Modernism vs Postmodernism - What is

the Difference?
Modernism and Postmodernism are two different movements that exhibit specific
differences between them. Each one is based on changes in cultural and social
behavior around the world. Also, they started in distant periods beginning from the 19th
and 20th centuries. These movements came as a result of the thinking patterns of the
society during those times.

Modernism

Modernism relates to a sequence of cultural movements that happened in the late

nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries. They included reforming developments in
architecture, art, music, literature, and applied techniques. Modernism flourished
between 860s and 1940s; preferably till 1945 when World War II ended. During that
time, a lot of importance was given to literary works. Also, this movement paid a lot of
significance to original works, such as paintings, sculpture, architecture, and poetry. In
fact, during this time original art was considered a primary creation.

Postmodernism

Postmodernism describes a broad movement that developed in the late 20th-century

and focused on philosophy, the arts, architecture, and criticism which marked a
departure from modernism. In fact, postmodernism is typically defined by an attitude of
skepticism, irony or rejection towards ideologies and various tenets of universalism,
which included objective notions of reason, human nature, social progress, among
others. Moreover, this movement is associated with schools of thought such as
deconstruction and poststructuralism.

how does postmodernism differ from modernism?

Postmodernism and modernism are distinct cultural, artistic, and intellectual movements
that emerged during different periods and have different philosophies and
characteristics. Here are some key differences between the two:
Historical Context:
Modernism: Modernism emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, roughly
from the 1890s to the 1940s. It was a response to the rapid social, political, and
technological changes of the time, such as industrialization and urbanization.

Postmodernism: Postmodernism began to take shape in the mid-20th century, around

the 1950s, and continued into the late 20th century. It was a reaction to the perceived
failures and limitations of modernism, particularly in addressing social and cultural
complexities.

Rejection of Grand Narratives:

Modernism: Modernism often embraced grand narratives and a belief in progress,
rationality, and the possibility of achieving universal truths. It aimed for purity, simplicity,
and clarity in art, literature, and design.

Postmodernism: Postmodernism rejected grand narratives and the idea of a single,

objective truth. It embraced ambiguity, pluralism, and the notion that truth is relative and
context-dependent. Postmodern works often play with multiple perspectives and
interpretations.

Style and Aesthetics:

Modernism: Modernist art and literature favored abstraction, minimalism, and formal
experimentation. It aimed for originality and innovation, often breaking away from
traditional conventions.

Postmodernism: Postmodern art and literature frequently incorporated pastiche,

parody, and irony. It borrowed from various styles and sources, mixing high and low
culture, and challenging the notion of originality.

Attitude Toward Tradition:

Modernism: Modernism often sought to break with tradition and establish new forms
and expressions. It aimed to transcend the past and create something entirely new.

Postmodernism: Postmodernism was more open to reinterpreting and reappropriating

elements from the past. It questioned the idea of a linear historical progression and
valued the recycling of cultural references.

Subjectivity vs. Objectivity:

Modernism: Modernist works often aspired to objectivity and universality, attempting to
depict the world as it truly is. They emphasized the artist's individual vision but within a
broader search for truth.
Postmodernism: Postmodernism emphasized subjectivity and the idea that reality is
constructed through language, culture, and individual perspectives. It celebrated the
artist's and viewer's role in creating meaning.

Social and Political Engagement:

Modernism: Modernism often engaged with political and social issues of the time but
sometimes leaned towards abstraction and formalism, which could be seen as a degree
of detachment.

Postmodernism: Postmodernism was more overtly political and critical of established

power structures. It explored issues of identity, race, gender, and class in a more direct
and confrontational manner.

It's important to note that these are general tendencies, and there can be overlap and
variations within both modernist and postmodernist works. Additionally, postmodernism
is not just a rejection of modernism but also a complex cultural phenomenon that
encompasses a wide range of perspectives and approaches.

Liquid modernity

Liquid modernity is a concept developed by sociologist Zygmunt Bauman to describe

the fluid, unstable, and ever-changing nature of contemporary society.expand_more It
contrasts with the idea of "solid modernity," which refers to the more rigid and stable
social structures of the past.expand_more

Here are some of the key characteristics of liquid modernity:

 Individualization: In liquid modernity, individuals are increasingly seen as self-

directed and responsible for their own choices. This can be liberating, but it can
also lead to feelings of isolation and insecurity. Expand more
 Consumerism: Consumption has become a central feature of life in liquid
modernity.expand_more We are constantly bombarded with messages about
new products and services, and we are encouraged to define ourselves through
our possessions.
 Flexibility: Work, relationships, and identities are all becoming more flexible in
liquid modernity. People are expected to be adaptable and willing to change
course at a moment's notice.expand_more
 Uncertainty: The future is increasingly uncertain in liquid
modernity.expand_more There are no guarantees of security or stability, and
individuals are constantly faced with new challenges and risks.
Liquid modernity has had a profound impact on all aspects of our lives, from the way we
work to the way we relate to each other.expand_more It is a complex and challenging
concept, but it is essential for understanding the world we live in today.

