Part 5 of a multipart series, “How to Nurture Truth and Authenticity” This article series is for economic reformers and political activists interested in the metamodern political movement. This series will undoubtedly find appeal with those who have come to understand that the current values which drive global economy, those which we call ‘liberal’, are obstructing solutions to contemporary political challenges — in as much, those values are unable to guide a common activity beyond. Admittedly, the prescriptions herein are likely a mere articulation of what is intuitively felt across a large demographic — certainly those who have found themselves gravitating toward contemporary nationalist solutions. Undoubtedly a bit of political agnosticism is required for digesting this series. Already now, the final recommendation can be teased. If we wish to nurture truth and authenticity then we require an economy championed under the banner of prefigurativism.
Idolization of the apathetic and the cool
What conditions allow for the enjoyment of such aesthetics?
From the vantage of present time, it is undeniable that the sarcastic themes present in the comedy of George Carlin, John Stewart, and South Park have become transparent. Equally, the self-deprecation of Radio Head and Nine Inch Nails has not aged well. We can say something similar for the apathetic character of Donn Pearce’s Cool Hand Luke and Marshall Mathers’ Eminem. Undoubtedly, the popularity of the entertainment of the late second millennium indicates a spirit coping with the symptoms of the giantism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The name ‘postmodernist’ has been used to described these works. However, it must be admitted that this name is only partially appropriate. This aesthetic does not so much celebrate a rejection of the ideals of later modernization, as it does romanticize the suffrage from with them. The spirit of postmodernism indicates a deep commitment to the pursuit of modernization — but at the same time recognizes this pursuit had realized in a perversion. Simply consider the idolization of the industrialization of knowledge throughout the scientific industries and journalism, but then also the distrust toward authority, ‘deep state’ conspiracy, and the appeal of populism. Looking at the early third millennium, we find the rise of a ‘conservative skeptic’ — one who doubted the corona virus data reported by the mainstream news. The same skeptical spirit took up flat earth theory in order to redeem the individual’s own personal experience. If we say that Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek is the most pronounced expression of modernization and imperial value in science fiction, then Chris Carter’s X-Files must be the postmodern sequel.
Now, what might strike us as peculiar is that this twofold aesthetic periodization — the modern and postmodern — had been prepared for long ago. Already at the inception of the epistemological project, during the sixteenth century, Descartes’ meditations provide a wealth of material for science fiction novelists of the twentieth. Already then, the rationalist subjectification of the world had been coupled with solipsism. No doubt, the insurmountable chasm which opened between the subject and his world had prepared for a primordial encounter with the uncanny. This tripartite unfolding of doubt, rationalism, and science fiction may today strike us just as uncanny as the estrangement itself. In recalling Descartes’ second meditation we remember his reflection as he sat isolated in his apartment,
“…what do I see from my window, but hats and coats which may cover automatic machines? Yet I judge these to be men…”
“And in regard to any corporeal objects, I do not recognize in them anything so great or so excellent that they might not have possibly proceeded from myself…to these it is certainly not necessary that I should attribute any author other than myself…”
From the vantage afforded us today, it is hard to imagine any other conclusion to Descartes’ subjectification of the world than postmodern sufferage. After all, anyone who has come to understand himself as the epistemological metaphysical subject, and who at the same time idolizes a totalization of the universal powers, will eventually realize that, even if this totality could be completed, he would find himself a mere peripheral within a strange machinery. And anyone who then, at the same time, had come to experience the ‘Death of God’ would find himself alone in a world of cold mechanisms beyond his comprehension — a machinery which had no concern for his interest. And while Immanuel Kant’s epistemological project is said to have improved upon Descartes’, despite all his excruciating detail, we were left without a story of how a metaphysical subject transcends its own subjectivity in order to meet another subject — a story which might bring a ‘me’ into contact with a ‘you’. Of course, this solipsism did not go unacknowledged in the years following Kant. However, the problematizing of subjectivity hadn’t become explicit until the beginning of the twentieth century. Not until the works of Edmund Husserl do we find an explicit problematizing of what can be called ‘intersubjective transcendence’. And still, over the next several decades following Husserl’s pronouncement, the problem of intersubjective transcendence went unsolved.
