What is metamodernism and how can it help us collectively navigate these troubled, transitional times? The meaning of such a word must be disambiguated and its complexity foregrounded. At this point, there is no shortcut. As my colleague Hanzi Freinacht says, there’s no elevator pitch, you have to take the stairs. In this article, I will try to carry you, dear reader, up a few flights.

Metamodernism is an irreducibly complex and contested term and therefore it is hard to interface with. It emerges from cluster of almost a dozen “post-postmodern” terms, including cosmodernism, altermodernism, remodernism, digimodernism, performatism, hypermodernism, automodernism, renewalism, neomodernism, supermodernism, and transmodernism. Some of these terms have been analyzed comparatively in Supplanting the Postmodern (2015), but inconsistencies and tensions remain unresolved, both of which are important to address as the discourse evolves and our meta-crisis deepens.

By the time metamodernism crashed into Integral Theory, Game B, the Intellectual Dark Web, the Alt-Right, and various other corners of the internet, people didn’t even know what postmodernism meant anymore, if they ever did, and yet they knew its time had passed. Some of these ideologies have basic tensions with the emergent paradigm of metamodernism, such as an incomplete integration of postmodernism and other ideas, and I have contextualized Integral Theory in this regard elsewhere. For reasons that will become clear, this is a natural challenge, as we are dealing with a new order of magnitude in critical thinking and collective social responsibility.

For the discourse and aesthetic of metamodernism, there are now hundreds of important contributors and thousands of data points and memetic artefacts available. Over time, I’ve aggregated the primary sources that invoke the term in a brief article and in a spreadsheet of 250+ explicit references. This is far from the experience of the so-called “structure of feeling” of metamodernism itself, but it is the best crash course I can offer. The sources are mostly academic articles or commentaries, scattered across various journals and websites, with some podcasts, interviews, and YouTube videos mixed in as well. Taken as a whole, they reveal the depth and complexity that informs the term, but also the sense in which metamodernism does not really know itself yet.

Still, out of the whole field of research, two major strands of metamodern thought stand out and have drawn the most attention. One is associated with the cultural theorists Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker, and the other with the experimental philosopher Hanzi Freinacht, whom I mentioned earlier. The former represents a mode of art history and sociocultural analysis, the latter a paradigm expression of metamodernism as social philosophy and political development. Both are rooted in some common theory and a shared sensibility of the present crisis and opportunity, pointing to a metamodern attractor, but with differing subject matter and praxis. Both published major books in 2017, which crystallized distinct audiences and communities.

In the intervening years, I colloquially called these respective strands the Dutch School and the Nordic School of metamodernism. People tend to be versed in one or the other, but not both. I have argued that it is necessary to read them in tandem to gain broader comprehension of the movement as a whole. One can also play with the idea of an oscillation between them. Beyond this provisional duality, there is really no universal claim to metamodernism, yet we are developing one with a sense of solidarity and collective intelligence. This is what I pursue in my body of work.

In addition to the major camps, the work of Lene Andersen and Tomas Bjorkman is also motivated by Scandinavian culture and developmental ideas. Though there is some commonality, I separate this work from Hanzi’s Nordic School because the former writers aim for a more generic sense of the term. Bjorkman emphasizes a metamodernism beyond Hanzi’s characterization, often saying we are still looking for our true North Star, the attractor that will guide us in solving the meta-crisis. Regardless, as we roll into 2020, a higher synthesis is beginning to come online, and this third container goes inside and outside the main “schools,” holding space and helping triangulate the meaning, purpose, and reflexive definitions of metamodernism. This view to a potential synthesis is based on my extrapolations from the former two approaches, as well as other implicit and explicit metamodern sources, many previously not integrated.

A Tale of Two and a Half Theories

The term metamodernism has an evolving origin story, including a dozen or so important false starts, before it was reclaimed and developed from 2008–2010 by Vermeulen and van den Akker. In 2011, Luke Turner posted a sincere-ironic eight-point Metamodernist Manifesto, and the rest is history, or rather “the return” of history, as the theory goes. Their uses of the term became established as a niche discipline in art history and cultural studies, and looked at cultural artifacts and historical events through a hermeneutics of oscillation between the poles of modernism and postmodernism, in turn articulating a particular “structure of feeling” (a phrase that is not easily unpacked, and which they adapt from Raymond Williams). This project converged in Vermeulen, van den Akker, and Gibbon’s edited volume Metamodernism: Historicity, Affect, and Depth After Postmodernism. I have written a longform review of the book, which has become a necessary primer for the term when used in this sense.

