuals to create and share content, to participate in online communities, and to express their opinions and beliefs in ways that were not possible in the past.
Hypermodernity owes much of its increased intensity to technology. In Hypermodernity, technology has continued to play a key role in increasing speeds, so decreasing time and distance and increasing freedoms and autonomy. The rise of mobile technologies, such as smartphones and tablets, has given individuals access to the internet and to other forms of communication and information at all times and in all places. This has enabled individuals to be more connected and more responsive to the world around them, and has given them greater control over their own lives and experiences.
Overall, technology has played a crucial role in increasing Individualism and autonomy throughout the modern, postmodern, and Hypermodern periods. Through its ability to connect individuals with each other and with new forms of knowledge and information, technology has given individuals new opportunities to pursue their own interests and goals, and to create new forms of identity and community. As technology continues to evolve and develop, it is likely that its impact on Individualism and autonomy will continue to grow and change in new and unpredictable ways.
iii) The Paradox of Hypermodern Individualism
“Individualism is not another name for selfishness: it is above all the principle recognizing the principle of free self-determination” Lipovetsky (2018)
In an interview philosopher and sociologist Gilles Lipovetsky discusses the concept of hypermodern individualism and its relation to earlier forms of individualism (Lipovetsky 2018). According to Lipovetsky, contemporary individualism can be traced back to the emergence of the “individualist ideology” in the 18th century, which placed the free, self-sufficient individual at the center of society. However, he argues that this form of individualism has evolved into a more “narcissistic” and “hypermodern” form, resulting in a paradox.
Lipovetsky, argues that the term “postmodern” is no longer applicable to contemporary individualism and should be replaced with “hypermodern” to better reflect the current state of affairs. According to Lipovetsky, the ideology of individualism that emerged in the 18th century was a “democratic” form of individualism, in which the free and self-sufficient individual was recognized as the supreme value of society and the foundation of the collective order. This ideology was institutionalized through the recognition of human rights and the development of democratic systems of governance.
After all while modern individualism was founded on the principles of autonomy and equality, and the reality of contemporary society often falls short of these ideals. The persistence of traditional and religious customs, the unequal treatment of men and women, and the rise of consumerism and the “cult of the body” all undermine the principle of individual autonomy and prevent the realization of true equality. Furthermore, the influence of the media and digital technologies has led to the development of a highly individualistic culture in which the pursuit of personal satisfaction and well-being often takes precedence over the collective good.
In this new form of individualism, the emphasis is not on self-realization, but on self-presentation and self-promotion. Lipovetsky suggests that the rise of social media and other communication technologies has facilitated this shift, as individuals are now able to constantly present and curate their own image to others. This has resulted in a culture of narcissism, where individuals are obsessed with their own image and popularity.
Lipovetsky notes that the realization of the principles of modern individualism has been hampered by a variety of factors. These include the persistence of traditional and religious customs, the unequal treatment of genders, races, classes ages, the rise of consumerism and the “cult of the body,” and the influence of the media and digital technologies. These phenomena have all contributed to the development of a new form of individualism, which Lipovetsky calls “hypermodern,” that is characterized by a focus on the individual’s personal satisfaction and well-being and leads to a Neo-narciscism
Lipovetsky also argues that this neo-narcissism is accompanied by a sense of isolation and loneliness. Despite the constant communication facilitated by technology, individuals are more isolated than ever before. This is because the emphasis on self-presentation and self-promotion often leads to shallow, superficial interactions, rather than genuine connections.
The paradox of hypermodern individualism, then, refers to the contradiction between the principles of modern individualism, which prioritize the autonomy and equality of the individual, and the reality of contemporary society, where these principles are often thwarted by various social and cultural phenomena. This paradox is a result of the complex and evolving nature of individualism in modernity, which has its roots in the democratic ideals of the 18th century but has been shaped and influenced by a variety of factors over time as outlined in part above.
In the context of hypermodern individualism, the rise of neo-narcissism is a natural consequence of the prioritization of the individual and the self. In this context, the ego has become the central repository that controls behaviour, judgments, and aspirations, and nothing is more important than the self and its development. This leads to a focus on the fulfilment of individual desires, and the principle of seduction becomes the guiding principle of existence.
