Metamodernism | Critical Theory Wiki

Introduction

Metamodernism is a cultural theory and aesthetic sensibility that describes contemporary art, culture, and subjectivity as characterized by oscillation between—and integration of—modernist idealism/sincerity and postmodernist irony/skepticism. Rather than replacing postmodernism with a new paradigm, metamodernism suggests we’ve entered a period of “informed naivety” or “pragmatic idealism” that navigates between poles that were previously seen as mutually exclusive.

The concept emerged in the late 2000s through the work of cultural theorists Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker, and artist Luke Turner’s 2011 “Metamodernist Manifesto.” They argued that 21st-century culture no longer comfortably inhabits postmodern irony, pastiche, and deconstruction, yet hasn’t returned to modernist sincerity, grand narratives, and faith in progress. Instead, contemporary culture oscillates between these positions—simultaneously sincere and ironic, earnest and skeptical, hopeful and despairing.

Metamodernism captures something essential about post-2008 cultural production and political sensibility. Occupy Wall Street’s earnest utopianism combined with ironic media tactics; hipster aesthetics mixing sincere craft revival with postmodern appropriation; social justice movements deploying both passionate moral conviction and deconstructive intersectional analysis; Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s unapologetic idealism in cynical political landscape; the simultaneous rise of both right-wing sincerity (Make America Great Again) and leftist sincerity (Green New Deal).

Understanding metamodernism is crucial for analyzing contemporary culture’s distinctive “structure of feeling”—neither fully postmodern nor anti-postmodern, but something qualitatively different emerging from postmodernism’s exhaustion and contemporary crises demanding renewed political imagination.

Key Figures

Related Thinkers:

Timotheus Vermeulen (1980-present) & Robin van den Akker (1979-present) - Foundational theorists

Luke Turner (1982-present) - “Metamodernist Manifesto” (2011)

Fredric Jameson (1934-present) - Postmodernism as cultural logic of late capitalism

David Foster Wallace (1962-2008) - “New Sincerity” in literature

Mark Fisher (1968-2017) - Hauntology, lost futures

📖 Essential Reading: Timotheus Vermeulen & Robin van den Akker, “Notes on Metamodernism,” Journal of Aesthetics & Culture 2 (2010)

Historical Context

Modernism (1890s-1940s)

To understand metamodernism, we must first grasp what it’s “meta” to. Modernism was characterized by:

Faith in progress, reason, and science
Belief in universal truths and grand narratives (Marxism, psychoanalysis, etc.)
Aesthetic experimentation and formal innovation
Sincerity and depth (authentic selfhood, true art)
Rejection of tradition in favor of “making it new”
Utopian political projects (socialism, social democracy)

Modernist art (Picasso, Joyce, Schoenberg) broke with conventions, but this destruction served construction of new forms expressing deeper truths. Modernist politics sought revolutionary transformation or reformist perfection. Modernist architecture (Le Corbusier) would rationally design better cities and lives. Everything could be improved through application of reason, expertise, and will.

Postmodernism (1960s-2000s)

Postmodernism emerged as critique of modernist assumptions:

Skepticism toward grand narratives and universal truths (Lyotard’s “incredulity toward metanarratives”)
Emphasis on difference, plurality, and local knowledge
Irony, pastiche, and appropriation over sincerity and originality
Surface over depth (no authentic self or true meaning beneath appearances)
Playful mixing of high and low culture
Deconstruction rather than construction

Postmodern art (Warhol, Koons, Sherman) appropriated and recombined existing images without claiming originality. Postmodern architecture (Venturi, Jencks) embraced decoration, historical reference, and vernacular forms rejected by modernism. Postmodern theory (Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard) deconstructed foundational concepts like truth, subject, and reality itself.

Politically, postmodernism aligned with identity politics, cultural studies, and postcolonial theory—emphasizing multiple perspectives over universal emancipation, recognizing how “universal” claims often masked particular (Western, white, male) perspectives.