Now, this article, part 5 in a multipart series on nurturing truth and authenticity, has been titled Fallen Empire of Liberal Metamodernism. It is here that the historical narrative of the economy of truth announces the conclusion to episteme. However, the catalyst for this fall should not be confused. Neither subjectivity nor intersubjective transcendence is that which has signaled a confrontation with episteme, such that we desire resolve. And in all honesty, if the problems of the primordial actio of the ‘I command’ were merely of consequence to intellectualism, we would not find reason for economic reform prescriptions. However, we can be sure this is not the case. After all, it is not by way of Husserl’s deliberations that we inherit the epistemological foundations of modernization today. To this we must admit a completely unintellectual source. It is, after all, by way of World War II and the victory of Enlightenment values that we suffer from the symptoms of episteme today. While this claim may be discomforting to those who champion for the universal ideal of Human Rights, at the same time, there should be little surprise. There can be no doubt that the name ‘liberalism’ is printed upon every banner of imperialism today. However, if we are to defend such a claim, we must temporarily set aside the historical economy of truth. Of course, a comprehensive understanding of liberalism could only be gained from outside this Warden Post article series, yet a shallow qualification of liberalism is required before we can return to truth — before truth’s utility within this project can be made clear. The next few paragraphs will make bare the project of liberalism as one toward a liberation from governance.
In looking back to the works of the philosophers and statements of the Enlightenment, we find a project to liberate the vessel of human potential, the tabula rasa — John Locke’s ‘white paper’ — that blank canvas which is the human subject. Liberalism began as an application of the epistemologist’s metaphysical subject to the domain of governance. Liberalism promised liberation by way of the rights of this subject. ‘Inalienable Rights’ once referred to a purely metaphysical or mental category — those of the subject’s internal freedom. No matter what rule any man found himself under, his inner world was a realm which was his own. Today we might think of this as merely a slave’s freedom. But as a pre-physical category, these rights were absolutely inalienable. By way of Enlightenment literature these Inalienable Right transformed into something thoroughly epistemological — that is, as an embodiment of the epistemological comportment toward the phenomena of experience. Here, we find an application of these rights to the domain of social and material economy. ‘Natural Rights’ were those of a man’s economy — those to be guarded from exploitation by any earthly powers. Natural Rights were to be secured through law. The ‘legislative state’ a vehicle for such governance-as-law. In 1802 Thomas Jefferson penned a now historical letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. In this letter we find the kernel of what would later become a foundational mantra of the liberal project — ‘the separation of church and state’. When we learn of this separation at a young age we are likely to think of the hocus pocus of religion and the powers of governance. The blessing of the czar by the priest. The consultation of oracles before going to war. Yet, any primordial reckoning which these fanciful images provoke fades beyond the playground imagination. Even a staunch rejection of such magic signals immaturity. Instead, what calls for reckoning today is the function which each half of this dichotomy serves in the whole of human economy. We surmise that the functional division must have been clear in Jefferson’s mind — a separation of action over-and-above belief,
“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
While the foundation for this wall had been trenched long before Jefferson’s pronouncement, its popularity signals its utility. Liberation favored a spirit of mercantilism which made use of Jefferson’s separation. Yet, this liberation did not entirely free the soul of man. If we are highly inhuman, we can even explain liberation as a mere rationalization for the sake of productivity. After all, from the perspective of mercantilism, even liberalism itself is a mere rationalization which has granted expediency to productivity — the businessman the mere vessel. In looking back into the history of later modernization, this had led to a tireless critique against mercantilism. In 2013, James Gustave Speth, the US advisor on climate change, championed for a spiritual renewal. He warned of a disintegration of human morality from within this economy. “Greed, selfishness, and apathy” were causing destruction to nature. But today, with a bit of distance to the disgust, we can ask ourselves, where else was the self-authoring creative human spirit supposed to find satisfaction within market economy? When the value of a product is determined by the market, the individual creator is forced to look towards his activity, his busyness, as the object of his own value. It should be no surprise that career success became the barometer of anyone’s contribution to his people. The entertainment industries pandered to Enlightenment values. Friedrich Nietzsche’s “What doesn’t kill me, makes me stronger” was repeated to this end — satisfying that spirit which idolized individual strength and self-reliance. Residue from Enlightenment Reason and Will.
