Metamodernism in US: Analysis of Our Future too
The cultural and philosophical landscape of the United States is it a crossroad, where the potential for change could embrace a Meta modern ethos. But first, what is meant by Meta modern ethos? What is Meta modern?
Metamodernism is a cultural approach that oscillates between modern optimism and postmodern skepticism, striving to reconcile a longing for universal truths with an acceptance of their complexity.
In contrast to postmodernism's irony and doubt, metamodernism seeks to re-engage with hope, sincerity, and a quest for meaning, albeit while recognizing the fragmented nature of reality.
In today's metamodern world, we see a blending of earnestness and irony across culture, politics, and social attitudes, reflecting a desire for authenticity and progress amidst ongoing uncertainty and diverse perspectives. Postmodernism does not have a clear end year, as cultural movements transition gradually. However, discussions of a shift toward metamodernism began to emerge in the early 21st century, particularly around the 2010s.
Meta modernism, with its interplay of progression and skepticism, offers a framework through which to view the complexity of American society. This lens encourages the integration of diverse and often conflicting perspectives, fostering a dialogue that seeks not only to understand but to synthesize and transcend these differences. By exploring how metamodernism might manifest in the U.S., this discussion aims to illuminate the possibilities for a future that acknowledges the value in every aspect of its cultural fabric. As we delve into the various manifestations of metamodernism, it becomes imperative to consider how they might shape the American narrative, enriching the collective identity and guiding the nation towards a more cohesive and adaptable society.
Religious Atheism represents a metamodern synthesis that could redefine the American spiritual landscape. By fusing the communal benefits of religious practice with a secular, scientific worldview, this movement has the potential to create a new form of community that resonates with the increasingly non-religious population. In a society where the number of individuals identifying as non-religious continues to rise, the emergence of secular organizations that provide the same sense of belonging and moral framework as traditional religious institutions could address a growing need (Zuckerman, Galen, & Pasquale, 2016). Such organizations might incorporate elements of religious ritual and fellowship without invoking the supernatural, thereby offering a meaningful alternative for those seeking existential comfort and ethical guidance in a secular context. As this movement grows, it could challenge the dichotomy between religiosity and atheism, fostering an environment where spiritual fulfillment and rational thought are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary.
According to Dr Charles William Dailey's analysis though, in his work called “The Psychology of the Anti-Trumpian: Part 1 breaks down the anti-Trump movement's behavior and ideology into several key points. As there is evidence of a purity cult framework. The anti-Trump group is likened to a purity cult, where members are expected to strictly follow a set of doctrines that define their collective identity. This binary moral system labels those who conform as 'pure' and those who don't as 'impure' or morally corrupt.
They use the projection of white supremacy as a tool validate their behavior. The group projects the issue of white supremacy onto Trump and his supporters. Dailey implies that the anti-Trump movement's focus on accusations of racism and extremism against Trump serves as a mechanism to validate their own identity and narrative.
There’s a cult like obsession with race and class. The movement fixates on race and class, demonizing Trump as the embodiment of what they oppose: wealth, Northern European heritage, and assertiveness. These characteristics are seen as the antithesis of the progressive ideals the anti-Trump group champions. The extreme focus on anti-racism within the group is compared to a religious doctrine, becoming the central tenet of their belief system. This singular focus could lead to the group's identity crisis if the perceived threat of Trump's influence is removed. The use of dehumanizing language, as seen in Clinton's "deplorables" comment, is a tactic to reinforce the group's ideology. It serves to shame and marginalize those outside their ideological bounds, akin to propaganda methods that dehumanize opponents to maintain ideological dominance.
The anti-Trump movement, is a secular form of religion, and it is portrayed as a secular religion with its own set of beliefs and rituals too. This includes the demonization of Trump and his supporters as heretics or 'non-believers' of the movement's ideology.
It’s a cult, born through intergenerational social conditioning in public schools and academia and it’s centered around regressive forms of collective identity and control. By employing these elements, the movement creates a strong collective identity. This identity is used to exert control and maintain influence within its social and political sphere.
Dailey's portrayal suggests that the anti-Trump movement operates with a level of fervor and organizational structure similar to that of a religious or cult-like group, using ideological purity, demonization of the 'other,' and a strong collective identity to sustain itself and its objectives.
There’s one more, religious atheism, environmentalism. The US is still religious. People believe in eco-revaluations and ecological stewardship. This brand of religious atheism, called environmentalism, and in simpler terms, there's a movement where people are rethinking how we should take care of the environment. They're not religious in the traditional sense because they don't believe in a god. Instead, their "religion" is the environment itself. They have a deep respect for nature and feel strongly about protecting it.