Another paradox of hypermodern individualism is the idea that, despite the rise of individualism as a dominant social and cultural phenomenon in recent years, individuals are becoming more and more dependent on others and on larger social structures. In other words, the increased emphasis on the individual and individual rights has not led to a society of individuals who are truly independent and self-sufficient, but rather to a society in which individuals are more interconnected and interdependent than ever before.
This paradox is the result of a number of factors that have emerged in recent years. One key factor is the rise of consumer culture, which has led to a focus on individual pleasure and satisfaction, as well as a constant need for social validation and recognition. As a result, individuals are becoming increasingly dependent on the approval of others and on the constant acquisition of material goods and experiences in order to feel fulfilled and satisfied. This phenomena of contemporary individuals as “approval seeking junkies” (from Guy Ritchie’s 2005 film Revolver) is highlighted by Robert Greene. Greene notes that we all are narcissists, and the defining factor is if we can process our emotions into the healthier forms, rather than the dominant toxic forms.
Another factor contributing to the paradox of hypermodern individualism is the rise of technology and the increasing interconnectedness of individuals through social media and other online platforms. While these platforms have given individuals greater control over their own lives and have allowed them to connect with others in ways that were previously impossible, they have also created a dependence on these platforms for social interaction and validation. This also increases our reliance on others for their sense of self-worth and identity. The unhealthy form of Narcissism mentioned by Greene (2018)
The paradox of hypermodern individualism has important implications for our understanding of contemporary society and for the way we think about individualism and its role in shaping our lives. While the rise of individualism has brought many positive changes and has allowed individuals to assert their own autonomy and freedom, it has also created a society in which individuals are more dependent on each other and on larger social structures than ever before. As a result, we must be careful not to idealize individualism and to recognize its limitations and potential drawbacks.
To do so occults the existing tensions between the ideals of individual freedom and autonomy, and the reality of social and cultural forces that limit and shape the individual. This paradox is evident in contemporary society, where the individual is often portrayed as the supreme value, but is still subject to other individuals higher in fixed dominance hierarchies, traditional norms and values, as well as the influence of institutions and social structures. In fact Lipovetsky’s concept of hypermodern individualism is based on this idea that the (now hyper)modern mode can create a sense of conflict or dissonance for the individual, who may feel torn between their own desires and the expectations of those around them.
The hypermodern individual may seek community in institutions like the family, education system, and the media. These institutions can shape the individual’s beliefs, values, and behaviours, limiting their ability to truly be autonomous and self-sufficient. In short the more interconnected the more vulnerable we are. The more vulnerable we are and the more we seek approval of others the more we tend into what what Lipovetsky calls neo-narcissism .
This new mode of psychic functioning is exemplified in the proliferation of body cults and practices that exalt beauty, well-being, and self-expression. Whereas postmodern individualism focused on self-realisation, commodified by the self-help industry (Parker 2008) hypermodern individualism focuses on self-presentation such as Marie Kondo’s Spark Joy, which could be seen as a discourse on how to present domestic spaces to visitors. These practices can be seen as four major models of neo-narcissism: the cult of the body, the cult of youth, the cult of performance, and the cult of the self (Lipovetsky 2018)
The cult of the body involves the idealization of the physical body and the pursuit of perfection through exercise, diet, and cosmetic procedures. The cult of youth focuses on the preservation of youth and the rejection of ageing, and can lead to a fear of growing old and losing one’s attractiveness. The cult of performance emphasizes the importance of success and achievement, and can lead to a preoccupation with productivity and efficiency. Finally, the cult of the self involves the idealization of the self and the pursuit of individual happiness and fulfilment.
These narcissistic practices reflect a society in which the individual is the ultimate pole of reference, and in which the pursuit of self-realization and subjective satisfaction are prioritized above all else. This can lead to a focus on the self and one’s own pleasure, rather than on social and political participation or the well-being of others. This “Hypermodern narcissism means anything but a euphoric individuality reconciled with itself” (Lipovetsky 2018 ) and the paradoxical tensions between the individuals freedom and interdependence remains.
iv) The Challenges of Hypermodernity on Individualism
The relationship between technology, Individualism, and Hypermodernity is complex and dynamic. On the one hand, technology has enabled individuals to become more autonomous and independent, and has given them new opportunities to pursue their own interests and goals. At the same time, however, technology has also contributed to the growth of Individualism and Hypermodernity, and has created new challenges and drawbacks for individuals. Four main ways this occurs are outlined below.
