El futuro de la teoría: Un manifiesto metamodernista

by Jason Ānanda Josephson Storm, Juan Iturraspe Staps (Contributor), Matheus Calderón Torres (translator)

Durante décadas, la universalidad de los objetos disciplinarios y su utilidad como categorías analíticas han sido objeto de interrogación por parte de los académicos. Bajo el peso de la crítica posmoderna, la coherencia de categorías como «arte», «literatura» o «religión» se ha desmoronado, mientras que la erudición se ha visto sometida a una hiperespecialización fragmentadora que cuestiona toda posibilidad de progreso.

Jason Ānanda Josephson Storm desafía las nociones establecidas, tanto por los escepticismos posmodernos como por el esencialismo modernista, ofreciendo un marco teórico común para las humanidades y las ciencias sociales. Mediante una meticulosa investigación y una prosa cautivadora, el autor propone un futuro más inclusivo para la teoría donde nuevas formas de conocimiento, más cercanas a la (re)construcción que a la característica deconstrucción posmodernista,
puedan emerger.

El futuro de la teoría: Un manifiesto metamodernista es una exploración revolucionaria sobre el poder transformador del metamodernismo como marco habilitador para acceder a una nueva dialéctica, una nueva teoría del mundo social y un nuevo modelo ético para las ciencias humanas.
Este libro representa un cambio de rumbo necesario, abriendo las puertas a un horizonte de posibilidades que revitaliza y reconfigura el campo teórico.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Theory, Art, Religion, Art History, Academic

544 pages, Paperback

First published July 20, 2021

About the author

Jason Ānanda Josephson-Storm received his PhD in Religious Studies from Stanford University in 2006 and has held visiting positions at Princeton University, École Française d’Extrême-Orient, Paris and Ruhr Universität, Germany. He has three primary research foci: Japanese Religions, European Intellectual History, and Theory more broadly. The common thread to his research is an attempt to decenter received narratives in the study of religion and science. His main targets have been epistemological obstacles, the preconceived universals which serve as the foundations of various discourses. Josephson Storm has also been working to articulate new research models for Religious Studies in the wake of the collapse of poststructuralism as a guiding ethos in the Humanities.

Reviews

[Brian LePort · Rating 5 out of 5]

Storm is brave. He attempts to do something constructive in an era that is dominated by deconstruction. The main focus of the book is this (to oversimplify): how does the humanities move past postmodernism without denying postmodernity’s critiques and returning to modernistic thinking. This book could be a game changer when it comes to epistemology and it offers a new constructive approach to several topics that are desperately needed in the humanities since we’ve poisoned ourselves for a generation by telling everyone why our fields of study are flawed and not really real. For example, modernity sought a concrete definition of religion. Postmodernity helped us realize this is quixotic and that there’s no “form” of religion (to draw Plato and then Wittgenstein into the discussion). But something important still needs to be said about things like “religion,” even if it lacks concreteness. Storm offers a way forward.

[Morgan Blackledge · Rating 5 out of 5]

GREAT BOOK.

LOVED IT.

BUT it’s not for everyone.

It’s (a) technical [meaning it uses a lot of novel and domain specific language, and refers to lots of other texts from the history of science and philosophy] and; (b) its foundational [meaning it constructs an original argument from the ground floor] as such, it’s not a casual or easy read. And if you’re not already pretty well versed in modern/postmodern philosophy, this is could be a difficult/frustrating read.

In other words.

If you’re looking for an introduction to Metamodernism.

This probably ain’t it.

If you’re interested in reading some friendlier titles before circling back to this one.

Start with:

Hanzi Freinacht’s
- Listening Society

And maybe:

Ken Wilber’s
- A Theory of Everything

Although I’m uncertain the author of this book would approve of those as prerequisite titles.

They are the ones that come to mind for me.

So do with that what you will.

Anyway.

Back to this book:

Josephson-Storm presents metamodernism as a new paradigm that synthesizes and integrates the: (a) faith in progress that typifies modernism; and (b) ironic skepticism that typifies postmodernism, to create a new theoretical platform for transcending the current philosophical, political and cultural gridlock that we currently find ourselves mired in.

