Bradley Murray

Last updated: August 2026 In answering the question "what comes after postmodernism," writers have introduced words like "post-postmodernism," "trans-postmodernism," and "digimodernism." Such answers don't always start from a clear definition of the term "postmodernism." My approach is to begin with Jean-Francois Lyotard's definition of "postmodernism," which emphasizes the narratives that define ourselves and the world we inhabit. I argue that the rise of AI and algorithmic technology is challenging the postmodernist conception of narratives and knowledge. Lyotard's definition of postmodernism Lyotard's text, The Postmodern Condition, aims to offer a "report" on knowledge. Such a report is supposed to describe the ‘nature’ and ‘status’ of knowledge in society at the time of its writing. Lyotard emphasizes the way in which knowledge is structured by "language games" played out among individuals who share social bonds. Narratives are shared in the context of language games. People narrate knowledge to one another in accordance with the rules of the game. Even the narration of scientific knowledge follows such rules, according to Lyotard. For example, a foundational rule in science is: "as long as I can produce proof, it is permissible to think that reality is the way I say it is." Such a rule allows "a horizon of consensus to be brought to the debate between partners (the sender and the addressee)." While it is understood in scientific dialogue that "not every consensus is a sign of truth," (by which Lyotard presumably means that consensus is not sufficient for truth), it is "presumed that the truth of a statement necessarily draws a consensus" (consensus is necessary for truth). Lyotard uses the term "metanarrative" to describe narratives that organize and bring unity to other smaller narratives. Metanarratives give rules for the language games in which the smaller narratives are played out. Now to the question of postmodernity. Typically, postmodernism is understood to have started around the 1950s and continued into the decades that followed. Prior to that, we were in a modern period. What is the difference between the two periods? Lyotard distinguishes the postmodern from the modern on the basis of the ways people relate to narratives. The contribution of modernity, in Lyotard's view, was to favor a kind of metanarrative he refers to as the "grand narrative." These organize knowledge by telling a story in which humanity is progressing towards a future in which its most pressing problems will be overcome. One example is Hegel's "speculative" variety of grand narrative. According to Hegel, human history or "Spirit" is progressing through a series of conflicts and resolutions to a higher state of consciousness. A second example of a modern grand narrative is the grand narrative of emancipation through the spread of enlightenment. As more of humanity gains access to knowledge and is able to develop and exercise an innate ability to reason, people are freed from being dominated by mysticism and tyrannical rulers. There is something unique and notable about the postmodern approach to the narration of knowledge, according to Lyotard. He writes: I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives (Lyotard) Understanding this definition requires asking what signs there are that people have become incredulous toward metanarratives. Is it true that postmodern people had become incredulous toward metanarratives? This is surely a matter of interpretation, and it would be difficult to "prove" the matter one way or another. On the one hand, the intellectual framework of postmodernism - including all the buzzwords like "alterity," "socially constructed identity," "aporia," "bricolage," "intertextuality", and the "death of the author" - was embraced most fully by intellectual elites, employed at Western universities. Most people in society never really talked that way. On the other hand, there are signs that postmodern claims about metanarratives have described aspects of the culture more generally. One sign in many Western societies has been the observable patterns of behaviour of the many people and organizations who have found identity politics and the so-called "politics of difference" compelling. Consistent with Lyotard's claim that postmodern society came to distrust metanarratives, in identity politics individual little narratives are thought to be incommensurable, in the sense that they cannot be brought under a higher unifying metanarrative. As Christopher Butler puts it, there tends to be in identity politics "the self-conscious assertion of a marginalized identity against the dominant discourse." Lyotard himself was fearful that metanarratives that seek to introduce too much unity into our lives risk being "authoritarian." He writes that "ostmodern knowledge is not simply a tool of the authorities; it refines our sensitivity to differences and reinforces our ability to tolerate the incommensurable." One question is whether, when it comes to attitudes towards metanarratives, the culture as a whole moved in the direction of postmodernism beginning around the 1950s. Arguably, it did. A further question is whether there were compelling grounds for such a movement. My own view is that there was never anything particularly wrong with aspiring to better know truths that are independent of little narratives we tell ourselves. Using Lyotard's language, this would mean aspiring to continually improved and more accurate metanarratives that better account for ourselves and the world we inhabit. It means aspiring to greater unity rather than division among humanity. It is worth noting that, even within the academic world, where the most ardent advocates of the postmodern project could be found, there have been some dissenters. One notable dissenter has been Habermas, who doubted that, if public life were fragmenting the way postmodernists claimed, this should be celebrated. Whether or not the grounds for the postmodern shift were compelling, the culture did arguably shift in the direction of accepting them. My