Life as a Distribution of Types

I’ve never really loved the term “metamodernism.” Not only is it a mouthful, but it also doesn’t serve as a very useful tool to communicate the basket of ideas it’s supposed to represent. However, I think the core ideas of metamodernism are basically correct—namely, that life is far too complex for any all-encompassing truth as people in the modernist era might have believed. At the same time, reality still exists, and we are all bound by it.

There is lovely Carlyle quote from his 1837 classic “The French Revolution: A History” that captures what I mean well.

“Theories of Government! Such have been, and will be; in ages of decadence. Acknowledge them in their degree; as processes of Nature, who does nothing in vain; as steps in her great process. Meanwhile, what theory is so certain as this, That all theories, were they never so earnest, painfully elaborated, are, and, by the very conditions of them, must be incomplete, questionable, and even false? Thou shalt know that this Universe is, what it professes to be, an infinite one. Attempt not to swallow it, for thy logical digestion; be thankful, if skilfully planting down this and the other fixed pillar in the chaos, thou prevent its swallowing thee.”

To me, metamodernism is essentially a concession to postmodernism: “Yes, culture and power matter in defining truth, but objective reality continues to exist.” Because objective reality continues to exist we are forced to contend with her in the context we live in.

Thus, maybe a term like “distributionalism” better describes what people usually mean, even if it too carries the burden of being somewhat cumbersome. The world makes more sense to me when we accept that, rather than there being one truth, there are many truths drawn from a mostly stable distribution of human biological and social characteristics. What is true to you will depend on your type.

For instance it is obvious from my own life that men and women differ in important ways but I’m not comfortable saying that “human society is fundamentally sexually dimorphic.” If anything, the modern world has shown that fields traditionally viewed as masculine—like math—or feminine—like child-rearing—can fully accommodate people of the opposite gender as highly productive and valuable members. One of my best friends - a woman - is also a Ph.D. student here at Stanford, is undeniably better than I am at math, and any system that claims only men can do math would exclude a brilliant, thoughtful person.

Consider as another example Aella (I’m not sure if that’s her real name). She’s an extremely thoughtful, happy, and seemingly good person, but she’s also literally a whore. She regularly gets into arguments on Twitter when she does something others might find, at a minimum, “icky,” sparking outrage from social conservatives, only for her to assert that it truly makes her happy. I don’t doubt her; she seems to practice what amounts to radical candor, and I believe that being polyamorous and working as a sex worker genuinely brings her joy. But I also believe that, on average, people should avoid being prostitutes for many obvious reasons.

This creates a conundrum of sorts. On one level there are basic distributional facts of life but on the other those facts manifest in extremely diverse forms. Even still I’m hesitant to accept the postmodernist argument that, because some facts defy easy categorization, the idea of truth itself is illegitimate. No, it is just incomplete to us.

To me, this approach is the only way any workable form of social conservatism could return to humanity. Previous systems that existed throughout our entire biological history have proven unstable in the fact of modernity, crumpling like a wet paper towel—this doesn’t even address the injustice and cruelty they often imposed. People like me, who feel discomfort with social progressivism, need to admit that just because something is, on average, good doesn’t mean it’s always good. I’d prefer my children be monogamous, as I believe this is, on average, the most fulfilling way to live, but that’s different from saying that everyone should be monogamous. Fundamentally, my motivation is utilitarian: I’m advocating for monogamy from a practical, not an objective, perspective. What is ethical is what we permit, and what we permit is what is useful.

In order to pull this off we will require a level of pluralism that Abrahamic societies have traditionally struggled with—a challenge our civilization needs to address. Jainism’s idea of anekāntavāda introduced to me by my good Jainist friend Rohan - is close to what I’m advocating for.

But nothing I’ve said above is a postmodern claim that everyone’s personal truths are equally valid. No, objective reality exist and you want to cleave closely to it, but knowing what that reality is should not be thought of as a trivial or a solved problem.

When I look around, the correlation between engaging in “conservative” behaviors and happiness is striking. If you aim to maximize your chances of living a happy, fulfilling life, it seems like you could do worse than mimic your grandparents' social arrangements. It’s easy to counter this with “not everyone has good grandparents” or “not every women appreciates traditional masculinity,” but that’s my point entirely. Choose what works for you and discard the rest; just don’t forget there’s no need to reinvent the wheel. Life is very short and you don’t get that many shots.