These folks might not pray or go to a traditional church, but they still have a kind of spiritual connection to the Earth. They treat the planet as sacred and believe we all have a responsibility to look after it. This way of thinking takes cues from different ideas out there, like deep ecology, which says nature has rights just like people do, and secular humanism, which is all about focusing on human values without involving religion.
So, even though they don't follow a god, these people are passionate about green issues and believe it's up to us to make sure the planet stays healthy for everyone and everything living on it. But they do believe the world will have apocalyptic reckoning, and will infact “end”, if you don’t do what they say.
Extreme Liberalism with Monastic Discipline
The confluence of Extreme Liberalism with Monastic Discipline signals, and desire for the development of a new form of progressive community within the United States. This integration marries the ideals of freedom and social justice with the virtues of self-regulation and community responsibility. The resulting communities may resemble eco-villages or urban collectives that prioritize environmental sustainability and social equity while maintaining a structured and disciplined lifestyle. Such models could offer a practical response to the challenges of climate change and social inequality, demonstrating the feasibility of a lifestyle that is both ethically conscious and personally fulfilling (Klein, 2014). By embracing this dual commitment, Americans could create living spaces that exemplify the balance between individual liberty and collective well-being, providing a template for sustainable development that aligns with the core values of freedom and equality.
Now, let us consider a groundbreaking innovation that might be at the heart of such communities: smart concrete. This is not the gray, lifeless substance we walk upon indifferently. This is a material reimagined, a composite that heals its own wounds and whispers its state of being to those who can interpret its signals. Smart concrete represents the bleeding edge of building materials, infused with technology that allows it to self-repair when it cracks, thanks to embedded bacteria or fibers that fill in the gaps (Shaikh, 2020). Buildings and structures become more resilient, long-lasting, and environmentally friendly as a result of this self-healing property, which reduces the need for repairs and maintenance.
But there's a twist in this modern tale. The sensors within smart concrete, which enable it to communicate structural health, could also serve as a network for surveillance. These sensors could monitor the movements of people, gauge how many individuals are present in an area, and potentially even listen in. It's a dual-use technology that could transform our eco-villages into monitored landscapes.
Imagine a community that's a beacon of freedom and responsibility, all while being under the watchful eye of state-of-the-art technology. Picture eco-villages where smart concrete not only heals itself but also has the ability to track the comings and goings of every resident (Shaikh, 2020). It's a bold blend of Extreme Liberalism with Monastic Discipline, but with an added twist: the ever-present gaze of surveillance.
These aren't just communities; they're potential hubs of monitoring, where every step towards sustainability and social equality is matched with a step towards increased observation. And here's the kicker: this vision is backed by funding from China's Green New Deal, a strategic move that could make the U.S. reliant on foreign technology for its eco-dreams.
To build. These eco-villages. They would use what is called “self healing concrete”. Sounds a little sci-fi but the self-healing concrete is a type of concrete that can automatically repair its cracks without human intervention, extending its lifespan and reducing maintenance. It typically incorporates bacteria that produce limestone to fill in cracks or uses embedded chemicals that react to form solid compounds when exposed to water or air. This innovative concrete enhances durability, sustainability, and safety in construction.
The self-repairing concrete, while a marvel of engineering, is also double whammy too, it tracks people and stares their data. It’s no ordinary concrete too. It serves as a network of sensors, creating a digital panopticon that knows your every move. This dual nature raises questions about the trade-offs between innovation and privacy, freedom, and control (Klein, 2014). The very materials that make up these progressive communities could serve a dual purpose—not only to uphold the community's infrastructure but also to uphold a system of surveillance that could be seen as a form of authoritarianism dressed in the garb of Extreme Liberalism.
This approach to community living promises a future where the balance between individual liberty and collective security is constantly negotiated. As these eco-villages strive to be models of sustainable development, they also reflect a new socio-political reality—one where the line between being watched over for safety and being watched for control becomes increasingly blurred.
The implications of such a model are profound. By relying on technology that could make the U.S. dependent on China, there are geopolitical and ethical considerations at play. How much of this is about creating a sustainable future, and how much is about creating a new sphere of influence under the guise of environmental stewardship?
As these eco-villages emerge, they may indeed offer a compelling template for development. Still, they also serve as a cautionary tale about the complexities of intertwining cutting-edge technology with societal values, where the promise of utopia comes with strings attached strings that could bind the very freedoms they aim to promote. The reality is that we already have the self healing concrete. It’s real, and it’s going to get used too.
Emergence of Audiotarianism
Audiotarianism suggests a metamodern approach to governance that could reshape the American political scene. This style of leadership emphasizes the importance of listening to the multitude of voices within the population while maintaining a firm commitment to clear policies and the rule of law. Such an approach could mitigate the polarization and gridlock that often characterize contemporary politics, fostering a more inclusive and effective decision-making process (Sunstein, 2018). Innovative civic engagement platforms will facilitate widespread participation, ensuring that policy reflects the diverse needs and concerns of the citizenry. By balancing the need for order with the imperative to hear and understand the populace, audiotarian leaders could guide the United States toward a more democratic and responsive political system that is equipped to address the complexities of modern governance.