The Exhaustion of Postmodernism (1990s-2000s)

By the 1990s-2000s, postmodernism showed signs of exhaustion:

Ironic detachment became default rather than critical stance. Everything was ironic quotation; nothing could be meant sincerely.
Capitalist co-optation: Corporations appropriated postmodern aesthetics (advertising’s ironic self-awareness) and multiculturalism (diversity as branding).
Political impotence: Postmodern skepticism toward collective action and grand narratives seemed to disable rather than enable political resistance.
Nihilistic drift: Celebrating surfaces, simulacra, and meaninglessness felt less liberating than paralyzing.
9/11 and War on Terror: “Return of the real”—violence, geopolitics, and genuine conflict that couldn’t be ironized away.
2008 Financial Crisis: Material reality (unemployment, foreclosures, inequality) demanded responses beyond ironic detachment.

Cultural theorist Alan Kirby proclaimed postmodernism’s “death” (2006), replaced by “digimodernism” or “pseudo-modernism.” Others suggested “post-postmodernism,” “altermodernism,” or “remodernism.” These grapplings indicated widespread sense that postmodernism no longer adequately described contemporary culture.

Vermeulen and van den Akker’s Metamodernism

”Notes on Metamodernism” (2010)

Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker’s foundational essay “Notes on Metamodernism” (2010) argued that 2000s culture exhibited new “structure of feeling” (Raymond Williams’s term for lived experience of cultural moment). This sensibility oscillated between modernist enthusiasm and postmodern irony, sincerity and skepticism, naivety and knowingness.

They identified metamodernism in diverse cultural phenomena:

Architecture (critical regionalism, new materialism)
Cinema (Wes Anderson’s nostalgic sincerity, Charlie Kaufman’s philosophical earnestness)
Art (social practice art, new romanticism)
Politics (Obama’s hope rhetoric, alter-globalization movements)
Philosophy (speculative realism, new materialism)

The key insight: contemporary culture doesn’t simply oscillate between modernism and postmodernism but oscillates with them—it’s informed by postmodern skepticism yet reaches for modernist ideals. This creates distinctive sensibility that’s neither naively earnest nor cynically detached.

The Metamodern Structure of Feeling

Metamodernism involves:

Informed naivety: Awareness that grand narratives, utopian projects, and sincere commitment are “impossible” or “naïve,” yet pursuing them anyway. This isn’t rejection of postmodern insights but incorporation of them into new sincerity.
Pragmatic idealism: Combining idealistic goals with pragmatic, incremental approaches. Not pure utopianism but also not cynical realpolitik—recognizing limitations while maintaining aspirational horizons.
Oscillation: Not synthesis or transcendence but perpetual movement between poles. Sometimes ironic, sometimes sincere; sometimes hopeful, sometimes despairing. The oscillation itself is the sensibility.
Reconstruction after deconstruction: After postmodernism’s critical work, attempting to build new frameworks, narratives, and commitments. Not naive return to pre-critical positions but construction informed by critique.
Emotional sincerity: Willingness to express genuine emotion, vulnerability, and care after postmodern ironic detachment. Not naïve emotionalism but emotionality aware of its own construction.

The Prefix “Meta”

“Meta” in metamodernism means multiple things simultaneously:

With: Moving with modernism and postmodernism, not beyond them
Between: Oscillating between modern and postmodern poles
Beyond: Gesturing beyond both while remaining connected to them
Transformation: Transformed relationship to both predecessors

This multivalence is intentional—metamodernism itself oscillates in its self-understanding. It’s not clean periodization but description of contemporary cultural dominant.

Luke Turner’s Metamodernist Manifesto (2011)

Artist Luke Turner published a “Metamodernist Manifesto” (2011) as artistic intervention and provocation. Written in manifesto form (itself modernist genre), it proclaimed:

“The time has come for a new discourse, a discourse beyond the postmodern. We propose the birth of a new sensibility in which the modern and the postmodern converge.”

Key principles:

Oscillation between sincerity and irony, enthusiasm and apathy, naivety and knowingness
“Informed naivety” and “pragmatic idealism”
Recognition of inherent instability and mutability
Embrace of grand narratives while acknowledging their constructedness
Commitment to truth, beauty, and progress while recognizing their contingency

Turner’s manifesto generated controversy—some saw it as genuine attempt to articulate new sensibility; others as ironic performance (is a “metamodernist manifesto” sincere or ironic? Both?). This ambiguity exemplifies metamodernism itself.

