Metamodern Spirituality | Performatism: Transcendence after Postmodernism (w/ Raoul Eshelman)

Raoul Eshelman talks to Brendan about "performatism," the post-postmodern artistic epoch characterized by a return of transcendence. But what sort of "transcendence"? And how does it relate to history, religion, and metaphysics? Eshelman navigates these various lines of inquiry, while also pointing out some important distinctions between his work and other cultural theorists currently exploring these topics. Finally, what lies ahead for performatist theory, and for theories of the post-postmodern more generally?

0:00 Introduction
1:29 The Return of Transcendence: Postmodernism, Post-Postmodernism, and Historical Dialectic
16:41 Performatist Art and Post-Metaphysics
21:26 A Second Naivete? When Beautiful Belief Overpowers Banal Skepticism
29:50 Performatist Spirituality?
31:49 Debates within Post-Postmodernist Theory
43:42 Performatist Transcendence: A Response to Postmodern Disenchantment
58:24 A Cultural Studies Emphasis
1:05:32 Horizons: An Emerging Post-Postmodern Discourse

Raoul Eshelman's website can be found here:

[deepblack]

This was hard to listen to. Academy is diseased, as is Raoul's thinking (and PM, Metamodernism is problematic but not this bad.) All these attempts to create discrete Eras (35 years? no the oscillation is generational, topological, regional, layered, multiple, and overlapping and not Epical) out of the nonsense of Postmodernism and Post-postmodernism or Metamodernism are ridiculous. This is Academic insanity, and a game being played that is sad and unnecessary; or rather unhelpful. His and others notion of post-metaphysics is one aspect. They limit the notion of Metaphysics to a derogatory term form what they think that they are not engaging in, Scientism engages in the same development of belief in the heuristics that they attempt to frame their paradigms. Big Bang theory is a belief system just like Creationism, as is the Multiverse, attached to what are now called Paradigms; Metaphysics more properly termed is the overarching frame that your theories and assumptions about reality are couched in. Our current scientific theories are broken because of their belief system can not handle the critique and failings of theory.

As far as his theory any attempt at framing art movements and periods along Epochs is faulty beyond measure. All points of reference are individual (and academic) choices, picking out what are really minor, local, regional, class, genre, and culturally limited manifestations among the many others around the world. They fail to observe subcultures, indigenous, non-western, Global South, under appreciated, what is considered dated by some, or various neo movements outside of those movements or manifestations which they want to see, and which they themselves manifest through Academic Theory. The arrogance of these ideas are sad, and unfortunate; to say that "culture is produced from the top down... professionals create culture" is an extremely limited perspective, adjacent to racist, classist, elitist, and Western biased.

His use of Dialectics is also problematic and limited. The use or abuse of terms like modern (contemporary), post-, meta-, or worst of all post-post-modern fails to be properly historical, and while he points to this he continues but in a different manner. Attempting to create epochs out of genres for one. Failing to understand what the Modern Age is, and what is actually Modern vs Modernist is another. The Modern Age is Globalism thanks to Magellan, and since the Song Empire has been urbanization, colonization, "civilization", technological (4 Chinese inventions), Academic, and Bureaucratic. Modernity (the Chinese Song D. were the first) in the West continues to be the Imperial and Bourgeois Mode(rnity) of the Enlightenment, and the urbanization and industrialization of 1789; modernization, progress, civilized notions of the Elite that the working class, the outcast, the slave, women, gays, indigenous, poor all rebelled against and the critiques from them and those interested parties in Academy and the Elite put forth as furthering Progress and Inclusion. This is the Real Dialectics: progress, critique, and integration; in a sense we have always been Postmodern because we have continually practiced Critique, and desired Inclusion, and the recognition of relative viewpoints.

All aspects of what are pointed to in Modernism, Postmodernism, and Metamodernism are reoccurring aspects, tools, and manners of the Culture. Metamodernism, is really Integration or Integral (Modern ) thinking attempting to be a better Modern World. Seeing it as an attempt to see clearly the operation of cultural development, and necessary improvements can be seen as a Modernist (progress) self critique and analysis towards a better outcome with Perspective (meta); which is fine. The use of Post and post-post is not helpful, not genuine, inclusive, clear, or a triumph or linear conclusion or follow on of Modernity.

Performatism is not something that I take seriously. We really need theorists to stop being so arrogant, and myopic; that is the real "meaning crisis" Academy itself is the problem, and the Western Supremacist position.