Loss of meaning and purpose:
In Hypermodernity, the rapid pace of change and the constant flux of information and communication can make it difficult for individuals to find meaning and purpose in their lives. This can result in feelings of disillusionment and disenchantment, and can contribute to a lack of motivation and engagement in personal and social activities. It can also lead to a sense of confusion, and uncertainty about the future, and can make it difficult for individuals to plan and make decisions due to disorientation in the present.
Hyper-individualism:
In Hypermodernity, the emphasis on individual rights and personal freedom has led to a culture of hyper-individualism, where individuals are encouraged to prioritize their own interests and goals above those of others. This can lead to a lack of social cohesion and community, and can result in individuals feeling isolated and disconnected from others. It can also contribute to a lack of empathy and compassion, and can lead to a culture of self-centredness and entitlement.
Technological reliance:
In Hypermodernity, the growth of technology has given individuals unprecedented access to information and communication, and has enabled them to connect with others in real-time. However, this reliance on technology can also have negative effects, such as the erosion of face-to-face communication and social skills, and the creation of digital divides and inequalities. It can also lead to a lack of privacy and personal autonomy, as individuals are increasingly monitored and tracked by technology.
Hyper-commodification:
In Hypermodernity, the growth of the global market economy and the rise of consumer culture has led to an increased focus on material possessions and consumer goods. This has resulted in a culture of hyper-commodification, where individuals are encouraged to value themselves and others based on their material possessions and consumer choices. This can lead to a lack of depth and meaning in interpersonal relationships, and can contribute to feelings of dissatisfaction and emptiness.
Additionally, the growth of the global economy and the increasing interconnectedness of individuals and societies can lead to new forms of inequality and exploitation, as some individuals and communities are left behind in the pursuit of progress and innovation. Overall, the potential drawbacks and challenges of Individualism and Hypermodernity in relation to technology are numerous and varied, and will continue to evolve and change as technology continues to develop and grow. It is important for individuals and societies to be aware of these challenges and to work to mitigate their negative effects, in order to create a more inclusive and sustainable future.
The current state of the current metamodernt art has cycled through a politics of failure to a rejection of such, to a suggestion as oscillation and meaty being the mainstay of metamodernism. And so the structure of feeling that has been named metamodern has oscillated through a modern sincerity, to a postmodern irony, with ever intensifying hypermodern speeds. As such it has been suggested once by both Ludford and Cooper is that this inevitably leads us to hypermodernity, with alienation, indeterminacy, tourism and playful complicity.
If “The alienation, deracination and victimization once symbolically incorporated into the concentrated experience of modernist fiction are now universal conditions.” for Zavarzadeh in 1975, they are now at existential levels as existential conditions. The greater danger therefore posed by technology through hypermodernity is for any attempt to escape hypermodernity to be subjected to commodification and so consumed by the Hypermodernity itself.
VI. Metamodernism and Individualism
i) Metamodernism Individualism: Diunitality and Emotional Inteligence
“The new curriculum paradigm should be grounded on meta-modernity, i.e. the modernisation of modernity. A dialectic between person and world defines the meta-modern educational frame where each child acquires his/her personhood (Van Manen, 1986), creates knowledge, and realises their existence as a being-in-the-world”
(Koutselini, M. (1997). Contemporary trends and perspectives of the curricula.)
The traditional idea of Individualism, where the individual is seen as indivisible and independent, is based on the assumption that the individual is a self-contained and autonomous entity. This idea is often tied to the notion of individual rights and personal freedom, as well as the belief in the inherent worth and dignity of the individual. Individualism then is not selfishness, it is self-determination (Lipovetsky 2018). Hypermodernity has lead to neo-narcissism and ‘longtermism’ (Kaspersen et al 2022) borne from the commodifications of sincerely ironic altruistic ‘playful complicity’ (Ludford 2021), and disguised as ‘effective’, along the very lines in which Borgmann asserts the role of technology has been disguised.
