Narrative Devices of Metamodernism

Chelya Dzhoi ORCID: 0000-0003-1138-9173 PhD in Philology Postgraduate, Russian and Foreign Literature Department, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia U. miklukho - maklaya, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, Moscow str., 5 celaxhoi@gmail.com

Oscillation Metamodernism always oscillates between modernism and postmodernism.

Oscillation is one of the main techniques representing metamodernism in its essence, and even oscillation can be a starting point for other narrative techniques. Metamodernism is seen as a pendulum that is in motion all the time, and in this logic, works of art use the swing technique, which distinguishes them as metamodern.

Vermeulen and van den Acker were the first to describe metamodernism as something in between, which: "... oscillates between modern enthusiasm and postmodern irony, between hope and melancholy, between naivety and knowledge, sensitivity and apathy, unity and multiplicity, totality. and fragmentarity, purity and ambiguity. This means that this technique is an intermediary between modern and postmodern techniques, their use makes both epochs alive through metamodern art.

This proves that metamodernism is not against them, but sees them as a support for further development. For metamodernism, this three—way connection of modern — metamodern - postmodern is very important.

Oscillation brings pleasure in metamodernism, although we know that they will not lead to something new. Moving back and forth does nothing but create a gravitational cycle where whenever the magnetic force of attraction is lost, it returns to its starting point.

In metamodern works, we have constant fluctuations not only from the text, the fiction that occurs in it, but also there are fluctuations from the author and the reader. Everyone is in constant motion who does not know where they are going, but knows that they are on the right path of movement ^{[4, p. 43]}.

Being in constant motion, the work goes beyond its own boundaries and engages the reader in different ways. Let's take a common example: if in his prose the author hesitates between the past and the present, if in modernism he would like to make this movement visible, then in metamodernism he seeks to make it incomprehensible, sentimental and magical. It transcends time, forcing the reader to move in the same direction as the movement, even if he refuses to do so.

The characters also fluctuate at different poles. For some scientists, oscillation is both "in the thoughts of the character and beyond his perspective" ^{[21, p. 23]}, as well as "negotiations between dystopia and utopia through organic fluctuations between them" ^{[21, p. 23]}.

Even the reader is in constant fluctuation, because the author and the text are fluctuating, and he is moving in the same direction as they are. This rocking of the reader makes him get involved in the pronunciation, sometimes consciously, and sometimes losing touch with the text and pulling away. The influence of the reader largely depends on the medium of the metamodern work.

In metamodernism, as in the modern— metamodernism— postmodernism relationship, there is also a traditional author—text—reader relationship, but in these relationships, the primary text that is created for the author for the sake of the reader.

Thinking "as if""... people are not really going towards a natural but unknown goal, but pretend to go in order to progress both morally and politically.

Metamodernism moves for the sake of movement, tries in spite of inevitable failure; it is forever searching for the truth, which it never hopes to find." ^[7]

Let's start this second technique of metamodernism like this. The idea that metamodernism always leaves a path for hope was first abandoned by two Dutchmen, where many other researchers took it as the basis of their research. I think the adverb "as if" has more to do with the hope and positivity that metamodernism enjoys in its perspective with the world around it.

The word "as if" leaves a path to the idea that the impossible can become possible if we try to move forward. Even in the "as if" mentality, it is as if we have a movement that does not go backwards, but only forward in order to achieve our ultimate goal. Even if this movement does not achieve its goal, metamodernism believes that moving forward is necessary, even if it ends in failure.

Moving forward, even if we fail, can bring about changes, even minor ones. When two Dutch people say that we must move for the sake of movement, it does not mean that metamodernism requires movement because it does not know what else to do, on the contrary, it hopes that this movement can bring something.

The word "as if" does not mean that in metamodernism we live only with hope and a look into the future, forgetting about the present. We have both modernist positivism and a dystopia with social problems of postmodernism. Metamodernism, according to a significant part of researchers, does not forget the present, but only hopes for the best, paying attention to how it can be improved every day in order to achieve the only goal — to be happy.