Some of the benefits of liquid modernity include:

 Increased freedom and choice

 Greater opportunities for self-expressionexclamation
 A more dynamic and stimulating environment

Some of the challenges of liquid modernity include:

 Insecurity and uncertaintyexpand_more

 Social isolation and fragmentationexclamation
 A sense of meaninglessness or purposelessness
 Liquid Modernity | Audiobook Online
 Description


 In his thought-provoking book "Liquid Modernity," Zygmunt Bauman delves into the
complex and dynamic realities of the modern world. Deconstructing the traditional
notions of stability and permanence, Bauman introduces the concept of liquid modernity,
a state characterized by constant change, uncertainty, and impermanence. Drawing upon
a wide range of disciplines such as sociology, philosophy, and cultural studies, Bauman
 elucidates how the liquid modern condition affects every aspect of our lives, from
relationships and politics to work and identity. Seamlessly blending theory and practical
examples, this compelling work challenges conventional thinking, inviting readers to
embark on a journey of self-reflection and critical analysis, ultimately questioning the
very nature of modernity itself.

 Zygmunt Bauman

 Zygmunt Bauman (1925-2017) was a renowned Polish-British sociologist, philosopher,
and social theorist. Born in Poland, Bauman experienced the horrors of World War II and
later became a committed sociologist, dedicating his life to understanding the
complexities and transformations of the modern world. His intellectual contributions
revolve around the concepts of liquid modernity, consumerism, globalization, and the
challenges they present to modern society. Bauman was known for his critical analysis of
contemporary social structures, examining the rise of individualism, the erosion of
community bonds, and the impact of global capitalism. With his prolific writing and
sharp insights, Zygmunt Bauman emerged as a prominent figure in social theory,
addressing the profound social, cultural, and political changes of our time.

