The future as a lock, futures as the key

The future as a lock

Dominant images of the future control political action in the present, thus locking in a particular path of societal development.

In order to unlock this ideological control of the political space, we need alternative images of the future.

Who should create those images?

In the present political system of representative democracy, political parties or movements assume the responsibility of creating alternative images of the future.

To adapt a famous analogy, politics is a marketplace, not of ideas, but of images of the future.

Continuing with the analogy for a moment: The problem with this marketplace is the same as with any other unregulated market: the formation of monopolies or oligopolies.[1]

The citizen of a representative democracy is first reduced to a consumer, and then presented with a menu of minor variations upon one or two themes.[2]

Futures as the key

The second part of this problem can be ameliorated through the creation of a wider variety of images of the future from which we may select.

This may be achieved in different ways, but one method suggests itself due to the fact that it would also solve what, in this analogy, is the first part of the problem of representative democracies, namely that citizens are reduced to consumers.

The solution to both of these problems is to create the necessary structures to allow citizens themselves to create these images of the future.

Thus, the creation of alternative images of the future could be the main task and animating principle of the democratisation of modern representative democracies.

Futures, in the sense of futures studies in general, and participatory futures in particular, can thus serve as the key to unlock the ideological control that dominant images of the future presently exert on our political agency.[3]

—Fremtenkt

[1]: Adam Smith noted how "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices" (WN I.x.c.27). The political class may be suspected of similarly being unable to stop themselves from creating images of the future that keep themselves in power and their friends in wealth.

[2]: Namely, neoliberal futures in which the actual market organises ever more aspects of the life of the individual, or socialist futures in which state-owned services are offered to a community.

[3]: On participatory futures, see:

Ramos, J., Sweeney, J. A., Peach, K., & Smith, L. (2019). Our futures: by the people, for the people.

inquiry

Very interesting.

To me the weakest aspect is in this:

The solution to both of these problems is to create the necessary structures to allow citizens themselves to create these images of the future.

Why? Because the "is to create" implies people - not enlightened beings directly in touch with an alleged objective reality - doing so, which implies bias, i.e. temptation to create in ways leading unto personal benefit at others' expense.

It's where I draw the line on socio-economic improvement theories, really... that's there's nobody to do it (i.e. make it happen) but the same beings in need of it being right-as-though-created-by-an-un-fucked-up species to begin with in order for there being any chance of it succeeding.

fremtenkt

Interesting! So, let me get this straight: is it the creation of structures you have a hard time believing in, or the use of those structures by citizens?

Also: I'm probably being a bit thick, could you rephrase the meaty bit of your second sentence: "there's nobody to do it ... but the same beings in need of it being right-as-though-created-by-an-un-fucked-up species to begin with in order for there being any chance of it succeeding"?

inquiry

I believe structures created by imperfect beings necessarily wind up imperfect - the latter imperfection proportional to the collective former, divergence from perfection further amplified by inter-person (i.e. inter-separate-mind-contexts) communication inadequacies/assumptions/filters/breakdowns.

And yet a lot of said imperfect beings are convinced they - or someone else maybe less (but, of course, never utterly) imperfect - could create structures that could possibly bootstrap the creators above their imperfections.

Not that the above is necessarily "right", of course....

veleventh

future is now. a new discovery, understanding, awareness of the present gives a new image of the future.

fremtenkt

Yes, indeed. However, I think there is also room to think *explicitly* about alternative futures.

mellita

You ever read any Mark Fisher? He wrote a lot about politics and the imagination of the future, particularly in his writings on Hauntology. Off the top of my head, the thematic focal points of hauntological writing are 1) the traumatic compulsion to repeat, 2) anticipation which shapes current behavior, and 3) the foregrounding of spectrality. He was particularly concerned with what he saw as a sort of breakdown in the cultural engines formerly devoted to future-depiction, giving way to ceaseless repetition and pastiche. Might be of some interest to you, if you've yet to encounter him.

fremtenkt

Reading Mark Fisher's *Ghosts of My Life* now, thanks for the tip—I really like it!

mellita

Glad to hear it! I pushed everything Fisher wrote on Hauntology onto my literary friends and they've really taken to it. The idea's probably got something to it, then, huh? Some reason ghosts and temporal stagnation are resonating at this particular moment.

fremtenkt

No, never read Mark Fisher, nor heard about Hauntology. The "breakdown in the cultural engines formerly devoted to future-depiction, giving way to ceaseless repetition and pastiche" certainly sounds apposite of our present moment, though I do have some hope that this is gradually beginning to shift towards a re-recognition of the importance of utopian thinking to everyday political agency. I will definitely check it out, thank you!