This brief essay comes from Notes on Metamodernism, a blog founded n 2009 by Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker (tomorrow I will post a longer intro to metamodernism from these authors), but now home to more than 30 writers from around the world.

The text beneath the title provides as much introduction as one needs to the essay.

What is metamodernism?

Metamodernism is neither a residual nor an emergent structure of feeling, but the dominant cultural logic of contemporary modernity. It can be grasped as a generational attempt to surpass postmodernism and a general response to our present, crisis-ridden moment.

Editorial on July 15, 2010

The ecosystem is severely disrupted, the financial system is increasingly uncontrollable, and the geopolitical structure has recently begun to appear as unstable as it has always been uneven. This triple crisis infuses doubt and inspires reflection about our basic assumptions, as much as inflaming cultural debates and provoking dogmatic entrenchments. History, it seems, is moving rapidly beyond its all too hastily proclaimed end.

Since the turn of the millennium, moreover, the democratization of digital technologies, techniques and tools has caused a shift from a postmodern media logic characterized by television screen and spectacle, cyberspace and simulacrum towards a metamodern media logic of creative amateurs, social networks and locative media – what the cultural theorist Kazys Varnelis calls network culture. [1]

Meanwhile, architects and artists increasingly abandon the aesthetic precepts of deconstruction, parataxis, and pastiche in favor of aesth-ethical notions of reconstruction, myth, and metaxis. These artistic expressions move beyond the worn out sensibilities and empty practices of the postmodernists not by radically parting with their attitudes and techniques but by incorporating and redirecting them. In politics as in culture as elsewhere, a sensibility is emerging from and surpassing postmodernism; as a non-dialectical Aufhebung that negates the postmodern while retaining some of its traits.

What we are witnessing is the emergence of a new cultural dominant – metamodernism.

We understand metamodernism first and foremost as a structure of feeling, which can be defined, after Raymond Williams, as “a particular quality of social experience […] historically distinct from other particular qualities, which gives the sense of a generation or of a period.” [2] Metamodernism therefore is both a heuristic label to come to terms with recent changes in aesthetics and culture, and a notion to periodize these changes. So when we speak of metamodernism we do not refer to a particular movement, a specific manifesto or a set of theoretical or stylistic conventions. We do not attempt, in other words, as Charles Jencks would do, to group, categorize and pigeonhole the creative work of this or that architect or artist. [3] We rather attempt to chart, after Jameson, the ‘cultural dominant’ of a specific stage in the development of modernity. [4]

Our methodological assumption is that the dominant cultural practices and the dominant aesthetic sensibilities of a certain period form, as it were, a ‘discourse’ that expresses cultural moods and common ways of doing, making and thinking. To speak of a structure of feeling (or a cultural dominant) therefore has the advantage, as Jameson once explained, that one does not “obliterate difference and project an idea of the historical period as massive homogeneity. [It is] a conception which allows for the presence and coexistence of a range of very different, yet subordinate features.” [5]

These different, yet subordinate features can alternatively be described as ‘residuals’ of days gone by or as ‘emergents’ that point to another day and age. [6] Postmodernism might have passed, it might have “given up the ghost”, but, as Josh Toth rightly argues, to speak of its death is to also speak of its afterlife. “The death of postmodernism (like all deaths) can also be viewed as a passing, a giving over of a certain inheritance, that this death (like all deaths) is also a living on, a passing on.” [6] The spectre of postmodernism – but also that of modernism – still haunts contemporary culture.

Others have started to theorise emergent structures of feeling that might, or might not, become dominant in the (not so near) future. The most obvious examples of such an emergence are all those practices that have become associated with the commons. Several theorists have argued, for instance, that these practices, ultimately, point towards an altermodernity, a future beyond modernity as we currently know it. Whether or not we agree with these visions of the future is besides the point here. What matters is that it is our contemporary culture that enables these visions; or rather, that opens up the discourse of having a vision at all.