 Liquid Modernity | Free PDF Download

 Overview | Chapter 1
 Hi,Welcome to Bookey! Today we will unlock the book Liquid Modernity by Zygmunt
Bauman. Long ago, in a world that seems increasingly distant and unfamiliar, life was
built on solid foundations. Societies were structured, roles were fixed, and there was a
reassuring sense of order and stability. But in recent times, these foundations have been
eroded, giving way to a new form of existence characterized by constant change, constant
uncertainty, and constant flux. This new reality, according to the highly influential
sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, is what he terms "liquid modernity." In his groundbreaking
work, "Liquid Modernity," Bauman captures the essence of our contemporary society,
painting a vivid and unsettling portrait of a world where everything is fluid, evanescent,
and transient. He argues that the solid structures and belief systems that once anchored
individuals and communities no longer hold sway in this rapidly changing world. Instead,
we find ourselves adrift, caught in a perpetual state of uncertainty and insecurity. To fully
grasp the profound implications of liquid modernity, let us explore a real-life example
that vividly illustrates the essence of Bauman's thesis. Imagine we are standing in a
bustling urban neighborhood, a microcosm of the liquid modern world. We observe the
rapid flow of people, each with their own unique desires, aspirations, and dilemmas.
These individuals, once bound by clear-cut social roles and expectations, now navigate a
complex maze of choices and options. On one corner, we see a young woman,
disenchanted with her corporate job, searching for meaning and fulfillment. She longs for
a sense of purpose that appears increasingly elusive in a world where careers are
transient, disposable, and subject to constant disruption. In liquid modernity, the solid
career ladder has been replaced by a precarious gig economy, leaving many feeling
unmoored and trapped in a whirlpool of uncertainty. At a nearby cafe, we encounter an
elderly man engrossed in his smartphone, scrolling rapidly through a seemingly limitless
 feed of news, opinions, and virtual interactions. In this liquid modern world, the
boundaries between the physical and the digital blur, leaving individuals constantly
connected yet paradoxically disconnected. The pace of communication is dizzying, and
the online realm offers little respite from the pressures and anxieties of daily existence,
instead exacerbating our sense of insecurity and FOMO (fear of missing out). As we
continue our journey, we witness a group of friends gathering for dinner at a trendy
fusion restaurant. Vibrant and dynamic on the surface, their relationships, like so many
others in liquid modernity, are simultaneously intense and fragile. Social media, with its
carefully curated profiles and fleeting connections, has reshaped the way we build and
sustain friendships, rendering them increasingly susceptible to the currents of transience.
Jealousy, envy, and competition simmer beneath the surface as individuals strive to
project the perfect façade of success and happiness. In this snapshot of liquid modernity,
we catch a glimpse of the precariousness and fragility that define our contemporary
existence. Bauman urges us to confront these realities head-on, for only through
understanding and acknowledgment can we hope to find a foothold in this ever-shifting
landscape. In the pages that follow, we delve deeper into Bauman's analysis of liquid
modernity, exploring its effects on institutions, social relations, and individual identities.
Through his incisive observations and compelling insights, he unveils the underlying
dynamics of this fluid world, urging us to question our assumptions, challenge our
preconceptions, and re-imagine our place within the realm of liquid modernity. As you
embark on this journey through "Liquid Modernity," prepare to be both disconcerted and
enlightened. Bauman's masterful analysis will challenge your worldview and implore you
to question the very nature of modern society. Brace yourself, for within these pages lies
a profound examination of the uncertain reality we all inhabit, and the urgent need to
navigate it with resilience, adaptability, and perhaps even a touch of optimism. In the
upcoming text, we will examine the three most significant key concepts derived from this
book. 1. Modernity has shifted from a solid, stable, and predictable state to a fluid,
transient, and uncertain state. 2. The concept of "liquid modernity" reflects the constant
change, flexibility, and individualization that characterizes contemporary society. 3. The
fluidity of modernity presents challenges and opportunities, as it dissolves traditional
structures and creates new forms of social, political, and cultural relations.
 Modernity has shifted from a solid, stable, and predictable state to a fluid,
transient, and uncertain state. | Chapter 2
 Furthermore, social media has transformed the way we interact with others,
making communication more immediate and accessible. While this may seem
like a positive development, it has also contributed to a sense of constant
change and instability in relationships. People are now able to easily connect
with others from all over the world, but these connections are often shallow and
fleeting. Friendships and romantic relationships can be easily formed and
broken, with individuals constantly seeking new experiences and connections.
Additionally, Bauman explores how the fluidity of modernity has impacted
identity and self-perception. In the past, individuals may have had a more fixed
and stable sense of self, shaped by their social roles and identities. For example,
one's identity may have been closely tied to their profession, family, or
community. However, in liquid modernity, identity becomes more malleable
 and fragmented. With the rise of social media, individuals are able to construct
and present different versions of themselves to the world, creating a sense of
identity that is fluid and ever-changing. This constant construction and
reconstruction of identity can lead to feelings of uncertainty and insecurity.
Moreover, Bauman argues that the liquid modernity is characterized by a sense
of uncertainty and risk. In the past, individuals could rely on social structures
and institutions to provide them with a sense of security and stability. However,
in the fluid and unpredictable world of liquid modernity, individuals are
constantly faced with uncertainty and risk. Economic crises, political upheaval,
and technological advancements have all contributed to a sense of instability
and insecurity. People no longer have a fixed set of rules or guidelines to
navigate their lives, but rather must constantly adapt and adjust to ever-
changing circumstances. An example that illustrates this sense of uncertainty
and risk is the global financial crisis of 2008. This crisis, characterized by the
collapse of major financial institutions, sparked a worldwide recession and had
a profound impact on individuals' lives. People lost their jobs, homes, and
savings, highlighting the vulnerability and insecurity that is inherent in liquid
modernity. The crisis exposed the fragility of the modern economic system,
challenging the notion of stability and predictability. In conclusion, "Liquid
Modernity" by Zygmunt Bauman explores the shift from a solid to a liquid state
in modernity. The book argues that in the past, social structures and institutions
were more fixed and stable, providing individuals with a sense of security and
predictability. However, in liquid modernity, these structures have become
fluid and transient, leading to uncertainty and insecurity. The examples
provided, such as the shift to precarious work arrangements, fluid relationships,
and the global financial crisis, demonstrate how this transition has impacted
different aspects of life. Overall, the book provides valuable insights into the
challenges and complexities of navigating the liquid modern world.
 The concept of "liquid modernity" reflects the constant change, flexibility,
and individualization that characterizes contemporary society. | Chapter 3
 For instance, in the past, relationships were often seen as lifelong
commitments, guided by social and cultural expectations. People entered into
marriages with the understanding that they were a permanent union, meant to
last until death. However, in liquid modernity, relationships have become more
fluid and adaptable. A prime example of this shift can be seen in the rise of
non-traditional relationship models such as open relationships, polyamory, and
casual dating. In liquid modernity, individuals prioritize their own needs and
desires over societal expectations, leading to a constant reevaluation and
renegotiation of relationship dynamics. This fluidity in relationships can be
both liberating and challenging. On one hand, it allows individuals to explore
and fulfill their personal desires, creating a sense of individual freedom. On the
 other hand, it can also lead to feelings of insecurity and instability, as
relationships are no longer built on the solid foundation of societal norms and
expectations. The concept of liquid modernity is also evident in the realm of
work and employment. In the past, there was a more stable and secure working
environment, where individuals could expect to have lifelong careers with a
single employer. However, in today's society, employment is characterized by
constant change and flexibility. The rise of the gig economy and freelance work
has resulted in a more fluid labor market, where individuals are required to
continually adapt and reinvent themselves to secure employment. In this liquid
labor market, individuals must constantly update their skills and knowledge to
remain competitive. They are faced with the need to be flexible and adaptable,
often juggling multiple jobs and roles. Moreover, the lack of job security in
liquid modernity means that individuals are constantly at risk of
unemployment, leading to a sense of insecurity and precarity. Furthermore, the
concept of liquid modernity can also be seen in the realm of consumerism and
material possessions. In the past, material possessions were seen as long-term
investments, meant to last a lifetime. However, in liquid modernity, there is a
constant pressure to consume and discard. The rise of fast fashion, disposable
technology, and planned obsolescence contribute to a throwaway culture,
where possessions are easily replaced and discarded. This constant
consumption and disposal of goods contribute to a sense of impermanence and
transience. Individuals are no longer attached to their possessions in the same
way they once were. Instead, there is an emphasis on the latest trends and fads,
leading to a constant cycle of buying and discarding. In conclusion, Bauman's
concept of liquid modernity highlights the constant change, flexibility, and
individualization that characterizes contemporary society. From the rise of
social media and its impact on identity formation to the fluidity of relationships
and the fluid labor market, the examples provided demonst

