Solving the Great Philosophical Debate of Our Time

A profound debate has gripped academia and influential thinkers for decades. Fifty years ago it was Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky debating at Eindhoven University of Technology. Today, the debate rings from opposite corners of the internet. Modernity, with its emphasis on progress, reason, and universal truth, has been subjected to relentless critique by postmodernism, a philosophical movement that fully emerged in the mid-20th century.

These critiques, though compelling in some ways, have contributed to a widespread crisis of truth and meaning. To understand this debate and its stakes, we need to unpack the key ideas of postmodernism and their implications.

Setting the Stage: Modernism, Postmodernism, and Metanarratives

Before diving into the debate, it’s essential to understand the key ideas shaping it. At its core, this philosophical conversation revolves around how we interpret the world and the stories we tell ourselves to make sense of it.

That might sound very abstract, but it’s incredibly relevant in areas like education, art, culture, and even politics. For example, debates about what students should learn in schools, whether technology improves society, or how social media shapes identity all trace back to these ideas.

Here’s a brief overview:

• Modernism (1700s on): The belief in universal truths, progress, and reason as tools to improve society.

• Postmodernism (1970s on): A critical view that questions these universal truths, emphasizing perspective, culture, and power dynamics instead.

• Metanarratives (or Grand Narratives): Broad stories that claim to explain everything, such as “technology leads to progress” or “democracy is the ultimate political system,” or even "the customer is always right!"

To show an example, we can consider disputes over history curriculum in schools. Modernist perspectives advocate for teaching a comprehensive and established narrative that emphasizes shared heritage and progress, while postmodern views challenge this approach, favoring diverse, less Anglo-centric accounts that reflect the perspectives of marginalized groups.

By understanding these concepts, we can better explore how they impact our ideas about truth, meaning, and the stories we live by. Now, let’s dive into how this debate is playing out.

The Debate Around Truth and Narratives

At the heart of postmodern thought lies a crucial proposition: grand narratives—overarching stories or frameworks that define a society’s values and purpose—shape the world we live in. Postmodern thinkers argue that these narratives propagate harmful and oppressive norms. For example, the Enlightenment narrative of rationality and progress has been critiqued for justifying colonialism, patriarchy, and ecological exploitation.

While postmodernists differ in their conclusions, they generally agree that grand narratives are inherently harmful and should be replaced by localized, subjective narratives that reflect individual or community-specific experiences.

Critics of postmodernism challenge this view on several fronts, the most fundamental being the nature of truth. Postmodernism’s rejection of objective truth creates practical difficulties. Language itself, critics point out, relies on shared understandings of truth. Without some common ground, communication and cooperation break down. This principle is evident even in early childhood; toddlers demonstrate an ability to understand concepts before they learn the words to describe them, demonstrating that truth precedes language, not the other way around.

When it comes to value systems, postmodernism similarly stumbles. By framing all societal norms as tools of oppression, postmodern thinkers undermine the idea that value systems can promote cohesion, flourishing, and survival.

While it is true that oppressive systems can exploit narratives for control, the wholesale rejection of shared values fails in practice. Societies need common frameworks to function—frameworks that provide direction, resolve conflicts, and promote collective well-being.

The Limitations of Postmodernism in Practice and Science

At its core, postmodernism is a system for dismantling and critiquing existing structures. Critical theory, a related school of thought, focuses on exposing the power dynamics embedded in societal institutions and ideologies. While these approaches can be useful for challenging injustice and questioning outdated norms, they falter when relied upon as foundational philosophies.

In practice, a purely critical stance offers no constructive framework for building or sustaining complex societies. Moreover, postmodernism often conflicts with insights from the natural sciences.

Fields such as ecology, zoology, and primatology have revealed that successful systems—whether in ecosystems, animal hierarchies, or human societies—are not characterized by unchecked power and oppression. Instead, they feature sophisticated feedback mechanisms that balance competing forces, ensuring adaptability and resilience.

For instance, researchers like Frans de Waal and Richard Wrangham have documented how power operates in primate societies. Among chimpanzees, alpha males who rely on violence and intimidation may achieve short-term dominance but struggle to maintain it in the long run. The most successful leaders balance strength with empathy, using alliances, fairness, and emotional intelligence to stabilize their troops.

These behaviors promote cohesion and increase the troop’s chances of survival. Similarly, human leaders who excel often demonstrate the same qualities: they cultivate trust, balance accountability with forgiveness, and promote shared cultural values.

Reframing Metanarratives as Systems of Survival

Given what we know about the important role of leadership and cultural cohesion (even in the animal kingdom), it is time to reconsider grand narratives—or metanarratives—in a similar light. Postmodernists view these narratives as tools of oppression and control, but this perspective overlooks their adaptive and constructive potential. Grand narratives are not just stories created and imposed to exploit people; they are systems of survival that enable cohesion, providing continuity, purpose, and direction across tribes and generations.