Here, then, is one way people have become aware of metamodernism.

The other route is through the quasi-mythical Swiss philosopher Hanzi Freinacht, who has generated a discourse and community of his own, publishing two dense books, The Listening Society (2017) and Nordic Ideology (2019) to define political metamodernism. I cannot do these great works justice in these few pages. They are like stylized textbooks for psychological and sociological systems development, enabling a paradigm shift to a metamodern society. In these texts, Hanzi makes note of Vermeulen and van den Akker’s re-coinage and usage of metamodernism, but claims his own prerogative to reappropriate it as a metamodern social theory. Hanzi Freinacht is thus what I called the Nordic School, as the authors are Scandinavian and flex a distinct brand.^[i]

The Dutch School I so-named jokingly only because the principle authors are originally from the Netherlands, but neither community is limited by geography. There’s is a niche academic subfield (something like a school of thought, but that doesn’t identify as one), which has great insight and potential but fits the social sciences like a pair of clogs. Also, being inside Hanzi’s community and noticing that it rarely referred to the others, I found myself invoking Vermeulen and van den Akker’s work often (for various important historiographical, geopolitical, cultural, and artistic reasons) and needing a shorthand to relate these parallel approaches.

To really understand either approach, one would have to read thousands of pages of text, absorb a rich lexicon, reflect through this new lens, maybe also listen to some podcasts or videos, and perhaps even participate in the research and action aspects of these respective communities. Even then, metamodernism is still an ephemeral insight, constantly fleeting, while the world itself constantly recoils from our attempts to save it. Understanding the concept fully would require adopting what the French philosopher Pierre Hadot called “a way of life,” a religious devotion to the idea’s higher values and their unknown future.

The two schools have important similarities and differences. They are both scholarly communities with voluminous output and a cluster of enthusiasts, but are differentiated by their focus and commitment (or not) to a paradigm shift. The Dutch School, or cultural metamodernism, observes but consciously stops short of one, while the Nordic School, or political metamodernism, consciously breaks through to activate a new paradigm. The former is descriptive, the latter prescriptive. The former is mostly academic and about art and culture, while the latter is para-academic and itself artistic. Methodologically, the Dutch School is based on charting the return of historicity, affect, and depth in culture rooted in a new geopolitical zeitgeist that envelops everything from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump. The Nordic School focuses on developmental hierarchies of depth, code, state, and stage, all taken in combination to form an “effective-value meme,” as well as six forms of interdependent politics to transform our social foundations.

Andersen and Bjorkman incorporate the concepts of metamodernism and metamodernity into their book The Nordic Secret (2017), a chronicle of the success of the Scandinavian countries, and the idea of bildung (lifelong maturation, education, cultivation of enlightenment, civic values, etc.) informed by the logic of global transformation. Bjorkman’s praxis comes through his work as a social entrepreneur, helping to generate this type of research and discourse. Andersen has since published a booklet titled Metamodernity: Meaning and Hope in a Complex World (2019), which offers an even more abstracted version of this view, as a simplified manual for comprehending this new cultural code, as it were. In an effort to break trail for a wider audience, the book consciously avoids reference to any other metamodern works or sources.

In Art Theory for a Global Pluralistic Age (2020), Steven Felix-Jäger critiques Vermeulen and van den Akker, arguing that altermodernism (Nicolas Bourriaud’s term) is a superior concept. However, there is room for combination, as altermodernism is about reorienting to a “glocalist” perspective for the global pluralistic age, “so what comes after postmodernism should not fall back into modern universalism, but should also not fall forward into absolute relativism” (p. 33). It emerges at the edges of the old paradigm and calls to us from a co-created future. Felix-Jäger characterizes our present moment as still post-postmodern, where multiple modernities co-exist. This suggests we are still not metamodern and the discourse being mapped reflects this understanding.