Key Characteristics

Oscillation Over Synthesis

Unlike dialectical synthesis (Hegel), metamodernism doesn’t resolve contradictions into higher unity. Rather, it perpetually oscillates between poles:

Sincerity ↔ Irony
Hope ↔ Melancholy
Naivety ↔ Knowingness
Enthusiasm ↔ Apathy
Unity ↔ Plurality
Totality ↔ Fragmentation
Construction ↔ Deconstruction

This isn’t indecision or confusion but recognition that neither pole alone suffices. Contemporary conditions require navigating between them, drawing on both as situations demand.

Both/And Rather Than Either/Or

Metamodernism rejects binary either/or thinking:

Not: either grand narratives or local knowledge → Both: universal aspirations grounded in particular contexts
Not: either sincere commitment or critical distance → Both: passionate engagement informed by reflexivity
Not: either utopianism or pragmatism → Both: visionary goals pursued incrementally
Not: either collective identity or individual difference → Both: solidarity acknowledging internal diversity

This both/and sensibility reflects complexity of contemporary problems requiring multiple, seemingly incompatible approaches simultaneously.

The Return of Sincerity

After postmodern ironic detachment, metamodernism permits sincerity—genuine emotion, earnest commitment, and unironic enthusiasm. But this isn’t naive pre-postmodern sincerity; it’s “post-ironic sincerity” aware of its own constructedness yet meaningful nonetheless.

David Foster Wallace’s famous 1993 essay “E Unibus Pluram” anticipated this, arguing that irony had become oppressive default requiring new sincerity. His fiction (especially Infinite Jest) combined postmodern formal experimentation with genuine emotional depth and moral concern—paradigmatically metamodern.

Contemporary examples:

Musicians like Arcade Fire, Bon Iver, and Sufjan Stevens expressing unironic emotion
Films like Her or Inside Out treating feelings seriously without ironic distance
Social movements using earnest language of justice, care, and hope

Reconstructive Impulse

Where postmodernism deconstructed—showing how concepts, identities, and narratives are constructed and contingent—metamodernism attempts reconstruction. After recognizing contingency, can we build new frameworks, commitments, and projects?

This appears in:

Speculative realism (philosophy): After postmodern anti-realism, attempting to think reality independent of human thought
New materialism (theory): After linguistic turn, returning attention to matter, objects, and non-human agencies
Constructive postmodernism (theology): Reconstructing meaning after deconstruction
Social practice art: Building real communities and interventions, not just critiquing

Hope Without Guarantees

Metamodernism involves what theorists call “hope without guarantees” (Stuart Hall) or “cruel optimism” (Lauren Berlant). This means maintaining hope and commitment despite knowing success isn’t guaranteed, that our narratives are contingent, that disappointment is likely.

This differs from:

Modernist confidence: Progress is inevitable; reason will triumph
Postmodern skepticism: All narratives are suspect; commitment is naive
Metamodern hope: We proceed without guarantees because what else can we do? Hope is practical necessity, not metaphysical certainty.

Contemporary Manifestations

Post-2008 Politics

The 2008 financial crisis generated new political sensibility mixing sincere idealism with awareness of systemic constraints.

Occupy Wall Street (2011) exemplified metamodernism: earnest utopianism (consensus democracy, horizontal organization, revolutionary rhetoric) combined with postmodern tactics (ironic media interventions, decentralized structure, refusal of demands). Critics saw incoherence; participants experienced productive tension.

Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaigns (2016, 2020) were metamodernly sincere—unapologetic socialism, moral conviction, revolutionary rhetoric—in supposedly post-ideological era. “Feel the Bern” played on emotional authenticity. Yet campaigns incorporated postmodern insights: intersectionality, recognition of multiple oppressions, coalition politics.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez similarly combines passionate idealism (Green New Deal, Medicare for All) with media savvy, ironic humor, and millennial cultural fluency. She’s simultaneously revolutionary socialist and relatable person livestreaming makeup application.