Audiotarianism, as a proposed political philosophy, seeks to blend attentive listening with decisive governance. In theory, this philosophy would ensure that the voices of the people are heard and that policies are implemented in a manner that is both efficient and reflective of the public will. Key components of audiotarianism include a commitment to engaging with a diverse array of stakeholders, maintaining a clear and consistent policy framework, adhering to the rule of law, reducing political polarization, employing innovative tools for civic engagement, and fostering responsive decision-making (Sunstein, 2018).
However, when we contemplate a dystopian future where audiotarianism is perverted, the picture changes dramatically. In such a world, the government, which outwardly commits to listening to its citizens, might instead use this as a pretext for enforcing authoritarian control. The mechanisms designed to facilitate public input could be manipulated to suppress dissent and maintain power. Policies might be applied selectively to benefit those aligned with the ruling ideology and silence opposition. Divisions within society could be exacerbated by the state to justify increased control, and civic engagement platforms might serve as tools for surveillance rather than genuine dialogue.
In this distorted reality, the appearance of inclusive decision-making is upheld, but real choices are made by a powerful few whose decisions are insulated from public influence. The result is a society where democratic participation becomes a hollow exercise, and the principles of audiotarianism are used to legitimize a regime that stifles freedom under the guise of order and responsiveness.
This dark scenario serves as a cautionary tale about the potential for any political philosophy, no matter how well-intentioned, to be twisted by those who seek to consolidate power at the expense of democratic ideals and individual rights. It underscores the importance of vigilance in preserving the balance between listening to the public and maintaining the integrity of governance processes (Sunstein, 2018).
Postfeminism Married to Neomasculinism
The integration of Postfeminism with Neomasculinism represents a metamodern reimagining of gender roles in American society. This synthesis acknowledges the constraints that traditional gender norms impose on both men and women, striving for a redefinition of these roles that empowers all individuals. Such an approach will foster a culture that values gender equality not just in terms of opportunities but also in the freedom to express identity beyond prescribed norms (Halberstam, 2018). As society moves toward this integrated perspective, it comes with the emergence of policies and practices that support a more fluid understanding of gender, and eventually the dismantle the binary in favor of a spectrum that accommodates diverse expressions of identity. In doing so, the United States has led the way in creating a more inclusive world where each person has the space to define and pursue their own version of fulfillment without the limitations of outdated gender expectations.
But could this be dystopian future, where the marriage between postfeminism and neomasculinism presents a nuanced fabric of societal dynamics where the intent for gender balance could ironically cement traditional power structures, all under the bright banner of equality and empowerment? If so, such a world might show gestures toward gender fluidity and parity; however, the lived experience could starkly contrast with these ideals. The state's proclamations of gender equality might exist while simultaneously benefiting those adhering to age-old gender scripts. Women, though outwardly spurred to climb professional ladders and fill leadership voids, could still bump against invisible barriers and disparities in compensation. Men, on the other hand, might receive nominal acceptance to show vulnerability, yet find themselves on the fringes of society for doing so.
Media narratives have painted this evolving gender dynamic as forward-thinking but might also play a role in exploiting and packaging femininity and masculinity in such a way that it ultimately cycles back to entrench stereotypical images. Women, for instance, who tap into traditionally masculine qualities might find the spotlight, but only insofar as their images can be monetized to fuel a consuming public.
Legal reforms are touted as strides toward gender equality but might be riddled with gaps that ensure the persistence of the old guard. Policies like family leave might be universally promoted, yet the tug-of-war between societal expectations and financial motivations could steer individuals back into conventional familial roles.
Technological advancements have become instruments for scrutinizing and nudging people toward sanctioned gender expressions. Algorithms on social media platforms might prioritize and proliferate conventional gender portrayals, sidelining those who dare to diverge by making them less visible or even subject to censorship.
Masculinity and femininity has undergone a rebranding where neomasculinism clings to notions of dominance and competitive spirit as laudable traits, whereas postfeminism might hijack feminist discourse to declare a premature victory in the fight for equality, thereby stalling genuine progress towards fair treatment.
In today's world, this dystopian scenario has not fully taken shape, but certain indicators could be harbingers of such an outcome. The commodification of empowerment is apparent in marketing strategies that exploit feminist and masculine motifs without ushering in substantive transformation. There is resistance against the tide of gender equality movements, with some cohorts using equality rhetoric to challenge feminist advancements or to champion traditional gender norms. Government policies might seem to champion gender equality on the surface yet fall short in grappling with entrenched issues like the gender wage gap or equitable representation in spheres of influence.
