FOLIA GEOGRAPHICA

Menu

Folia Geographica 2025, 67/1, pp. 22-69

THE METAMODERN SHIFT IN GEOGRAPHICAL THOUGHT: OSCILLATORY ONTOLOGY AND EPISTEMOLOGY, POST-DISCIPLINARY AND POST-PARADIGMATIC PERSPECTIVES

René MATLOVIČA, Kvetoslava MATLOVIČOVÁB*

Received: January 12, 2025 | Revised: March 17, 2025 | Accepted: March 27, 2025

Paper No. 25-67/1-739

A Institute of Geography, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8935-6462
    geomatl@savba.sk

B* University of Economics, Department of Tourism, Slovakia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9635-4177
     kvetoslava.matlovicova@euba.sk (corresponding author)


FULL TEXT

Abstract
In the article, we address the issue of a metamodern shift in geographical thought, reflecting on the context of the current Anthropocene polycrisis, which encompasses a range of environmental, geopolitical, economic, and socio-cultural challenges of the present era. We start from the assumption that postmodern epistemological and methodological frameworks are insufficient for a comprehensive understanding and resolution of these challenges. In this context, we explore the potential of metamodernism as a new philosophical and scientific platform that oscillates between modernist rationalism and postmodern skepticism, allowing for the productive integration of these frameworks.
The primary objective of this study is to demonstrate how metamodernism can contribute to the reinterpretation of geographical thought and to identify its potential as the fifth first-order discontinuity in the historical development of this discipline. In the theoretical and methodological section, we discuss discontinuities in scientific thought and apply the Latour-Barnes model to analyze the phases of mobilization and autonomization of metamodernism within academic discourse. We introduce key metamodernist concepts and principles – metarealism, zetetism, hylosemiotics, sublation, oscillation of scientific discourses, the paradoxical position of truth and grand narratives, dia/polylogical thinking, and the coexistence of layers of cultural evolution (Pipere, Mārtinsone, 2023, Storm, 2021), — and outline their applicability in geographical research. We employ qualitative, discourse-based, and historical-contextual methods to examine the metamodern shift in geographical thought, focusing on epistemological, ontological, and methodological transformations.
We reinterpret geography as a post-disciplinary and post-paradigmatic scientific discipline that oscillates between various ontological, epistemological, and methodological frameworks. In this context, we emphasize the necessity for an open, reflective, and pluralistic approach that facilitates the integration of diverse types of knowledge and methodological strategies. Understood through the lens of metamodernism, geography becomes a field of dynamic oscillation between the natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and technological interpretations of reality. This conceptualization of geography addresses the need for comprehensive, practice-oriented knowledge that can tackle contemporary global challenges, such as polycrisis. This aligns with zetetic epistemology, which prioritizes abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) over rigid deductive or inductive models. We introduce hylosemiotics as a methodological tool that enables researchers to analyze material-symbolic interactions in space and place. This approach integrates semiotic analysis with material studies, providing a novel framework for interpreting geographical landscapes.
In doing so, we aim to encourage discussions about applying metamodernist concepts in geographical thought while also acknowledging its limitations and potential risks. Moreover, we underscore the necessity for further theoretical and empirical reflection to refine methodological strategies and practical applications of the metamodernist framework in geographical research.

Key words
 Geography, geographical thought, hylosemiotics, metamodernism, metamodern shift, metaxy, oscillation, polycrisis, post-postmodernism, zetetic epistemology.

 