Now, there can be no doubt, liberalism’s mercantilism has announced itself as a preservation of episteme, in part, in the wake of the economic policy following WWII — including any restraints which fell together with the USSR. Through a liberation of a ‘global market’ the legislative state had become a mere auxiliary which, in the words of Etienne Balibar, had devolved “from a protective function to a function of destruction of its own civil society.” A destruction “not in the ‘totalitarian’ form, but in the ‘utilitarian’ form, which is hardly less violent”. And although these passages have been reproduced here by way of the essay, Our European Incapacity, it is no less true for any state subjected to federal structure in service to market demands. No doubt, governance-as-law makes man subordinate before the law — each man equal to another. But the legislative state only provided a political shell — anyone must still fight through the economy of ‘market’.
We should not be surprised that the marginalized people of colonialism resonate with the sufferage of the postmodern spirit — manifest as a destruction of power structures by way of subversive social measures. Of course, admitting to ‘subversive social measures’ is not meant to sound degrading. Liberalism, as a liberation from governance, is equally that which has produced a social governance by way of the ‘global market’. Following the death of George Floyd the narrative was clear — private enterprise was able to satisfy the public’s interest more than any church or government institution. Of course, businesses took advantage — and in doing so established an expectation. Commerce was invested with the task of moral value execution and maintenance. And yet, from our vantage today, we find that those invested with the postmodern spirit suffer from their own values. Any destruction of social power only shelters and preserves the epistemological comportment toward the phenomena of experience. Episteme, as the ‘I command’ is that actio which seeks to ‘over-stand’ and dominate ‘society’. Social governance is that which today harbors the economy of imperium. In as much, ‘social governance’ is that which today discourages the disclosure of truth and authenticity. And we have been made painfully aware of the deficiency. The state, as well as ‘the market’ — each an embodiment of legislation, surveillance, and punishment — has neglected exactly what the church meant to satisfy in the whole of human economy. Inspiration. Hope. Communion.
What a dire picture, no? And yet, this is the picture we are presented with in liberalism’s first thirty years of dominion, following the fall of the USSR. Standing here, in this very moment, the conclusions of episteme, as the guiding actio of modernization, have become transparent. Episteme lays bare naked for everyone to see. The liminal ‘here’ and ‘now’ of today is characterized by the very identification of this narrative. A question. Can anyone bear this visage? No doubt, this article series is for those who are provoked to reconcile with this picture. From this position we find the emergence of a human project. The completion of which can only be signaled in a resolve to the alienation, estrangement, and civic apathy which we have inherited by way of the imperialism, totalitarianism, universalism, and giantism of episteme. Of course, this work is just one component in this initiative. And it is guided by merely two objects — truth and authenticity. Yet, these two objects are of paramount importance to the resolve. Nurturing either requires laying a foundation. And this foundation requires, firstly, that we redeem truth from the epistemological paradigm — rescuing it from rationality, empiricism, and liberalism — such that the creative human spirit, authenticity itself, may be liberated. This task alone defines this work. In as much, we return to our object, truth. We must follow it through this postwar storyline. In concluding this narrative, we will have accomplished the first half of this article series — namely, the historical economy of truth. This concluding chapter is necessary, after all, it is precisely from within liberalism that we find that seemingly universal public concern for relativism — a worldview consequent of this project and, at the same time, at-odds with our primordial experience of truth. Only here will we find peace with liberalism, such that the emergent human project can go forward, fully aware that epistemology has completed its primary task. Reason over any King. Before any God.