One of the researchers who touched the mind "as if" is Seth Abramson. He connects "as if" global crises, saying: "Metamodernists are as aware of political, economic, climatological and other forms of chaos as everyone else, but they prefer to remain optimistic and actively involve their communities, even when and where they believe."^[1]

In my opinion, striving for the positive does not always help a person in need. Encouraging is a positive position, a privilege that requires that the ancestors create conditions for the future in order to be able to hope for something better. To get out of the global crisis, but also an individual one, not only actions are needed, but also strategy and soil, which are not talked about so much in metamodernism.

In the position of an unprivileged individual, the loser is unhappy, because time does not flow for him as for a privileged one. Today, money rules the world, and time is money, it results in success and comfort. Capitalism is not kind to everyone, especially the less privileged. The latter are always the most deceived that everything will be fine if we hope and are positive. This is a lie that was once told, and metamodernism uses it as a technique to move forward.

Movement is inevitable for them, and for the sake of movement it is better to be positive than to suffer for the subsequent consequences. Failure for metamodernism is pleasure, just like Kant's sublime, where horror turns into pleasure, failure for metamodernism turns into pleasure and, of course, into experience.

Mendesia "as if" once again draws attention to the fact that the reality in which we live is becoming utopian, even the metamodernist works themselves have an approximation to utopia and it seems that the return of utopia has to do with "as if".

This utopia becomes a part of fiction in fiction, which is more real than ordinary fiction. Utopia allows you to achieve something peaceful, even if it did not exist before. Utopia has an infinite and unlimited axis of space and time, where everyone can try to reach a certain point that can lead to destruction or fulfillment, the end may always be unknown, but it is known that it will lead to a zero point, global chaos.

In other words, Ernst Bloch argued that "The fantasy of a utopian function differs from a simple fantasy precisely in that it alone carries within itself the achievable not-to-be; that is, it does not play and does not wander in an empty possibility, but psychically precedes the real possibility."^{[2, c. 21]}

But utopia does not always bring good results. In most cases, this led to incomprehensible submission and imprisonment. In a country where there is no freedom and a low level of education, we will face the phenomenon of a political utopia. When we strive for mobilization, the movement cannot be deprived of rights, and we cannot take for granted that if we strive for development, rights are guaranteed. The movement and the status of individual rights must be in the same parallel line so that metamodernism functions and does not self-destruct.

Striving for the best should not make us wait endlessly for something that may never happen. What metamodernism should have is optimism in the face of failure. The philosophy that we are going nowhere, that there is nothing good in the world, that in the end we will die, we know and admit it, but it's time to let out a black rain of pessimism and just live, for the present with the eyes of the future, without romanticizing failures, as Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den do Acker in this case, but being positive and sober.

One of Hannibal's earliest novels, Lecter refutes the claim that Hannibal's monstrosity is the result of unfortunate circumstances: "Nothing happened to him. It happened." The same thing is happening today in metamodernism: things happen because they have to happen, and we can't do anything but act. In metamodern novels, this is quite obvious.

Olga Tokarchuk describes all her heroes who are striving for a certain fate with the aim that they simply live regardless of what is happening in their lives. It's like a rapid movement of people at the airport, where no one knows their fate, but they leave somewhere without thinking about what's next, it just has to be better.

In utopian technique or thinking "as if" there are two very important things: the event and the subject. There is no hero without events and in this case it is a subject. Only if we have a subject, then we can have an event. The subject is always waiting for something better, and out of hope always comes a revolution. The subject creating the event does not know when the climax will come, but he is sure that it will. A metamodern subject does not worry about events in such an event, it is enough that these numbers are in his favor ^{[17, p. 55]}.

This obsession that the subject should bring something new and innovative is the same thing that happens with capitalism. Capitalism is an obsession with a new and eternal renewal of forms, forcing people to delude themselves that everything is changing and something better is coming. In metamodern heroes, they think they are making a social or individual revolution, they are obsessed with something new, like metamodernization itself, but these changed things are the same, but in different forms.