Josephson-Storm identifies some of the more problematic features of postmodern critical theory as including:

- deconstruction w/o re-construction
- critique w/o creativity
- pluralism w/o directionality

All of which engender the universal skepticism and inevitable performative contradictions that (however interesting), are preventative of the progress part of (progress)ivism.

METAMODERN THEORY

Josephson-Storm deconstructs deconstruction. And critiques critical theory. And re-constructs it into a metatheory that is more flexible, adaptive, and (hopefully) more generative of new, actually functional/effective policies and procedures.

WARNING ⚠️

I’m going to take some MASSIVE LIBERTIES with this text here. So please understand that what I’m about to share are interpretations of what Josephson-Storm is getting at. And probably bad interpretations at that. But here you go.

CRITICAL THEORY (T/-):

Critical theory can be conceptualized as any philosophical approach to social theory that identifies, critique and deconstructs the ideologies, narratives and power structures that underly various social inequalities and discontents.

Originating from the Frankfurt School in the early 20th century, critical theory draws upon MARX, FREUD and SASUR to analyze (and basically SHRED) the master narratives and rational mythology that underly seemingly “natural” systems economic/social oppression and domination.

So YES to all that.

But.

In practice.

We have hit kind of a dead end.

Meaning.

We have reached a point where we are just kind of sitting back and NEGING EVERYTHING and CANCELING EVERYONE.

It’s no longer productive.

We need to create something new.

And critical theory is less helpful for creating new shit.

As you may have noticed.

So what’s next?

EMANCIPATORY THEORY (T/=)

Emancipatory defines its self as any theory with LIBERATION as its raison d'etre.

And YES to all that.

But (BIG BUT): one persons LIBERATION might be: (a) out of reach for another person, or; (b) actually OPPRESSIVE for another person.

Take Buddhism (the Switzerland of religions) for example. The Buddhist path to liberation (at least in some of its earlier forms) is only really 100% available to monastics (and only a small, elite group of them) because is demanding, and as such takes a lot of effort/support/training.

As such, it’s (a) OUT OF REACH for most people (with jobs, and kids, or who are dealing with poverty and oppression, and who are struggling to just survive and shit. Or who just plain can’t or won’t do all that extra esoteric meditation shit).

On the flip.

It may actually be OPPRESSIVE to someone else who has gone beyond conventional Buddhism. And as such, is actually held back by Buddhist dogma (yes Buddhism definitely has dogma), and traditional (culture bound) structures.

DISCOURSE ENHANCING THEORY (T/+)

Discourse enhancing theory can be defined as (you guessed it) any theory (or rather, theoretical processes, principles and practices that support and enhance the QUALITY and QUANTITY of CRITICAL and CONTENTIOUS DISCOURSE(S).

And YES to all that.

But (BIG BUT): there probably OUGHT (pretty much a postmodern profanity) to be some type of GOAL (another postmodern profanity) to all that ENDLESS BLAH BLAH BLAH.

DEATH BY DELIBERATION.

Or all we’re going to get is more of the same.

METAMODERN THEORY (T/&)

Metamodernism aims to integrate MODERN positivistic knowledge and material accumulation and progress, with CRITICAL, EMANCIPATORY and DISCURSIVE theory in order to promote a rational and progressive approach to fostering REVOLUTIONARY HAPPINESS and ENGAGED COMPASSION in individuals, communities and society at large.

SOCIAL KINDS

Postmodernism deconstructed oppressive forms of social categorization (e.g. constructs such as race, class and hierarchical levels social development that for instance define indigenous ways of being as primitive and inferior to so-called civilized ways of being).

But (BIG BUT): postmodernism failed to posit a more liberating form of social taxonomy, and as such, banished otherwise helpful categories of analysis. Josephson-Storm coins the term SOCIAL KINDS to refer to SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED but nonetheless REAL things.

Like RACISM, POVERTY, CLASS, CAPITALISM.

And including shit like ART and SOCIOLOGY.

SOCIAL KINDS oscillate between modern and postmodern perspectives, acknowledging the fluid, dynamic, and often contradictory nature of socially constructed entities, while also seeking coherence and meaning in the complexity.

