In contemporary contexts, Detienne and Vernant (1974/1991) discuss metis as emphasizing a “practical effectiveness” (11) in the use of a skill or the mastery of it. The use of metis in a confrontational or competitive situation can lead to a “cunning trick” (13) in order to achieve victory. In ambiguous or unstable situations, metis is seen as a watchfulness for “the opportunity that it must seize” (15). This association with the opportunity or timing of a kairos moment, is also discussed by Atwill (1998) as she discusses metis and kairos in relation to techne, considered a form of knowledge. She argues that “[i]f metis is the intelligence identified with techne, then kairos is the time ‘associated with techne’” (57).   In like manner, Detienne and Vernant link metis with techne, by arguing that metis is multiple and diverse, akin to possessing “knowledge of general application” (18). The shifting nature of metis allows it a diverse application depending on the situation resulting in inventive ploys. This shifting nature is also associated with the goddess Metis herself, who possessed the power of metamorphosis. Detienne and Vernant posit that metis is “a power of cunning and deceit [that] operates through disguise” (21), especially of a “reassuring or seductive exterior” (23). The pragmatic action of metis also evinces a resourcefulness which could be referred to as a “wiley intelligence” (27). Still, Detienne and Vernant note that metis also serves to secure political power, so that when “a sovereign god knows that his destiny is to be dethroned by one of his sons” (65) he resorts to an “ingenious trick” (65) to cheat destiny. Zeus swallowed Metis in order to remove the threat of her cunning from challenging his royal power, and married Themis, who represents “stability, continuity, and regularity” (108).

            The skill and cunning of Metis is combined with the war-mongering of Zeus, and thus the warrior Athena, born fully formed from Zeus’ head, possesses a practical intelligence that serves her well on the battlefield. The connection to these two gods provides Athena with the knowledge of and adaptability to land and water, and this metis is evinced through her mastery of horses and chariots, sea creatures and ships. Even so, Detienne and Vernant note that the distribution of power among the Greek gods is not equal, and thus Zeus uses metis to ensure that “each of the divine powers respect the limitations placed upon him in the organisation of the cosmos” (279). This organized system is aided by differentiating the uses of metis, as well as restricting its use to the gods. Finally, Detienne and Vernant assert that “[s]wiftness and a good eye” (310) are qualities which are essential to serve the prudent nature of metis.

            A contemporary application of metis is discussed by Scott (1998). He argues that the “forms of knowledge embedded in local experience... [are differentiated from] the more general, abstract knowledge deployed by the state and its technical agencies” (311). Scott contends that the “idiosyncracies of metis, its contextualness, and its fragmentation that make it so permeable, so open to new ideas” (332). He relates the metis used by a Malaysian, whose mango tree became infested with red ants. The solution was to allow black ants to germinate under the tree, for when they were able, they would battle and eventually destroy the red ants. The tree would be saved, since the black ants were not interested in the mango tree. Scott argues that this biological solution would not have been considered by the state agricultural extension agents, who would ignore the local practical knowledge and instead succumb to “universalist pretensions of epistemic knowledge and authoritarian social engineering” (340). The interest in metis as an effective and useful rhetorical device (Detienne and Vernant, 1974/1991; Vernant, 1974; Atwill, 1998; Scott, 1998) is counter-balanced by its propensity to be “erased from the realm of true knowledge and relegated... to the level of mere routine, chancey inspiration, changeable opinion or even charlatanerie” (Detienne and Vernant, 1974/1991, p.4). I suggest the two readings of metis can also be attributed to who is using the device—such as a user of the dominant GAE or a user of the marginalized Black English—especially when life experiences are disdained in favor of perceived neutral empirical proof. The usefulness of metis as a rhetorical device to a marginalized audience such as Black communicators is augmented with the culturally-based nommo.