First, man is a social being, existing on the basis of arbitrary rules and laws. In his existence in society, a person moves limited within the framework of these rules, thereby creating his cultural and political character. He has unlimited freedom when moving within the limits of social restrictions.

After all, he speaks the language of this culture quite accurately, ^{[14, p. 756]} (but he cannot determine exactly what rules he follows. Once a person was directly influenced by society, such as colleagues, friends, family, and today a metamodern person is strongly influenced by technology and even follows unwritten rules established by social networks.

"... they all follow a fairly broad set of rules that determine how they use their language and, therefore, in many ways, how they perceive their world, but they do not know that they are doing it." ^{[14, p. 756]}

Otherwise, we can call these people "organic robots" ^{[19, p. 8]} of behavior. In the human world, a person suffers from Frankenstein syndrome. For those who do not remember the terrible story of Mary Shelley, let's bring back the memory. Dr. Victor Frankenstein, on the verge of death, begins to create a person by connecting disconnected organs. After creating your being, you see how he gets up and lives like a normal person, which causes the doctor disgust and fear. From this he renounces his being and leaves him alone in the wild human world. A lonely and heartbroken creature starts killing people, including the doctor's wife, in revenge. To stop his creature, the doctor sets out to find him, but he is eventually killed by his creature.

The whole philosophy of history is based on Shelley's fear of technology. Technology has proved to man that it does not bring improvement, but only destruction, impoverishment and poverty. "James Watt's steam engine and the many other inventions that followed it became an integral part of market societies only because of profit and competition between profit-seeking entrepreneurs." ^{[5, c. 3]}

Like Frankenstein, his creature came to destroy him, the same thing today — technology, the phone we hold in our hands, social networks, they come to bring humanity closer, to facilitate communication, but the only thing they turn a person into a slave, dependent on the illuminated screen. Never in the entire history of mankind has a person been at greater risk than today. His spiritual mind is part of a huge network of abuse and misuse of this mind.

What can save a being from slavery is the preservation of a psychological attitude that can help a person change his sense of reality and basic sense of self.

Experiencing new feelings helps a person transform and help themselves move forward. In metamodernism, experimentation is one of the main things that support forward movement and development ^{[9, p. 1]}. Therefore, when we talk about love, erotic, spiritual relationships, we are dealing with salvation from the slavery of technology, moving forward and violating social rules. The space inside these relationships is impenetrable and unique. A person experiences separation from rigid social structures and seems to be coming out of a limited cycle of life ^{[20, p. 39]}.

Secondly, man is a political being, because otherwise he could not be called a man. Metamodernism is a positive, optimistic, euphemistic thought, according to which the achievements of society will lead a person to happiness ^{[15, p. 20]}. The very idea that a person will be freed from constant and voluntary oppression is a deception of the individual by the state.

When Bart talked about the death of the author, he focused more on the reader than on the creator. In order for a reader to be born, the author had to die. It was one of the biggest revolutions in literature of that time, but it belonged to postmodernism. Postmodernism focused more on the reader, on how he would react to the work, thereby neglecting the author and the text. In metamodernism, the most important thing is not the reader or the creator, but the text. The author will create regardless of the circumstances, because he is better able to do it, to create. Also, the reader will feel something from the work, whatever this work may be. What is important and what should be monitored is the text. The text gives birth to the author, gives birth to the reader, creates a feeling. The author and the reader will always be there, but there is no text.

There is everything in the text, starting from the author's style (we can recognize the author from the text), there is fiction (from it we know how much the reader will be attached to this work). Everything we want to know is in the text. The text does not try to please either the author or the reader. It is created without any special intentions, but only as a value of random inspiration and then it will be admired. In Olga Tokarchuk's book, the text is all we have. In the text we know the author, but we also know ourselves. The constant movements that the heroes of the metamodern make are movements directed to the author, to the reader and to themselves. They swing both in us and in themselves.