Metamodernism, as we see it, is neither a residual nor an emergent structure of feeling, but the dominant cultural logic of contemporary modernity. As we hope to show in this webzine, the metamodern structure of feeling can be grasped as a generational attempt to surpass postmodernism and a general response to our present, crisis-ridden moment. Any one structure of feeling is expressed by a wide variety of cultural practices and a whole range of aesthetic sensibilities. These practices and sensibilities are shaped by (and are shaping) social circumstances, as much as they are formed in reaction to previous generations and in anticipation of possible futures. We contend that the contemporary structure of feeling evokes a continuous oscillation between (i.e. meta-) seemingly modern strategies and ostensibly postmodern tactics, as well as a series of practices and sensibilities ultimately beyond (i.e. meta-) these worn out categories.

The metamodern structure of feeling evokes an oscillation between a modern desire for sens and a postmodern doubt about the sense of it all, between a modern sincerity and a postmodern irony, between hope and melancholy and empathy and apathy and unity and plurality and purity and corruption and naïveté and knowingness; between control and commons and craftsmanship and conceptualism and pragmatism and utopianism. Indeed, metamodernism is an oscillation. It is the dynamic by which it expresses itself. One should be careful not to think of this oscillation as a balance however; rather it is a pendulum swinging between numerous, innumerable poles. Each time the metamodern enthusiasm swings towards fanaticism, gravity pulls it back towards irony; the moment its irony sways towards apathy, gravity pulls it back towards enthusiasm.


REFERENCES

[1] In Digimodernism. How new technologies dismantle the postmodern and reconfigure our culture. Alan Kirby makes a similar observation concerning the end of postmodernism and the emergence of network culture. Although his book is insightful and provocative, he tends to be wholly negative, ignoring the paradoxes and potentialities of network culture.
[2] Raymond Williams (1977). Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 131
[3] See, for example: Charles Jencks (1977). The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. New York: Rizzoli.
[4] Jameson, too, uses William’s conception of a structure of feeling to conceive of his notion of a cultural dominant.
[5] M. Hardt and K. Weeks. (2000). The Jameson Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp, 190-191.
[6] R. Williams, p. 122
[7] J. Toth (2010). The Passing of Postmodernism. New York: State University of NewYork, p. 2

Image: Occupy Wall Street by Aaron Bauer, Creative Commons Licence

Matthew Kálmán Mezey on "Clumsy Leadership," Cultural Theory, and Development

RSA Chief Executive, Matthew Taylor, recently gave his annual lecture (on 12th September) with an accompanying article in RSA Journal. Matthew Kálmán Mezey, the RSA's Online Community Manager, wrote a fairly long and detailed response to the lecture, essentially (this is going for the nutshell summary) asking Taylor if he is serious about creating conditions for people to increase their development (and by this Mezey is generally referring to Robert Kegan's model of cognitive development, which is only one line among many), and if so, how he would envision doing so?

[Let's ignore, for now, the whole thorny issue of "development," such as what it is, does it actually exist, is it an inherent predisposition, as often suggested in integral theory, or is it an evolutionary adaptation to life conditions, and is it morally and ethically right to "develop" people without a full disclosure of the what, why, and how?]

Taylor spoke about Cultural Theory (he calls it the "theory of plural rationality") in his lecture (using the recent example of the Olympics) and the idea that we need "clumsy" leadership to get us through some of the incredibly difficult problems we face, what Keith Grint calls "wicked problems":

A Wicked Problem is more complex, rather than just complicated – that is, it cannot be removed from its environment, solved, and returned without affecting the environment. Moreover, there is no clear relationship between cause and effect. Such problems are often intractable....

Cultural Theory advocates for "clumsy solutions" to these types of problems, since normal solution-focused thinking is no longer useful at this level. A "clumsy" solution involves, by Taylor's account, "the three active rationalities of hierarchy, egalitarianism, and individualism (as well as recognising the fourth, passive, rationality of fatalism)." Furthermore,

Leaders who can be part of developing clumsy solutions to wicked problems are likely to have reached an advanced level of awareness not just of the tasks, context and stakeholders but of themselves and – crucially – of the perspectives of others using different frames of rationality.

But lest this seem merely like an elitist’s call for a new generation of enlightened leaders it is important to recognise that leadership is also about followership.

Mezey suggests that "clumsy" leadership is roughly equivalent to Robert Kegan's self-transforming stage (the highest stage he has identified, which exists in less than 1% of the population). Using Jonathan Haidt as an (flawed, in my opinion) example, he ponders whether the 16 years it took Haidt, by his own account, to move from an intellectual awareness of multiple perspectives to actually living a post-partisan perspective (again, his account - he appears to have a conservative bias when I hear him speak without a script) is a possible norm for "growing" people.