The real test is to navigate the integration of postfeminism and neomasculinism without inadvertently replicating or bolstering existing inequalities. It demands unrelenting scrutiny to confirm that policy and social evolution genuinely embrace inclusivity and foster a variety of gender expressions, steering clear of unintentionally establishing new modes of oppression.
Radical Conservatism, as a potential negative manifestation of metamodernism, warns of the dangers inherent in an uncritical blending of ideas. This extreme stance could hinder the United States' ability to adapt to changing circumstances, impeding innovation and progress (Mudde, 2017). A rigid adherence to traditional values and an unwavering resistance to change could exacerbate social divisions, leaving little room for the kind of flexible thinking that complex modern challenges require. In an era where social needs are evolving rapidly, a radical conservative approach might neglect the emerging issues that demand attention, such as climate change, technological disruption, and shifting demographics. To avoid the pitfalls of such an uncompromising ideology, American society must strive to maintaina balance between preserving beneficial traditions and embracing necessary change.
And as the United States navigates the complexities of the 21st century, the political landscape is ripe for transformation. The emergence of new political movements reflects a society in flux, grappling with rapid technological change, environmental challenges, and shifts in cultural values. There are some of the movements that could shape the future of American politics.
For example building on historical principles reminiscent of the Republican Party's emphasis on traditional values, Radical Conservatism in the metamodern future would advocate for a revival of cultural homogeneity and national identity, echoing past sentiments while confronting the perils of modernity and postmodernity. This movement would grapple with integrating the necessity to address environmental concerns, perhaps a nod towards elements of the Green New Deal, while striving to maintain the social fabric against the tides of globalization.
The Progressive Techno-Optimism movement could capture the spirit of the Democratic Party's progressive wing, placing faith in technological solutions to societal issues. This movement would likely embrace artificial intelligence and biotechnology, pushing for a future where digital democracy and renewable energy are cornerstones of national policy, reminiscent of the technological optimism found within the American Technocracy Movement.
Within the Democratic Party's increasing recognition of climate change, the Ecosocialist Renewal movement would take this to new heights, intertwining ecological sustainability with socialist ideals. This movement might advocate for reforms that reflect the urgency seen in the Green Progressives Party, pushing for community ownership of energy and a restructuring of the economy to prioritize the planet and people over profit.
The New Federalists could draw inspiration from the Liberty Union Party's libertarian values, championing states' rights and local governance. This movement would advocate for a reimagined federal system that allows for more nuanced and tailored approaches to governance, resonating with those who seek to decentralize power and promote autonomy. With a mission to rebuild trust in public institutions and emphasize civic responsibility, the Civic Renaissance movement would focus on education and community involvement. This movement might find common ground with historical efforts by both the Democraticand Republican Parties to promote civic education, aiming to forge a united and informed citizenry.
The Transhumanist Expansion movement would go beyond traditional party lines, exploring the ethical and policy implications of human enhancement and the integration of humans and machines. This movement might intersect with the concerns of the Cybersecurity and Privacy Alliance, as both grapple with the implications of technology on society and individual rights.
Then there is the Intergenerational Justice League that may emerge as advocates for future generations, ensuring that policy decisions today do not jeopardize tomorrow. This movement would reflect a synthesis of concerns from various parties, focusing on sustainable policies that address long-term issues like climate change, national debt, and social security.
Each of these futuristic movements showcases a unique response to the evolving challenges of our times, suggesting that the political landscape is not static but a living tapestry of ideas and ideologies. As they draw from and react to established parties and movements, these new movements would contribute to the dynamic interplay of governance, culture, and technology will redefine American political life.
Scientific Racism Re-Emerging
The concept of Scientific Racism serves as a stark reminder of the misuse of scientific inquiry to justify social inequalities and maintain power structures (Saini, 2019). Despite advancements in understanding the human genome and the debunking of race as a biological reality, the legacy of this ideology lingers, influencing policies and social attitudes. In promoting a metamodern future, the United States must remain vigilant against the resurgence of such pseudoscientific beliefs. Engaging in critical examination of research methodologies and ensuring that science serves the cause of equality rather than discrimination will be crucial in dismantling the remnants of scientific racism. Education and public discourse that elevate the value of diversity and inclusivity will be central to this effort, challenging the narratives that have historically marginalized certain groups.
One example of the re-emergent of scientific racism, and ironically has come under the guise of being a real “scientific” theory too, is Critical Race Theory (CRT). Which has people in the US, religiously believing it and applying it too. One the best examples of CRT being pseudoscientific theory is that it is based on time, location and era, and that time location and era, has passed. CRT, like other scientific racism of the past, uses race as a central, immutable category to explain social inequalities and outcomes, which some perceive as a reductionist and essentialist view. The argument contends that, by focusing on race as the predominant factor in societal issues, CRT may inadvertently reinforce the same racial categorizations that it seeks to critique.
