Post-postmodernism Or PSEUDOPOSTMODERNISM?

Post-postmodernism is introduced as the “beyond” of postmodern thought. Terms like metamodernism (Vermeulen & van den Akker 2010), digimodernism (Kirby 2009), or new sincerity (Wallace 1993) suggest that we have moved past the skepticism of the late twentieth century. Yet each of these descriptions returns to the same structure. Oscillation between irony and sincerity, construction and belief, doubt and hope.

This structure is not new. It is the logic of postmodernism itself i.e., destabilization, refusal of closure and the collapse of fixed categories (Lyotard, 1979). To declare that “truth is provisional” or “meaning is under revision” is not a departure from postmodernism but its continuation.

Why does this distinction matter?
In today’s world marked by digital disinformation, climate crisis and polarized politics, the question of whether post-postmodernism truly breaks from postmodernism shapes how we understand truth and action. If post-postmodernism is simply a repetition of postmodern ambivalence then our cultural frameworks remain trapped in skepticism unable to generate stable grounds for collective decisions.

The conclusion
Post-postmodernism does not resolve the tensions of postmodernism. It restates them under new labels. This very oscillation shows that we are still living within the postmodern condition and attempting to move beyond it but circling back again.

References

• Kirby, A. (2009). Digimodernism. Continuum.
• Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). The Postmodern Condition. Manchester University Press.
• Vermeulen, T., & van den Akker, R. (2010). Notes on metamodernism. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, 2(1), 1–14.
• Wallace, D. F. (1993). E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction. Review of Contemporary Fiction, 13(2), 151–194.