 The fluidity of modernity presents challenges and opportunities, as it

dissolves traditional structures and creates new forms of social, political,
and cultural relations. | Chapter 4
 One area where the challenges and opportunities of fluid modernity are
particularly evident is in the realm of technology. The rapid advancement of
technology has led to an unprecedented level of interconnectedness and
information sharing, which has profoundly impacted both social and individual
life. Traditional structures, such as hierarchical organizations and rigid social
hierarchies, are increasingly being dissolved, making way for new forms of
social, political, and cultural relations. For example, the rise of social media
platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram has revolutionized the way
people interact and communicate with one another. These platforms allow for
 instantaneous and widespread dissemination of information, facilitating the
formation of online communities and the mobilization of social movements.
This fluidity in communication has created opportunities for marginalized
groups to raise their voices and challenge dominant narratives. It has also
presented challenges, as disinformation and the manipulation of public opinion
have become widespread issues. The fluidity of modernity, in this context,
requires individuals to navigate the constant flow of information and discern
truth from falsehood. Moreover, technological advancements have also
disrupted traditional economic structures and created new opportunities for
entrepreneurship and innovation. The rise of the gig economy, for instance,
exemplifies how the fluidity of modernity has dissolved the traditional
employment model. Today, many individuals work as freelance contractors or
participate in the sharing economy, using platforms like Uber and Airbnb to
offer their services. While this offers greater flexibility and autonomy for
workers, it also raises concerns about job security and workers' rights. The
fluidity of modernity has given rise to a precarious and unpredictable labor
market, where individuals must constantly adapt their skills and navigate the
uncertainties of gig work. In the political realm, the fluidity of modernity has
challenged traditional notions of sovereignty and governance. Non-state actors,
such as multinational corporations and non-governmental organizations, now
wield significant power and influence on a global scale. The interconnectedness
of the globalized world means that decisions made by one nation can have far-
reaching consequences for others. This calls into question the effectiveness of
traditional nation-state governance and necessitates new forms of transnational
cooperation and collaboration. The challenges posed by issues like climate
change, migration, and terrorism require collective action and global solutions,
which can only be achieved through fluid, networked forms of governance.
Culturally, the dissolution of traditional structures has led to the emergence of
new identities and hybrid cultural forms. The fluidity of modernity allows
individuals to construct their own identities and navigate multiple social roles
and c

 Liquid Modernity Review | Chapter 5

 After reading the key takeaways from Zygmunt Bauman's book, "Liquid
Modernity," it becomes evident that there are numerous actions we can
incorporate into our daily lives to better understand and adapt to the liquid
modern world we inhabit. These actions range from personal introspection to
societal engagements and promote critical thinking, empathy, and the pursuit of
meaningful connections. Firstly, it is vital to acknowledge the transient nature
of contemporary society and embrace the uncertainty it brings. By accepting
that change is an integral part of our lives, we can develop resilience and
adaptability, enabling us to navigate the fluidity of modernity more effectively.
This means actively questioning and challenging the status quo while
remaining open to new ideas and perspectives. Self-reflection is another crucial
action in liquid modernity. Taking time each day to introspect and assess our
values, desires, and aspirations provides clarity in a rapidly changing world. By
understanding ourselves better, we can avoid being swept away by societal
pressures or conforming to superficial norms that may hinder our personal
growth and authenticity. Building on self-reflection, cultivating empathy and
compassion is highly relevant in liquid modernity. Recognizing that everyone
is navigating their own uncertainties and challenges can help us form genuine
connections and foster a more inclusive society. Engaging in acts of kindness
and actively seeking to understand others' experiences can lead to more
meaningful relationships and a sense of belonging in an otherwise fragmented
world. Critical thinking is a skill crucial in liquid modernity. Being able to
question information, opinions, and news sources allows us to discern fact from
fiction, helping us make informed decisions. This entails seeking diverse
perspectives, evaluating evidence, and critically analyzing the information we
consume, enabling us to shape our own beliefs and opinions rather than being
passive recipients of information. Setting boundaries with technology is yet
another action that proves essential in liquid modernity. Although the digital
age has connected us like never before, it has also blurred the lines between
work and personal life, leading to constant interruptions and a sense of being
constantly available. Establishing technology-free spaces or times, nurturing
face-to-face interactions, and prioritizing genuine connections over virtual ones
can alleviate the overwhelming sense of being constantly "on." Moreover,
active engagement in civic and political realms is crucial in liquid modernity.
Recognizing that our actions and voices matter, we can participate in
community initiatives, support grassroots movements, and demand
accountability from those in power. By engaging in dialogue and collective
action, we can work towards a more just and inclusive society and contribute to
positive social change. Lastly, education remains a fundamental pillar in liquid
modernity. Recognizing that knowledge is continually evolving, engaging in
lifelong learning is essential. This can be pursued through various avenues such
as formal education, reading books, attending lectures, or participating in
discussion groups. By staying informed and intellectually curious, we equip
ourselves with the tools needed to navigate the complexities and uncertainties
of the liquid modern world. In conclusion, incorporating the key takeaways
from Zygmunt Bauman's book, "Liquid Modernity," into our daily lives
requires a multifaceted approach. It involves embracing change, fostering self-
reflection and empathy, developing critical thinking skills, setting boundaries
 with technology, engaging in civic participation, and prioritizing lifelong
learning. By consciously integrating these actions, we can navigate the
challenges and uncertainties of liquid modernity more effectively, forging a
path towards personal fulfillment and contributing to a more coherent and
inclusive society.
 Liquid Modernity | Quotes
 Consumerism in liquid modernity has transformed individuals into perpetual
shoppers, constantly seeking the newest, trendiest, and most exciting products
and experiences, but never finding lasting satisfaction.
 In the liquid modern world, identities become fluid and malleable, constantly
shaped and reshaped in response to changing circumstances and social
expectations.
 The continuous flow of information and the speed of communication in liquid
modernity have eroded traditional forms of social bonds, resulting in a sense of
constant uncertainty and insecurity.
 In the liquid modern society, freedom to choose what to do with one's life is
matched by the freedom to wander aimlessly, free from any obligations or
commitments.
 The present liquid modern condition can be seen as an outcome of the
unintended consequences of modernity's focus on the pursuit of individual and
collective freedom.