Scientific racism was historically marked by its use of purportedly empirical methods to justify racial discrimination and hierarchy, often by suggesting that certain races were inherently superior or inferior in terms of intelligence, morality, or other characteristics. While CRT does not posit inherent racial differences as scientific racism did, critics argue that it still places race at the forefront of discourse in a way that could perpetuate division.
Moreover, CRT can be compared to pseudoscience because, it operates with a set of assumptions that are not always subject to rigorous empirical testing or falsifiability. This is a key criterion for scientific inquiry. The theory was founded by feminist examining material like the color of bandaids. CRT often relies on anecdotal evidence and narrative rather than on quantifiable data, which could lead to generalizations and assertions that are difficult to challenge or disprove.
It is also argued that the concept of white privilege, as it is often presented, lacks the nuance necessary to account for the complex interplay of socioeconomic status, geography, education, and individual agency. It can be asserted that white privilege, is an egoistical concept, that appeals to the prejudices of people of color, and becomes a concept for white people to form hierarchies over one another, and weaponizing the feelings of people of color against other white people, as well. This egotistical concept also simplifies the complexities of privilege into a single dimension of race, thereby excluding other factors that contribute to social inequities.
From this perspective, the emphasis on systemic racism and white privilege is critiqued for potentially leading to a form of reverse racism, where individuals of a particular racial group are collectively assigned blame or moral responsibility for historical and systemic injustices. Critics worry that this could create a sense of guilt by association, rather than fostering individual accountability and agency.
In summary, the critique of CRT as pseudoscientific and racist is rooted in the concern that it may oversimplify the complexity of social issues by overemphasizing race, potentially leading to division and reverse discrimination rather than fostering understanding and reconciliation.
The re-emergence of National Socialism
The historical example of National Socialism, with its catastrophic consequences, exemplifies the dire results of combining nationalism with socialism under a totalitarian regime (Kershaw, 2000). The metamodern lens urges caution in the synthesis of opposing ideologies, advocating for a nuanced approach that prevents the slide into authoritarianism. As the United States contemplates its future trajectory, it may need to ensure that the pursuit of national unity and social welfare does not come at the expense of individual liberties and democratic principles. The challenge will be to create policies that foster a sense of collective identity and support a robust social safety net while upholding the rights and freedoms that are the bedrock of American democracy. A form of Civic National Socialism, The term "Civic Nationalism" is a concept that refers to a form of nationalism that is inclusive and focused on equal rights, unity, and civic duty among all citizens regardless of their ethnic backgrounds. It stands in contrast to "Ethnic Nationalism," which defines nationhood in terms of ethnicity and often excludes certain groups.
In this world, the United States is evolving towards an ideology called, civic national socialism, and it’s mostly and unconscious chose too. As the US becomes indebted, a surging state then becomes nationalistic, or it faces extinction. As a response it indebted its citizen with socialist ideologies, and natural outcomes then, is both. Being that this is a natural out come of public discourse and conditioning, the nation seeing itself straddling, in debt and indebted its own citizens in student loans, with interest rates enough to counter some of this debt and in the face a delicate balance between heightened state involvement in economic and social affairs and a renewed emphasis on civic duty and national identity. The values of the country would ostensibly be centered around the collective well-being of its citizens, with policies aimed at ensuring social security and economic equity.
If the United States government were to be personified as an individual in survival mode in response to the adoption of "civic national socialism," the psyche of this entity might be characterized by several distinct survival instincts. Meaning, just as a person in survival mode might become more guarded and protective, the U.S. government might adopt a defensive stance against external and internal threats. This could manifest as increased security measures, a focus on self-reliance, and an emphasis on protecting national interests.
The US may evolve towards governing on what is called the scarcity mindset. The looming debt crisis could cause the government to operate from a scarcity mindset, prioritizing the allocation of resources and perhaps rationing social services to ensure long-term sustainability. Economic policies might become more conservative, with a focus on reducing waste and increasing efficiency.
Adaptability, in survival mode, adaptability is crucial. But maladaptiveity is the highest likelihood of outcomeand likeliest outcome. The government might become more willing to experiment with new policies and social programs that align with the "civic national socialism" ideology, even if these represent a significant departure from traditional American principles and values in policies.
The US may evolve to become a system of governance that is hyper-vigilance, and much like a person who is constantly on the lookout for danger, the government might become hyper-vigilant, closely monitoring both the global stage and domestic affairs to preempt challenges before they fully manifest. Hyper-viligilant, is actually “hyper sensitivity” in behavior too. The government will become
Increasingly sensitive to criticism, as it faces two existential crisis, one within through revolt and without through invasion for debts owed. Using “equity”, as the excuse.