If we then turn our attention to the intellectual debate following WWII, we find a prioritization of disarming and depowering world institutions—even those far beyond the reach of the Nuremburg trials. The intellectuals who deconstructed authoritarianism during this period enjoyed public celebrity. These thinkers were invested with the burdensome task of reconciling with that metaphysical object which had been inherited by way of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marx, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Fredrich Nietzsche. However, this task only signals a quite unfortunately narrative for the object ‘power’. The weaponizing of atomic energy had not brought an end to this paradigm. Instead, the imperialism of liberalism internalized upon itself. We can epitomize this period by reference to the debate surrounding intellectuals such as Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jürgen Habermas, and Jacques Derrida, among others. In a little-referenced academic paper from 2003 titled The Problem of Critique, Steven M. Feldman identifies this turn away from epistemological metaphysics and toward a certain ‘epistemological sociology’ by the name ‘metamodernism’.
“Metamodernism not only rejects epistemological foundationalism, but further dismisses these concerns as insignificant in comparison to other more pressing issues. Metamodernists tend to emphasize the operation and orientation of power.”
“Jürgen Habermas, for instance, unequivocally declares himself to be postmetaphysical.”
Though, this turn towards the project of a deconstruction of authority was not entirely healthy for liberalism. After all, as part of the deconstruction we find a commitment to abandoning epistemological fundamentalism — an idea ushered in by way of Martin Heidegger. In its place, these metamodernists adopted something of a socially conditioned understanding of the metaphysical subject — a social condition which Gadamer called ‘tradition’. However, in abandoning the solely accountable epistemological metaphysical subject, these metamodernists found themselves in the middle of a paradox. Feldman framed this paradox as ‘the problematizing of critique within the metamodern paradigm’. That is,
“If we are always situated in a communal or cultural context, then how can we criticize either a particular interpretation of a text or, more broadly, a societal arrangement or organization?”
That is, if there is no objective standard then “metamodernism problematizes critique”. And this problem “leads us into the political conundrum”. But what is exactly this political conundrum which Feldman announces? — well, nothing other than the problem of liberalism, outright. If all interpretation and understanding is not only affirmed and valid, but celebrated, and at the same time, conditioned by a tradition beyond the accountability of any individual, then how do we integrate into cooperative activity? How do we constructively build a thoroughly liberal and now globalizing society? What is the one-and-only liberal narrative?
This is a question which can be answer by looking roughly fifteen years past Feldman’s announcement of the problem. It is here that we find metamodernism fully realized as the political movement. In 2017, Daniel Görtz and Emil Ejner Friss’s Scandinavian school of political metamodernism continued the sociological tradition by way of adult development theorists Ken Wilber, Michael Commons, Don Beck, Chris Cowan and the like. Their book, The Listening Society, addressed the problem of liberalism explicitly; in as much, they inexplicitly addressed the problematizing of critique. Their solution? — what could be call ‘social value periodization’. The Scandinavians understand that humans throughout the ages have meet each other with common challenges. Those challenges, then, are something of a social challenge. In response, social values realize in order to mobilize solutions. In looking through the history of modernization, these social values can be mapped as a progressive journey — one which facilitates modernization itself. Of those value systems, metamodern is the most progressive, having succeeded both the modern and postmodern, which themselves have succeeded the Faustian values of pre-modern time, etcetera. No doubt, one of the most affirmative quality of the metamodern narrative is that it delivers us from the postmodern suffrage aesthetic.
In as much as the Scandinavian solution is developmental, we can say that the Scandinavian solution to the problematizing of critique is teleological. After all, social values which mobilize a people to overcome their challenges are healthy; however, those same values are unhealthy if they retard solutions to the next generation’s challenges. With such a social-developmental theory in hand, we are then able to both critique and affirm each local world-narrative. Liberalism and the problem of critique is solved by way of teleology. However, what should be plainly obvious is that teleology does not so much resolve relativism. Instead, it simply falls under the age-old ideal of ‘progress’. Progress is esteemed as the 3rd-party ‘ruler’ by which we measure and judge the truth. It could be said that truth, in the metamodern narrative, is subjected to something of a ‘teleological relativism’. To be sure, the Scandinavians admit as much. Metamodern truths are not the final stop for humanity. Those truths are ‘provisional’, merely ‘the best we have’. And as always, there is a certain nihilism lurking in the halls of relativism. It might be wise to remember the discontents which relativism had previously produced. We only need to recall Arthur van den Bruck’s discontents with liberal nihilism—those which, utterly premature, came under the perversion of Nazi imperialism. And yet, the nihilism of relativity might be the ‘softer’ critique compared to the charge of imperialism.