After postmodernism
Post-postmodernist alternatives

Whether we realize it or not, we live in the shadow of

postmodernism. Contemporary philosophy is a response to the
postmodernist challenges to Enlightenment thought. And yet,
nearly all the proposed alternatives fail to go beyond the
postmodernist framework. Jason Ānanda Josephson Storm shows
why philosophy has failed to overcome postmodernism and
proposes his own alternative.
Despite recent polemics, postmodernism’s philosophical heyday
has long passed. While “postmodernism” was once indeed
important, the iconic works that made the term popular focused on
artistic and intellectual movements of the 1970s and 1980s that
have since become outmoded. It has been a long time since Andy
Warhol, William Burroughs, or Philip Glass were among the most
influential in their respective fields. Likewise, the theorists most
routinely associated with postmodernism as an academic paradigm,
such as Lyotard (born 1925), Foucault (born 1926), Derrida (born
1930), and Irigaray (born 1930), were all older than Elvis (born
1935); and even if some constellation of their disparate
philosophies was once dominant, the current moment is better seen
as a squabbling match between postmodernism’s presumptive
successors.

___

The opposition to postmodernism gave it more coherence as an

alternative to positivism. The formation of postmodernism was less
a “French invasion” than an Anglophone bricolage construction.

___

Postmodernism took hold initially as a polemical category. Much of

the early writing about “postmodernism” or the “postmodern
condition” was intended to as condemnation. But these writings
appeared when logical positivism (and related movements) had
attained ascendency in Anglo-American philosophy departments.
The increasing specialization of Anglophone philosophy and its
attempt to turn itself into a “scientific discipline” meant that
scholars in other academic fields were already beginning to look
elsewhere for broader reflections on knowledge and meaning. The
opposition to postmodernism gave it more coherence as an
alternative to positivism. The formation of postmodernism was less
a “French invasion” than an Anglophone bricolage construction. It
occurred by way of textbooks and other anthologies that presented
together, and in translation, selections from the work of disparate
Continental thinkers from different academic disciplines who often
saw themselves in conflict with each other. The canonization of
these thinkers became increasingly associated with emancipatory
political battles both within the framework of existing departments
and alongside the emergence of women’s studies and many ethnic
studies programs. The more critics opposed postmodernism, the
more postmodernism solidified itself as a counter-movement with a
sceptical stance. In this respect, it emerged via a feedback loop
between polemical criticism and actual disciplinary paradigms. It
also served the general function of providing a shared canon and
conversation across a range of disciplines. But in becoming
dominant in many disciplines, it has increasingly lost its claims of
counter-hegemony, and many of its philosophical insights have
come to seem stale.

The last two decades have seen the gradual bubbling up of

alternatives. Although many of them were short-lived, today there
are four main kinds of alternatives whose signature differences
from each other are rooted in part in what they see as
postmodernism’s shortcomings.

