The Listening Society: A Metamodern Guide to Politics, Book One

by Hanzi Freinacht

This mission statement does not seem to fit into the bulk of the book. Terms such as exploited bodies seems limited. Why not just exploited? (IN A NUTSHELL) Deliberately and carefully cultivate a deeper kind of welfare system that includes the psychological, social and emotional aspects of human beings, so that the average person, over the length of her lifespan, becomes much more secure, authentic and happy (in a deep, meaningful sense of the word). Freinacht, Hanzi. The Listening Society: A Metamodern Guide to Politics, Book One (Metamodern Guides 1) (Kindle Locations 1651-1653). Metamoderna ApS. Kindle Edition.

Political metamodernism becomes real by the rebellious act of telling a good story, a story that will both haunt and reward its listener.

Red highlights are from second reading.

politics. It changes not only how we do politics, but also what the role of politics in society is in the first place—and

The Social Democrats

Who?

None of them actually offer us anything new, or anything that might substantially improve our lives

In which direction can and should our society evolve?

Good question...even after reading the book, I'd like to articulate the answer.

The king’s road to a good future society is personal development and psychological growth. And humans develop much better if you fulfill their innermost psychological needs. So we’re looking for a “deeper” society; a civilization more socially apt, emotionally intelligent and existentially mature.

Great central insight. Aligns with much of my thinking and win the highest order of thinking that can lead to a just and sane and involved society.

A society in which everyone is seen and heard (rather than manipulated and subjected to surveillance, which are the degenerate siblings of being seen and heard).

“I develop if you develop. Even if we don’t agree, we come closer to the truth if we create better dialogues and raise the standards for how we treat one another.”

I suppose the US will be in this stage for a while longer (the reality show mentality) before attaining anything like a co-developed process. It is beginning in the bi-partisan collaborations against a narcissistic dotard, yet may subside once processes return to normal.

It includes a vision of six new forms of politics, all of which work together to profoundly recreate society. A

This book focuses mainly on the listening society, and explains how we as humans develop and grow psychologically. The idea is that there is an intimate connection between understanding how humans grow and evolve—intellectually, cognitively and emotionally—and how

good or bad society is going to be. Hence, it should—or must—become a top political priority to support the psychological development of all citizens.

And in that process I paradoxically found what appears to be a sustainable source of happiness and meaning.

Adaptation's search for something to be passionate about.

I write this from a subtle longing of the heart. I wish to find paths for society to be genuinely better, as a felt experience for real human beings and other animals.

Perhaps I am flattering myself

Maybe not flattery but wishful thinking. Based on the course of this book into stage theories, those he wishes to ruin will not be aware of any changes much beyond mild offense. It will be a challenge for this to become as big as he wishes.

My ideal reader is about ten years old.

This wants to see the change happen with a fresh generation.

You are to learn about a political and social theory, which, if enough people understand it, can and will dramatically improve the lives of coming generations.

First question: What is human development? Second question: What is the development of society? Third question: What is freedom?

How would I respond to this? First question: What is human development? The process of becoming human. I am thinking of evolutionary along with psychological Second question: What is the development of society? Third question: What is freedom?

is intellectually and morally indefensible not to—even

We have these three things we care so passionately about that we would maybe even give our lives for them. And yet, you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

Two chapters are devoted to smarts, two to learning, two to well-being, two to wisdom and two to putting it all together into what I call the theory of “effective value memes”.

stages of how “developed” different adult humans are? Yes. That is exactly what it means.

I can hardly understand the fear or objection to these stages if speaking especially to open minds, yet yes, it's true, there is objection to hierarchy.

and they hold that these trends seem to combine irony and sarcasm with sincerity and vulnerability. I will deepen this theme throughout the book.

Sound like present comedy routines. Shock and awe. But is sarcasm necessary?

The first meaning is that metamodernism is a kind of philosophy, a kind of engine for your mind. The second meaning is that metamodernnism is a developmental stage. I work with the idea that we, as humanity, can advance to a metamodern stage of development.

This phantom is thus something that must be contained in the everyday interactions and social games at the universities—lest

The chief means to keeping the phantom of narcissism under the table is to subscribe to (and hold one another accountable to) certain norms and virtues.

But under some circumstances, such

humility is not advisable, and one has more to gain from venturing outside the halls of academic virtue. Academic writing is not always the best form to present ideas, or indeed, to develop new ones. There is even sociological research to support that claim: Academia is more suitable for small, incremental advances in ground research and most ground-breaking innovation occurs in other sectors.[2]

Farewell respectability (I

I understand this farewell, but is arrogant writing the only way, or just his way? I imagine he is thinking more along the Sam Harris technique of reaching lay academics along with true academics by presenting in personal style.

it’s just to get the academics off their high donkeys.

All of these things will get you somewhere along the way, but none of them contain a metamodern understanding of politics.

And don’t worry, you’ll get to rebel. But you need to do it at the right time, with the right clues, for the right cause.

You see, politics is continuous not only with the ritualized forms of knowledge that we call “science”, but perhaps even more with the “common sense” of everyday life.

We don’t recognize how easily it is bought and sold and how often it makes fools of us before the whole royal court. Somehow, you are always on the side of science, or so you believe.

But real human beings, participating in all manner of everyday situations, base their worldviews and political opinions on much more than science.

We each have our own “social theory”, which is continuous with our “common sense” and philosophical outlook, loaded to the brim with emotions and unrecognized assumptions. Much of this book is devoted to mapping such common sense—and to developing it.

Such findings can in turn be taken from more or less fruitful branches of science; they can be more or less reliable, more or less relevant to the matter at hand, and your interpretation of them can be more or less perverse.

None of these positions can be proven or disproven, but they can be criticized from other positions that are more complex, more scientifically informed, more comprehensive, nuanced and coherent—and less wrong.

all ideas have a certain psychology—or a set of psychologies, depending on contexts (this is perhaps best captured in the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze’s notion of the rhizome).

Metamodern ideas are no different; they arrive at the scene with a certain form of audacity, bordering on aristocratic arrogance. There

Why must it be arrogant? Your actual speech seems to be far from it. Suppose it could throw some people off but it is not arrogant. Your writing style is.

The main obstacles to understanding these ideas are psychological ones: allergic emotional overreactions, prejudices, investments in beliefs, envy, fear, confusion and self-deceit.

But I know that you will be affected by the ideas—indeed, infected by their viral DNA—even if you don’t want to afford me the pleasure. And I know that you will be enriched and empowered in the process.

So that is why I write with this “cocky and evil” style.

Can this attitude go beyond the writing style though? If you want to change minds , this technique needs more subtlety. This seems to be a sign of our internet age, the age of online communication...much like the podcast gentle conversation, we can say we would be this Metamodern way...but it is only a written mentality. Can the Metamodern attitude expand outside of the current social dynamic?

Rather, I relate to you as what Deleuze called a dividual, full of different parts, of different voices and drives working in different contexts.

This intimate, transpersonal way of co-creating the world builds upon the acknowledgement that I exist within you, and that you exist within me—in

In this ironic game, we can play with our identities, with who we are, who we want to become, what we seek to create, with reality itself and with what we must achieve.

Without the irony and the sarcasm, my sincerity would simply be too much; it would awaken severe suspicions,

universal solidarity with all sentient beings, from all perspectives.

If we speak of authentic revolutions in the terms of Karl Marx, meaning rapid developmental changes in the social relations and the logic by which society functions and is governed—none of the mentioned examples seem to satisfy.

Is Tillich's Religious Socialism a direct descendant of Marx?