In looking towards reframing a metamodern mode of individualism we want to keep these notions of rights, freedoms, and self-determination while increasing the worth and dignity of the individual. However, this view of the individual as indivisible and independent is ultimately flawed. In reality, the individual is not a self-contained entity, but rather is shaped by a range of factors, including their experiences, their relationships, and their social and cultural context. Modernity does not have solid foundations, and Postmodernity does not go far enough (Storm 2021). Let us go beyond by fully deconstruct the individual in order to reconstruct individualism beyond the limitations of hypermodernity.
One way to fully deconstruct this idea of the indivisible individual is to consider the division between the conscious and the subconscious. While the conscious mind is often seen as the seat of the individual’s thoughts, feelings, and decisions, recent studies show decision making occurs subconsciously before we become conscious of (Soon et al.) The subconscious is a crucial part of the individual’s experience, identity and autonomy. The subconscious is influenced by a range of factors, including past experiences, social conditioning, and unconscious biases, and it plays a significant role in shaping the individual’s beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes. What’s more the subconscious is more often ungraspable to the untrained individual. That is to say the individual has an inner environment, the invironment, that consists of a mental and emotional world, both known and unknown.
The idea of the independent autonomous individual is challenged by the concept of social interdependence (Johnson et al 2005). Rather than being self-contained and autonomous, individuals are actually dependent on a range of factors, including the resources, support, and opportunities provided by the communities and societies in which they live. This interdependence means that the individual’s experiences, beliefs, and choices are not solely the result of their own choices and actions, but are also influenced by the social and cultural context in which they live. The individual is always contextualised in an environment.
Another way to deconstruct the idea of the indivisible and autonomous individual is to consider the contextualising role of time, location and (social) environment (Heller et al 2008) in shaping the individual’s experience and identity. For example as individuals age, they go through a range of physical, cognitive, and emotional changes that can affect their beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes. These changes can be influenced by a range of factors, including biological, psychological, and social factors, and they can have a significant impact on the individual’s sense of self and their relationship to the world around them. If nothing else the individual can divide themselves into past, present and future selves of differing capacities, properties and characteristics.
Based on this deconstruction of the traditional idea of Individualism, we can reconstruct the idea of a metamodern individual. A metamodern individual would be seen as a complex and dynamic entity, shaped by a range of factors, including their conscious and subconscious minds, their interdependence with others, and the effects of time, space, education, and social status, on their experiences and identity. None of these tensions can be ignored if we want to alleviate the pressures of Hypermodernity.
The Metamodern Individual is both, not indivisible in and of themself, and yet is indivisible from both their external environment and their internal invironment. Situating the meta-modern individual within a mycelial network of rhizomatic rooting, on the border of a material world and an immaterial consciousness. This view of the individual recognizes the importance of compassion and understanding, and seeks to balance the individual’s rights and freedoms with the importance of being part of a larger community with social context and the responsibility of that environment for the individual and visa versa.
Metamodern Individualism, as opposed to Hypermodern Individualism, would place a greater emphasis on the importance of community and connection with others and their environments. While Hypermodern Individualism focuses on the ability of technology to connect individuals and give them more control over their lives, Metamodern Individualism would recognize the value of connecting us in deeper ways to our invironments and environments. Revealing the importance of leveraging technology as a larger whole, by exploring the dynamics and tensions between the whole and its parts.
Modern Individualism often frames technology as “other” than human and postmodernism frames it as additional to human. This means that technology is seen as something separate from and superior or inferior to humanity, with its own unique qualities and capabilities. This framing of technology as “other” can have a number of impacts on how we view, use and create technology. Hypermodernism oscillates between the two (Cooper 2020) (Ludford 2021).
One of the key impacts of this hypermodern framing is that it can lead to a sense of awe and reverence for technology, as if it is something that is almost magical or divine. This can make people more willing to trust and rely on technology, even when it is not entirely understood or proven to be effective, (while also conversely breeding mistrust). Another impact of this framing is that it can lead to a sense of detachment from technology, its power and its implications and limitations. Because technology is seen as something “other” and also more than and less than human, its limitations and potential drawbacks are often hidden or downplayed. This can make it difficult for people to recognize and address the limitations of technology, particularly when it comes to solving complex problems.