Just-in-Time for Class, Consciousness

The liminal approach to metamodernism is still unfolding, and just-in-time for the end of the world.^[ii] In a four-part series, I introduced some over-looked sources, lost citations that charted a metamodern path forward in the early 90s, all of which speak to a deep social obligation, posing challenges to the major schools. The first article titled Missing Metamodernism, introduced the series and included some reflections on Seth Abramson’s intervention and how it complements my own work. The second article explored Albert Borgmann’s approach, who, in 1989, buried his novel theory of metamodernism in a conference paper for New Worlds, New Technologies, New Issues (an incredibly prescient book overall, it turns out), then lost and forgotten to the discourse.

Borgmann describes a bifurcation of postmodernism. On one path, hypermodernism is the idea that the “pernicious influence of modern technology will become still more pervasive and dominating.” On the other, a metamodern philosophy of technology will be “context sensitive and historically reverent,” attentive to different “voices of reality.” Hypermodernism is broadly about the culture and technology of speed and excess, whereas metamodernism is one of humane technology, reconstruction, and is ultimately about focal realism, local pluralism, patient vigor, and communal celebration (Borgmann’s terms). This sensibility is also applied in the book Smart Cities and Artificial Intelligence (2020), which I edited, activating the turn more formally.

The third article focused on Justo L. Gonzalez, who called Latinos in America “metamodern aliens in postmodern Jerusalem,” and offers an incredibly subversive and inspiring post-colonial and liberation theology narrative, especially salient when considering Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) as a metamodern politician. The movement behind Bernie Sanders also represents some pre-figurative metamodern value politics breaking into the mainstream, after all these decades of it being seeded, both in theory and praxis. The fourth article, titled Black Metamodernism, finds another obscure source of metamodernism, which suggests that African “retournee” artists are metamodernists of their own. I expand on this and find solidarity in action scholars like Cornel West, another Sanders advocate who is on the cutting edge of social philosophy.

While most metamodern theory actively strives to make a post-political move, it is still at least properly informed by leftist tradition and Marxist analysis, among many other commitments.^[iii] This is apparent in the main metamodern approaches, as well the alternative sources I have collected here, and is particularly true in my own case.^[iv] Indeed, in this sense, metamodernism is not amenable to some wishy-washy highbrow liberalism or reactionary conservative toolkit. Rather, it is a post-critical praxis of cultural evolution and socio-political systems change, manifest through class consciousness and solidarity.

We Need to Talk About Postmodernism

Before we attempt to distill metamodernism further, a word about semantics is needed. The first thing to understand is what a superordinate term is (aka a “hypernym,” or “discourse-organizing word”), a word that includes the meaning of other words, a container for other containers. Metamodernism is superordinate and also multi-ordinal, in that it can have multiple meanings. Modernism and postmodernism are themselves superordinate, multi-ordinal, and irreducible terms. Thus, to put them in simple formulaic stages or combinations (say, of modernism to postmodernism to metamodernism) is oversimplifying and misleading. Nevertheless, understanding metamodernism as an oscillation or synthesis between modernism and postmodernism is a useful heuristic, so long as it is not understood in a simplistic or reductive way.

One has to dive into the deeper source material to apply it in specific cases.

Metamodernism essentially becomes a process or practice of researching, thinking, and attempting to exercise greater points of leverage on a paradigm shift. Furthermore, the conceptual overlap of metamodernism with terms like hypermodernism, transmodernism, and altermodernism can make all the theories seem mystifying and incomplete, but these are superordinate terms that contain and compress the meaning of many other concepts.  There is not space for such comparison here, but it should humble us to the work.

Thus, in order to grok metamodernism as a project, one needs a basic understanding of postmodernism in complexity terms, which also presupposes a deep knowledge of modernism and the constructed evolution of both fields. The relevance of postmodernism is all the more salient given the reactionary cultural backlash against it today, for example in the anti-postmodernism expressed via the Intellectual Dark Web, its periphery, and contemporary right-wing culture, as indicative of the rise of postmodern conservatism (see Matthew McManus 2019). In many ways, these debates rehash the postmodernism debate of 20 years ago, which fragmented further into a more a radical grassroots movement undermined by a Democratic party of right-wing liberals that diluted progressivism. This tension remains unresolved, and the ability of metamodernism to address these problems depends on understanding these precursors.

