The way I see metamodernism is not as something that somebody – a person, a group – creates, but a sum of indicators that there are a few things stirring in the hearts of wo/men, and which point to another type of sensibility, different from the modernist and the postmodernist ones.

Regarding the insufficient distinction between postmodernism and the way metamodernism is presented in many of the articles/ blogs available, my impression is that people feel the need for something new, a new definition and framework for what they wish to do, for the way in which they feel and create, but the definitions they come up with remain tributary to their upbringing and education – which were probably steeped in postmodern culture and reverent of modernism and avant-garde movements.

However, one of the blessings of what I/we call metamodern sensibility is that we have learned (from the postmoderns and other people) to be tolerant, to accept the other and see virtues in outlooks completely foreign to our own. A metaphor that comes to mind is that of the international potluck dinner: Everybody comes to the dinner table dressed however s/he pleases, bringing a plate of their choice, yet everybody enjoys both the food and each other’s company

I have called this the principle of theory overlapping (PTO):
Different (even divergent) theories/outlooks coexist and a common denominator/middle ground that could ensure dialogue is sought. Now how to find a common denominator between diverging theories is another matter, not insolvable, however, when the divergence is only superficial as may often be the case). A link to an old article where I mention PTO, which was published in Double Dialogues in 2007 is available on the blog.

There may be a lot of wishful thinking in my understanding of metamodernism, and countless places on earth were none of this is a reality or even conceivable, but, again, what I think is happening is a movement towards a metamodern sensibility in a few pockets around the world.