No doubt, from Hegel and Marx, to Habermas, as well as Wilbur and the Integralists, the metaphysical subject of the epistemic tradition speaks from the position of the omniscient world-observer. To this list we can add a great number of personalities. Jean-Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault, Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Oswald Spengler, Aleksandr Dugin, George Friedman, the Joker, proponents of the body positive movement, Noam Chomsky, Slavoj Žižek, Sam Harris, Martha Nussbaum, and Francis Fukuyama. This list is indicative of the inauthentic object of which the historical omniscient observer treats—‘society’. And yet today, standing here in this “time between worlds”, the object of this ‘scientist’, his ‘society’, has revealed itself as a phantom. After all, where is the phenomena to which this object refers? When we draw our circle and proclaim, “society!” what have we captured? Today, to be honest, it is most likely found in the virtue signaling across social media. Or in the destruction in each and every #hashtag accompanying each and every social justice movement. And it is here, in this relationship between the historical omniscient observer, the ‘scientist’ and his object ‘society’, that we discover the actio of the epistemological sociologist.
In as much, we should not be surprised that the Scandinavian’s solution equally has a taste of the universal imperium. The Scandinavians appeal to something of a ‘metamodern aristocracy’ — an exceptionally progressive group which can hand-guide the world to global governance. While this aristocracy was undoubtedly a device use for rallying their cause, this appeal also holds a toxic approach to life — one which promotes the position of some omniscient observer above the ‘subjective truthers’. On this account there is an apparent antagonism between the ‘every man’s philosophy’ and the Scandinavian’s marketing. Here it might be wise to take heed of Martin Luther King Jr.’s critique of the epistemic project, its totalitarianism and imperialism, when he remarked that from within Hegel’s “exposition of the coming to be of knowledge”, “the many are subsumed to the one”. Of course, none of this is to say that the Scandinavian’s appeal to teleological relativism is irrational. After all, the disclosure of any relative truth worldview realizes when the spirit of ‘getting along’ surpasses the spirit of an authentic shared understanding. If we understand that the global crises are, in fact, the crises of the future, then our efforts today, if they are going to have any meaning whatsoever, must mobilize a globally coordinated project. What should be considered then is whether we believe the ‘the global’ is that which will inspire solutions in the emerging project—namely to alienation, estrangement, and civic apathy. The symptoms which address the ‘getting along’ which their coordination requires.
Of course, no one can yet can answer or decide which horizons will afford answers in the emerging human project. Likely the best we can do is revert to our own instincts. No doubt, each of us has the ability to turn toward our inner space and ask, in all honest, if we believe that our future challenges can be solved by way of an idolization of objects such as ‘the global’, ‘humanity’. In taking up such an exercise, we should be mindful that these universal abstractions are spoken to from a spirit which stands in conflict with a formidable opponent—the very nature of language. After all, language is that which defines by division—by drawing a circle around phenomena in order to have ‘what is’ from ‘what is not’. Therefore, it should be no surprise that these objects ‘the global’, ‘humanity’ often produce discomfort. And, after all, this is a very founded and healthy response. ‘Humanity’ is not some epistemic story which we can force down upon each other, one which can be had by ignoring all that makes social life interesting—the possibility of encountering the exotic. Oneness is an ontological condition. It is this condition which provides for the disclosure of not only a ‘you, but a ‘me’, and the very world itself. The ‘discovery’ of ‘any one’ is conditioned by that primordial discourse with nature, that ‘wheeling and dealing’ with nature. This ‘nature’ includes not only the earth’s elements, but also every phenomenon to which we later attribute consciousness—whether that be animal, man, or machine. The evidence of such pre-intellectual conditioning is the appearance of the very world itself, as it is articulated in each moment of disclosure—since without it, no agreement or social activity would be made to effectively contend with it. It is through this condition that we grow towards diversity. In as much, we understand our innate disgust for the intellectual story of ‘humanity’—from Hegel to the Scandinavian metamodernists. But to give that disgust a more articulate description, we might say that any epistemic story of humanity is only a distraction — one which is overly patronizing. In as much, this story only obscures action toward the real and interesting.