In brief, I (PERSONALLY) TAKE THIS TO MEAN: just because it’s socially constructed, doesn’t mean it is somehow not real; (2) simply deconstructing a social construct doesn’t somehow automatically dispel it; (3) Identifying socially constructed phenomena as a de-essentialized process based realities (social kinds) reenables humble knowledge, and soft truth claims, without reanimating the oppressive modern master narratives we worked so hard to deconstruct.

Hopefully, all this will enable interplay between universal OBJECTIVE structures and individual SUBJECTIVE experiences, allowing for a more nuanced and layered (functional/effective understanding of social categories.

METAMODERN EPISTEMOLOGY - ZETETICISM

Josephson-Storm acknowledges that the MODERNIST belief in the “OBJECTIVE” 3rd person view from “nowhere” as naïve and in essence, an old essentially RELIGIOUS perspective, in a new SCIENTIFIC bottle (SCIENTISM).

Josephson-Storm also acknowledges that the postmodern universal skepticism regarding modernist certainty and truth clams as hubristic, is its self a hubristic truth claim.

And as such.

A PERFORATIVE CONTRADICTION.

NOTE: performative contradiction refers to when the content of a statement contradicts the act of making that statement. In other words, the speaker's action (the performance of stating something) undermines or contradicts the meaning of what they are saying. An example is someone claiming, "I cannot communicate," while communicating that very statement.

In other words.

The postmodern universal skepticism regarding the inability to construct a hard truth claim out of language, is itself a linguistically constructed hard truth claim. An INFINITE REGRESS of every there was one. And a BIG FAT DEAD END.

Josephson-Storm offers the term Metamodern “Zeteticism” to refer to a philosophical approach that emphasizes a process of CONTINUOUS INQUIRY and OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONING, as a means to acquire HUMBLE KNOWLEDGE and SOFT TRUTH CLAIMS as opposed to fixed conclusions. Zeteticism prioritizes process of exploration and investigation over the establishment of definitive truths.

Both a move beyond naïve objectivism, and a move away from universal skepticism. Towards a process based emancipatory, inclusive and dialogical, non-dogmatic humble knowledge.

MERTAMODERN SEMIOTICS - HYLOSEMIOTICS

Poststructuralist semiotics (grounded in ( Barthes, Derrida, Foucault and later Buttler) sees meaning as fluid, context-dependent, and always shaped by cultural/historical forces.

Poststructuralism deconstructs binary oppositions (e.g., good/evil, nature/culture male/female) and emphasizes that meaning is subjective, and as such perpetually, in flux, and influenced by power relationships and discourse.

Postmodern poststructuralism fundamentally rejects grand narratives and universal truths, emphasizing pluralism, ambiguity, and the instability of meaning.

And yes to all that.

But (BIG BUT): if nothing has stable meaning.

Then it’s impossible to say anything meaningful.

Including what I just said.

Ad Infinitum.

It’s an INFINITE REGESS.

NOTE: Infinite regress refers to a sequence of reasoning or explanation that can never reach a conclusion because it continually relies on prior conditions or causes, leading to an endless backward chain.

Josephson-Storm offers the term Metamodern
Hylosemiotics as the study of how physical matter (hylē) functions as a carrier of meaning within semiotic systems. It focuses on the material aspects of signs—how the physical properties of objects or substances contribute to their role as signs or symbols in communication.

I (PERSONALLY) TAKE THIS TO MEAN:

Yes, language/meaning is in flux. No, not all communication occurs via language. And some REAL AS FUCK shit exists (e.g. DEATH, WAR, POVERTY, and GLOBAL WARMING etc) And of we can in fact, ground meaning in material.

At least on some level.

METAMODERN VALUES AND VIRTUE ETHICS

Postmodernist pluralism basically BANISHED Hierarchies of all kinds as inherently oppressive.

But (BIG BUT): isn’t shit like RACISM, SEXISM and HOMOPHOBIA and stuff like RELLY BAD?

And isn’t INCLUSIVITY and SOCIAL JUSTICE like REALLY GOOD? And isn’t that a HIERARCHICAL VALUE JUDGMENT? At least on some level?

Josephson-Storm posits that flat ontologies are COOL (sometimes) but completely UNCOOL (at other times). And that SOME HIERARCHICAL VALUE SYSTEMS ARE RAD.