The paradoxParadox is a well–known literary figure, originating much earlier than the epochs we are studying.

To understand that we are dealing with a paradox, we must ask two basic questions: "Does the statement contradict?" and "Is there any truth in this?".

Modernism is distinguished by the paradoxical phrase of Marshall Berman, one of the theorists who best explained the functioning of modernism: "Everything solid dissolves in the air." The paradox in postmodernism was something stronger and more complete. The paradox arose as a contradiction after the Second World War of traditional forms of art, literature and philosophy. He wanted to challenge categorization, but ironically it became a category itself. Postmodernists wanted to condemn modern life, thereby creating a dark and pessimistic environment. Such tools as fragment, black humor, paradox, allusions, satire, were those that characterize the entire postmodern literature.

Metamodernism, even in the use of paradox, stands between the two preceding epochs. When we talk about the idea of "as if", we saw traces of a paradox in the explanation of this mentality, when we argued that "something can be possible and impossible" or "be unlimited within a limited". The metamodern paradox is dynamic, it seeks both at the same time. Metamodernism allows modernism and postmodernism to exist in one work at the same time in harmony, which cannot be disturbed. In other words, metamodernism is both modern and postmodern, but it cannot be either.

Michel Claskin-Johnson defined the paradox for three periods:

"For a modernist worldview… [paradox] is a contradiction that needs to be resolved by choosing one side or the other. For a postmodernist, this is an ironic situation ripe for deconstruction. For the metamodernist, however, the fact that there is a paradox does not mean that one of them is wrong and the other is right, or that one should be attributed to a simple "subjective truth". ^{[13, c. 2]}

The metamodern period is in a paradoxical environment. When we tell people that they should have hope, they should strive for a better future, but at the same time we ask them not to forget about the problems of the present, this is a paradoxical situation. To be here and not to be here. Metamodernism does not use a paradox, the paradox exists without use, it simply remains as being and lives in inevitable works of art. We have a paradox in the constant oscillation at different poles,

When Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Acker argued that metamodernism is between modernism and postmodernism, they drew a parallelism of such relations as irony and sincerity, right and false, cynical and naive. Thus, the metamodern paradox becomes more visible, experiencing two opposite sensations simultaneously. Metamodern writers use the paradox not as a literary figure, but as something necessary, because a metamodern text cannot exist if it is not paradoxical.

Metamodernism prefers to use several techniques at the same time. At the top we have paradox, influence and self-knowledge. The hero does not know where he is going, does not know if he can exist in one place, or in another, or in both at the same time, does not know if he is somewhere and nowhere at the same time. So, it is these techniques that form an artistic text so perfectly, and the reader can understand that he is between a dilemma and confidence, he is in a continuous movement to know who he is, and in the end sees in all this, a paradox.

The preferred style of metamodernism is self—reflection, where through this movement is created and thinking "as if" is formed. Metamodern authors use fragmentation as their style to create a swing from one place to another, from one feeling to another, from one story to another. Fragmentation and metanarrative are two styles used that contradict each other, thus a paradox arises. Metamodernists like to be limited in the narration of events, to write briefly without expanding, but at the same time they like to be comprehensive, more universal. These two paradoxical techniques are as well found in metamodern novels as in Tokarchuk's book.

Tokarchuk had fragments from different histories, making it so that we did not focus on any one part, but on many different poles and all of them were given the same meaning, but at the same time it is comprehensive, universal. Everywhere, including different times of the narrative, includes different places, goes beyond the narrative, thereby representing a broader human anatomy.

Observation is another style used, and this creates a paradox. Through observation, a paradox is achieved, observation creates the recognition of opposites that can cooperate with each other without disturbing the harmony of chaos. We often encounter narratives in which there is no dialogue, and only observations are part of the story. Observation is something that complements the dialogue, but sets the reader in motion, learning about the environment. Movement also brings movement with it, and through movement we create vibrations. Olga has not only this novel. She has written two volumes of short stories in which the movement between past and present, truth and myth is inexorable, as she tells many stories of local residents who lived in a small town that is now Polish, but which was considered by Germans, Czechs. and the Austro-Hungarians in the past.