Haidt is a poor example for another reason - his life is that of an academic and author. Such a life offers much greater opportunity for growth, and time for speculation, than that of a government official or a corporate CEO. Nor do the rest of us who work for a living have the freedom Haidt likely enjoys.

Anyway. There are links to a lot of good articles and books in this article, and I highly recommend it (although, it assumes some working knowledge of leadership, integral theory (especially Robert Kegan, but also some Spiral Dynamics), and Cultural Theory (the links to Matthew Taylor's article provide a good foundation).

Finally, Mezey offers a variety of options for engaging programs that may stimulate growth in people, and solutions are what we need. Among his suggestions are the following:

• Launch a research project to uncover how commonplace the Self-transforming/Clumsy mind actually is. 

Eg across the UK, in organisations, in different professions, in Government depts, in No. 10 Downing Street, in the RSA...

• Undertake a literature review/metanalysis of all interventions which have fostered positive adult growth (towards 'Clumsiness').

How many have successfully fostered development to the Socialised (traditional) stage, how many to the Self-authoring (modern) stage, how many to the Self-transforming - Clumsy - stage? Which ones appear valid and replicable? Could we help any to become widespread?

• Produce a template to help active citizens create ‘Clumsy’ solutions

A toolkit to help active citizens to uncover how each of the three Cultural Theory rationalities would view any issue, followed by guidance on how to mesh them together to build a powerful and sustainable ‘Clumsy’ solution. (NB Cultural Theory sometimes adds in Fatalism and the Hermit as additional rationalities).

• Start testing out the collaborative/organisational approaches - such as ‘Future Search’ - that Cultural Theory has assessed as being most ‘Clumsy’

An excellent - though, of course, challengeable - Cultural Theory paper by Steven Ney and Marco Verweij is titled Messy Institutions for Wicked Problems: How to Generate Clumsy Solutions. It looks at a number of approaches to collaboration, strategising and decision-making in organisations to see which ones are most ‘Clumsy’/’Messy’(ie does it honour the 4 or 5 Cultural Theory lenses?).

Candidate approaches researched include Open Space, Soft Systems Methodology, Citizen’s Juries, Bohm Dialogues, Future Search, Wisdom Circles and the Learning Organisation. (It assesses 19 in all).

The most Clumsy/Messy - and potentially Self-transforming - is Future Search, with others like Design Thinking and 21st Century Town Meetings coming close too. Bohm Dialogue, Learning Organisation and Open Space are some of the approaches that only honour one of the rationalities, and so are far from integrative and ‘Clumsy’. (I’m not the only one who might quibble with some of this - but it’s a great step forward to scan the current tools being used in organisations, from NGOs to corporations, and to analyse which are most integrative/Clumsy).

• Begin to assess government policy proposals to see whether they are integrative and ‘clumsy’, or not.

Use Ney and Verweij’s assessment approach - above - but apply it to proposed Government policies.

Another angle on this might be to undertake a before and after adult developmental stage assessment, to see if policies are fostering the growth of ‘Self-authoring’ minds (as the OECD said was so important in the 21st century - see Beyond the Big Society) or Self-transforming minds.

• A booklet featuring the key proponents of the different models of plural rationalities outlining how their approach has successfully dealt with - or could deal with - a particular ‘wicked’ issue.

An edited collection of short articles could showcase approaches such as:

- Cultural Theory’s plural rationalities
- Jonathan Haidt’s moral matrices
- Prof Robert Kegan’s ways of knowing
- Prof Clare Graves/Spiral Dynamics’ ‘Value memes’
- Mark Williams’ ‘10 Lenses’ (actually there are really 11, as he has a clumsy/integrative one too).
- Pat Dade’s 12 ‘Values Modes’ (with its three Maslowian top-level categories of ‘Sustenance Driven’, ‘Outer Directed’ and ‘Inner Directed’)
- Torbert/Loevinger/Cook-Greuter ‘Action Logics’/Ego stages
- Lawrence Kohlberg’s moral stages
- Ken Wilber’s integral approach (though this is an integration, rather than a single model)

(And potentially many others too: Michael Commons, William Perry, Belenky et al, Hall-Tonna, Richard Barrett, King and Kitchener, Marcia Baxter Magolda etc).