And if we can ORIENT our culture TOWARDS HAPPINESS and AWAY from MATERIALISM and GDP. Then that would be BETTER than DIEING in a DUMPSTER FIRE.

I agree.

That leaves with.

REVOLUTIONARY HAPPINESS

Josephson-Storm posits that VIRTUE ETHICS and an orientation towards REVOLUTIONARY HAPPINESS seems like a GOOD WAY TO GO.

And I TOTALLY FUCK WOTH THAT.

In SUM:

Metamodernism (generally speaking), is a critique of postmodernism that aims to dislodge the toxic (LEFT/RIGHT) binary at the center of the current (and now decades long) culture war (stalemate), and which seems to be causing the current political/existential crisis (gridlock) we currently find ourselves in.

As such, capitalism is (pretty clearly) failing, and taking everyone down along with it. The right are resorting to populist fascism, and the left seem to be clinging to equally outmoded Marxist ideas that have proven to be ineffective and highly problematic in practice. In essence, we seem to be recapitulating the early 20th century. And pretty much nobody on the left wants that.

Metamodernism asserts that the left needs to do more than just criticize, and cast doubt, and deconstruct. We need to create and inspire and lead with VISION. In order to do that. We need to critique, and integrate (trancend/include) some to the sacred cows of postmodernism.

Whereas postmodernism is: (1) fundamentally critical and committed to deconstruction; (2) radically skeptical regarding the certainty of linguistically/culturally constructed knowledge; (3) radically pluralistic and non hierarchical regarding value systems and world views.

Postmodernism has been (and continues to be) limited in its capacity to generate a sense of positive directionality or to create NEW productive policy in certain domains.

Meaning: the postmodern paradigm has been able to critique, and deconstruct, but has been less successful in creating a pathway forward.

Namely:
- deconstruction without construction
- critique without alternative propositions
- doubt without alternative epistemologies
- pluralism without directionality

As such, we find ourselves in a moment where neoliberalism and late capitalism are failing. But the postmodern progressive left doesn’t seem to able to create a genuinely viable alternative. And as such, clings to the desperately outdated (and definitively modernist) Marxist paradigm.

What would it look like if, instead of focusing the the critique of negative models, we dedicated our creative/critical capacities to finding and promoting liberating, compassionate solutions?

It might look like something that Integrates CRITICAL EMANCIPATORY DISCOURSE ENHANCING QWEER THEORY and VIRTUE ETHICS ORIENTED TWOARD REVOLUTIONARY HAPPINESS NOT GDP.

In other worlds.

METAMODERNISM

If this sounds EXCITING.

You’re not alone.

I’m pretty excited about it too.

And so is Jason Josephson-Storm.

And:
- I LIVE!
- We LOVE!

5/5 stars ⭐️

[Cheng Wen Cheong · Rating 4 out of 5]

No novel ideas by any means, but this book offers a comprehensive overview of the state of academia and sketches how we can move past analysis-paralysis from postmodernism and false pretensions of objectivity. Much of the discussion here centres around the philosophy of social sciences and the philosophy of language, most notably the concepts of social kind and hylosemantics. The prose is exemplary and refreshing - it is clear that the author acts upon what he advocates for, and succeeds in general. However, some parts appear list-like and incomplete, which is to be expected since this work is more of a theoretical suggestion than a closed system.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Awesome dude... did you have to be such a dorky academic about it though? Who the fuck is gonna read this.

[Alfredo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un libro más que recomendable, el autor intenta articular una visión sistematica y sintética que supere las consecuencias más negativas que ha tenido la posmodernidad.

Lo más interesante de la propuesta que plantea es que no es una vuelta a atrás a los paradigmas modernistas, sino que es una negación determinada que conserva tanto al modernismo como a la posmodernidad, para formular una serie de nuevos paradigmas y teorías con los que poder reconstruir el conocimiento y su posibilidad misma en las disciplinas humanas.

Podría expandirme largo y tendido en todos los asuntos tratados en la obra desde la historizacion de la posmodernidad hasta su giro epistemológico que recalca la falibilidad y la tentatividad de todo conocimiento o la semiótica no antropocéntrica, pero lo que realmente me interesa recalcar es que aunque es una obra profundamente académica y trata múltiples temas con cierta profundidad, está escrita con un estilo que facilita notablemente su comprensión, sin caer en los excesos retóricos y la jerga académica típica.

