To begin understanding what metamodernism is, one should look towards what metamodernism was born out of; what it serves to answer or differentiate itself from. Essentially, to understand we must look to what it isn't. Near the turn of the twentieth century our industrious endeavors gave way to the age of modernism. It was an age marked by unbounded optimism and an aversion to the bourgeoisie. Technology had just progressed to a point where society could manufacture what it needed in excess and for a fraction of what an army of laborers would cost. One could argue that this is when the modern incarnation of the "American Dream" was born; the age of white picket fences and manicured lawns so to speak. It was structured with a degree of certainty that no harm would come from advancements made by our own hands; a sense of naivety veiled in enthusiasm.

However after the Great War, we began to see a generation that wasn't as certain of the modernist ideals instilled by their parents. This generation witnessed the rise and fall of fascism as well as the advent of the red scare. With this, new ideas about the world formed. Postmodernism harkened back to the more radical thinkers of modernism and pushed forward more relativistic notions that criticized the pillars of society. In this new narrative we grew skeptical of culture and became willing to have critical discussions as to what it entailed. We saw that perhaps there was no single Truth, but many. To a generation that looked on as proxy wars waged over the veracity of competing Truths, this was radical thinking. When people think of counterculture, this generation is viewed as a textbook example.

Postmodernism now sees itself in the same position as it's predecessor: outmoded. Where it once thrived on detachment, postmodernism has failed to take into account the immediacy that resided in modernist ideals. The internet atttests to this more than anything in recent memory; in connecting the world and providing instant access to an overwhelming amount of new ideas and the voices attached to said ideas, postmodernism has run its course. Moral relativism, the idea that there are many truths has given way to existential nihilism and a sort of indifference to the perpetual motion machine that is irony. The critical eye towards culture, once needed to tear down the institutions that controlled it, instead created a malicious and cynical outlook on everything we see and hear. Thus we now look for an alternative.

However much the cynicism and irony of postmodernism is necessary, so is the sincerity it once rebuked as being naive. By the early naughts, many people could feel a resurgence of modernist ideals within society; there was a new degree of optimism and enthusiasm injected into units of culture yet they still retained the cynicism and desperation of more postmodern works from the previous decade. We began to oscillate between the known facts of the world not because we had to but rather because we could. Notions of cyberspace were becoming a reality and subcultures became more anachronistic by the day; globalism was having its effect. With the end of history in sight, nobody had thought to think that such a middleground between ideologies of all flavors had never been so strongly felt. Slowly we began to realize that Postmodernism's deconstruction of truths had proved to be more harmful than good; with that in its wake, reconstruction appeared to be the only worthwhile solution.

Where Modernism claimed their was a singular Truth and Postmodernism claimed that all Truths are relative, Metamodernism looks at all that came before it and says that the Truth of the matter is quantifiable; it's like saying, “I may be a hypocrite, but I do try.” A sort of informed-naivety, Metamodernism is about oscillating between all the ideas that come forth; it requires that we sincerely look at numerous facets of a proposed truth in order to fully understand it. Or as someone else put it, "Metamodernism is a romantic reaction to the crisis and calamity of the world." It's akin to being a strand in Penelope's Loom from the Odyssey. Her devotion to Odysseus was fundamentally sincere and her ambivalence to her own life was all the same ironic; but it was the shroud that she weaved to avoid her suitors in the years that followed that symbolized her oscillation between the narratives laid out for her. She realized that by using her loom, Penelope would be able to hold out for the uncertainty surrounding her husband's return while simulataneously avoiding a marriage she did not want; through this, her truer meaning as a character is found near the end of the story. She kept weaving; forever oscillating between narratives in an effort to understand why her condition must be.

With greater access to information we have all been given an even greater capability of understanding everything that is occurring around the world and back again; there are downsides to this however. Having greater access to information leads us to having greater access to disinformation as well; this often leads us down paths of thought that are best left alone due to their toxic nature. Many of us are painfully unaware over how ideas even in their most basic forms affect our percieved world. Because of this, oscillating between narratives is the only course of action that can be done to solve this dilemma, for the most truthful of truths will be found in doing so. Conflicting ideas are constantly battling it out in an effort to be written in our history books or at the very least make some sort of impact on our psyche; this is something I like to call "memetic warfare." So go forth and oscillate, dear reader and subvert the imprisonment of your cognition.

That's all you need really need to know; if you'd like to know a little more then I suggest watching the video below and reading Seth Abramson's Basics of Metamodernism.