I don’t think any publication like this has been attempted before - and it could be very helpful indeed to policy-makers - offering some really fresh thinking on ‘Wicked’ issues.

• Support ‘Clumsy’ leaders, help them to stay - and grow - inside their organisations

A new ‘Clumsy’ leaders network might help, and I’m sure Jennifer Garvey Berger isn’t the only person who’s thought about how to support Self-transforming/clumsy individuals so that they don’t leave their organisations - where their input could be unique and valuable. (This might make a good topic for a research project). The idea that organisational culture often acts as a sorting mechanism to drive away the very people who might be able to succeed with ‘Wicked’ issues is pretty troubling.

Another place to look for ways to turn organisations into supportive and deliberately transformational institutions might be in the work on schools by Eleanor Drago-Severson. Her wonderful 2009 book Leading Adult Learning: Supporting Adult Development in Our Schools is a pioneering look at how school leaders can foster the adult development of their staff by understanding developmental diversity, in order that their schools be the most effective for their students.

Ellie describes 4 practices that schools - and any other organisation - can use to support adult transformation and growth:

- Teaming
- Providing Leadership Roles
- Collegial inquiry
- Mentoring

Of course, it may even turn out that the late Elliot Jaques was right all along with his rather prescriptive and hierarchical vision of a ‘Requisite Organisation’ that is designed to reflect, engage and support the different stages of cognitive complexity of staff. (Part of the problem might be that Jaquesians have never properly reworked his model for the world of knowledge-based work?)

• From Alpha Course… to Genesis Course - spreading transformation across the UK and beyond

The RSA’s Beyond the Big Society report called for ‘transformational learning hubs which run training exercises for community leaders’.
 
One way I envisage to do this would be to create a secularised, transformational equivalent of the Alpha Course, complete with shared meals - and an active citizenship focus.

The Alpha Course has proven hugely popular with its 'opportunity to explore the meaning of life': it has attracted 3 million participants in the UK, and 15 million worldwide. I think some don’t - initially - even fully realise its Christian basis. It now runs in churches, homes, workplaces, prisons, universities and elsewhere.

Could there be a way fuse citizens’ skills, self-development, effectiveness and community engagement (and ‘Social Brain’ reflexivity) into a deliberately transformational 10-week course, that could spread across the 100 countries that have RSA Fellows?

I particularly like the idea of "wicked problems" pamphlets with solutions offered by many or most of the folks Mezey identifies above. These white papers could be very influential if given enough publicity and put in the hands of sympathetic leaders in various fields.


I also like the idea of generating a template for local leaders or organizers to generate clumsy solutions for wicked problems at the local level, which maybe then can be scaled up to the next bigger level, and so on. Bottom-up approaches, at least in the U.S., tend to work very well (witness the highly organized GOP takeover of school boards, local government, state government, and then for much of the last 45 years, the White House).



One idea I would like to see is some way to identify those people with the most power to create change and cultural shifts, however many that may be - from 10 or 15 to possibly 500. Then create an assessment that could easily identify their stage according to Kegan's model, with the goal of identifying those who may be already in position, developmentally, to implement these "clumsy solutions" so that they can be given information and a meta-framework for understanding these ideas.


My sense is that there are thousands of people in powerful positions who, if they could be shown the importance of greater depth and wider span in their leadership methods, would already be in position to generate considerable change very quickly.


But I am, strangely, an optimist.


For more information

These are some of the links offered in the body of the article:

• Messy Institutions for Wicked Problems: How to Generate Clumsy Solutions, by Steven Ney & Marco Verweij (School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Jacobs University; Bremen, Germany)
• Robert Kegan’s Developmental Perspective, by Bob Putnam at Action Design.
• The search for clumsy leaders, by Matthew Taylor on June 6, 2012, at his blog.
• A small flotilla of ideas – is anyone waving? by Matthew Taylor on June 4, 2012, at his blog.
• Wicked Problems and Clumsy Solutions: The Role of Leadership, by Keith Grint (Professor of Defense Leadership and Deputy Principle [Management and Leadership])