Como final terminaría con una nota crítica, planteando que la obra, aunque se presenta como revolucionaria y destinada a superar un impasse histórico, realmente muchas de las conclusiones y metodologías que proponen ya estaban puestas en marcha y desplegadas en otras tantas obras herederas del canon postestructuralista ( si es que existe tal cosa). Pero aún así, es un libro que merece la pena ser leído sobre todo como una doble vacuna tanto para el escepticismo posmoderno más caricaturesco, como para no acabar como cualquiera de los abominadores profesionales del posmodernismo, que luchan contra el hombre de paja de su preferencia.

[Richard Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I finished this book a few days ago and have been putting off writing a review. I had mixed feelings and wanted to give them a chance to settle. I'm not sure that they are done settling yet, but the mere fact of my having this reaction means that the book got me thinking and that is enough by itself to earn the book a four-star rating.

Anybody who reads novels or who reads books with intellectual intent in the humanities or social sciences in America today has necessarily been affected by post-modernism. I have learned much from the post-modernists, but I remain convinced that there is a lot of crap there. When I read a novel today, I reflexively switch between post-modernist lenses like I was at the eye doctor until I find one that helps my vision the most. I am a big fan of Edward Said, but I get upset at contemporary writers who can only ever see any piece of writing as an expression of racism or orientalism or some other ethnic or cultural or class bias. So much of beauty and value is discarded when you do that. I have learned from Foucault, but I find Derrida to be nearly incomprehensible, and most of his interpreters make little more sense to me than the master himself. I am mindful of Barthes' wisdom in speaking of complicated writers, "You may not understand the philosopher, but he understands you." But if Derrida really had something to say, couldn't he have said it more clearly? Kant, Hegel and Heidegger are quite difficult to read, but when I have applied myself, I have found gems in their writing that seem to me to be missing when I dig into Derrida. And I'm very unhappy with the way that post-modernism has come to dominate the human sciences in American academia. It makes me thank God that when I was at the crossroads of deciding whether to pursue an academic career, I went to law school. So with all of that, I'm ripe for a smart man like Mr. Josephson-Storm to come along and point the way to the next phase of our intellectual history beyond post-modernism.

In many ways the system that Mr. Josephson-Storm proposes makes a lot of sense to me. I have always thought that it was a mistake to fetishize names and definitions. It is in the nature of human language, thinking and communication to be imprecise. A little vagueness can be a very good thing sometimes. It can facilitate exploration and development and allow us to build constructive consensus even when we don't all really agree. Terms and categories are living things that need to be able to change over time. We should embrace living in a world of process and change. I agree with him that any next generation philosophical movement needs to transcend human centric thinking and should embrace within its system animals, plants and the rest of the world around us as well as embracing the many flavors of humanity. And I agree with his notion of how knowledge needs to relate to skepticism. We can and should doubt everything including doubt itself, but at the same time we need to build a corpus of knowledge that explains, predicts, organizes and seems generally to work. Finally, I embrace a return to virtue ethics and his idea of happiness as encompassing a greater idea of human flourishing than is usually associated the term.

But wait, that's pretty much the whole book. How come I'm ambivalent? Apart from some minor quibbles I may have with some of the philosophical arguments, I have two big issues: (i) his new categories and definitions, while purporting to be flexible and process oriented, were unnecessarily jargony and obscure, and (ii) he feels too keenly that he needs to be on a continuum with post-modernism so he becomes at times an apologist for ideas that he should be blowing up and discarding. I did not understand why he needed to talk about "Hylosemiotics" or "Zetetic Knowledge" or "Revolutionary Happiness". There were some good ideas hidden within each of these terms that could have been better expressed without the jargony vocabulary. He demonstrates the stupidity of some post-modernist exercises, such as deconstructing the meaning and scope of academic fields and claiming that translation is impossible, but then instead of just moving on from these things, he tries to find value and show how his ideas are a natural next step. He's too polite. Maybe that's necessary to avoid being hooted down in the academic world today, but I think that it risks allowing new life to old bad ideas that need to be consigned to the trash heap of intellectual history. I sometimes wished that Mr. Josephson-Storm could have been more like Nietzsche or Marx in talking shit about the people and ideas that he wants to supersede.