For example, many people have come to believe that technology can solve any problem, no matter how complex or difficult. This belief is based on the assumption that technology is infinitely powerful and capable, and that it can be used to overcome any obstacle or challenge. However, this assumption is flawed, as technology is not capable of solving every problem and it has its own limitations and constraints. Many of these constraints are evidently human. The reliance on analytical intelligence as described by Jill Nephew (2022) leads the author to perceive artificial intelligence as anthropomorphised interfaces to automated analytic intelligence. AI does not posses natural intelligence yet, nor emotional intelligence. While it has come to learn and repeat all sorts of bigotry.
In short, the framing of technology as “other” and more than human can have a number of impacts on how we view and use technology and how we view and treat ourselves and each other. For instance a sense that technology is other than or less than human seems to transfer to humans on the other end of the technology. So while It can lead to a sense of awe and reverence for the pervasive power technology itself as a phenomenon (leading vulnerability to exploitation), as well as a detachment from its limitations. This framing can also hide the limitations of technology and make it difficult for people to recognize and address the challenges posed by complex problems.
Hypermodern individualistic neo-narcissism can even cause a form of species pride for the ingenuity of our external in(ter)ventions, leading to a myopia from hubris based focus. Metamodern Individualism, as described above, changes the way we see and use technology by recognizes the importance of the diunital structure of feeling emotional intelligence, which leads to the value of interdependence and being part of a larger whole.
This approach to Individualism challenges the traditional framing of technology as “other” and more than human, and instead sees technology as an extension of humanity and so a component of nature and as a (hyper)modern tool that can be used to enhance human experiences and connections. Additionally, a metamodern Individualism would also take into account the potential downsides of technology and Hypermodernity, such as the proliferation of misinformation and the loss of privacy. It would seek to strike a balance between the benefits of technology, education and the importance of maintaining strong connections with others and being part of a community.
In short, metamodern Individualism would be a more nuanced and diunital approach to Individualism, one that recognizes the value of interdependence and the importance of being part of a larger whole. It would seek to balance the benefits of technology and Hypermodernity with the importance of community and connection. We recognise the individual themselves is divisible in almost every way and yet is indivisible from their environment or invironment. This means that the environment is fully responsible for the choices an individual is given. At the same time the individual is still fully responsible for the choices they make. Those three sentences are worth reading again.
A metamodern Individualism would therefore place a greater emphasis on compassion and understanding, recognizing that people’s experiences and perspectives are shaped by the communities and cultures in which they live. Rather than viewing Individualism as a purely individual pursuit, Metamodern Individualism would see it as being part of a larger social and cultural context. Each individual as a reflection of the whole is an end in themselves and ought not be used only as a means, without their consent, as is the case with longtermism.
Finally the metamodern individualism sees technology: as not human and yet an extension of humanity and the human body itself; as potentially both the power of the heavens and the bondage of the hells. The technological imperative therefore ought to be employing technology to create the kinds of environment in which we are given the choices that can more readily lead to our highest ethical goal: an “Ethical Humanity” in which there is liberation of suffering and a minimisation of undue suffering for all sentient beings.
As we’ve seen the modern etymology of the individual was presented in latin. We suggest the postmodern reading was an incomplete accounting that the individual is both indivisible and dual. As we’ve seen the hypermodern etymology would oscillate between the two. This offers is the prospect of a new etymology for the individual more suited metamodern theory. One that recovers some of the spiritual meaning of the second and fourth mentions of Metamodernism (Haig, 1991 and Devi, 1995) for these times of “Secular Religions”.
In- as in inside an environment. Situating the individual as indivisible from their contextual environment
Divi- as in (Demi)divine. Situating humanity with the potential power of gods via technology, and the mentality of a teenager from a seriously dysfunctional family.
