Are We In a Meta-Crisis?

Monday, February 4, 2025.

Esther Perel’s concept of the metacrisis is an ambitious attempt to describe the convergence of multiple existential challenges—climate instability, political upheaval, economic precarity, and technological alienation—that are reshaping not only society at large but the very fabric of our interpersonal relationships.

It is an idea that posits a deeply intertwined nature of crises rather than treating them as isolated problems.

However, while her framework is thought-provoking, it warrants deeper scrutiny, both in terms of its explanatory power and its limitations.

The Strength of Perel’s Metacrisis Concept

Perel's framing of the metacrisis is most useful in its emphasis on how macro-level forces infiltrate micro-level relationships.

She is uniquely positioned to explore this from her background in couples therapy—where intimate relationships serve as the site where broader cultural anxieties play out.

I believe Esther correctly identifies that economic instability makes commitment more precarious, that digital life is fragmenting real-world intimacy, and that we are increasingly struggling with a loss of existential meaning due to the rapidly shifting conditions of modernity.

Her upcoming event, Mating in the Metacrisis, seeks to explore how people can cultivate deep relationships amid uncertainty, anxiety, and a collapsing sense of shared reality. This is a valuable conversation because it acknowledges that relationships do not exist in a vacuum.

I believe that within the narrow purview of relationship science, the rise of dating app fatigue, declining marriage rates, and a growing disillusionment with long-term commitment can all be linked to larger cultural trends.

In this sense, Perel's idea of a metacrisis resonates: we feel untethered from stable institutions, and this uncertainty permeates our romantic and familial bonds.

The Limits of Perel’s Metacrisis Framework

However, Perel’s concept of the metacrisis runs the risk of being too broad—a diagnosis so encompassing that it risks explaining everything and, consequently, explaining nothing.

The idea that all of our crises are interwoven is undeniably true, but it does not necessarily mean that they should be necessarily be defined as a single problem.

For example, the psychological toll of climate collapse is categorically different from the social atomization caused by digital technology, and it is not clear that these forces should be lumped together under one umbrella term.

Moreover, while Perel’s focus on how these crises impact relationships is valuable, it risks moralizing adaptation rather than offering structural solutions.

When people struggle with relationship instability due to economic precarity, the core issue may not be resilience in relationships but the material conditions that erode them. By focusing on how we can personally navigate the metacrisis, she potentially diverts attention from the more pressing question of how these crises can be structurally resolved.

This critique is reminiscent of the broader issue in self-help culture—where folks are encouraged to "cope better" rather than demand systemic change.

If the metacrisis is fundamentally about economic, political, and cultural instability, then shouldn’t the solutions lie in policy, labor movements, and governance, rather than just better communication in relationships?

I feel a gentle whiff of hubris. It’s really not our sandbox, as Marriage and Family Therapists.

The Implicit Western Bias in the Metacrisis Concept

Another concern with Perel’s framework is its Western-centric framing of crisis.

The metacrisis concept, as she articulates it, presumes that we are living in an unprecedented age of uncertainty. However, for much of the Global South and for marginalized communities within the West, crisis is not a new condition—it is the norm.

Colonial legacies, economic exploitation, and war have long shaped life in many societies, often with greater instability than what Perel describes as new. The difference is that now the educated Western middle class is experiencing the same precarity that poorer populations have endured for generations.

If the metacrisis is to be a meaningful concept, it must engage with historical patterns rather than presenting itself as an entirely new phenomenon.

The anxiety over meaning, commitment, and connection that Perel highlights has always been present—it is just manifesting differently due to technological acceleration and shifting social norms.

Is the Metacrisis a Problem of Modernity or a Problem of Privilege?

One could argue that the metacrisis is, at least in part, a crisis of expectations.

The rise of hyper-individualism, consumer capitalism, and the erosion of religious or community-based belonging has left many feeling adrift. But is this fundamentally a crisis, or is it merely the logical endpoint of a culture that has prized personal freedom over collective duty for decades?

Perel often speaks of the need for people to reclaim their sense of agency in relationships, yet she rarely addresses the fact that much of modern loneliness and alienation stems from economic structures that have dismantled traditional support systems.

If the metacrisis is indeed a real and urgent phenomenon, then perhaps its true root lies in neoliberal policies that have commodified every aspect of life, from housing to healthcare to love itself.

Final Thoughts: An Insightful but Incomplete Framework

Perel’s metacrisis is an intriguing conceptual tool in understanding how macro forces shape intimate life, but it should not be mistaken for a definitive explanation of our current circumstances.

While it shines a light on how our anxieties are shaped by broad cultural shifts, it risks collapsing too many distinct issues into a singular narrative.

Additionally, by focusing on how we can emotionally navigate the crisis rather than addressing its structural roots, it inadvertently shifts responsibility away from larger systems. That’s been eternally fashionable.

A more radical engagement with the metacrisis would require acknowledging that modern disconnection is not just a byproduct of global instability—it is an intended feature of Limbic Capitalism manifesting through economic and political systems designed to prioritize market efficiency over human flourishing.

Without this critique, Perel’s framework risks just being another iteration of neoliberal therapy culture: occasionally insightful, but ultimately asking us to adapt to a world that perhaps should not be adapted to at all.

Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.