I began my previous blog with a mention of ‘Metamodernism’, the name given to the artistic, intellectual and spiritual epoch we find ourselves in following postmodernism. Linda Hutcheon in The Politics of Postmodernism has proclaimed regarding the latter period: “let’s just say it, it’s [postmodernism] over!” Beginning with Vermeulen’s and van den Akker’s foundational exposition “Notes on Metamodernism”, many scholars have begun wondering about the consequences of this new movement on religious studies and the academic approach to studying faith and spirituality in a changing world. In this short reflection, I would like to sojourn with the topic of interfaith and interreligious dialogue.
The spirit that defines Metamodernism seems to be ‘oscillation’ between a series of poles and opposites. This occurs most generally between what has been described as the ‘depthlessness’ and ‘pessimism’ of postmodernism, on the one hand, and the ‘linear progress’ and ‘optimism’ of modernism, on the other hand. But this is not an oscillation that simply leaves behind either past (modernism or postmodernism). Rather, it attempts to linger in a liminal interstice of neither/both. What does all of this mean for interreligious dialogue and the interfaith prospect in today’s world?
Already an obstacle in objectively evaluating interreligious dialogue and peacebuilding are the spiritual commitments of participants and agency of the supernatural which defies quantitative adjudication. Works like Evaluating Interreligious Dialogue and Peacebuilding have dedicated countless essays to this topic and how to address the otherworldly motivations of participants in these projects. Specialists have offered different solutions for this conundrum, including utilizing qualitative methods, testimonials and ‘change of attitude’ statements to gauge how successful various endeavors are at solving conflicts. However, the incorporation of the notion of oscillation between oppositions yields an altogether different frontier, paradox, that is far more difficult to evaluate.
Before addressing the solution to this conundrum in interreligious dialogue and peacebuilding, I want to address whether this oscillation between opposites and paradox is even worth considering. Not only do I think it is a beneficial addition but quintessential in today’s interfaith endeavors, where human beings increasingly find themselves at various intersections of ethnic, religious and other identities. Whereas modernism required a clear classification of these various descriptors (e.g., Muslim, Christian, Catholic) that are monitored by delineated secular (state) and religious (church or mosque) apparatuses, postmodernism relegated an agency of identity from these institutions to the individual devotees themselves.
Metamodernism highlights another development and complexity in identity formation whereby individuals no longer need belong to a single religious, ethnic or any other category. A person can be a Christian who experiments with Zen Buddhism, cultural Muslim yet dogmatically atheist, or a non-believer yet practitioner of any of these religion’s mystical strands (Kabbalah, Sufism). This is no where prevalent perhaps as in the cultural phenomenon ‘spiritual but not religious’, where devotees have a conscious opposition to organized religions yet eclectically curate various rituals from many of these traditions to create their own spiritual program.
What has been most intriguing in this regard is the reaction from neotraditional religious circles to this metamodern development. Memes that voice the Sufi poet Rumi as saying: ‘My poetry is about God not your ex-girlfriend’ and headlines lamenting that the ‘West has taken Islam out of Rumi’ are excellent examples. It is worthwhile noting, however, that these neotraditional reactions to metamodern spirituality do not manifest in a vacuum and are part and parcel of the zeitgeist: an intellectual oscillation between question and response. First, Western Muslims decrying that the ‘West has taken Islam out of Rumi’ is merely a reflection in the mirror of an older memory –requiring another essay: “Muslims have taken Rumi out of Islam”.
Second, it should not be assumed that this kaleidoscopic appreciation of spirituality is the sole propriety of the 21stcentury. Rather, we find premodern Muslim mystics like Ibn ʿArabi who called for ‘untying the knots of creeds’ and sought and individualistic program of sulūk (self-discipline) emblematic of his native Iberia in Western Islamdom that contrasted with the communal Sufi lodges in Eastern Islamdom in the 12th century. Incidentally, it is also Ibn ʿArabi who responds across time to his neotraditional coreligionists today and states that: “Poets annihilate their words in existent things. They write about women, wealth and status. But knowers only perceive the One behind all these forms.”
Returning to the topic at hand, how can we incorporate this metamodernistic oscillation between oppositions and paradox into interreligious dialogue? The solution to this, I believe, lies beyond evaluation methods. Rather, it is in the very religious topography that we must revitalize our efforts. Lingering on theological doctrines and legalistic practices has long since resulted in incorrigible differences and, in turn, led to a marginalization of dialogue in favor of more practical considerations such as ‘social action’. While this latter activism will always be essential for social harmony, I believe transcending theology towards mysticism will be the fertile soil for interreligious dialogue in this metamodern age.
For it is in the writings of mystics across spiritual traditions, from Ibn ʿArabi and Thomas Merton to Siddhartha, that we find themes like paradox and oscillation animating the spirit of a mystic’s life and journey to God. In the case of Ibn ʿArabi specifically, one can find the metamodern emphasis on oscillation between oppositions and the paradox of ‘both/neither’ almost verbatim in the Andalusian mystic’s recurrent portrayal of the universe as Huwa/lā Huwa (God/not God). Similarly, the attempt to linger between modernism’s obsession with objective truth and postmodernism’s relativization of reality towards countless subjectivities also finds an homage in Ibn ʿArabi adherence to the Sufi motto regarding maʿrifa (gnosis): “The color of water is that of its container.”
But the importance of mysticism is not bound to interreligious dialogue, or rather, it is a necessary connector to another aspect of Metamodernism and its actual intellectual spring: contemporary art. It is hardly a coincidence that celebrities, from Madonna to Opera, have all appropriated Rumi’s poetry: the marriage between mysticism and art is emblematic of Metamodernism. In turn, interreligious dialogue must step outside the walls of church and mosque and engage as well with museums and concert halls if it means to thrive in the coming epoch.
Comments