Dual- emphasising the actual duality’s diunitality contained within the individual. Godly and teenaged, conscious and unconscious, indivisible and divisible.
ii) Benefits and Challenges of Metamodern Individualism
“I have come to call the Meta-Modern, the contemporary condition of being aware of being aware” Stanley Horner — (2003)
Metamodern Individualism must accept the inherent diunitality of reality as contained within humanity. In this case we must see technology as both part of us, extensions of as, separate from us and a part of nature (as a birds nest is to a bird). This fully situates it as part of the problem, the solution and as casualty . The issue of mind-dependence comes in here and a full deconstruction of mind and reconstruction of mind is beyond the scope of this paper.
Storm(2019) shows how to allow metamodernism to be the future of theory via deeper deconstruction than postmodernism and more anti fragile reconstruction than modernism. Not simply an oscillation, or meaty. We must go beyond with a metamorphosis emanating from the restructuring of what is with the inner technology of a new perspective on the same environmental landscape.
One way that this shift in perspective might manifest in the use of technology is through the development of new technologies that are designed to facilitate compassion and understanding. Algorithms that place higher value on deepening well being, and education beyond distractive entertainment. Another example is a metamodern individual might employ virtual reality to simulate the experiences and perspectives of other people, allowing them to better understand and relate to others.
Metamodern Individualism also recognizes the limitations of technology and the importance of balancing the benefits of technology with the need for human connection and community. As a result, the use of technology might be more carefully considered and regulated, with an emphasis on using technology in ways that enhance human experiences and connections, rather than replacing them.
For example, a metamodern individual might use social media and other forms of online communication to connect with others and share experiences and perspectives, but they might also be mindful of the potential drawbacks of technology, such as the loss of privacy and the potential for isolation. They might limit their use of technology in certain contexts, such as during face-to-face interactions, in order to prioritize human connection and communication.
Overall, metamodern Individualism changes the way we see and use technology by recognizing the importance of compassion, understanding, and interdependence, and by seeking to balance the benefits of technology with the need for human connection and community. This shift in perspective might lead to the development of new technologies that facilitate compassion and understanding, as well as a more mindful and regulated use of technology in everyday life.
Metamodern Individualism situates the individual as part of nature, rather than as a separate and independent entity. This view recognizes that the individual is not a self-contained entity, but is rather shaped by and interconnected with the natural world. This means that the individual’s experiences, beliefs, and choices are not solely the result of their own actions, but are also influenced by the natural environment and the broader ecosystem in which they live. This leads to the realisation that while the individual is autonomously responsible for their choices the environment is almost (if not) entirely responsible for the range of choices an individual is given.
Metamodern Individualism also situates technology as part of both the individual and nature. Rather than viewing technology as something separate and “other” from humanity and the natural world, this view sees technology as a tool that can be used to enhance human experiences and connections, as well as to protect and preserve the natural environment. The impacts of this view of the individual and technology are likely to be far-reaching. For individuals, this perspective might lead to a greater sense of connection and interdependence with the natural world, as well as a greater awareness of the impact of their choices and actions on the environment. This could inspire individuals to take more responsibility for the natural world and to use technology in ways that are sustainable and environmentally-friendly.
For society as a whole, this view of the individual and technology might lead to a greater emphasis on environmental protection and sustainability. Rather than viewing technology as a means of exploiting the natural world, metamodern Individualism would see technology as a tool for preserving and protecting the environment, and would encourage the development of technologies that are sustainable and environmentally-friendly. In addition as our technology becomes more and more part of us we must remember that while we may one day transcend being human with technology, we must retain our sense of humanity.
It must be noted that metamodernity and hypermodernity have been conflated before. We may still be doing so here in this paper. We have made the attempt of directing the dialogue towards diunital cognition as the cultural logic and emotional intelligence as the produced structure of feeling to differentiate the more nuanced theories of metamodernism with the less complex observations and theories of hypermodernism. The “Dutch School” (Cooper 2018) misrepresented Metamodernism with their focus on oscillation in their seminal paper (Akker & Vermeulen 2010)
This represents the second biggest threat to metamodernism from hypermodernity (and metamodern practices in general). This threat is the conflation of the metamodernity and hypermodernity and the disjointedness of the academic dialogue as expressed by Cooper (2022). Just as Pipere and Martinsone (2022) observed that we ought to be comfortable in and including earlier stages of metamodernity the author suggests we also must situate them along degrees between more or less hypermodern, whilst exploring all the tensions this hierarchy creates. Earlier more hypermodern metamodern modes can then be actualised as induction to the more complex modes of metamodernism. Call this the Metamodern Ladder.
