International Journal of Strategic Communication

Strategic Communication and Metamodernism

The applied communication disciplines – amongst them strategic communication as the youngest, perhaps most vibrant, and broadest in scope – have always followed the macrotrends in grand social theory. In the 1980s and 1990s, public relations theory reflected the contraposition of Habermas’ discursive-intersubjective paradigm on one side, Luhmann’s Systems Theory on the other (Holmström, 1997). Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), widely adopted in the field (Zerfass, 1996) was not only a diagnosis of late modernity’s neoliberal-globalist regime, but also a offered a reconciliation of structural- systemic and deliberative-communicative approaches (Giddens, 1990). Postmodernism was the dominant paradigm in social theory of the 1990s and early 2000s. Although the applied communication disciplines were late adopters, postmodernism, more than anything else, triggered the critical and interpretive turns that catalyzed strategic communication’s emancipation from public relations, marketing and other disciplines (Overton-de Klerk and Verwey, 2013; Holtzhausen and Voto, 2002).

Postmodernism’s fading explanatory power

In the second decade of the 21st century, social theorists are by and large in agreement that postmodernism, understood as a “as a culture of relativism, irony, and pastiche”, has largely lost its explanatory power. The late Steven Redhead even suggested that postmodernism was a ‘blind alley’ (Redhead, 2011). With our youth crippled by climate angst, a global pandemic fresh in memory, the West and Russia embroiled in a de-facto-war, the ironic detachment advocated by postmodernists seems strangely out of place. The question is what comes after? So far, the tendency in strategic communication has been to incorporate grand social diagnoses connected to phenomena, such as the ‘hybrid media system’ (Chadwick, 2013) or ‘social acceleration’ (Rosa, 2015). While certainly insightful, these approaches only scratch the surface, however, as they lack a true epistemic dimension. Fundamental paradigms such as ‘hypermodernity’ or ‘transhumanism’ have figured at the margins only, although it could be said that the Montréal school of the CCO-perspective, with its emphasis on the agency of objects, incorporates transhumanist elements.

Metamodernism

Some of the most substantial answers to the question What comes after postmodernism? – answers that go beyond the expedient of declaring the age of ‘post-postmodernism’ – have recently been developed by metamodernist thinkers like, inter alia, Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Akker (2010); Lene Andersen[1][1] (2019); Hanzi Freinacht (2019), Jason Ānanda Josephon Storm (2021).  Whilst there is no ‘one’ metamodernism, and authors differ in their interests and approaches, some defining premises of metamodernism are:

• The parallel existence, and indeed interpenetration or ‘layering’, of premodern, modern and postmodern conditions of life.
•  Oscillation, or ‘both-and’-thinking, as a key figure of thought. Rejection of either-or-thinking, like e.g. in empiricism vs. interpretivism, qualitative vs. quantitative, subject vs. object, realist vs. constructionist epistemology.
• Emphasis on the ability to generate new syntheses from apparent opposites, or from dual, co-existing, mutually non-excluding perspectives; rejecting the notion that compromise or middle ground is always the solution.
• Commitment to complexity on the problem- as well as the solution-side (which was often neglected in postmodernist thought). A focus on real-world problem-solving as opposed to language games.
• The inescapable relationship between the individual and society, where the very participation of those whose interests are affected can change the outcome. This has implications for methodology; it can potentially add to a better understanding of Global North-South dynamics in research.
• Foster greater synthesis in North-South theory building, representation, and methodologies (given metamodernism’s openness towards meaning-making across cultures where contextual inequalities exist.)
• Explore alternative models of stakeholder engagement including case studies with evidence of community impact (given metamodernism’s endorsement of the inescapable relationship between the individual and society).

