FIGURING OUT METAMODERNISM

This is about a paragraph meant to identify “metamodernism”, a way of thinking that comes after post-modern thought. Here’s the paragraph.

“Linda C. Ceriello has proposed a theorization of metamodernism for the field of religious studies. Beginning in 2013, Ceriello has applied metamodern theory historiologically to connect the contemporary phenomenon of secular spirituality to the emergence of a metamodern episteme. Her analysis of contemporary religious/spiritual movements and ontologies posits a shift consonant with the metamodern cultural sensibilities identified by scholars such as Vermeulen and van den Akker that has given rise to a distinct metamodern soteriology. She proposes that the reflexivity and construction of liminal spaces specific to metamodern epistemic shift (as distinct from postmodernism) be considered analogous to the mystical encounter itself, mirroring contemporary individuals’ felt experiences: “of being in-between, and of being both secular and spiritual.”

I had not read this paragraph in Wikipedia about metamodernism until just now. It came up when I asked for info about post-post-modern but that’s all I knew. I think I’ll just digest this in plain sight. It will drive some people crazy because of using fonts and colors to separate quotes from my own words. Helvetica is me; Geneva is quotes. Black is me; blue is quotes.

https://whatismetamodern.com This is the blog of Linda Ceriello. Very useful and appealing to me. Lots to download and think about. I see two things. First, the people who are writing about “religion” in the ways that most appeal to me are living on Vashon or Whitbey Islands or in Eugene. Second people who might not ever be published or only in pay-walled journals are now easily accessible on Academia.com. Terrific!

But they still use the old theological terms which can be confounding. It’s jargon: specialized vocabulary that closes people out. So I’ll begin by attacking that.

DEFINITIONS:

“Episteme” is the term used by Foucault as a conceptual frame for delineating historical time periods as well as for talking about what characterizes them, aesthetically and epistemologically. That’s what I did in yesterday’s post, identify some epistemes. Foucault is genius in exemplifying this stuff (being an example) and still being able to describe it.

The word is from Epistomology: “the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.” In plain English: how do you know that?

“Metamodernism, which, as we see it, seeks to resolve and/or engage the conflicts between tradition, modernism and postmodernism by emphasizing felt experience.”

It’s “felt experience” that I’ve been wrestling with since seminary (1978–1982). These epistemes are terms I needed for concepts that only needed “pot lifters.”

QUOTE:

“Metamodernism . . . allows for individuals to (re)claim ownership of a breadth of human vicissitudes experientially felt to be real, and more so when they stand messily entangled rather than tidily sorted out.”

Linda C. Ceriello

“Linda C. Ceriello has proposed a theorization of metamodernism for the field of religious studies.

Most of the guys who talk about these theories are using literary or artistic or musical thought rather than analysis. There is a taboo about talking about religion too frankly. It takes the magic away.

Beginning in 2013, Ceriello has applied metamodern theory historiologically to connect the contemporary phenomenon of secular spirituality to the emergence of a metamodern episteme.

So for eight years Ceriello has applied this new theory reflecting back through history to explain the emergence of secular spirituality This seems like a oxymoron. (Something that has a contradiction in it.) She means spirituality which is unchurched — unclaimed by a formally “religious” institution and therefore excluded from talk about it in another defensive taboo.

“Secular”, we now understand, is a made-up division to keep religious institutions from messing with science, so science can get on with their work. Churched and templed institutions have become relatively powerless, though they are still trying to connect with government. At the same time science has ventured more and more into knowledge that demands to be called mystical. Deep time, limitless space, and endless alternatives call up overwhelming feelings. They are literally inconceivable, and yet provable. The division between religion and science has dissolved.

Her analysis of contemporary religious/spiritual movements and ontologies posits a shift consonant with the metamodern cultural sensibilities identified by scholars such as Vermeulen and van den Akker that has given rise to a distinct metamodern soteriology.

Soteriology is the doctrine of salvation. Actually the word ought to be plural, because it means “what we must do to be saved.” There are many ideas about what to do: obedience, good works, predestination, a loving God, etc.

She proposes that the reflexivity and construction of liminal spaces specific to metamodern epistemic shift (as distinct from postmodernism) be considered analogous to the mystical encounter itself, mirroring contemporary individuals’ felt experiences: “of being in-between, and of being both secular and spiritual.”

Okay, this is the biggie.

MORE DEFINITIONS:

Reflexivity generally refers to the examination of one’s own beliefs, judgments and practices during the research process and how these may have influenced the research. If positionality refers to what we know and believe then reflexivity is about what we do with this knowledge. The shortest translation is “so, now what?”

I talk about liminal all the time as the Victor Turner idea of going over a threshold into a protected and felt time and place that might be echoed by physical time/space. In this context it also means ignoring the separation between what is supposedly secular and supposedly spiritual, so that it can’t be “owned” by institutional religion and therefore fenced or used as extortion. (“Do what I say or you’ll go to hell.”

This way of approaching what is known to be unknown is not a matter of nailing anything to the doors of the cathedral. Rather it is walking out of town to where one can see the stars.

There might be monsters, slowing pushing open your bedroom door. We are finding out who they are. This approach to philosophy doesn’t rule out evil, but it does rule out authoritarianism. Though it seriously challenges fantasies, it doesn’t rule out stories. In fact, stories are one of the binding threads through all of this.