Primer on Polymodernity

Renaissance Humans, #35

“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”  —Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love

Welcome to the Renaissance Humans Newsletter, where I focus on sense-making and story-telling in the turbulent twenties. The Renaissance (“rebirth,” in French) spanned from the 14th to the 17th century and marked a period of cultural, artistic, and intellectual renewal in Europe. A Renaissance Human fosters curiosity, creativity, critical thinking, and character in a journey of never-ending learning. They cultivate Mind, Body, and Spirit, in service of Community, and oriented to the Transcendentals.

I’ve spent some time talking about Metamodernism, but today I wanted to discuss Polymodernity.¹

Lene Rachel Anderson, a Danish author and philosopher, has shifted some of her earlier thinking on Metamodernity, to a concept she terms Polymodernity. From the Nordic Bildung site:

“Polymodernity provides us with a framework for understanding ourselves and our societies in a more complex way, as it integrates indigenous, pre-modern, modern, and postmodern cultural codes.”

There are compelling reasons to use Meta as a prefix— it is able to contain a depth of possible interpretations, variously defined as “after”, “between”, or “within” by thinkers such as Zak Stein and Jonathan Rowson.

However, the reason Anderson shifted from Metamodern to Polymodern (And re-released a book titled Metamodernity as Polymodernity) is the way she is framing Metamodernity. In her view, it oscillates between the Modern and Postmodern— the most recent two cultural codes, something inadequate to the complexity of the moment. She is using the prefix Poly to indicate a fluidity between all four cultural codes, something others will argue was already implicit in the prefix Meta.

Language wars!

What is Polymodernity?

Let’s do a whirlwind tour of cultural codes, according to Anderson. They have confluences and overlap with other thinkers, such as Max Borders’ deep dive into Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory, Joe Lightfoot’s decidedly “undevelopmental” take on worldviews, and psychologist Gregg Henriques’ own take here.

Source: Lene Rachel Anderson

Indigenous: Loyalty to Tribe/Clan, Animist, Holistic, Connected to Land.

Premodern: Medieval, Religious, Hierarchical.

Modern: Enlightenment, Rational, Liberalism (in the sense of economic freedom, individual rights/equality)

Postmodern: Critique/Deconstruction of Power Structures and Narratives, Equity, Social/Environmental justice movements.

Polymodern: Integration/Synthesis of previous worldviews, importance of Relationality, and the moving between previous codes. It is this effort to discern and employ what is useful from the other worldviews that distinguishes Polymodern from the other codes.

For Anderson, humans should cultivate a blend of four cultural codes, not just the last two, including Indigenous and Traditional in Polymodernity. In the book, she notes that these are really broad brush strokes— historical experts will acktually that each of these codes contain multitudes of differences within them. Here’s some subcomponents of the codes broken out with a bit more granularity, apologies for the poor resolution:

Source: Lene Rachel Anderson

So What?

This is a very Foxy view of reality.

I tend to lean Fox in my own thinking² —I aspire to find a humble, curious posture towards understanding reality, recognizing I’m likely deluded most of the time.

The big insight here is that none of us are touching the entire elephant. None of these cultural codes or perspectives on their own provide the Merleau-Ponty-ian Optimal Grip on reality that we need to flourish, either individually or collectively.

What this concept of Polymodernity brings with it is the fluidity, the agility, and the discernment to slide between codes and finds the right lens or tools to deal with a given problem. Now, that discernment piece— how do we figure out the right combination; how do we weight our emphasis amongst these codes, therein lies the rub.

That’s the danger— that this approach risks too much incoherence. Humans crave certainty, so if a totalizing Eric Hoffer-style mass movement comes along with a simplistic vision of the world that can unite enough people, Polymodernity gets run over. Subtle perception destroyed by blunt action.

But this perspective holds the promise of breaking us out of calcified, deadlocked ways of thinking about reality.

• We need the Postmodern critique of power and existing beliefs, and the collaboration of networks.

• We need the Modern tools of reason, liberal governance, and the magic of the market.

• We need Premodern faith in a power greater than humankind, and the strength of institutions.

• We need Indigenous wisdom to steward the planet for generations to come, the connection and kinship of tribe.³

Polymodernity is a complex perspective for complex times. Whether we can internalize and embody it on a large enough level to matter is another question.

---

Currere Certamen Tuum

1. Anderson makes the distinction between an ism, like Postmodernism (cultural trends) and an ity as in Postmodernity (A cultural code).

2. Of course, there are situations where you must be a Hedgehog. Good to Great is a classic business book that recommends that a company pursue their value to the market in a single-minded, Hedgehog manner. To be everywhere is to be nowhere, as Seneca said, the danger of being too Foxy or Generalist.

3. I incorporated some hot Ronfeldt-ian TIMN action here— Tribes, Institutions, Markets, and Networks.