Postmodernism is in itself already quite meta-, though not as much as metamodernism, which takes postmodernism (and more) as its object. The book The ‘Postmodern Turn’ in the Social Sciences, by Simon Susen (2015), offers a comprehensive synthesis, especially with regard to academic postmodern culture itself, rather than arts and culture alone. If we are to define the “turn” itself in a nutshell, we could look at Susen’s five distinct academic shifts, which involve complex normative transitions:

1. The relativist turn in epistemology
2. The interpretive turn in social research methodology
3. The cultural turn in sociology
4. The contingent turn in historiography
5. The autonomous turn in politics

This is one of many ways the book cuts across the different dimensions of postmodernism. It received high-praise from the likes of Slavoj Zizek, Zygmunt Bauman, George Ritzer, and other esteemed sociologists. The text is encyclopedic in nature, and includes many lists, italicized terms, and lucid explanations. The book has 1678 footnotes, some of which are just places for hiding even more sources. In one footnote on “cosmopolitanism,” I counted 69 citations. It’s a tome, to say the least. As Bryan S. Turner (another giant of sociology) writes in the Foreword, “The irony of Susen’s book—which is not lost on him—is that he offers an account of ‘postmodernism’ that attempts to be systematic. As a result, the textual architecture of the book is very ambitious” (viii).

This is Turner’s polite way of saying that Susen’s book is like a dense manual on postmodern systems of thought—not an entry level textbook, but a complex taxonomy of scholarship broadly associated with postmodernism. Though we must keep returning to it, one has to also ask, where do we go from here? Writing in the LSE Review of Books, Sarah Burton doles heaps of deserved praise on the rigor of the book, only to slap us with a reality check about how limited it still is. Her critique fundamentally reflects a call for the next paradigm. Writing about Susen, Burton says, “He has written an extremely postmodern book about postmodernism: depoliticized, ephemeral and, just when you think you’re getting somewhere, it ends” (para. 7).

Metamodernism is what is missing from this theoretical picture. Examples or signs of this type of omission are abundant, and it’s a clear opportunity and invitation to work at the edges, to begin the long process of a metamodern turn in the social sciences. For all that the book captures, there is no mention of metamodernism, even though it is written five years after Vermeulen and van den Akker’s famous paper. Another book, Supplanting the Postmodern, was published in 2015, and explores all the alternatives that Susen’s book missed, including metamodernism. What are we to make of such inconsistencies? It seems we’re actually looking at a common trend. Since 2010, there have been hundreds of articles on postmodernism that do not reference metamodernism, or other related terms.

The postmodern turn is thus very complex and asynchronous, while Susen’s presentation is fractal. Indeed, rather than simply un-blur the line between postmodernism and what comes after, Susen takes us on an endless journey along the infinite shores of paradox. Whenever one inquires into a concept like postmodernism—as a period, mode, or high-level abstraction about discourses or paradigms—there are endless tangents, bottomless pits of prose, and fine-grained variations on a theme. This is why the field became increasingly fragmented and produced diminishing returns. Nevertheless, trying to work through numerous levels of abstract generalization, or specific distillations of modern and postmodern objects, is what a serious practice of metamodernism entails.

The Generativity of Generic Metamodernism

Returning to a generic notion of metamodernism, we can integrate some other sources that have generated unique expressions of the idea. There is a short conference paper by Baciu et al. (2015) that neither Vermeulen and van den Akker nor Freinacht cite in their major books, but it is worth noting. At scarcely four pages long, this “Conceptual Foundation” paper provides a concise summary, first of postmodernism and then of Vermeulen and van den Akker’s metamodernism, but with some added intuitive insights. The authors suggest an “extension” to the meaning of “meta-” in metamodernism, arguing that it emphasizes “change, transformation, [and] metamorphosis.” Beyond “oscillation” between modernism and postmodernism, they suggest that “pacification and reconciliation” be included as well, which aligns with my approach, and is also implicit in the Hanzi project. The paper offers several definitions of their more reflexive and normative version of metamodernism, including:

“Metamodernism represents the trend that characterizes contemporary societies, being the expression of a new philosophical vision to the existential problems, a vision that leaves its mark on their approach and resolution.”