claim here is that with the emergence of complex algorithms and related AI technology, the present culture does not even behave like people who are "incredulous" towards metanarratives. This is why I say that it is beyond postmodern. It is why I refer to it as "algomodern." What is algomodernism? The framework that I call "algomodernism" explores the present and how it relates to past periods of history. Algomodernism can be stated in the following way: Algomodernism: a manifestation of the modern world in which, instead of enhancing the core developments of modernity, AI technology threatens to undermine these developments, creating a tendency for humans to regress to pre-modern forms of life. Aspects of modernity that are under threat include disenchantment, autonomy, and the modern conception of the nature and value of work. (Read the full description of the framework in my article, Algomodernism: Is AI Technology Moving Humans Forward or Backward?) The algomodern framework is related to the notion of postmodernism, and in particular to postmodernist claims about narratives. In a postmodern paradigm, there is a trend away from embracing metanarratives. But in an algomodern paradigm, by contrast, there is a trend towards embracing metanarratives. What is happening is that we are comfortably turning to complex algorithms to provide us with narratives that define fundamental aspects of ourselves and the world. We are looking to AI and related complex algorithms to generate narratives that define fundamental aspects of ourselves and the world. Here is an example of one such AI-generated narrative. I directed a generative AI agent: "in up to 150 words describe the role that science plays for humanity." It returned the following response: Science plays a pivotal role in advancing humanity by providing the tools and knowledge necessary to understand the natural world and drive progress. It fosters innovation, leading to technological advancements that improve quality of life, from medical breakthroughs to sustainable energy solutions. Science helps address global challenges like climate change, food security, and disease prevention, offering evidence-based approaches to solve complex problems. Furthermore, it nurtures curiosity and critical thinking, empowering societies to make informed decisions. By continuously pushing the boundaries of what is known, science not only expands human potential but also unites individuals and nations in the shared pursuit of discovery and progress. This clearly manifests some of the characteristics of a modernist grand narrative ("driving progress," "improving quality of life", "expanding human potential") which postmodernists believed had been left behind for good. If Lyotard's claims about incredulity towards metanarratives were true today, people would not be inclined to believe such an AI-generated metanarrative. In fact, people are very willing to accept such narratives generated by AI. A further example of the comfort we now feel with AI-generated metanarratives is becoming apparent. Even those who aren't yet actively making direct use of generative AI agents like ChatGPT are using Google search. You used to enter your search term in Google and were provided a list of most relevant websites. There would be a few FAQ rich results presenting common questions along with answers from high authority websites. Now, ahead of the top search results, there are AI generated overviews which answer the search query. These AI overviews often have the features of metanarratives. For example, I searched in Google: "what is the role that science plays for humanity" and this was Google's AI overview: Science plays a vital role in society by helping to improve the quality of life, solve problems, and make informed decisions. How science helps humanity. Improves quality of life. Science helps to meet basic human needs and improve living standards. For example, science has led to the discovery of electricity, which has made life more comfortable. Solves problems. Science helps to understand the causes of global problems and find solutions. For example, science has helped to find cures for diseases like cancer. Makes informed decisions. Science helps people make informed decisions about their personal lives and the world around them. For example, science informs decisions about health, energy, and transportation. Develops new technologies - Science helps to develop new technologies that improve our lives. For example, science has led to the development of new medicines, pens, and rockets. Promotes sustainability. Science helps to find ways to use natural resources responsibly to ensure their continuity. This is clearly a metanarrative in Lyotard's sense, and it is one I maintain we are quite comfortable being provided by AI. It is game-changing that Google has made the shift, adding generative AI in search. Given how commonplace Google search is across humanity, this subtle change illustrates that we are in a different age in which people on the whole are anything but incredulous towards metanarratives. It is a very far distance from the postmodern era. Conclusion If the nature and status of knowledge in society is progressing in an algomodern direction, as I believe it is, there are questions as to what this means for humanity. In an algomdern period, there isn't the same need for human beings to be involved in the production and narration of knowledge as there was in previous periods. This raises the question of how human beings should relate to knowledge. In an algomodern context, in my view, we should increasingly distinguish what is human from what is non-human, and develop the distinctively human capacity to relate to knowledge in terms of how it fosters insight and the pursuit of philosophical living. Cite this article Murray, B. (2025, January). What Comes After Postmodernism? Algomodernism and the Narratives That Define Us. Philosophies of Life. https://philosophiesoflife.org/

Bradley Murray

After Postmodernism: Algomodernism and the Narratives That Define Us

Being Philosophical: Irony as Gateway