REFERENCES

  1. ABRAMSON, S. (2016). Trump Is Serious: Why the Donald’s Presidential Campaign Is More Than Just Entertainment. In Huffpost, 17.6.2016 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-is-serious-presidential-campaign_b_7597300.
  2. AGNEW, J. (2012). Of canons and fanons. Dialogues in Human Geography, 2, 3, 321-323.
  3. ALAMURI, S., ALUVALA, R. (2024). Glocalization: an analysis into it’s conceptual and strategic underpinnings. Brazilian Journal of Development, 10, 5, 1-16. DOI:10.34117/bjdv10n5-031.
  4. ANDERSEN, L. R. (2019). Metamodernity: Meaning and Hope in a Complex World. Copenhagen: Nordic Bildung.
  5. ANDERSEN, L. R. (2023). Polymodernity: Meaning and Hope in a Complex World. Copenhagen: Nordic Bildung.
  6. BARNES, T.J. (2004). The rise (and decline) of American regional science. Journal of Economic Geography, 4, 2, 107-129.
  7. BOLAÑO QUINTERO, J. (2021). The Posts-Postmodern Turn: Challenging the Application of Kuhn’s Model. The Grove. Working Papers on English Studies 28, 27-46. doi: 10.17561/grove.v28.5588
  8. BOURRIAUD, N. (2009). Altermodern manifesto: postmodernism is dead. Supplanting the Postmodern. In: An Anthology of Writings on the Arts and Culture of the Early 21st Century, 255-269.
  9. BROOKS, N., TOTH, J. (2007). The mourning after: Attending the wake of postmodernism. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
  10. CARRUTH, H. (1986). The defeated generation. The Kenyon Review, 8, 1, 111–117.
  11. CILLIERS, E.J., TIMMERMANS, W. (2014). The importance of creative participatory planning in the public place-making process. Environment and Planning B, 41, 413–429.
  12. CLAPSON, M., HUTCHISON, R., eds. (2010). Suburbanization in Global Society (Research in Urban Sociology, Vol. 10), Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1047-0042(2010)0000010003.
  13. CLARE, R. (2017). End of Postmodernism. In Burn, S.J., ed. American Literature in Transition, 1990-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 91-104. ISBN 978110713601491-104.
  14. COHEN, I.B. (1987). Revolution in Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 711 p.
  15. COHEN, M. (2015). Paradigm Shift: How Expert Opinions Keep Changing on Life, the Universe and Everything. Exeter: Imprint Academic.
  16. COLOMBO, L., ONORATI, A. (2013). Food, Riots and Rights. London: The International Institute for Environment and Development.
  17. CRAMPTON, J.W., KRYGIER, J. (2005). An Introduction to Critical Cartography. ACME-An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 4, 1, 11-33.
  18. DERAKHSHAN, H. (2021). Post-news Journalism in the Post-Enlightenment Era. In Grech, A. ed. Media, Technology and Education in a Post-Truth Society (Digital Activism and Society: Politics, Economy and Culture In Network Communication), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 123-132.
  19. DROUET, Q.B.G., BARRIOZ, A. (2024). „Altitudinal Gentrification” and “Social Descent in the Valley” through the Lens of Housing Access in the French Alps. Journal of Alpine Research | Revue de géographie alpine, 112, 3, 1-17.
  20. DZIADKOWIEC, J. (2015). Warstwowa struktura przyrody. Zarys stratalizmu ontologicznego. Lublin: Wydawnictvwo KUL. 273 p. ISBN 978-83-7702-952-7.
  21. ESHELMAN, R. (2008). Performatism, or the end of postmodernism. Aurora, CO: Davies Group.
  22. FELDMAN, S. M. (2005). The problem of critique: Triangulating Habermas, Derrida, and Gadamer within metamodernism. Contemporary Political Theory, 4, 3, 296-320.
  23. FOUCAULT, M. (2000). Slová a veci. Archeológia humanitných vied. Bratislava: Kalligram. 400 p. ISBN 80-7149-664-2.
  24. FU, B., ZHANG, J., WU, X., MEADOWS, M. E. (2025). Geography’s hotspots and frontiers: Diverse, systematic, and intelligent trends. Geography and Sustainability, 6, 2, 1-8. doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2025.100285.
  25. HAIG, T.A. (1991). Meta-modern culture: The new age and the critique of modernity. Montreal: Concordia University.