The dissolution of borders within the framework of globalismMetamodernism lives in the world of technology, where everything is digitized and people are as close as they are far from each other.

Thanks to the power of technology, all industries and enterprises have switched to global practices. Society has never been more connected than it is today. Individuals for every feeling expressed in a wide technological network have a huge global impact, so in metamodernism, each of our actions must be well weighed before it is committed, because otherwise it will have great consequences.

All this largely makes us understand that metamodernism, as a rule, has no definite boundaries or, as two Dutch women mention in their dissertation, sensitivity with the dissolution of "boundaries". The use of this technique in works of art introduces novelty and there were no such works before ^{[16, p. 33]}.

However, the main factor of the identity crisis in modern society is globalism. Globalism seemed to help society develop, but only with the advent of the financial crisis, the migration crisis of society, globalism experienced a shock ^{[18, p. 2]}. No more than 2 years ago, Covid-19 caused the paralysis of society, inflicting an even greater blow.

Globalism requires special attention, because through it we can explain this continuous movement that the metamodern always strives to make from one pole to the other, but it also helps to understand the idea of "unlimited in boundaries". Pay attention here to Tokarchuk's novel, which writes about boundless characters, wanderers, devoid of national feeling. These are people with an identity crisis of globalized humanity who are constantly trying to find themselves.

In a globalized world, it is sometimes absurd to have borders, because borders between countries do not make sense as long as technology acts against them. Tokarchuk himself experienced a border violation inside the airport. For him, they are a city in themselves, in which you can get lost and not know where you are. "Anyone who has experience working with borders, not only national ones, sees the artificiality of people who conduct them arbitrarily," O. Tokarchuk noted in one of her interviews (Shotter, 2020).

Seth Abramson, speaking about reducing the distance, admitted that the Internet has greatly influenced human life, which has now become a life belonging not to an individual, but to the whole globe. "... it is harder than ever to pretend that we are in a dialectical relationship with other people or ideas - instead of being at the center of a maelstrom of identity and beliefs that we only sometimes feel we control."^[1]

Seeing that everything is interconnected and that distances are getting shorter every day, it leads us to think that the same thing is happening with the disciplines themselves. In metamodernism, we have to think about meta-disciplines, which will soften the boundaries between the respective disciplines. Thus, it is possible to resolve the traditional debates between the creator and the critic or the creator and the researcher. When swinging from side to side and when reducing distances, there should be no boundary between a person who will be both at the same time or only one.

However, this does not mean that a researcher can easily become a writer and receive an appropriate assessment. We want to say that there may be researchers who have creative work or experiments that can be accepted as good attempts and remain within the limits of the attempt. On the other hand, a writer is not expected to be a real researcher, but he can make an attempt that may be worth his field of study.

Metamodernism considers creative efforts as capable of producing information, which can then lead to knowledge ^{[12, p. 2]}. Each effort of the creator or researcher is an effort that gives development, and the movement fulfills a given goal. We get information from the experiment and achieve something, whether it's a failure or a mistake. We can be satisfied with the information we receive as a result of these efforts.

The division of boundaries in literary works began with intertextuality and continues to exist as such. In modernism, intertextuality has created meta-narratives, postmodernism has decided to criticize them, and metamodernism sees them altered, confused, short and long, the quote is often unknown, but often well known. Intertextuality does not respect time and space, they are arranged according to the author's plan without observing a certain order.

Such dissolutions allow for intertextual references that allow the real to flow into the fictional. "The self - conscious mixing of the real and the fictional also has postmodern roots and manifests itself in fictional narratives through ... intertextual borrowing of characters, skeptical jumps between worlds, narrative contradictions and ... a mixture of reality and fiction. An example is texts in which a real figure is placed in a fictional situation where it interacts with purely fictional characters." ^{[3, p. 127]}

MetanarrativeTraditionally, the great narrative consists of beliefs and practices aimed at explaining historical forces and thereby providing what is considered universal truth.