We know that this is true when we study anthropology and patterns of human survival, where cultural narratives have consistently provided a framework for understanding and addressing existential challenges.

Examples of narratives that ensured survival and resilience include:

• The Exodus Story: An ancient biblical narrative of liberation and hope that united the Israelites during hardship. Later invoked by Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights Movement to inspire collective action and perseverance.

• The Magna Carta: A landmark agreement from England in 1215 that established the rule of law (even for kings), limited arbitrary power, and ensuring fairness in governance. It created a foundation for rights and governance that has shaped societies for centuries.

• The American Revolution: The story of "freedom from tyranny" united colonists to achieve independence, laying the groundwork for a new nation built on shared ideals.

Across diverse societies, shared stories and rituals have functioned as tools for cohesion, helping groups navigate uncertainty, pass down knowledge, and reinforce communal bonds. These narratives often draw on universal themes, reflecting what are called archetypal patterns. Such narratives embody wisdom accumulated over generations, offering templates for individual and collective action that resonate deeply within the human psyche.

Metanarratives, like the archetypal stories explored by psychologist Carl Jung and researcher Mircea Eliade, are deeply embedded in the human psyche. They function as templates for understanding the world and navigating its challenges.

For example, Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious suggests that archetypes such as the Hero, the Shadow, and the Wise Mentor are universal patterns that guide personal and cultural development. These archetypes serve as scaffolding for metanarratives, offering societies a way to contextualize their values and experiences.

Eliade adds to this understanding by showing how myths and sacred stories connect human existence to a transcendent order. These narratives provide a sense of meaning and structure, linking individual lives to the rhythms of nature, history, and the cosmos. Importantly, they are not static; cultures reinterpret and reinvent them to address new challenges and opportunities. This adaptability allows metanarratives to remain relevant, serving as both anchors and compasses in times of change.

Archetypal Stories and Their Evolution

To understand how metanarratives serve as systems of survival, we must examine their evolution. Archetypal stories often emerge in response to the existential challenges of their time. For instance:

• The Hero’s Journey: Found in myths ranging from The Odyssey to modern tales like Star Wars, this archetype addresses the universal need for transformation and resilience. It provides a framework for individuals and societies to confront adversity and emerge stronger.

• Creation Myths: These stories, found in nearly every culture, contextualize humanity’s place in the universe. They offer a sense of belonging and purpose, anchoring societies in shared origins and values.

• The Trickster: This archetype, present in figures like Loki (Norse) or Coyote (Native America), represents the need for adaptability and the questioning of norms. It reminds societies to embrace change and innovation.

As these archetypes demonstrate, metanarratives are not rigid doctrines but flexible frameworks. They adapt to the needs of the time, providing both continuity and innovation.

In times of disruption, such as the today (or the Axial Age, as I discuss in another post), archetypal stories and metanarratives are reimagined to address new realities while preserving their core insights.

I would even go so far as to argue that the examples I mentioned earlier of the Exodus Story, Magna Carta, and American Revolution were all building upon the same idea: one of liberation, self-governance, and accountability for oppressive rulers. They show how metanarratives are flexible and adaptable to changing paradigms.

Toward a Constructive Metamodernism

The postmodernists were correct in the critiques that our societies are deeply impacted by narratives, especially metanarratives. But they were overly critical and even flat-out wrong about the impact of these stories.

The question philosophers ask now is "where do we go from here?" Some say modernism has all the tools we need, but I think the damage of postmodernism is done. It's time to forge new philosophical ideas that resonate with future generations living through complexity and disruption. I argue that a metamodern approach—one that synthesizes premodern, modern, and postmodern insights—offers a path forward. By embracing the adaptive power of metanarratives, we can create systems that balance tradition with innovation, universal values with cultural specificity, and strength with compassion.

This idea of proposing a model of the world as a thesis, expanding on it, and then subjecting it to critique is not new. Philosopher Hegel (or someone) explained the process of synthesis through thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in his work. However, our current philosophical debate may have already been addressed by past traditions, which we must revisit to learn from their solutions.

Consider times in history when civilizations faced massive disruptions and found ways to overcome chaos. The Axial Age, for example, marked a period of profound transformation. During this era, philosophers, prophets, and visionaries surveyed the accumulated wisdom of written history, extracting its most sacred and practical elements to guide societies through new paradigms.

This process goes beyond the Hegelian concept of synthesis to what I call metasynthesis. Metasynthesis seeks to integrate distinct and seemingly contradictory paradigms into cohesive frameworks. By drawing on archetypal stories and reimagining them for the challenges of our time, we can navigate the meaning crisis, foster resilience, and build a shared future rooted in both humility and hope.

UP NEXT

In the next blog, we'll go deeper into the axial age and how metasynthesis offers a practical mindset to overcome our modern paradigm shift of rapid technological change and innovation.