The biggest single drawback to the metamodern move is that it is prone to commodification. As such we must look to areas where commodification is slowed and more importantly places it does not and can not occur according to hypermodern value systems. Some examples of this are “forms of artistic expression of “amateurs”, but also laws, ethical values, actions of solidarity, volunteering, acts of mutual aid” (Lipovetsky 2018). Each mode of the Metamodern Ladder, ranging from degrees of hypermodern dichotomous oscillation to degrees of metamodern diunitality, is at risk of corruption and exploitation via commodification. As such in line with Storm(2021) we need to be able to define the metamodern mode explicitly. An example of such a definition has been put forth by this paper:
Metamodernism being a practice of including diunital, both-and, thinking and emotional intelligence in more systemically deeper ways to gain new perspectives on contemporary paradoxes. This in turn allows for a reorientation and reconfiguration of the paradoxical problem, allowing new solutions to naturally take shape.
Such definitions allows us to have conversations on the degree to which a practice and or theory is metamodern and hypermodern. This of course leads to a greater vulnerability when writing about new metamodern theories. Then again with the intellectual humility that comes from emotional intelligence we can hope this move will also encourage a greater inter-disciplinary discourse on hypermodernity and metamodernity.
A final weakness of the idea of Metamodern Individualism is that now the individual has been shown to be indivisible only from their environment this reveals the power-vacuum at the centre of the individuals being unresolved Nihilism may fill. This perceived lack being at the heart of narcissism. This is a core example of how interconnectivity breeds vulnerability. Here then is the seeming futility of metamodernism existentially as a “Politics of Failure” (Brunton 2018). This author has indicated elsewhere in an exploration titled Meta-Nothing (2019) that what we perceive as nothing has both value and meaning. The implications of meta-nothing, and the links between narcissism and nihilism being beyond the scope of this immediate text. In short we must again find value and meaning in nothing itself.
“Metamodernism moves for the sake of moving, attempts
in spite of its inevitable failure; it seeks forever for a truth
that it never expects to find. If you will forgive us for the
banality of the metaphor for a moment, the metamodern
thus willfully adopts a kind of donkey-and-carrot double-
bind. Like a donkey it chases a carrot that it never
manages to eat because the carrot is always just beyond
its reach. But precisely because it never manages to eat
the carrot, it never ends its chase.”
Vermeulen and van der Akker, Notes on Metamodernism (2010)
VII. Conclusion
This paper explores some problems associated with Hypermodernism and Individualism, and asserts that metamodern principles, such as diunital, both-and, thinking, can be used to address these problems. The paper defines Hypermodernism and Individualism, and introduces metamodern individualism as a product of diunital thinking as potential solutions to the challenges of Hypermodern Individualism. The paper discusses the potential benefits of this approach, as well as some of the challenges and limitations that it may face. It also explores the implications of metamodernism and diunital thinking for our use of technology and for the future of society and culture.
In conclusion, metamodernism and diunital thinking offer a promising approach to addressing the problems of Hypermodernism and Individualism. By rejecting the binary oppositions and polarizations of modernism and postmodernism, and by emphasizing the importance of perspective, context, and integration, metamodernism offers a more nuanced and balanced understanding of the world. By embracing the interconnectedness of the individual, nature, and technology, diunital thinking offers a more balanced and holistic approach to Individualism, and to our use of technology. By applying these principles to the challenges of our time, we can create a more sustainable and equitable future for all. At the same time the risk of commodification thwarting such attempts remain. In our hypermodern future the role of Metamodernity must ensure that we retain our humanity on the road to the increased technologicalisation of the human being.
References
Akker, R & Vermeulen, T (2010) Notes on metamodernism, Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, 2:1, DOI: 10.3402/jac.v2i0.5677
Aron, R. (1957) The Opium of the Intellectuals. London: Secker & Warburg, pp. 265–294
Beldoch, M (1964). “Sensitivity to expression of emotional meaning in three modes of communication”. In Davitz JR, et al. (eds.). The Communication of Emotional Meaning. McGraw-Hill. pp. 31–42.