  26. HASSAN, I. (2003). Beyond Postmodernism: Toward an Aesthetic of Trust. In: Stierstorfer, K., ed. Beyond Postmodernism: Reassessments in Literature, Theory, and Culture. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 199-212. doi.org/10.1515/9783110906813.199.
  27. HEMI, K. et al. (2024). ‚We are the Moana‘: Climate Risks, Narratives of Vulnerability and Indigenous Pacific Resilience. In Voices of the Pacific: Climate Crisis, Adaptation and Resilience. The Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies Press and the Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development, pp. 143-183.
  28. HRISTOVA, T., NEILSON, B., ROSSITER, N., eds. (2022). Data Farms Circuits, Labour, Territory. Low Latencies book series, London: Open Humanities Press.
  29. HUGHES, P. (1996). Last Post: Alternatives to Postmodernism. A Review Article. Contemporary Studies in Society and History, 38 (1), 182–188.
  30. HUTCHEON, L. (2002). Postmodern Afterthoughts. Wascana Review of Contemporary Poetry and Short Fiction, 37, 1, 5-12.
  31. CHILDISH, B., THOMSON, CH. (2000). Remodernism. Chatham: The Hangman Bureau of Enquiry. https://www.stuckism.com/remod.html.
  32. IRA, V., ANDRAŠKO, I. (2007). Kvalita života z pohľadu humánnej geografie. Geografický časopis, 59, 159−179.
  33. JAMES, D.E., SESHAGIRI, U. (2014). Metamodernism: Narratives of Continuity and Revolution. PMLA/Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 129, 87-100.
  34. JENSEN, O.B., RICHARDSON, T., eds. (2004). Making European Space Mobility, Power and Territorial Identity. London: Routledge. 312 p.
  35. JOHNSTON, R.J. (2006). The politics of changing human geography´s agenda: textbooks and the representation of increasing diversity. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, 3, 286-303.
  36. KIRBY, A. (2006). The death of postmodernism and beyond. Philosophy Now, 58, 34–37.
  37. KIRBY, A. (2009). Digimodernism: How new technologies dismantle the postmodern and reconfigure our culture. London: Continuum.
  38. KNUDSEN, S. (2016). Forward: Beyond Postmodernism Revisited. Artpulse, 25, 7, 66-69.
  39. KOUTSELINI, M. (1997). Contemporary trends and perspectives of the curricula: Towards a meta-modern paradigm for curriculum. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 5, 1, 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681369700200005.
  40. KUHN, T. S. (1962/1970a). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  41. KUHN, T.S. (1970b). Reflections on my critics. In Lakatos, I., Musgrave, Α., eds., Criticism and the growth of knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231-278.
  42. KUHN, T.S. (1997). Struktura vědeckých revolucí. Praha: Oikoymenh.
  43. KWAN, M. P., DING, G. (2008). Geo-Narrative: Extending Geographic Information Systems for Narrative Analysis in Qualitative and Mixed-Method Research. The Professional Geographer, 60, 4, 443-465.
  44. LAKATOS, I. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In: Lakatos, I., Musgrave, A., eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91-196.
  45. LATOUR, B. (1999). Pandora´s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 336 p. ISBN 978-0-6746-5336-8.
  46. LAUDAN, L. (1984). Dissecting the Holist Picture of Scientific Change. In: Laudan, L.: Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 67-102.
  47. LIPOVETSKY, G. (2005). Hypermodern times. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  48. MATLOVIČ, R. (2006). Geografia – hľadanie tmelu (k otázke autonómie a jednoty geografie, jej externej pozície a inštitucionálneho začlenenia so zreteľom na slovenskú situáciu)/ Geography – In Search of Binder (on the Question of the Autonomy and Unity of Geography, Its External Position and Institutional Integration with Regard to the Slovak Context). Folia Geographica, 44, 9, 6-43.
  49. MATLOVIČ, R. (2007). Hybridná idiograficko-nomotetická povaha geografie a koncept miesta s dôrazom na humánnu geografiu/ The hybrid idiographic-nomothetic nature of geography and the concept of place with an emphasis on human geography. Geografický časopis, 59, 1, 3-23.