Extinction Rebellion and Sunrise Movement deploy earnest moral urgency about climate while using theatrical, ironic tactics (performative arrests, stunts). They’re deadly serious yet playfully creative—archetypal metamodern activism.

Hipster Culture and New Sincerity

Hipster aesthetics (2000s-2010s) exemplified metamodern oscillation: ironic appropriation of pre-ironic culture (lumberjack fashion, artisanal crafts, vinyl records) that became genuine appreciation. Was the handlebar mustache ironic or sincere? Both, and the ambiguity was the point.

New Sincerity movement in literature and music (Wes Anderson, Jonathan Safran Foer, The Decemberists) combined postmodern formal awareness with emotional earnestness. These works acknowledge their artifice yet invite genuine emotional investment.

Post-Ironic Internet Culture

Internet culture shows metamodern evolution. 1990s-2000s internet was heavily ironic (memes, trolling, “lulz”). 2010s-2020s saw emergence of post-ironic sensibility where irony and sincerity blur:

Wholesome memes: Earnest expressions of care, mental health support, and positivity in meme format
Earnest fandom: Unironic enthusiasm for pop culture without hipster distancing
Sincere activism: Social justice organizing through viral content combining humor with genuine political commitment
“Weird” Twitter/X: Absurdist humor that’s simultaneously meaningless play and sincere expression of alienation

The question “Is this ironic?” becomes impossible to answer because it’s both/neither—the metamodern collapse of the distinction.

Prestige Television

Peak TV era (2010s-2020s) produced narratives mixing postmodern techniques with emotional depth:

Atlanta: Combines surrealism, social commentary, and genuine emotional stakes
Fleabag: Fourth-wall-breaking self-awareness alongside devastating intimacy
BoJack Horseman: Absurdist animal-people comedy that’s profoundly tragic meditation on depression and meaning
The Good Place: Network sitcom using philosophical complexity and moral earnestness

These shows are formally sophisticated, culturally aware, and emotionally sincere—metamodernism’s both/and sensibility.

Climate Politics

Climate activism exemplifies metamodernism’s necessity. The scale and urgency demand grand narratives, collective action, and moral conviction (modernist impulses). Yet effective climate politics requires intersectionality, recognition of North-South inequities, and acknowledgment of capitalism’s structural role (postmodern insights). Climate organizing must be simultaneously utopian and pragmatic, global and local, revolutionary and reformist.

Green New Deal captures this: visionary restructuring of economy combined with concrete policy proposals; universal program acknowledging particular injustices; moral urgency with political pragmatism; climate agenda integrated with labor, racial, and economic justice.

Metamodernism and Mental Health

Contemporary mental health discourse shows metamodern sensibility. There’s widespread acknowledgment of:

Structural causes (capitalism, inequality, climate anxiety) alongside therapeutic individualism
Medicalization (diagnoses, pharmaceuticals) alongside anti-psychiatry insights
Neurobiological frameworks alongside social constructivism
Self-care as political necessity alongside critique of neoliberal responsibilization

This isn’t confusion but recognition that multiple frameworks are simultaneously needed. Mental health requires both/and rather than either/or approaches.

Algorithmic Metamodernism

Platform capitalism produces metamodern subjectivity. We’re simultaneously:

Sincere (curating authentic selves on social media) and ironic (aware it’s performance)
Individualized (personal brands, entrepreneur of self) and collectivized (networked, platform-dependent)
Empowered (voice, audience, creativity) and exploited (unwaged labor, surveillance, manipulation)
Connected (global networks) and isolated (screen-mediated relationships)

The oscillation isn’t chosen but structurally produced by platforms requiring authentic self-expression for data extraction while making authenticity impossible through constant performance and metrics.

Critiques and Debates

Is Metamodernism Actually New?

Critics argue metamodernism isn’t novel but rediscovery of longstanding tensions. Hasn’t culture always oscillated between idealism and skepticism? Wasn’t romanticism already a “both/and” sensibility? Doesn’t dialectics describe exactly this movement?