Finally, despite my agreeing with so much of the book, I'm not sure whether most of what Mr. Josephson-Storm is advocating is all that new. We have known since Heraclitus that you cannot step into the same river twice, since Socrates that the wise are people who know that they do not know and since Aristotle that the virtues provide a strong basis for ethics. So much of what Mr. Josephson-Storm proposes can be found in the thinkers of the ancient world that I wonder if what he is really proposing is a new Renaissance, a new way of returning to a classical past more than a forward step beyond post-modernism. As a classics professor's son and a lover of Renaissance humanism, I'd be fine with that, so maybe all of my issues with Mr. Josephson-Storm can be resolved by some reframing accompanied by a bit of jargon reduction, since I seem to agree with nearly all of his substantive points.

[Nick Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Seeking to move humanistic scholarship beyond the overly negative, pessimistic trends characteristic of postmodern affect, Josephson-Storm in this work attempts to articulate a new paradigm - metamodernism - which is able to, in Hegelian synthetic fashion, retain what is valuable in modernist and postmodern scholarship while rejecting the weaknesses and overextensions of both (the former toward Eurocentric and noninclusive universalisms, the latter toward excessive deconstruction and critique). As part of his project, he affirms the socially constructed, processual and yet entirely real nature of human cultural forms ("social kinds"), not entirely unlike the processual world of nature (albeit faster, less stable). This builds on his earlier work, The Myth of Disenchantment, where that social kind - the idea that we have been disenchanted in modernity - itself is ungrounded yet functions to reify that very myth into an experienced reality. He spends considerable time deconstructing the deconstructions of postmodern scholarship, such as the idea that everything is merely language, comparisons are impossible, truth is nonexistent, power relations are the hidden reality beneath modernist presumptions, there is no world apart from relativistic constructions, there is no such thing as religion or art or history, etc., and argues for a new theory of knowledge which is comparably more humble and open than in typical modernist scholarship, which he calls "Zeteticism" which intends to overcome paralyzing (and incomplete) postmodern skepticism. He also argues for an ethical or moral dimension as a fundamental aspect of humanistic scholarship and humanistic knowledge, which is its essential orientation to human flourishing ("Happiness" with a capital H), as well as attention to the flourishing of the nonhuman, animal world (which should be understood and communicated with in terms of a panspecies model of signs and meaning, or "Hylosemiotics"). I commend all of this, though Im not sure his assertion that he has articulated Metamodernism with a minimum of jargon ("Zeteticism," "Hylosemiotics," etc.) is necessarily true. I also think that the aspect of human flourishing is somewhat undertheorized, largely because there is no discussion whatsoever of the human capacity for gnosis, to actually apprehend and experience the goal of all religious and existential seeking in noetic mystical experience. If he were only an analytic philosopher, this might be forgivable, but Josephson-Storm is a scholar of comparative religions, like me, and to neglect this essential dimension of religion and humanity makes the work incomplete. This is what gives meaning to human flourishing, I would contend, it is the source of all value because it is full consciousness of that value in the most direct (although still socially constructed) manner. I do think he has however done an admirable job dealing with the academic dead-ends and critiques of meaning, value, universal truth, etc., which would hinder, if not the experience of gnosis itself, at the least its interpretation. His vision for a compassionate society whose politics and goals are oriented around human flourishing and Happiness rather than GDP, individualistic wealth accumulation and pleasure is laudable and necessary, though I admit it is hard, looking around at our present situation, not to find this a bit idealistic.

[Sreena · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found the book a bit dense, though it was worth the read. Here are few things that I have understood by reading this book:

✩Metamordernism - emerged in response to the limitations of postmodernism.
✩The characteristics of Metamordernism oscillates between modernist and postmodernist ideas.
✩Metamodernism's emphasis on multiple perspectives and a blending of modernist and postmodernist elements allows for a more inclusive and empathetic understanding of the diverse experiences and perspectives in our globalized world.
✩ The book talks about how a new system of sign-aspects will help scholars to guide future, which is beyond humanities and social sciences, but being inclusive to biological disciplines in their attempt to reconstruct how sentient beings communicate. As a practicing vegan, found this a though-provoking matter of discussion, which can solve a lot of social problems the current world is facing. As metamodernism goes beyond binary, and accommodates multiple truths and perspectives, which helps in fostering dialogue between vegans and non-vegans.