“Metamodernism is that trend which attempts to unify, to harmonize, and to settle the conflict between modern and postmodern by supporting the involvement in seeking solutions to problems and the desirable positioning towards existing theories, not only combating or questioning them.” (35)

These definitions are complementary to Hanzi’s phrasing of metamodernism as a “philosophical engine” (Freinacht 2017, 14). The paper also provides a table that juxtaposes paradigms along different attitudinal axes. Chronologically, there is a developmental progression and interposition beyond modernism and postmodernism to metamodernism, but it is not necessarily a linear model. Different relations to social reality are apparent at each new cultural level. These themes are coextensive with each period but also track as evolving trends over time.

The modern attitude is naturally more optimistic than postmodernism, oriented towards unlimited “progress” (but progress for who?). The rest of its strengths are overshadowed by the power of postmodernism, which exceeds modernism in all but its boundless optimism. Postmodernism is also more interrogative and critical than both modernism and metamodernism, hence its emancipatory and cynical flavors are dominant.

Metamodernism, on the other hand, trades off these deconstructive qualities in favour of being the most reflexive, metacognitive, proactive, and optimistic/open. On this point Baciu et al. (2015) write: “[Metamodernism] is the phase when not the critic and the problematization is the key, but the constructive effort to find solutions to societal issues” (35). Under late capitalism, postmodernism appears to provide diminishing returns on critique, especially as it becomes appropriated into new and perverse forms. A metamodern approach necessarily is less interrogative and critical, because it tries to split the difference and assert newly synthesized values derived from “oscillating” between modern and postmodern modalities. In other words, metamodernism softens the critiques of postmodernism and offers re-constructive solutions, while upgrading values.

In a similarly brief article, “The Metamodernism Conception Analysis as a Way of Reality Perception” (2019), Russian scholars Gorodischeva and Fomina observe the general strength of Vermeulen and van den Akker’s approach, but argue that it largely ignores hypermodernism and social issues, even though they are noted in passing. In the spirit of Baciu et al. (2015), this work also moves towards a metamodern social science. Without presenting a complete map here, there is an increasing range of scholars working towards this convergence. The Russian article concludes with hope for broader application of these ideas, but suggests that so far the meaning and gravity of metamodernism is still an open question:

“Until metamodernism says something about an epoch in its totality, and at the proper level of theoretical and socio-philosophical generalizations, the final hegemony among the concepts of ‘post-postmodernism’ can be ruled out.” (Gorodischeva and Fomina 2019, 360)

This sets the bar high for metamodernism proper, and I agree with the principle and methodological rigor at stake. I think Hanzi’s long-term project reflects this ambition, as does much of the ecology of social thought and practice related to emerging forms of metamodernism, but it still lacks this definitive realization.

Conclusion

It was my hope in this brief paper to consolidate sufficiently the paradigm of metamodernism so that the right premises and questions are on the table moving forward. While there is not space for a full exposition of hypermodernism, introduced in this paper as a negative counterpoint, I will close with this thought. Back in 1990, Kroker et al. described American culture as hypermodern, writing that at the end of postmodernity we were “vibrating between poles of despair” with a “high speed oscillation between meaning and meaninglessness, control and chaos” (p. 443). This statement reminds me of Vermeullen and van den Akker’s sense of oscillation, of a scene bursting with secrets and anxieties about our uncertain utopian futures. As the Iron Curtain fell, an ideology of panic and persecution grew dominant, liberalism was being eclipsed, and the struggle between hypermodernism and metamodernism would play out in the background of our social imaginary for another 30 years, bringing us to this moment in time.

My time spent within metamodernism over the past decade has been fraught with alienation and abstraction, but also rewarded with epiphany and epistrophe.^[v] And now we are stuck in time, as Jeremy Johnson elucidates in his contribution to this volume. We are also out of time. As the meta-crisis is already upon us, and we find ourselves unprepared for tomorrow. Here we are, in 2020, meeting in cyberspace, our heads spinning, looking backward and forward, confronted with an ever-present uncertainty. Simultaneously, I see a great degree of consilience emerging in the metamodern field, and I’ve attempted to constellate various luminous points within this field for our contemplation.