The government’s ability to be resourceful, most likely will become a weapon against “we the people”, too. The government is likely become more resourceful, in ways to collect debt, or prevent an existential crisis too. By finding innovative ways to reduce debt and generate revenue, possibly through restructuring student loans or other debt instruments in a manner that could also serve to bolster national identity and civic responsibility too.
At some point the nation will be in self-preservation mode. At its core, a person in survival mode is focused on self-preservation. For the government, this would mean ensuring the continuity of the state and its institutions, even if it requires drastic measures that may alter the fabric of society. Resilience is key to surviving any crisis. The government would strive to bounce back from setbacks, perhaps drawing on a sense of historical resilience and the collective will of its people.
In this state of mind, the government might exhibit a mix of anxiety and resolve, constantly balancing the need to respond to immediate crises with the imperative to plan for a sustainable future. The "civic national socialism" ideology might be embraced as a means to galvanize the population, forge a stronger sense of national unity, and create a narrative of collective effort and sacrifice for the greater good. What would that good be, though? Equity!
If an ideology like "civic national socialism" were to use the concept of equity as a pretext for authoritarian measures and to stifle criticism and evade accountability, it would represent a significant deviation from democratic principles. In such a scenario, the government might employ the following tactics:
The US will justify authoritarianism, there will be leadership that will argue that strong, centralized control is necessary to achieve equity and fairness for all citizens. This could be presented as a temporary measure needed to address systemic inequalities, but with the risk of becoming a permanent fixture of governance. Suppressing dissent, the US in order to maintain “social harmony” and to ensure equity, the government might crack down on dissenting voices online . Free speech and open debate becomes restricted under the guise of preventing hate speech, misgendering, misinformation, or anything deemed counterproductive to the collective goals. Control of information, the state might take steps to control the flow of information, framing it as a way to protect the public from harmful or divisive content. This could lead to censorship, propaganda, and the manipulation of media to maintain a favorable narratives.
The US, using the pretext of ensuring equitable outcomes and compliance with new social policies, the government might expand surveillance of its citizens, eroding privacy rights and justifying it as a necessary trade-off for the greater good. Limiting political opposition could be characterized as selfish or elitist, standing in the way of achieving equity for the masses. Political rivals might face legal or social barriers to their activities, with the state branding them as obstacles to progress.
Centralizing power, there will be an executive branch or central government might accumulate more power, undermining the checks and balances that typically hold a government accountable. This could be justified as streamlining decision-making to better address inequality.
Enforcing compliance, there will be us of law-fare, and laws and policies might be strictly enforced with harsh penalties for non-compliance, all in the name of preserving equitable outcomes. This could lead to an overbearing legal system that punishes minor infractions severely.
It is crucial to recognize that while the pursuit of equity sounds like a noble goal, using it as a shield for authoritarianism is a betrayal of the very principles of fairness and justice that equity stands for. When accountability is lost, and criticism is silenced, the risk of corruption and abuse of power increases dramatically. In a healthy society, equity should be pursued through transparent, accountable governance that respects the rule of law and the rights of all citizens to participate in the political process.
This shift would likely be driven by a desire for more social cohesion and unity, with the government taking a proactive role in addressing disparities and fostering a sense of common purpose among Americans. The political narrative would stress the importance of citizens actively participating in the betterment of their communities and the nation as a whole.
Economically, there might be a move away from laissez-faire capitalism towards more state-directed initiatives, possibly including the nationalization of certain industries, to protect them from global market fluctuations and to secure jobs for American workers.
The US will change culturally too. There could be a stronger push to define and promote what it means to be an American and it’s not “white black or brown, but all”, and beyond the lines of race, ethnicity, or religion, focusing instead on shared values and civic responsibilities.
Conformist Individualism has manifested in our society as a superficial celebration of individuality that, paradoxically, enforces a narrow set of acceptable behaviors and expressions (Cushman, 1995). In the United States, where individualism is often touted as a core value, metamodernism invites reflection on the ways in which societal pressures may inadvertently stifle true self-expression. Embracing a more authentic version of individualism requires creating spaces where diversity in thought, identity, and lifestyle is genuinely valued and protected. By fostering an environment that encourages individuals to explore and embrace their unique paths without fear of social sanction, the U.S. can cultivate a culture that truly honors the diversity of its people.
In the modern context, metamodernism provides a lens through which we can examine this phenomenon. Metamodernism suggests a movement between and beyond the polarities of modernism and postmodernism, incorporating elements of both. It acknowledges the desire for sincere expression and the recognition of complexity, ambiguity, and the coexistence of multiple truths.
In exploring the intricacies of conformist individualism, it's fascinating to consider how the very pursuit of individuality can, quite paradoxically, steer us towards a collective norm. Take fashion, for instance. It's an avenue where people often express their distinctiveness, yet, curiously, this self-expression frequently aligns with current trends. There's a dance of sorts between showcasing one's personality and adhering to an aesthetic that's in vogue, which might inadvertently lead to a uniformity in appearance despite the intention to stand out.