  50. MATLOVIČ, R. (2009). K problematike novej systemizácie regionálnogeografických poznatkov/ On the Issue of the New Systematization of Regional-Geographical Knowledge. Acta Geographica Universitatis Comenianae, 53, 11-18.
  51. MATLOVIČ, R., MATLOVIČOVÁ, K. (2007). Koncept miesta vo vývoji geografického myslenia/ The Concept of Place in the Development of Geographical Thought. In: Kraft, S., Mičková, K., Rypl, J., Švec, P., Vančura, M., eds., Česká geografie v evropském prostoru. České Budějovice: Jihočeská univerzita, pp. 181-190.
  52. MATLOVIČ, R., MATLOVIČOVÁ, K. (2012). Spoločenská relevancia a budovanie značky geografie/ Social Relevance and the Branding of Geography. Geografie -The Czech Journal of Geography, 117, 1, 33-51.
  53. MATLOVIČ, R., MATLOVIČOVÁ, K. (2015). Geografické myslenie/Geographical Thought. Vydavateľstvo Prešovskej univerzity, Prešov, 321 p.
  54. MATLOVIČ, R., MATLOVIČOVÁ, K. (2020). First and second order discontinuities in world geographical thought and their primary reception in Slovak geography. Folia Geographica, 62, 1, 52-76.
  55. MATLOVIČ, R., MATLOVIČOVÁ, K. (2021). Mobilization and autonomization stages of the Marxist Discontinuity in Czechoslovak Geographical Thought. Folia Geographica, 63, 2, 58-81.
  56. MATLOVIČ, R., MATLOVIČOVÁ, K. (2024). Polycrisis in the Anthropocene as a key research agenda for geography: ontological delineation and the shift to a postdisciplinary approach. Folia Geographica, 66, 1, 5-33.
  57. MAXWELL, N. (2024). The Post-Enlightenment Blunder, and the Failure to Develop Academic Inquiry so as to Become Rationally Devoted to Helping Humanity Create a Civilized World. In: The Philosophy of Inquiry and Global Problems. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp. 137-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49491-8_5.
  58. MOCÁK P., MATLOVIČOVÁ, K., MATLOVIČ, R., PÉNZES, J., PACHURA, P., MISHRA F. P., KOSTILNÍKOVÁ, K., DEMKOVÁ, M. (2022). 15-minute City Concept as a Sustainable Urban Development Alternative: a Brief Outline of Conceptual Frameworks and Slovak Cities as a Case. Folia Geographica, 64, 1, 69-89.
  59. MURPHY, E.P. (2017). Notes on “Notes on Metamodernism”: Criticism as a Creative Act. LVCAN MAG, https://medium.com/the-forvm/notes-on-notes-on-metamodernism-criticism-as-a-creative-act-fa8fb37fb01f.
  60. MURRAY, T. (2021). Metamodernism, Simplicity, and Complexity: Healing Developmental Models Through Involutionary Descent. In Rowson, E., Pascal, L. eds. Dispatches from a Time Between Worlds: Crisis and emergence in metamodernity. Chapter 5. London: Perspectiva Press.
  61. NEALON, J. T. (2012). Post-postmodernism or, the cultural logic of just-in-time capitalism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  62. NECHAEVA, E.A. (2021). Metamodernism as a Discourse of a New Anthropological Myth. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics, no 1, pp. 191–202 (In Russian).
  63. NENCINI, A. M. (2023). Metamodernism: A Multispecies Approach to Hermeneutics. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 37(1), 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-bja10123.
  64. OWEN, R., MACNAGHTEN, Ph., STILGOE, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 6, 751-760, https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093.
  65. PEET, R. (1998). Modern Geographical Thought. Oxford: Blackwell. 342 s. ISBN 1-55786-206-0.
  66. PETROVIČ., F., MURGAŠ, F. (2020). Holistic and Sustainable Quality of Life. Conceptualisation and Application. Folia Geographica, 62, 1, 77-94.
  67. PIPERE, A., MĀRTINSONE, K. (2022). Metamodernism and social sciences: Scoping the future. Social Sciences, 11, 457. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100457.
  68. PIPERE, A., MĀRTINSONE, K. (2023). Shaping an Image of Science in the 21st Century: The Perspective of Metamodernism. Societies, 13, 254, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13120254.
  69. RAJENDRAN, L.P. et al. (2024). The ‘peri-urban turn’: A systems thinking approach for a paradigm shift in reconceptualising urban-rural futures in the global South. Habitat International, 146, 1-13. doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2024.103041.