A real collective intelligence only emerges with collaboration, coordinated activity, and consensus building, all necessary steps to take if a functional discourse is to emerge. But metamodernism is bigger than a discourse, it calls into question our whole way of life. Our efforts are weakened and impeded by breakdowns in communication, gaps in knowledge, and errors in sense-making, each reified in late capitalism. The practice of metamodernism is a disciplined pursuit of truth and the application of soft power towards its instantiation, in relation through open discourse and solidarity.

This brings us back to the idea of practice, to what it means to do metamodernism, and to how such a practice is enabled or encumbered by academia. Metamodernism calls forth a dedicated askēsis—a reflexive, transformative exercise. Research is a social practice, by design, and we have to approach a shared metamodern project with common purpose and resolve. Given the complexity of postmodernism, and perhaps all “isms,” we cannot and should not take a metamodern turn lightly. Through the internet and our ability to coordinate global projects, a careful collective intelligence can accelerate epistemic and sociological singularities that may de-escalate or draw down the meta-crisis.

To summarize, metamodernism emerged as a new zeitgeist, a spirit of our age, more than as a paradigm or theory. In its first popular expression, metamodernism was a sensibility focused on passing through and between the modern and postmodern worldviews, with an emphasis on art and culture. But the jury is out on whether art or philosophy or social change come first, or if they all influence one another. Thus in its second-order iterations, metamodernism has emerged as a philosophy conscious of and related to its earlier expression, in a recursion towards a metamodern social science and society. Freinacht claims such a mantle in a sincere-ironic gesture of grandiosity, as do I in my cinematic alter-ego.^[vi] Both these projects are borne out of research and experience, and both have a self-effacing satirical edge, but with varied artistic license and theoretical underpinnings.

Today, a third incarnation of metamodernism, disaggregated and re-constituted, is possible, one that gives a multi-perspectival and historicist overview of itself, a side view that fosters a more synchronized and collectively energized metamodern turn. The three approaches outlined here inform each other and can be seen as successive waves of a zeitgeist. Ideally, metamodernism will become a vital philosophy and a way of life, in Hadot’s sense, but I fear we’re falling short of this future attractor, while the world is demanding a response now. Despite their many successes, if we’re honest, all senses of the term appear to fail when tested against the collapsing state of the world. A politics of terminal capitalism appears to be winning, a state in which really nobody wins, while pandemics and greater climactic threats loom large. This begins yet another introduction and invitation for metamodernism, a prelude to a deeper metanoia, to a conversion state in service of resolving the meta-crisis that can in turn achieve systems transition over the coming days, weeks, years, decades, and beyond.

---

Notes

^[i] See https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-invention-of-a-new-kind-of-political-party-in-sweden

^[ii] A nod to Jeffrey T. Nealon’s title, Post-Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Just-in-Time Capitalism.

^[iii] “Let’s start in a more or less classic Marxist vein . . .” (Vermeulen and van den Akker 2017, 12).

^[iv] See Meta-Marxism for a theoretical view, and Solidarity in the Darkness for a practical case.

^[v] I’m alluding to multiple meanings: my own experience and punctuated works, the Platonic sense of the term, the figure of speech applied at the end of the sentence, as well as the Stoic sense found in Pierre Hadot, “Epistrophe and Metanoia in the History of Philosophy,” 1953 (translated by Andrew Irvin, 2018).

^[vi] see http://www.abs-tract.org/art-film (2014).

References

Akker, Robin Van den, Alison Gibbons, and Timotheus Vermeulen. Metamodernism: Historicity, Affect and Depth after Postmodernism. London: Rowman & Littlefield International, 2017.

Andersen, Lene, and Tomas Bjorkman. The Nordic Secret: a European Story of Beauty and Freedom. Lidingö: Fri Tanke, 2018.

Andersen, Lene. Metamodernity. Nordic Bildung, 2019.

Baciu, Ciprian, Muşata Bocoş, and Corina Baciu-Urzică. “Metamodernism – A Conceptual Foundation.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 209 (2015): 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.226.

Borgmann, Albert. “The Postmodern Economy.” In New Worlds, New Technologies, New Issues, edited by Stephen H. Cutcliffe, 40–56. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press, 1992.

Burton, Sarah. “Book Review: The ‘Postmodern Turn’ in the Social Sciences by Simon Susen.” LSE Review of Books, February 2, 2016. Retrieved online https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2015/11/03/book-review-the-postmodern-turn-in-the-social-sciences-by-simon-susen/.