The Post-Postmodernism Alternatives

First, various New Realisms reject what they see as

postmodernism’s “anti-realism,” fetishization of social construction,
and skepticism about the human capacity to access a mind-
independent reality. In response, most Neo-Realists describe what
they take to be “the world out there.” Second, proponents of the
related New Materialism movement argue that the central problem
with postmodernism (and the semi-overlapping “poststructuralism”)
was that it focused too much on discourse, the power of language,
and the capacity of linguistic categories to determine thought. In
response, New Materialists deemphasize words in favor of
focusing on things, vibrant matter, and the stubborn persistence of
materiality. Third, various Political Pessimisms argue that the
problem with postmodernism was its moral relativism; and instead,
they argue that the central task of scholarly inquiry should be to
draw attention to the ongoing effects of discrimination, racism,
sexism, ableism, colonialism, or climate denial. A fourth movement,
which we might call New Scientism, is not fighting for succession
but instead is dismissive of postmodernism altogether on the
grounds that postmodernism is jargonistic, obscurantist, and
excessively skeptical. As an alternative, they insist strongly on the
triumph of reason, assertions about “objective truths” or
incontrovertible facts, or they evoke the (imagined) spirit of the
Enlightenment and a naively optimistic account of European
historical progress.
___

Both realists and antirealists often share more than they realize.

___

While I have sympathies for these movements, they have generally

remained trapped within postmodernism’s horizons and phantom
oppositions. I have my own alternative which I will come to later,
but first I want to clarify the shortcomings of the movements
discussed above.

First, New Realists should know that the split between “realists”
and “anti-realists” is mainly a phantom opposition. Both realists and
antirealists often share more than they realize; both tend to grant
that human perception is limited and that commonsense objects
are not what they appear to be. Their actual disagreement is rooted
largely in the realists’ confidence in a “reality” that functions mainly
as a stand-in for a non-specialist’s notion of the current worldview
of physics. More damagingly, most New Realists describe a
universe defined by “hyper-chaos,” incomprehensible flux, or
“vicarious causation.” In this respect, New Realisms are often
committed to the existence of a less constant, less predictable, and
less intelligible universe than that suggested by the supposedly
anti-realist postmodernists they oppose.

Second, New Materialism’s technical vocabulary and central

conceptual innovations have been directly imported from the very
thinkers they malign. I mean this literally. For instance, New
Materialists often argue that instead of studying language,
scholars should focus on “actants,” “networks,” and “assemblages.”
But the word “actant” was a key term in poststructuralist literary
analysis where it referred to a functional unit in a narrative; while
“assemblage” and “network” were central to the vocabulary of
structuralists’ linguistics, where the terms were used as near
synonyms to the now discredited notion of linguistic “structure”
itself. So the New Materialists are often repeating about the world
the same thing they accuse the postmodernists of having said
about language, while ignoring their own interpretative procedures.

Third, Political Pessimisms start from a common critique of

postmodernism as “moral relativism.” Most postmodernists,
however, were moralists even as they were committed to either
value neutrality or some form of moral, or cultural, relativism. How
was this possible? In brief, positive ethics was often regarded as
incompatible with scholarly objectivity or cultural relativism. But
calling out other people’s misguided values wasn’t seen as a form
of moralizing, but as a higher form of critique. For instance,
identifying that a particular argument has been distorted by racism
could be seen as an attempt to make it more, rather than less,
objective. One consequence of this is that negativity has prospered
in academic moralizing and is primarily expressed in terms of
disparagement and condemnation. The Political Pessimists,
therefore, who think of themselves as replacing postmodernist
moral relativism with activism, remain trapped in the modes of
scornful moralizing that are not the departure from postmodernism
its proponents imagine.
___

By failing to truly engage with postmodernism or the philosophical

problems it evokes, the New Scientists can’t even rebut it. They
just keep getting caught in its traps.
___

Fourth, the New Scientists do not so much repudiate

postmodernist philosophy, which they rarely actually read, as they
aim to laugh it out of the room. This group is composed of
psychologists, physicists, and social scientists (and occasional
analytic philosophers) whose central move is to dismiss
postmodern doubts as unfounded or postmodernist writing as
incoherent or incomprehensible. None of these moves is productive.
By failing to truly engage with postmodernism or the philosophical
problems it evokes, the New Scientists can’t even rebut it. They
just keep getting caught in its traps. Moreover, their fulsome
evocations of (supposedly) certain knowledge feed the scepticism
they despise. This is because any truth claim can be doubted, and
scientific “facts” are regularly being revised or rejected. Indeed,
this whole line of engagement, which happens to be the most
common form of critique of postmodernism, is just a modernist
return that if anything contributes to feeding postmodernism’s
coherence as an oppositional and sceptical movement.

In summary, while these putative successor movements all have

things to commend them, most are unsatisfying as repudiations of
postmodernism because they inherit rather than reject the very
features of the philosophy they attack. Moreover, polemical
opposition that fails to take postmodernism seriously is probably
one of the few things currently propping it up. In this respect, these
alternatives have become their own worst enemies.

___

Metamodernism argues that the best way to diffuse scepticism is

not insisting on “the facts,” but by learning to be sceptical of
scepticism.

___

But to confess, I have my own alternative, namely what I call

“Metamodernism,” and I want to argue offers both a satisfying
critique of postmodernism and a way to move beyond it.