This paradox extends into the digital realms of social media, where our online personas are meticulously crafted to project an image of our unique lives. The irony, however, lies in the underlying uniformity of these personas. The filtered snapshots of perfection, the carefully chosen hashtags, and the pursuit of viral content create a mosaic that, from a distance, reflects a singular picture of what individuality should look like online.
The professional sphere isn't immune to this phenomenon either. Success is often painted with a broad brushstroke that highlights wealth, status, and prestige. As people climb the proverbial ladder, they may inadvertently conform to a narrow, socially approved definition of what it means to be successful, potentially sidelining their personal values and unique aspirations in the process.
Consumerism, too, tugs at the strings of our desire to be unique. Advertisements whisper the promise that certain products will elevate our individuality, yet the end result is a homogenization of tastes and preferences. From the gadgets we use to the cars we drive, the quest for differentiation often leads to a convergence of choices among those who are likewise seeking to express their singularity.
Even our engagement with culture and spirituality can be touched by the hand of conformist individualism. There's a yearning to connect authentically with our roots or to embrace the exotic allure of foreign traditions. Yet, this yearning can be co-opted by a market that packages culture into digestible, purchasable experiences, diluting the profound depths of these traditions into a more palatable, and often stereotypical, form.
The concept of personal branding similarly illustrates this conundrum. In an effort to stand out, individuals may adopt prescribed strategies that promise distinction. But these strategies, being widely advocated as effective, can lead to a sameness in self-marketing, obscuring the nuanced facets of individual identities.
Education choices, too, are sometimes made with an eye on societal approval rather than personal passion. Degrees from prestigious institutions and fields deemed as successful are often pursued not for the love of the discipline but for the laurels they promise, inadvertently funneling a diverse population into a narrow corridor of educational and professional pursuits. Lastly, the health and fitness industry has not been spared from this phenomenon. The chase for an idealized body type or the optimal health routine, often marketed as a path to personal empowerment, can result in a uniform striving towards a one-size-fits-all standard of health and beauty. Thus, in each of these domains, the quest for individuality can sometimes lead us down a path that circles back to conformity. It's a subtle and often unintended journey where the destination of uniqueness is reached by paths well-trodden by others seeking the same.
There are four ways that Conformist Individualism and can intersect with the celebration of individuality in the United States. In a culture that promotes individualism, there is often a proliferation of messages encouraging people to "be themselves." However, these messages can come with implicit standards or ideals that, paradoxically, create a narrow scope of what is considered acceptable or desirable. This can lead to a homogenized version of individuality, where certain lifestyles, consumer choices, and behaviors are valorized as the "right" way to be unique.
The second thing Americans can do is manage the societal pressures and and embrace their true self-expression. Metamodernism encourages introspection about societal pressures that may limit genuine self-expression. While societal norms and cultural narratives can guide behavior, they may also suppress diversity in thought and identity. There's a recognition that while individualism is celebrated in theory, in practice, it can sometimes lead to conformity.
Another important thing that Americans can do to counter conformist individualism is by embracing their own authentic individualism. To move toward a more authentic version of individualism, society must create and maintain spaces where diversity is genuinely valued not just in theory but in action. This means protecting the rights of individuals to express their identities, thoughts, and lifestyles without fear of marginalization or punishment.m, without marginalizing them as oppressed or oppressor too.
Lastly, cultivating a diverse culture. By fostering an environment that supports individual exploration and acceptance, the U.S. can better honor the diversity of its people. This involves education, policy, and societal attitudes that not only tolerate but celebrate differences. It also means challenging the commercial and media-driven narratives that often dictate the terms of individuality.
In summary, Conformist Individualism as a concept highlights the contradiction between the celebration of individuality and the conformist pressures that exist within a society. Metamodernism, as a framework, invites individuals and societies to reflect on these contradictions and to strive for a balance that allows for true diversity and authentic self-expression.
Spiritual Materialism highlights the potential for commercialization to strip spiritual practices of their depth, reducing them to mere commodities or status symbols (Trungpa, 2002). In a consumer-driven society like the United States, there is a risk that the quest for spiritual growth could become entangled with material pursuits. Metamodernism advocates for a spirituality that transcends materialistic aims, seeking to enrich the inner lives of individuals without becoming another avenue for profit. Encouraging a culture that respects the sanctity of spiritual exploration and resists the temptation to commodify every aspect of human experience can lead to a more grounded and meaningful engagement with the transcendent aspects of life.