Indeed, the literary critic Hans Bertens summarizes: "These meta-narratives or "great" stories as a whole are supposedly transcendent and universal truths underlying Western civilization." ^{[8, p. 124]}

The metanarrative was first used in modernism, but it was only in postmodernism that the metanarrative became famous thanks to Jean-Francois Liotard.

According to Arran Gare, the great narratives of modernism had many problems, where each of these great narratives is aimed at achieving great goals and projects, such as "the liberation of the rational, the liberation of the exploited or the creation of wealth." ^{[10, p.11]}According to these narratives, modernists judged human societies, dividing them into advanced and backward, where literature did not belong to everyone or, as they say, "to some people, but not to others."

A meta—narrative is one that aims to explain various events in history, gives meaning by linking disparate events and phenomena, appealing to some universal knowledge or scheme. The term "great narratives" can be applied to a wide range of thought, including Marxism, religious doctrines, belief in progress, universal reason, and others.

According to postmodernists, these meta-narratives should give way to "petits r?cits" or other localized narratives. It was important for them to focus on specific local contexts that would be more work-sensitive than comprehensive.

In metamodernism, metanarratives are no longer viewed through the prism of modernity, but are accepted as something temporary, as an experiment and as if the truths are true. A narrative is nothing more than a lecture telling a story. In these stories there is a main character representing an individual or a collective group. In metamodern narratives, we have also seen that the main character is not one, but several, even all of them can be the main characters of the story.

Since stories are in some way a creation in which the creator talks about his worldview and decides to share it with others, these stories are often considered fiction, but we all know that writers take pieces from their personal lives and make them part of it. from "fantasy". Creating a narrative is a difficult and complex job, where not every ordinary person can create fictional stories.

Everyone can experience and have life experiences, which can then turn into narratives. Only when we complete a certain experience can we have a finished narrative. All experiences and movements in the narrative have a purpose, and all goals have a specific purpose.

Since metamodernism was born as a result of global crises and political and economic problems, metanarratives must solve these problems and only in this way can they achieve the goal of a large narrative.

To approach the meta-narrative, there was also Alexandra Dumitrescu, who expresses an opinion on how humanity can move forward through collective evolution ^{[11, p. 5]}. In her opinion, metamodernism should accept large narratives, but not like modernist ones, because they deepen problems and do not solve any of them. They are open to challenges to their narratives and accept "postmodern openness to dialogue, its multiculturalism and inclusiveness of others (women, minority groups, indigenous peoples)." ^{[11, p. 10]}

The attitude to low culture as a nonentity is unacceptable in metamodernism. Metamodernism is always aimed at uniting different cultures and languages. To see oneself infallible and so precise as not to be changeable is what the modernists practiced, but this contradicts the ideas of metamodernism. Metamodernists will encourage others to develop, will accept other narratives as good or will criticize them and change based on a constant dialogue between them. Dumitrescu suggests as a metaphor of metamodernism: "a boat that is being built or repaired during the voyage, or a palace or a house that is constantly being built." ^{[11, p. 5]}

ConclusionMetamodernism is a term that is still in development.

Many researchers continue to write articles about metamodernism to make it clearer to the reader what metamodernism is and what tools it uses in art. The narrative techniques reflected in this article are an aid for the reader in identifying a metamodern text, as well as an aid in the further development of this term.

This article ultimately fulfilled its task of analyzing these narrative techniques of metamodernism. The goal is achieved using the method of comparison and analysis. The article analyzes six narrative techniques, reflects the factors of using these techniques, as well as some practical examples.

Metamodernism was perceived as a fluctuation between postmodernism and modernism, so the article uses a comparative method to highlight the common and special features of these three eras.

At the end of this article, it must be recognized that metamodernism has not yet been discovered, and each article analyzing the term metamodernism fulfills the task of making metamodernism more familiar and understandable.