Metamodernism as an alternative
The first thing you need to know about Metamodernism is that it is
a form of “no bullshit” theory. I mean this in the philosophical
sense. The philosopher Harry Frankfurt famously argued that “the
essence of bullshit” is that a bullshitter “does not care whether the
things he says describe reality correctly” or not. Critics are right
that many postmodernists are impossible to disagree with because
obfuscation and jargon make it hard to apprehend their actual
arguments. Their bullshitting was reproduced because the people
asserting it do not really care if it is true or not. Even today, many
theorists only care if their assertions sound evocative and can get
published. In response, Metamodernism is a “no bullshit” theory,
that rejects unnecessary jargon in favor of argumentative clarity. I
want you to be able to figure out what I am saying and tell me when
I may be wrong.

Working backward I want to show you

how Metamodernism improves on the various current, anti-
postmodernisms.

First, Metamodernism makes the case for a new stance toward

knowledge that is neither the naïve certainties of the New
Scientism, nor the dogmatic skepticisms
of Postmodernism. Metamodernism argues that the best way to
diffuse scepticism is not insisting on “the facts,” but by learning to
be sceptical of scepticism. Sceptics often define themselves in
terms of their doctrinaire commitment to the very things they don’t
believe in. Dogmatic scepticisms inevitably harbor residual
epistemological commitments; their very doubts are propelled by
their attachment to lost certainties. The answer to post-truth is to
be more sceptical not less. When scepticism commits to purifying
itself, learning to doubt its own propelling beliefs, then it ceases to
be sceptical. Postmodernists embraced scepticism because they
thought it was emancipatory. But historically scepticism has most
often been associated with a defense of the status quo. Doubting
the power of truth has often left systems of power in place.
Doubting doubt can, however, lead us toward emancipatory, humble
knowledge. Metamodernism concretely shows how this humble
knowledge can be produced.
___

Postmodernists embraced scepticism because they thought it was

emancipatory. But historically scepticism has most often been
associated with a defense of the status quo.

___

Second, Metamodernism agrees with the various Political

Pessimists that the current moment is run through with various
intersectional forms of oppression. It agrees that it is incredibly
important to bring our attention to the realities of victimization,
colonization, and climate change. But Metamodernism argues,
these critiques are not enough. Metamodernism grants, and even
takes its impetus, from the various forms of injustice the Political
Pessimists have so rightly identified, but instead of terminating in
the negative, it starts from there. It argues that we will never solve
the intertwined catastrophes of the present moment if we do not
exercise our capacity to imagine better futures. In so doing, it
complements urgent efforts to mitigate injustice by articulating a
critical virtue ethics directed toward multispecies flourishing.
(Although it also reminds scholar-activists that it doesn’t advance
the cause to distort evidence for the sake of predetermined
conclusions.)

Third, New Materialists were right to criticize the dominant

philosophy of language that scholars in many fields inherited from
postmodernist circles. But instead of simply moving from linguistic
theory to ontology, Metamodernism provides an alternative
account of not only how the world functions in signs but also how
human sign-making activities are on a continuum with animal and
plant communication. By doing so, it provides a fresh theory of the
meaning of meaning, which suggests humans approach the world
semiotically, but like our fellow animals we are not imprisoned in
language.
Fourth, against the phantom opposition between realists and
antirealists, Metamodernism argues that “real” is mainly a
contrastive term, which generally rests on an unstated contrast
(e.g., to say something is “real fish-and-chips” might mean that it is
real as opposed to plastic food, or it might mean that it is real as
opposed to inauthentic cooking, and so on). Moreover, there is a
long history of identifying the “real” in contrast to mind-dependence
or social construction. This is as though a given category (e.g.,
“gender”) is either real or socially constructed. Rejecting this
binary, Metamodernism provides an elaborate theorization of how
socially constructed entities are made “real” or given ontological
grounding.

This leads us toward the final significant innovation

of Metamodernism. Irrespective of
postmodernism, Metamodernism offers a new vantage for
philosophy of human sciences by providing an account of society’s
ever-changing nature—what I call a “Process Social Ontology”—and
its materialization in temporary zones of stability or “social
kinds.” This new approach serves as an answer both to over-
historicism and to essentialized notions of cultural categories.
Once we recognize that we make our own kinds, it means that we
can work to study them in new ways, to understand them better, to
improve or demolish them, to transform them, to struggle together
to build a better world. Metamodernism will help us do that.

All that is to say, Metamodernism consolidates the positive ground

postmodernism achieved without succumbing to its pitfalls and it
has the capacity to go beyond postmodernism in directions that will
be generative for scholars across a range of disciplines.
Humanism,
Posthumanism,
Transhumanism:
Issues of the Human
Future
By
David Galston

Some rising questions in theology involve humanism, posthumanism, and

transhumanism. I will try to define each of these words and highlight how
theology may think about issues of the human future.

Humanism
Humanism, in its modern sense, arose in the seventeenth century and
consists of placing value on autonomy, reason, and science.

‍Humanism is not anti-religion, but it is portrayed this way because, when

compared to traditional religious beliefs, it appears radically atheist. Autonomy
means that human beings are responsible for their own actions. No god has
placed us in our station for a purpose. Life is an individual gift, and what we
make of it is the action of our autonomy.

