Lecture-workshop | 1.45min (can be reduced to 1h) | contact me if interested
This lecture-workshop is built around two parts: the first part is aimed at deconstructing the common sense built around the future as conceptualized in a Western perspective; the second part aims at reconstructing another concept of future, thought of as a process in the making.
VERSIONS SPECIFIC TO EACH CONTEXT AT: 23.10.18 at Ponderosa, Brandenburg (DE)| 10.03.19 Virtual Viewpoints – 12-week on-line course with Deborah Black | 5-6.04.19 Human Living Center#2 at Inkonst, Malmö (SE) | 25.05.19 at Communitism, Athens (GR)
Before beginning, I ask the participants to write down where they see themselves in 20 years from now – a question which is thematised at the very end, so as for them to measure the understanding won during the lecture-workshop and take a critical look at their own envisioned future.
The lecture-workshop then starts with a very short history of the future in the manner of history of ideas, taking over from Lucien Hölscher’s Discovery of the Future (1999, 2016). It goes on to Boschetti’s Myths of the future (see below) where the participants take together a survey (24 to 42 questions, 15 to 25 min including results and discussion), which paves the way for making explicit the ways in which we commonly address the future. Follows an short overview of Futures Studies as a scientific discipline and the basic issues and problems which come with it. This first part has the purpose to take a step back and analyse our own images of the future.
From then on, I introduce two main concurring concepts and strands in futures studies: future as a goal (Zukunftsbild) or future as a process “in the making” – the latter being my focus with Riel Miller’s notion of the “possibility space” (see below). This second strand of the future as a process in the making can be linked to the notion of intensive learning societies and to what has been coined by social theory as “practice movements” (The Commons, Buen Vivir, Degrowth,…).
“Myths of the future”
Fabio Boschetti, Jennifer Price & Iain Walker (2016) “Myths of the future and scenario archetypes” Technological Forecasting & Social Change 111: 76–85
This research stems from findings in social cognition and cultural theory literatures concerning patterns of shared values and beliefs about society and the environment and how they relate to each other (Myths of physical and human nature). According to Boschetti, this body of theory is also relevant to foresight processes: visions of the future also falls into six main overarching Myths (see below). This means that the future is also addressed in terms of relationships between the natural, the social, and the technical worlds – which allow for different narratives (Myths).
In this part of the lecture-workshop, a game-survey (taken over and adapted from Boschetti’s original survey) helps the participants uncover the “Myths of the future” by which they go. The aim is not so much to categorize the participants (which generally fall into different categories) but to provide them with a way to take a step back from their attitudes and beliefs about the future and open up alternative images and ideas about the future.
The eco-crisis myth: environmental conditions and natural habitats are likely to decline and lead to social unrest. The social crisis myth: traditional values, social order, and human competence are likely to decline in the future. The power and economic inequality myth: big business and governments are likely to become more powerful and cause social inequality and economic crisis. The traditionalist environmentalism myth: biotech and nanotech entail risks for the environment as well as for humanity, which is likely to return to simpler ways of living. The techno-optimism myth: science and technology are likely to create innovations that improve quality of life. The social transformation myth: society is likely to become more decentralized, caring, and collectively empowered.
Future as a goal or future as a process “in the making”
Riel Miller (2007) “Futures literacy: A hybrid strategic scenario method”, Futures, Vol. 39: 341–362
In the futures studies, they are two main school of thought. You can think of the future as a goal or of the future as a process “in the making”. The two differ in as much as in the first, the future is closed – a “colonized future!” claim its adversaries; whereas process-oriented futures are wide open.
In the first model, it is about envisioning a future in the explorative (possible, plausible, probable futures) or normative modes (preferred futures), and devise of ways to reach your vision. In the second model, you make use of the open future to uncover other ways of knowing and acting in the present.
The future practitioner and UNESCO Head of Foresight Riel Miller has developed a line of thinking around this strand, whose originality lies in overcoming the “limitations imposed by values and expectations when thinking about the future”. To that aim, the method focuses first on the task of “rigorous imagination” with the help of social theory: the idea is to “open up a possibility space” where variables (taken over from sound social theory) form the x/y axis of a speculative futures space. From then on, the task is to formulate possible outcomes from all points of this space (what if?) and finally use those thought experiments for decision-making. In this way, values (preferred futures) and predictability (possible, probable, plausible futures) don’t a priori enclose futures (“colonize” futures) – as is most often the case in foresight and beyond. This in turn helps uncover other ways of knowing and acting in the present.
For Riel Miller, this method can build into an embodied capacity, a “future literacy” as he calls it, a way of making decisions in the present informed by its many unknown possibilities for the future. “Dancing on the unknown” says Miller. This approach relates to what has been coined “practice movements” in social theory as well at to the concept of intensive learning societies.