Charles, Sébastien. “For a Humanism Amid Hypermodernity: From a Society of Knowledge to a Critical Knowledge of Society.” Axiomathes 19, no. 389 (2009). https://doi.org/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10516-009-9090-3.

Cooper, Brent. “Missing Metamodernism.” Medium. The Abs-Tract Organization, October 15, 2019. Retrieved online https://medium.com/the-abs-tract-organization/missing-metamodernism-5da6b0b35dde.

Cooper, Brent. “Borgmannian Metamodernism.” Medium. The Abs-Tract Organization, June 11, 2019. Retrieved online https://medium.com/the-abs-tract-organization/borgmannian-metamodernism-8ed5e275f8ae.

Cooper, Brent. “Gonzálezean Metamodernism.” Medium. The Abs-Tract Organization, June 3, 2019. Retrieved online https://medium.com/the-abs-tract-organization/gonzálezean-metamodernism-c9343d2f4e0.

Cooper, Brent. “Black Metamodernism.” Medium. The Abs-Tract Organization, August 1, 2019. Retrieved online https://medium.com/the-abs-tract-organization/black-metamodernism-a72d24da6f0f.

Cooper, Brent. “Metamodernism: A Literature List.” Medium. The Abs-Tract Organization, January 29, 2020. Retrieved online https://medium.com/the-abs-tract-organization/metamodernism-a-literature-list-91272fa32b9d.

Cooper, Brent. “The Metamodern Condition.” Medium. The Abs-Tract Organization, January 31, 2020. Retrieved online https://medium.com/the-abs-tract-organization/the-metamodern-condition-1e1d04a13c4.

Cooper, Brent. “Integral, Metamodernism, the IDW, Part 1.” Medium. The Abs-Tract Organization, March 8, 2020. Retrieved online https://medium.com/the-abs-tract-organization/integral-metamodernism-the-idw-part-1-11a15f9bcb48.

Dember, Greg. “The Metamodernity of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.” What Is Metamodern?, February 6, 2019. Retrieved online https://whatismetamodern.com/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez_metamodernism/.

Felix-Jager, Steven. Art Theory for a Global Pluralistic Age: the Glocal Artist. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.

Freinacht, Hanzi. The Listening Society. Lund, Sweden: Metamoderna, 2017.

Freinacht, Hanzi. Nordic Ideology. Lund, Sweden: Metamoderna, 2019.

Giamarelos, Stylianos. “Have We Ever Been Postmodern? The Essential Tension within the Metamodern Condition.” In Re-Thinking the Human in Technology Driven Architecture, edited by Maria Voyatzaki and Constantin Spiridonidis, 408–19. ENHSA/EAAE International Conference Proceedings, 2012.

Gonzalez, Justo L. “Metamodern Aliens in Postmodern Jerusalem.” In Hispanic/Latino Theology: Challenge and Promise, edited by Fernando F. Segovia, 340–50. Fortress Press, 1996.

Gorodischeva, A. N., and J. V. Fomina. “The Metamodernism Conception Analysis as a Way of Reality Perception.” In Youth. Society. Modern Science, Technologies & Innovations, 358–60. Krasnoyarsk: Volume of the XVIII-th International Scientific Conference, 2019.

Gottschalk, Simon. “Hypermodern Consumption and Megalomania.” Journal of Consumer Culture 9, no. 3 (2009): 307–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540509341749.

Hadot, Pierre. Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2017.

Kirwan, Christopher, and Zhiyong Fu. Smart Cities and Artificial Intelligence. Elsevier, 2020.

Kroker, Arthur, Marilouise Kroker, and David Cook. “Panic Usa: Hypermodernism as America's Postmodernism.” Social Problems 37, no. 4 (1990): 443–59. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/800575.

Lipovetsky, Gilles. Hypermodern Times. Wiley, 2005.

Mcmanus, Matthew. Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism: Neoliberalism, Postmodern Culture, and the Alt-Right. Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.

Rudrum, David, and Nicholas Stavris. Supplanting the Postmodern: An Anthology of Writings on the Arts and Culture of the Early 21st Century. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Inc., 2015.

Susen, Simon. The Postmodern Turn in the Social Sciences. Houndmills, Basingstoke Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.