‍Reason is the guide for life. In humanism, a good life is a life that corresponds
to the best judgements possible about the real world, and this judgement rests
on the use of reason. Reason makes education a humanist value.

‍Science is the method of humanism. Reason cannot flourish if its content

holds little or no corresponding truth. Corresponding truth means that a truth
claim holds a consistent relationship to reality, and the vehicle of such a
relationship is evidence. The age of science is the age of evidence-based
reason.

Since God is not a conclusion of evidence-based reason, and since evidence-

based reason is a humanist value, it is often concluded that humanism is
atheism. This, however, is not true. Humanism can appreciate mystery and
can value mysticism. Mystery and mysticism in humanism, though, are not
religious confessions; rather, they identify the edges of human knowledge and
open up the religious experience of wonder.

Posthumanism
Posthumanism relies on the tradition of humanism and on humanist values
like evidence-based reason, the importance of education, and the autonomy
of the individual. Posthumanism, though, seeks to break the boundary that
traditional humanism assumes between the human and natural worlds.
Humanism, in its classic expression, casts nature, through the use of science,
as an object of human manipulation. Posthumanism blurs the boundaries
between human beings and nature. This makes evolution a value in
posthumanism because to affirm evolution means to affirm that human beings
are a natural process of the earth. The fundamentalist religious reaction to
posthumanism is creationism. Not only is creationism bad science, it is also a
reading of posthumanism as a threat.

Transhumanism
Transhumanism seeks to transport, through integrative technology, the
present posthuman understanding to a new level of human reality. In other
words, transhumanism is a commitment to a particular kind of posthumanism.
Transhumanism is the integration of technology with the natural human
experience, and this integration raises questions about the posthuman future.
What is the nature of our collective posthuman future coming at us whether
we like it or not? Secondly, should we like it, or should we resist? The second
question is about the human relationship with the world that involves deep
technology. Questions about relationships with the world are inevitably, and
maybe even primarily, theological questions.

Cyborgs
The “cyborg” is part of the transhumanist image, and it is familiar to us from
the now decades old TV series Star Trek: The Next Generation. In the series,
the “Borg” were cyborgs (humans completely integrated with technology).
Their humanity and their “mechanity” (to create a word for machine-ness)
were indistinguishable. The Borg could be viewed as machines, but they could
also be viewed as a community of beings, a very efficient and a very machine-
integrated community but a community none the less. The Star Trek figure
“Seven of Nine” was a former Borg who escaped her transhuman cyborg
condition of posthumanism to recapture her humanity, her humanism, among
the crew of the starship Enterprise.

Even though the TV series aired from 1987 to 1994, like the original Star
Trek series from the 1960s, Star Trek: The Next Generation raised fascinating
and disturbing questions about the human future. The show also exemplified
what transhumanism means: the question about the integration of technology
with humans on a path to a posthuman future. The character Data, a machine
who wanted to be a human, was also an element of the series.

Theological Concerns
The theological concern with transhumanism as a path to a new
posthumanism takes the form of the Psalmist’s great question from centuries
ago, “what are humans” (Psalm 8:4)? The Psalmist’s question is not about an
individual but about the human family. It is a question about God’s creation as
a whole and the human place in the whole. From antiquity the Psalmist poses
a question about futurity. To what extent ought human beings to manipulate
the image of God, which is who they are? Like any person who faces this
question, a theologian will hold hesitancy, be unsure, fear, but also hope. Is
our collective posthuman future something to celebrate or something to worry
about?

The Image of God

The “image of God” as a metaphor offers some guidance. In traditional
Christian philosophy, the “image” is the purpose (the aim of the form) of
human creatures. Remember, a “form,” from Plato, is the perfect image of a
material thing. Everything that exists in the world is imperfect, but everything
that exists, that is seen, participates in its form, its unseen perfection. In
Christian philosophy, traditionally stated, the image of God is the form God
created for human beings. The image of God is what we are meant to be
perfectly in our everyday imperfections.

In the Bible, of course, the philosophical understanding of the image is not

present. For biblical writers, the image of God is more active than passive. It is
the way God forms human beings. It is the life or breath that God gave human
beings to make them human. All human beings are brothers and sisters
because all alike are the image of God, the life of God’s creative act. All
human beings, we could say, are divine soul-bearers or energy-bearers,
according to the Bible.

The image of God, understood philosophically or biblically, is important to

theology and to the question of transhumanism because it asks to what extent
does the human experience with technology alter the image of God in human
beings? There is no single answer to this question. Insofar as technology
enhances life, then it enhances the “image of God,” which, biblically speaking,
is the energy of life. But if technology destroys life, then it destroys the “image
of God” in life. When we think of it this way, we are delivered back to the
classical humanist value of autonomy: to what extent are human being
responsible for their own future?

Theology places the “image of God” into the question of futurity. Theology
says that the transhumanist effort to form a posthuman future must be a
communal question because the “image of God” is a question about the value
of the human family. It is not a question about the value of technology.

David Galston is the Executive Director of the Westar Institute and an Adjunct
Professor of Philosophy at Brock University.