Defenders respond that while oscillation isn’t unprecedented, the specific content—movement between modernism and postmodernism after postmodernism’s exhaustion—is historically particular. The structure of feeling reflects contemporary conditions: post-2008 inequality, climate crisis, digital platforms, political polarization.

Depoliticization

Some critics (especially Marxist) argue metamodernism is politically vague or actively depoliticizing. Celebrating oscillation and ambiguity might prevent decisive action. Politics requires choosing sides, making demands, building power—not perpetually oscillating between positions.

Moreover, metamodernism can serve as ideology for educated middle-class creatives feeling postmodern cynicism’s limits but unwilling to commit to actual political projects. It becomes aesthetic sensibility rather than political practice.

Eurocentrism

Metamodernism emerged from European and North American cultural theory, analyzing primarily Western art and culture. Does it apply to non-Western contexts? Is it another example of Western theory universalizing its particular experience?

Critics note that postmodern irony was never as dominant outside Western academia and cultural elite. Many non-Western contexts maintained modernist commitments to development, progress, and collective projects. Describing their culture as “metamodern” imposes Western periodization.

Generational Privilege

Metamodernism might reflect millennial/Gen Z experience of educated Western youth—old enough to remember pre-digital life, young enough to be digital natives; raised with postmodern sensibility, politicized by 2008 crisis; comfortable enough to oscillate between positions rather than commit from necessity.

This raises questions about whose sensibility gets theorized as epoch-defining. Is metamodernism universal structure of feeling or particular class/generational/geographic position?

Coherence as Theory

Is metamodernism coherent theoretical framework or just description of cultural moment’s incoherence? Critics argue it’s more useful as heuristic or provocation than rigorous theory. Defining metamodernism as oscillation between undefined poles provides limited analytical precision.

Defenders respond that attempting premature systematization would betray metamodernism’s own insights. It’s better understood as ongoing conversation, intervention, and sense-making effort than finished theoretical edifice.

Relationship to Postmodernism

Some argue metamodernism is really late or radicalized postmodernism rather than something after it. Postmodernism always contained tensions metamodernism highlights. Celebrating ambiguity, refusing synthesis, mixing high and low—these are postmodern gestures.

Others contend that postmodernism proper is characterized by ironic detachment and deconstruction; metamodernism’s reconstructive, sincere impulse genuinely differs. Whether this constitutes new era or postmodernism’s internal transformation remains debated.

Political Implications

Beyond Cynical Reason

Metamodernism offers potential exit from “cynical reason” (Žižek)—the condition where we know capitalism is destructive yet continue participating. Metamodern “informed naivety” suggests committing to alternatives despite knowing they’re contingent and difficult.

This isn’t naive return to pre-critical consciousness but conscious choice to construct meaning, commitment, and hope after recognizing their groundlessness. Politics requires such wager.

Coalition Building

Metamodern both/and sensibility supports coalition politics acknowledging difference while building solidarity. Rather than demanding unity through sameness or celebrating difference without solidarity, it navigates between—maintaining universal horizons (socialism, climate justice) while honoring particular identities and struggles.

This mirrors intersectionality’s insights: neither single-axis organizing nor infinite fragmentation but coalitions recognizing how struggles interconnect.

Prefigurative Politics

Metamodernism aligns with prefigurative politics—building the world we want in present rather than deferring to revolutionary future. This combines utopian vision with pragmatic practice, acknowledging limits while gesturing beyond them.

Worker cooperatives, mutual aid networks, autonomous zones—these aren’t revolution but nor are they merely reformist. They’re metamodernly both: recognizing systemic change’s necessity while creating alternatives within present conditions.

Institutionalism vs. Movement Politics

Metamodernism helps navigate tension between:

Reformist engagement with existing institutions (electoral politics, policy advocacy, NGOs)
Radical movement politics rejecting institutions as irredeemably compromised

Rather than choosing, metamodern politics oscillates and combines: working within institutions while building movements that push beyond them; pursuing policy reforms while maintaining revolutionary horizons; pragmatic incrementalism serving utopian goals.