  70. RUDRUM, D., STAVRIS, N., eds. (2015). Supplanting the postmodern: An anthology of writings on the arts and culture of the early 21st century. London: Bloomsbury.
  71. SAMUELS, R. (2007). Auto-modernity after postmodernism: Autonomy and automation in culture, technology, and education. In T. McPherson (Ed.), Digital youth, innovation, and the unexpected (pp. 219–240). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  72. SHAYAN, S., KIM PYUNG, K. (2023). Understanding correlations between social risks and sociodemographic factors in smart city development. Sustainable Cities and Society, 89, 1-8. doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104320.
  73. SHEEDY, M. (2023). The Future of Metamodernism. Religion and Theology. DOI: 10.1163/15743012-bja10055.
  74. SHULLENBERGER, G. (2020). The Metamodern Turn: Toward a Theory of Trump-Era Liberal Culture. In Outsider Theory – theory on the outside, theory of the outside, outside of the theory, https://outsidertheory.com/metamodernism-trump-era-liberal-culture/.
  75. SINGLETON, A. D., SPIELMAN, S., BRUNSDON, C. (2016). Establishing a framework for Open Geographic Information science. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 30(8), 1507–1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2015.1137579.
  76. STOEV, D. (2022). Metamodernism or metamodernity. Arts, 11, 91, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts11050091.
  77. STORM, J.A.J. (2021). Metamodernism. The Future of Theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 359 p. ISBN 978-0-226-78665-0.
  78. STORM, J.A.J. (2025). Breaking the Postmodern Deadlock. Metamodernism’s Methodological Revolution. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 37, 1, 57-71. doi:10.1163/15700682-bja10135.
  79. TAYLOR, I., ZAJONTZ, T. (2020). In a fix: Africa’s place in the Belt and Road Initiative and the reproduction of dependency. South African Journal of International Affairs, 27, 3, 277-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/10220461.2020.1830165.
  80. TOTH, J., BROOKS, N. (2007). Introduction: A wake and renewed? In The mourning after: Attending the wake of postmodernism. pp. 1–14. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
  81. TOTH, J. (2010). The passing of postmodernism: A spectroanalysis of the contemporary. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  82. TURCHIN, P. (2023). End Times. Elites, Counter-Elites and the Path of Political Disintegration. Allen Lane. 368p.
  83. VAN DEN AKKER, R., GIBBONS, A., VERMEULEN, T. eds. (2017). Metamodernism: Historicity, affect and depth after postmodernism. London: Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd.
  84. VANDEVERT, J. D. (2025). From The Postmodern to The Metamodern: The Hegelian Dialectical Process and Its Contemporization. Filozofija i društvo, 36, 1-24. on-line first, doi.org/10.2298/FID240228007V.
  85. VAROUFAKIS, Y. (2024). Technofeudalism. What Killed Capitalism. Melville House. 304 p.
  86. VERMEULEN, T., VAN DEN AKKER, R. (2010). Notes on metamodernism. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, 2(1), 56-77. https://doi.org/10.3402/jac.v2i0.5677.
  87. VERMEULEN, T., VAN DEN AKKER, R., (2015). Misunderstandings and clarifications, Notes on Metamodernism, viewed 9 February 2025, from http://www.metamodernism.com/2015/06/03/misunderstandings-and-clarifications/.
  88. WALLACE, D. F. (1993). E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction. Review of Contemporary Fiction, 13, 2, 151-194.
  89. WILLIAMS, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
  90. WÓJCIK, M., DMOCHOWSKA-DUDEK, K. (2024). Clashes of knowledge: ‘Green deal’ concepts and challenges for sustainable rural systems. Czasopismo Geograficzne, 95, 3, 337-350. https://doi.org/10.12657/czageo-95-14.
  91. ZAVARZADEH, M. (1975). The apocalyptic fact and the eclipse of fiction in recent American prose narratives. Journal of American Studies, 9(1), 69–83.
  92. ZEIHAN, P. (2022). The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: Mapping the Collapse of Globalization. New York: Harper Business. 512 p.