-----
Other Facts:

Metamodernism can be applied to philosophy, art, literature, politics, and popular culture. One such example in politics is the Alter Ego -A cultural-political network in UK that has been inspired by the metamodernism

Alter Ego's manifesto declares: 'Political problems are never “just” political; they are always also emotional, psychological and (what some call) “spiritual” problems…Politics has neglected the most fundamental questions of human life—those related to meaning, purpose and transcendence…The personal development of individuals must be taken seriously if we want to transform society.

[Dan Gorman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Storm makes a good argument that humanities scholars need to break out of the postmodern mindset. There are insights to be derived from deconstruction, skepticism, poststructuralism, and other theories that interrogate the status quo, but at some point, you have to make something new instead of critiquing ad infinitem. Storm wants a reflective scholarship premised on what he calls humble knowledge and a process ontology — the understanding that knowledge is always in flux and tempered by human bias, but that we should still pursue knowledge anyway. It's sort of like internalizing the critiques of postmodernism, but also returning to the modernist impulse to create. Storm also makes good comments about recognizing humans' connections to the natural world (what he calls hylosemiotics) and maintaining a skeptical-yet-inquisitive attitude (what he calls Zeteticism). I think.

It's an extremely dense book, and I didn't have enough time to really dissect its contents. For a volume that's supposed to be light on jargon, I found it very challenging in its terminology. I had to Google a lot of stuff. But the theme of balancing critical theory and the limits of human knowledge with the continued search for knowledge resonated with me. I think of all the cultural criticism of the COVID era. It’s useful, and we must meditate on it. Eventually, though, we must build a new world for ourselves.

[هاجر العتيبي · Rating 5 out of 5]

في عالم يهيمن عليه التفكيك والتشكيك في أسس المعرفة، يأتي كتاب "ميتاموديرنيزم: مستقبل النظرية" لجيسون كنسمة هواء جديدة ومنعشة. هذا الكتاب، بالنسبة لي، هو نقلة نوعية في فهمنا للمعرفة والنظريات الإنسانية. ستورم، بشجاعته الكبيرة، يتحدى الوضع الراهن ويقدم بديلاً مثيرًا للاهتمام لتجاوز ما بعد الحداثة دون العودة إلى الفكر الحداثي البسيط.

ما يجعل هذا الكتاب فريدًا هو أنه لا يقدم لنا فقط نقدًا لما بعد الحداثة، بل يعرض لنا أيضًا رؤية جديدة وإيجابية. يعالج ستورم كيف يمكن للعلوم الإنسانية أن تتقدم بتجاوز العيوب التي اعترت مجالاتنا الأكاديمية، ويطرح حلولاً قد تكون حجر الزاوية في بناء مستقبل أكثر إشراقًا لفهمنا للمعرفة. يبتعد الكتاب عن التفسيرات الجاهزة ويعرض لنا مقاربة بناءً وإبداعية، وهو ما جعلني متحمسًا للغاية للقراءة.

الأمور التي يعرضها الكتاب حول الدين، وإعادة تعريفه، والنقاش حول مفاهيم مثل "الشكل" الديني، والانتقادات التي يوجهها إلى النماذج السابقة، تجعل من هذا العمل نصًا حيويًا وضروريًا في أي مكتبة أكاديمية.

ما يثير إعجابي أيضًا هو أن الكتاب مكتوب بأسلوب واضح وسلس، بعيدًا عن المبالغات البلاغية والمصطلحات المعقدة التي قد تعيق الفهم. لقد قرأت الكتاب بشغف ووجدته لا يقتصر على تقديم تحليلات أكاديمية بل يفتح آفاقًا جديدة للتفكير. ومع ذلك، كنت أتمنى لو كانت هناك فرصة لقراءة هذا الكتاب بلغتي الأم، العربية. أتمنى أن يتم ترجمته قريبًا، ليتمكن المزيد من القراء في العالم العربي من الاستفادة من رؤاه الرائدة.