Spiritual Materialism, as articulated by Chögyam Trungpa, suggests that spirituality can be co-opted by ego-driven desires, leading to a practice that is more about self-aggrandizement and material gain than genuine spiritual development. This concept can be applied to various forms of identity pride, including gay and black pride, when considering the potential for these movements to become influenced by consumerism and commercial interests. In contemporary society, both gay pride and black pride have been embraced by corporate entities, especially during events like Pride Month and Black History Month. Although pride is an ego-driven celebration, quite literally, and these movements likely perpetuate different forms of collective narcissism. They have both been co-opted by consumerism and these two movements, how ever egotistical they may be, are also good examples of spiritual materialism too.
According to Bruce, K. (2016), in his work called "We Are All Royalty": Narrative comparison of a drag queen and king, Gay Pride, originally a movement that emerged from the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights and acceptance, gay pride has seen increasing commercialization. During Pride Month, a plethora of products and services adorned with rainbow motifs become available, and numerous companies participate in pride parades with branded floats. One could argue that this has led to a dilution of the movement's political and social objectives, replacing them with consumer-driven activities that prioritize profit over progress.
Instead of focusing on the ongoing struggles for equality, legal protections, and the fight against discrimination, the emphasis can sometimes shift toward buying and displaying products as a means of showing support. This form of engagement can be critiqued as a superficial replacement of the deeper values and goals of the gay pride movement.
According Weems, R. E., Jr. (2009), in Black business in the Black Metropolis: The Chicago Metropolitan Assurance Company, 1925-1985, he highlights that Black pride, being rooted in a history of resistance against systemic racism and the celebration of African American culture and heritage. However, to him there is an advent of commercial interest in black culture, there's a risk that the profound messages of empowerment and social justice are overshadowed by product lines, branding efforts, and marketing campaigns. This commercialization can be seen as reducing the rich tapestry of black history and resistance to a set of marketable symbols and slogans. While the intention may have been to honor black culture, the commercial aspect has sometimes come at the expense of the grassroots activism and community-building that are at the heart of black pride. When consumerism becomes the primary mode of engagement, it can supplant the transformative values of the movement with a transactional relationship between businesses and consumers.
In both cases, the core values of the movements equality, justice, and community empowerment, have been overshadowed by a focus on consumption and material displays of support. From the perspective of Spiritual Materialism, such a shift can be seen as a misalignment between the original spiritual or moral goals of these movements and the materialistic forms they can sometimes take in a consumer-driven culture.
Advocates for the integrity of these movements are calling for a return to the foundational principles that inspired them. This means emphasizing activism, education, and community support over commercial participation, and encouraging individuals to engage in ways that foster real change as opposed to purely symbolic acts of consumption. It's about ensuring that the pride and celebration of identity remain connected to the lived experiences and struggles of the communities they represent, rather than becoming commodified and stripped of their transformative potential.
To conclude, it’s through the lens of metamodernism, the United States has the opportunity to chart a course that is both forward looking and deeply rooted in the rich tapestry of its cultural history. By embracing the interplay of seemingly contradictory ideas and values, American society can navigate the complexities of the modern world with a sense of purpose and inclusivity. It is this synthesis of diversity, this ability to hold and work through tensions, that will enable the U.S. to evolve and thrive in the metamodern age. As we consider the various ways in which metamodernism might manifest, it is clear that the path ahead is one of engagement, reflection, and the constant pursuit of a more enlightened and harmonious society.
Bruce, K. (2016). "We Are All Royalty": Narrative comparison of a drag queen and king. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(7), 937-955.
Weems, R. E., Jr. (2009). Black business in the Black Metropolis: The Chicago Metropolitan Assurance Company, 1925-1985. Indiana University Press.
Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press.
Coates, T. (2014). The Case for Reparations. The Atlantic.
Williams, D. R., & Mohammed, S. A. (2009). Discrimination and racial disparities in health: evidence and needed research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32(1), 20-47. DOI: 10.1007/s10865-008-9185-0
Zuckerman, P., Galen, L. W., & Pasquale, F. L. (2016). The Nonreligious: Understanding Secular People and Societies. Oxford University Press.
Klein, N. (2014). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Simon & Schuster.
Sunstein, C. R. (2018). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press.
Halberstam, J. (2018). Female Masculinity. Duke University Press.
Mudde, C. (2017). The Far Right in America. Routledge.
Saini, A. (2019). Superior: The Return of Race Science. Beacon Press.
Kershaw, I. (2000). Hitler, 1936-1945: Nemesis. W. W. Norton & Company.
Cushman, P. (1995). Constructing the Self, Constructing America: A Cultural History of Psychotherapy. Addison-Wesley.
Trungpa, C. (2002). Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. Shambhala Publications.
Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Simon & Schuster.
Shaikh, F. U. A. (2020). Self-healing concrete: A new era of construction. Journal of Civil Engineering and Construction Technology, 11(4), 87-96. https://doi.org/10.5897/JCECT2020.0493