Borgmann, A (1992) The Postmodern Economy In Cutcliffe, S. H. (2019). New worlds, new technologies, new issues (1992, Lehigh University Press)
Brunton, J. (2018). Whose (Meta)modernism?: Metamodernism, Race, and the Politics of Failure. Journal of Modern Literature. 41. 60. 10.2979/jmodelite.41.3.05.
Cooper, B (2018) The Metamodern Condition: A Report on “The Dutch School” of Metamodernism https://medium.com/the-abs-tract-organization/the-metamodern-condition-1e1d04a13c4
Cooper, B Missing Metamodernism (2019) https://medium.com/the-abs-tract-organization/missing-metamodernism-5da6b0b35dde
Cooper, B Highway to Hypermodern Hell (2020) https://medium.com/the-abs-tract-organization/the-hypermodern-highway-to-hell-1d3a6441b540
Devi, SMN (1995) Meta Modern Era https://www.amruta.org/book/meta-modern-era/
Dixon, V.J. (1970). The Di-unital Approach to ‘Black Economics.’. The American Economic Review, 60, 424–429.
Dumitrescu, AE (2006) Foretelling Metamodernity: Reformation of the Self in Jerusalem, Messi@h and Rosarium Philosophorum
Frisvold, N (2016) Ifa: A Forest of Mystery
Greene, R. (2018) The Laws of Human Nature
Haig, T. A. (1991). Meta-Modern Culture: The New Age and the Critique of Modernity, 1–1
Heller, Daniel & Watson, David & Komar, Jennifer & Min, Ji-A & Perunovic, Wei. (2008). Contextualized Personality: Traditional and New Assessment Procedures. Journal of personality. 75. 1229–53. 10.1111/j.1467–6494.2007.00474.x.
Horner, S. (2003) DBAE and iiae: Playing Finite and Infinite Art Games
Johnson, DW & Johnson, RT (2005) New Developments in Social Interdependence Theory, Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131:4, 285–358, DOI: 10.3200/MONO.131.4.285–358
Kaspersen, A and Wallach, W. (2022) Long-termism: An Ethical Trojan Hors. Artificial Intelligence & Equality Initiative
Kroker, A, Kroker,M , Cook, D. (1990) PANIC USA: Hypermodernism as America’s Postmodernism, Social Problems, Volume 37, Issue 4, 1 November 1990, Pages 443–459, https://doi.org/10.2307/800575
Koutselini, M. (1997). Contemporary trends and perspectives of the curricula
Lemos, JC. (2016) thoughts on neo-narcissism https://medium.com/@joanaclemos/thoughts-on-neo-narcissism-37da1075bb0b
Leuner B (1966). “Emotional intelligence and emancipation”. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie. 15: 193–203.
Lipovetsky, G with Godart E (2018) “The advent of the hypermodern individual”, Cliniques Méditerranéennes 2018/2 (n° 98), p. 7–23. DOI 10.3917/cm.098.0007
Ludford, S. (2021) https://samuelludford.medium.com/against-metamodernism-51be3cbbe751
McLuhan, Marshall (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy : the making of typographic man. ISBN 978–1–4875–2233–9. OCLC 991623259
Nephew, J (2022) Natural Intelligence in Practice https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoZ5e3aD_LuSASU2VTojfWcmPSowGKTAa
Parker, T. K. (2008). “Do I lie to myself to be happy?: Self-Help Culture and Fragmentation in Postmodern Film. Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, 10(1), 1–15. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41210002
Pipere, Anita, and Krist ̄ıne M ̄artinsone. 2022. Metamodernism and Social Sciences: Scoping the Future. Social Sciences 11: 457 https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100457
Ritchie, G (2005) [Film] Revolver
Soon, C.S., Brass, M., Heinze, H., Haynes, J. (2008). Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience DOI: 10.1038/nn.2112
Storm, J. (2021) Metamodernism: The Future of Theory Storm, University of Chicago Press; First edition
Wright, WD (1997) Black Intellectuals, Black Cognition, and a Black Aesthetic
Zavarzadeh, M. (1975). The Apocalyptic Fact and the Eclipse of Fiction in Recent American Prose Narratives. New Blackfriars.