قرأت الكتاب في الحادي عشر من يوليو 2022، وأجريت التدقيق اللغوي في السادس من سبتمبر 2024.

[Cameron Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just wow. Jaw-droppingly ambitious and refreshingly bold. Not only do you come away from this with a sigh of relief, like waking from a pomo fever dream - "what was I dreaming about again? Something about an 'ism' or... wait, someone was after me or, no, we were all after each other, scrambling to the top of a pile of nothing... oh it doesn't matter" - but you actually come away convinced that all that deconstruction really was God's work. Phew. It wasn't for nothing. That pile or wreckage history's angel can see mounting up behind it can be used as clay for new worlds.

Even though I was familiar with many of the concepts and sentiments of metamodernism, there is so much packed in here that I had to give myself breaks after each chapter to let these fresh formulations percolate. I strongly recommend doing this. It took me six months to finish the book. You really want to let Storm's concepts sink into your everyday experience of the world though before moving onto the next treasure trove of a chapter. As others have written here, nothing is especially difficult (some of the novel terminology around social kinds and hylosemiotics probably the most tricky) and it's certainly accessibly if you stick with it. Do yourself a favour. Stick with it.

[Маx Nestelieiev · Rating 4 out of 5]

от коли Сторм пише на стр. 8 This book is for all readers, but perhaps the most important reader is a scholar or graduate student in the human sciences who has a research project they are passionate about. To make this work accessible to such a reader, I have intentionally avoided jargon, obfuscation, and bullshit. This is nevertheless a very academic book... - то треба було мені йому одразу повірити... але не щодо jargon, obfuscation, and bullshit - бо цього добра тут аж надто, а розумні думки топнуть як "перли у болоті". загалом книга - типовий приклад лиха з розуму: Сторм переначитався всього і став футурологом. конкретніше: він виділяє в постмодернізмі 5 проблем
1) антиреалізм;
2) дисциплінарна автокритика;
3) лінгвістичний поворот;
4) поширена атмосфера скептицизму;
5) етичний нігілізм (і моральний релятивізм).
і описує 5 їхніх відповідників в метамодернізмі і ДУЖЕ докладно їх розтлумачує. цінна книга, але до цінність важко продертися крізь плетиво словес.

[Nick Bentz · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredible book on theory that fulfills the promise of postmodernism, and in doing so, begins the long process of transcending its negative bastions in favor of positive points of orientation. I agree with many of the reviewers here in calling Storm's book brave - the orthodoxy of postmodernism has made constructive projects like this anathema to many academics, and I'm sure that many will look at the goals of this book and scoff. However, that's the true risk of the metamodernist. DFW had it right when he said that we used to risk shock and condemnation, but now, true rebellion must risk accusations of banality, sentimentality, and out-of-datedness. An incredible text, and hopefully the first of many Storm will write exploring this new paradigm.

[May-Linn · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 stars, for the ambition.
Some critical flaws: His pace is far too great. Slow down. Explain. And stop name dropping for the sake of it. I often think some things are mentioned for the sake of establishing himself as wise and knowing, but it doesn't add anything but rhetoric to the argument.
I also think the book is overly ambitious.

But it is, at least initially and sometimes throughout, written with humour, and I appreciate that. I would recommend the book. Definitely food for thought.

[Sophia · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been reading this book for over a year and let me tell you I am so happy to have finally finished it. It's not difficult but it is dense. There are a lot of ideas in here and connecting them all together and really contemplating them takes time. I loved every second of this though. I love Jason so much, such a fangirl.

[Clay Wackerman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bold, erudite, potentially game-changing? It’s nice to see someone so well-versed in religious studies and literary theory provide such a comprehensive, critical, and compassionate account of these disciplines. Will certainly be returning to this one in the future. 💖

[Lulu · Rating 5 out of 5]

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...

[ª · Rating 4 out of 5]

algunos misses creo pero por lo general esta bastante bien

[Trevor Kiddy · Rating 3 out of 5]

too much G.O.D. I preferred mkUltra. Never forget the Xerox printer.

[Zach Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jesus was surprisingly metamodern