My sense is that they're genuinely drawn to the Hegelian dialectic as a way to escape the standard left vs. right politics. This is a pretty trendy thing to do these days, whether it's Andrew Yang saying "Not left, not right, but forward" (which he took from futurists like FM Esfandiary) or the people proudly broadcasting that they're "politically homeless." But yeah virtue signaling is part of this too, I can tell. The girls even say they're in it partly for the social cred--the likes, the attention. To this end, end doesn't hurt their cause that "Hegelian" sounds cool and latching yourself to a somewhat grandiose philosophical concept is also kinda cool, especially if it's done partly ironically.
Good answer. Kind of what I expected. Especially if they’re young, that’s awesome that they’re actively exploring these philosophical concepts. more than I can say for myself lol. No sense judging them on the extent of knowledge, practice, etc.
I want to clarify a few things about metamodernism, at least from my point of view (which I think is relevant because I've discussed metamodernism on your podcast!)
This whole "descriptive" vs. "prescriptive" thing. I think people have latched onto this distinction too hard. And maybe that stems from failing to make a different, more important distinction: Between metamodernism as a phenomenon, and the field of study that is the observation of metamodernism. From my POV, "metamodernism" is not the set of people who talk and write about metamodernism, nor the set of concepts that we use to understand metamodernism. It's the set of phenomena out there in the world that have metamodern qualities.
So metamodernism is not you and me thinking about metamodernism. It's all the movies and songs and TV shows and novels and, yes, social media figures such as the Hegelian E-Girls. Some of these things have a prescriptive dimension and some do not, but that's not a really interesting distinction. Nobody in academic metamodernism research has declared that for a thing to be metamodern, it has to refrain from urging people to do or believe certain things. There is nothing inherently un-metamodern about "prescribing." If you are prescribing ideas that are metamodern, then your project is metamodern. If you are prescribing ideas that are not metamodern, than your prescriptive project is not metamodern.
Meanwhile, I would point out that the main original kickstarters of the metamodernism discourse, Tim Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker take pains to say that the metamodern oscillation they are interested in is DIFFERENT from the Hegelian dialectic. That it involves an ongoing, repeated back-and-forth flip flop between (modern and postmodern) poles, that does not land in the middle, and does not necessarily move "forward" and does not achieve a synthesis. Jason Storm's understanding and definition of metamodernism is not necessarily "wrong" but it should be noted that it is a departure from how most academics use the term, and he himself asserts that he has made little effort to be consistent in his usage of the term with how other established writers have used it.
But this does not mean that the Hegelian E-Girls are not metamodern! I think that their self-description as you've quoted it sounds more metamodern than Hegelian! And, in any case, the oscillation between apparent superciality and depth and other dynamics you've pointed out make them potentially metamodern (in their project -- I generally cringe at the idea of a whole person "being" metamodern, postmodern, etc.), regardless of the "Hegel" part.
Great clarifications, Greg! Regarding the differences between the Hegelian dialectic and metamodernism: I think there are generic readings of the dialectic that map closely onto the spirit of metamodernism (e.g. not "moving forward" but "finding a new understanding") and it seems like people who comment on metamodernism may be able to enrich their commentary by borrowing from Hegel's language. But I haven't thought enough about this to have very clear thoughts on it...
idk but where else are you going to go for high-level philosophical questions like, “Guys, I don’t want to correlate, like, Hegel with schizophrenia, cause that’s actually not true, right?” (Quote from Nikki in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqtbdLrLpT4) :)
Is there any component of classic virtue signaling here? Are they parroting, or are they transposing the philosophy onto a modern canvas?
Genuine questions.
My sense is that they're genuinely drawn to the Hegelian dialectic as a way to escape the standard left vs. right politics. This is a pretty trendy thing to do these days, whether it's Andrew Yang saying "Not left, not right, but forward" (which he took from futurists like FM Esfandiary) or the people proudly broadcasting that they're "politically homeless." But yeah virtue signaling is part of this too, I can tell. The girls even say they're in it partly for the social cred--the likes, the attention. To this end, end doesn't hurt their cause that "Hegelian" sounds cool and latching yourself to a somewhat grandiose philosophical concept is also kinda cool, especially if it's done partly ironically.
Good answer. Kind of what I expected. Especially if they’re young, that’s awesome that they’re actively exploring these philosophical concepts. more than I can say for myself lol. No sense judging them on the extent of knowledge, practice, etc.
I want to clarify a few things about metamodernism, at least from my point of view (which I think is relevant because I've discussed metamodernism on your podcast!)
This whole "descriptive" vs. "prescriptive" thing. I think people have latched onto this distinction too hard. And maybe that stems from failing to make a different, more important distinction: Between metamodernism as a phenomenon, and the field of study that is the observation of metamodernism. From my POV, "metamodernism" is not the set of people who talk and write about metamodernism, nor the set of concepts that we use to understand metamodernism. It's the set of phenomena out there in the world that have metamodern qualities.
So metamodernism is not you and me thinking about metamodernism. It's all the movies and songs and TV shows and novels and, yes, social media figures such as the Hegelian E-Girls. Some of these things have a prescriptive dimension and some do not, but that's not a really interesting distinction. Nobody in academic metamodernism research has declared that for a thing to be metamodern, it has to refrain from urging people to do or believe certain things. There is nothing inherently un-metamodern about "prescribing." If you are prescribing ideas that are metamodern, then your project is metamodern. If you are prescribing ideas that are not metamodern, than your prescriptive project is not metamodern.
Meanwhile, I would point out that the main original kickstarters of the metamodernism discourse, Tim Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker take pains to say that the metamodern oscillation they are interested in is DIFFERENT from the Hegelian dialectic. That it involves an ongoing, repeated back-and-forth flip flop between (modern and postmodern) poles, that does not land in the middle, and does not necessarily move "forward" and does not achieve a synthesis. Jason Storm's understanding and definition of metamodernism is not necessarily "wrong" but it should be noted that it is a departure from how most academics use the term, and he himself asserts that he has made little effort to be consistent in his usage of the term with how other established writers have used it.
But this does not mean that the Hegelian E-Girls are not metamodern! I think that their self-description as you've quoted it sounds more metamodern than Hegelian! And, in any case, the oscillation between apparent superciality and depth and other dynamics you've pointed out make them potentially metamodern (in their project -- I generally cringe at the idea of a whole person "being" metamodern, postmodern, etc.), regardless of the "Hegel" part.
Great clarifications, Greg! Regarding the differences between the Hegelian dialectic and metamodernism: I think there are generic readings of the dialectic that map closely onto the spirit of metamodernism (e.g. not "moving forward" but "finding a new understanding") and it seems like people who comment on metamodernism may be able to enrich their commentary by borrowing from Hegel's language. But I haven't thought enough about this to have very clear thoughts on it...
Yeah, I don't think it can't work to understand metamodernism in terms of Hegel's language, but just wanted to point out that that is not "canon."
Read my articles on Modernity and PM, we have always been PM, as we remain not just Modern but HyperModern. https://open.substack.com/pub/themysteriousdeepblack/p/modernity-now-what-part-three?r=qblej&utm_medium=ios
idk but where else are you going to go for high-level philosophical questions like, “Guys, I don’t want to correlate, like, Hegel with schizophrenia, cause that’s actually not true, right?” (Quote from Nikki in this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqtbdLrLpT4) :)