Между диалектическим и аналитическим подходами в марксизме
After postmodernism’s key theorists abandoned the topic (Fredric Jameson) or even allowed that postmodernism is no longer exists (Linda Hutcheon), various concepts under the umbrella term “post-postmodernism” have begun to emerge since 2000. One of the last intellectual alternatives to post-modernism was the metamodernism proposed by two Europeans, Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker. In 2010 they published a kind of manifesto entitled Notes on Metamodernism in which they argued that there had been a pivot away from cynicism and irony toward sincerity and romance in the newly emerging culture. This pivot heralds the arrival of the new era of metаmodernism. The author of the article critically evaluates the manifesto and concludes that the concept of metamodernism does not stand up to scrutiny and has little of substance to offer. The metamodernism manifesto is at best a set of declarations. However, this does not mean that the metamodernists had not intuitively hit upon the key to cultural and social tendencies that are still not completely clear. At the end of 2017 a new collection of articles edited by Vermeulen and van den Akker was published. Even though the authors of the metamodernism concept had almost nothing new to offer and failed to develop their ideas any further, other researchers and thinkers with different theoretical orientations from the original authors have taken up the metamodernism impulse and made it qualitatively more interesting. The metаmodernism project has been developed with greater sophistication by theorists and also through empirical research. Metamodernism has been vindicated by the new life it has been given.
In the past twenty years, all the key authors who wrote about the state of postmodernity either began to be engaged in other research areas (Fredric Jameson) or declared that the postmodernism is dead (Linda Hutcheon). Since 2000, when the fatigue from the postmodernism became evident to everyone, various researchers, critics and theorists began to offer their concepts of our era. However, all these theories, emphasizing the change of cultural paradigms, interpret culture traditionally not paying attention to total digitalization and the introduction of new technologies into our lives. However, in two concepts of our time these processes become central. These are the concepts of the digimodern and automodern. The focus of this article is the idea of automodernism, proposed by the American social theorist Robert Samuels in 2007/2009. He believes that our world is characterized by two contradictory tendencies – automation and the desire for autonomy (personal freedom). From his point of view, the former often does not allow to reach the latter due to certain circumstances. Samuels, using the example of a car, a personal computer, the Internet, etc., shows what exactly our culture is in the broadest sense. Analyzing the concept of “digital youth,” he also pays attention to the formation of a new subjectivity of the era of automodernity. Finally, the most interesting part of the concept of automodernism, which is most relevant today, is the criticism of leftwing social and philosophical concepts (Slavoj Žižek, Jameson) and cultural theories (Henry Jenkins). At the end of the article, the author mentions Adam Greenfield’s latest book Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life. Thanks to this book, Samuels’ theory can be verified.
Historism (historicism) in a most general sense is a principle of historical science, which
demands to see the phenomena in their development and connection with concrete circumstances
of the past. In a more narrow sense it is a trend in the European historical thought,
emerging under the influence of German Romanticism and Hegelianism. Specific features of
it were the romantic thesis about uniqueness and singularity of individuals, cultures and
epochs, the opposition of methods of natural and human sciences, view of history as a history
of spirit (Geist). The overcoming of this program in historical science occurred during the first
decades of the XX century, the philosophical critics had to do mostly with its relativism. K.
Popper’s critics of “historicism” had nothing to do with these debates or with German Historismus
itself. Indeterminism of Popper and F.A. Hayek is close to this Historismus; their
direct precursor and mentor L. von Mises himself developed the ideas of German historical
school in “national economy”. In the debates on positivism in sociology, transformed then
into debates on hermeneutics took part Popper’s disciple H. Albert, but he negated the methodological
dualism of “emancipative” hermeneutics of J. Habermas and K.-O. Apel, without
any reduction of Historismus to economical determinism. Among the opponents of historicism
in political philosophy important were the arguments of L. Strauss. In polemics with A. Kojève
he turns against not only of the Hegelianism or Romanticism; Historismus with its radical
relativism begins with Machiavelli and Hobbes, from the outset of the Modernity.