Current reception in strategic communication

A recent search for the keywords ‘metamodernity’ and ‘metamodernism’ in the IJSC yielded zero results.  As metamodernism began in aesthetics, literature, art and the study of popular culture (Kersten and Wilbers, 2018), the strategic communication community has not paid much attention on a global scale. Yet, metamodern approaches are far more prominent on the African continent, for example. And, as Overton-de Klerk points out, metamodern thought appears particularly promising not only as a Zeitgeist diagnosis but as a way of resolving some of the field’s identity issues. For example, strategic communication is characterized by the coexistence of modern management approaches (e.g., strategic management, communication controlling) with premodern research areas (e.g., classic rhetorics) as well as postmodern-inspired organization studies. On a more profound level, the very essence of strategic communication lies in the dynamic negotiation of meaning, including the back and forth between authenticity and strategy, purposeful and genuine, irony and sincerity, analysis and synthesis, etc. Taking the argument one step further, Nothhaft & Overton-de Klerk (2025) suggest that strategic communication has been a metamodern discipline from day one without noticing it. The work of Anna Adi and collaborators – developing metamodern frameworks for public relations and strategic communication, i.e. frameworks that lead to the right questions – points in a similar direction.

Expectations

The projected special issue, predominantly theoretical-conceptual in nature, calls for three kinds of contributions:

• Attempts to unlock metamodernism for strategic communication theory; methodology and practice. Where, when and about what do we need to think differently, and how do we do so?
• Alternatively, attempts to do the same for other grand paradigms, such as hypermodernity, transhumanism or transmodernism, either in opposition to or conjunction with metamodernity.
• Concrete applications of the metamodern paradigm in qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods research. For example, what would a metamodern rereading of classic or new cases reveal? What modernist and post-modernist assumptions are inherent in our research designs, and how can we think differently?

Literature

Adi, A., Aktaş Kuyucu, M., & Baquerizo-Neira, G. (2025). Embracing paradox and pragmatism: A metamodern exploration of the social value of public relations. Public Relations Review, Volume 51, Issue 5.

Adi, A., Stoeckle, T. (2025). A metamodern public relations workflow for the polycrisis: Communication research and planning based on a What If framework. Public Relations Review, Volume 51, Issue 4.

Andersen, L. (2019). Metamodernity. Meaning and hope in a complex world.  Nordic Bildung.

Chadwick, A. (2013). The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power (Oxford Studies in Digital Politics).   Oxford: Oxford UP.

Freinacht, H. (2019) Nordic Ideology. Metamoderna.

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity/Blackwell.

Holmström, S. (1997). The inter‐subjective and the social systemic public relations paradigms. Journal of Communication Management, 2(1), 24-39. doi:10.1108/eb023445.

Holtzhausen, D., & Voto, R. (2002). Resistance From the Margins: The Postmodern Public Relations Practitioner as Organizational Activist. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 57-84.

Kersten, D., & Wilbers, U. (2018). Introduction: Metamodernism. English Studies, 99(7), 719- 722.

Nothhaft, H., Werder, K.P., Vercic, D., & Zerfass, A. (2018) Strategic communication: Reflections on an elusive concept. International Journal of Strategic Communication. 12(4):352-366.

Nothhaft, H. (2023) Reflect, rethink, NOW OSCILLATE! Keynote address at the 2023 Strategic Communication Conference hosted by the University of Johannesburg and Lund University. 28 September, Johannesburg.

Nothhaft, H.  & Overton-de Klerk, N. (2025). Strategic Communication and metamodernism. Shall we dance? Communicare 44(1): 4-23.

Overton-de Klerk N. (2023) Reflections on the current state and future of strategic communication as paradigm and practice. Communicare 42 (1): 4-21.

Overton-de Klerk, N., & Verwey, S. (2013). Towards an emerging paradigm of strategic communication. Core driving forces. Communicatio, 39 (362-382).

Redhead, S. (2011). We Have Never Been Postmodern. Theory at the Speed of Light. Edinburgh University Press.

Rosa, H. (2015). Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity. New York: Columbia University Press.

Josephson Storm, Jason Ānanda (2021). Metamodernism: The Future of Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vermeulen, T., & van den Akker, R. (2010). Notes on metamodernism. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, 2(1), 5677.

Zerfass, A. (1996). Unternehmensführung und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Grundlegung einer Theorie der Unternehmenskommunikation und Public Relations. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag

---

[1]Andersen prefers the term ‘polymodernity’ now.