If we can entertain the idea that an idolization of globalization obstructs future modernization, by way of the impotent anxieties following objects such as ‘the global’ or ‘humanity’, then we must also admit that the Scandinavians are not so much wrong in their historicizing, as they are simply bad role models. However, for those who may be on the fence, perhaps on account of the global existential crises of climate change, we can revert to a book written in 1970 — a quite biblical text by E. F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful. To this day, it remains relevant not only for answering commodification and market economy, but also for addressing the symptoms of industrialization generally. At the height of its influence, this book became a cornerstone of Green Movement literature. There can be no doubt, laying behind the printed words of that text we read of a spirit championing for a complete reversal of episteme. In as much, this article series, How to Nurture Truth and Authenticity, could correctly be billed as something of a sequel — one which is now fifty years overdue. Therefore, it is only fitting that the second half of this work be introduced by repeating a few passages — ones which should be kept in mind as we come closer to prescriptions for economic reform,
“…Instead of overcoming the ‘world’ by moving towards salientness, man tries to overcome it by gaining preeminent wealth, power, science, or indeed any imaginable ‘sport’…He is driven to build up a monster economy and to seek fantastic satisfaction, like landing on the moon…This economy of giantism is a left-over of nineteenth-century conditions and nineteenth-century thinking and it is totally incapable of solving any of the real problems of today.”
“An entirely new system of thought is needed, a system based on attention to people, and not primarily attention to goods…and what was neglected in the nineteenth century is unbelievably urgent now. That is, the conscious utilization of our enormous technological and scientific potential for the fight against misery and human degradation — a fight in intimate contact with actual people, with individuals, families, small groups, rather than states and other anonymous abstractions. This presupposes a political and organizational structure that can provide this intimacy.”
If we now recount what has been gained through the first half of this series— we find a completion of the historical economy of truth. This narrative has taken us from the Roman appropriation of Ancient Greek αληθεια to the industrialized sciences by way of Latin verum. We have also made clear the current project in which truth finds service to an economy of imperium — liberalism. At the same time, we have brought into question liberalism’s ability to nurture the safety and security which the creative authoring spirit demands. What is now required by the second half of this work is, firstly, an understanding of truth which can ground an organizational structure providing for such authenticity. To do so, we must turn toward a foundation beyond doubt, beyond episteme, and beyond knowledge outright.
If we allow ourselves to come back to the ‘less pressing’ issues of the epistemological sociologists, to metaphysics, then we return to the problem which the metamodernists took for granted — that of intersubjective transcendence. In the work of Gadamer, we find words which echo our challenges to liberalism’s position from the omniscient world-historicizing observer,
“Anyone who takes seriously the finitude of human existence and constructs no ‘consciousness as such’, or ‘intellectus archetypus’, or transcendental ego’, to which everything can be traced back, will not be able to escape the question of how his own thinking as transcendental is empirically possible.”
Here Gadamer appeals to that primordial experience of the world which has been studied under the name ‘phenomenology’ — a discipline which starts with the very appearance of phenomena and proceeds to understand the conditions for any definitions which follows. It is from the position of this primordial experience which will offer us insights for materializing the prophesies of Small is Beautiful. Only from a phenomenological position can we resolve the feeling that life is becoming more and more complex — and that we require more sophisticated forms of data processing to render this complexity manageable. In the second half of this work we will meet with the aesthetic experience of ‘the beautiful’ — an aesthetic which presences once we remove the unnecessary and superfluous. A beauty which accompanies simplicity by way of logic’s ability to “release complexity” from the world (Bonnitta Roy) such that human affectivity can be put in motion. A beauty which Schumacher captured in the word ‘small’.
—Justin Carmien, July 8th, 2020