This insightful Handbook emphasizes the unique contribution that Futures Studies offers when understanding and managing current situations. Contributing authors argue that by learning to examine the future in the present, individuals and organizations can expand their abilities to analyze, assess and ultimately make better decisions.
Roberto Poli is professor at the Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento
From Introduction: the subtle interplay between Future Studies and Anticipation Theory (pag.1-3)
1. Drawing boundaries
[...]
The main issue, therefore, concerns the connections between Futures Studies and Anticipation Theory. To clarify their connection, the analogy between economics and mathematics may help. Mathematics is by far much wider than economics. The former requires its own attitudes and competences and asks questions that have little if any relevance to the latter (such as “which is the shortest proof of a theorem?”). On the other hand, economics exploits (some, perhaps minimal) fragments of mathematics and offers problems that may trigger the development of new math. The same interplay applies to Futures Studies and Anticipation Theory. The theory of anticipation is by far much wider than Futures Studies, including for instance the many explicit and implicit types of anticipation embedded in all kinds of living beings (Poli, 2017; Rosen, 1991). Furthermore, the theory of anticipatory systems and its supporting relational framework have been developed by mathematical biologists and have contributed to a novel understanding of complexity and the role of impredicativity (aka self-reference) in biology and the social sciences, as well as a better understanding of the difference between sintax and semantics (Rosen, 1991; Louie, 2009; Poli, 2010, 2018b; Lennox, 2023) These issues are all relevant for Futures Studies but cannot be framed by or within Futures Studies. Anticipation is exploited by Futures Studies as the decision-making component that is framed by the futures made visible by previously conducted futures exercises and other future-oriented activities. Here it is advisable to avoid reading “decision-making” in an overtly restricted sense. Every kind of decision-making is relevant, not only the decision-making taking place, say, in a corporate context. The many ways in which communities, individuals, groups of any kind take their decisions are all relevant.
There is no contradiction in acknowledging that from one side the whole of mathematics is wider than economics whilst from the other side some specific mathematical procedures are part and parcel of economics. Similarly, the whole of Anticipation Theory is wider than Futures Studies whilst at the same time Futures Studies uses some aspects of Anticipation Theory.
2. Why focusing on the future?
The future may become a focus of interest for many different reasons. The least meaningful refers to the claim that we live in a period of changes. I call it the least meaningful because the history of humankind has never ever seen a period without changes. Admittedly, some periods have been remarkably quiet, almost sleeping, while others have been much more turbulent. Change is the norm, and therefore claiming that we live in a period of changes does not distinguish our epoch from any other historical epoch. Even adding that these days almost all aspects of life are changing makes little difference. Many other historical periods have seen high and even very high concentrations of changes.
To meet the challenges of our future, however, one cannot limit oneself to the mere observation that things have already changed many times and that they will continue to change. Eventually, one must combine this awareness with an understanding of the progressive acceleration of change (Rosa, 2013; Poli, 2019b). If it is true that the entire 20th century has seen a succession of ever faster transformations, there is no reason to believe that the 21st century will bring less change. It is not just a question of the widely announced technological innovations that are coming, but also of the social changes (relations and practices) and cultural changes (values, styles, attitudes) taking shape and their reciprocal interactions. Acceleration is a basic component of society, at least from the birth of the bourgeoisie (Rosa, 2013).
People should develop the skills for orienting themselves within increasingly uncertain contexts pestered by incessant and accelerating changes. As a consequence, information arising from the past (aka “our experience”) is no longer able to frame our decision-making processes. If the past is no longer enough, the remaining possibility is working with the future. The future is precisely the source of the wider information base that people may need.
The introduction of elements of the future in the decision-making process allows people to develop the capacity to see a wider spectrum of possible futures. The problem is whether these visions are meant to colonize the seen futures or will be used for improving people’s capacity to aspire to better lifes (Poli, 2021).3. Different types of futures
If the future is going to frame our decision-making processes, the capacity to distinguish between authentic and nonauthentic futures becomes relevant. Nonauthentic futures are repetitive futures, futures without novelties, futures that are linearly drawn from observable trends.
One of the major tasks of the theory of Futures Studies is to provide guidance in distinguishing genuine from non-genuine futures, open from closed, unadulterated from deceptive, adulterated futures (Poli, 2021). The latter comprise features such as repetition, forecast, megatrend, risk. The former comprise novelty, foresight, exploration, and uncertainty. The terms in the two lists are counterpoints to one another: repetition against novelty, forecast against foresight, megatrend against exploration, and risk against uncertainty. This series of oppositions highlights the most important difference between the models exploitable by futurists (more on this in section 5 below).4. The world as an unfinished process
For the future to make sense, the world must be an unfinished process, an active tendency toward new horizons. What matters is the tendency, more than its starting and ending points. I have addressed elsewhere the philosophical consequences of this vision (Poli, 2017, 2018a, 2023). Here I limit myself to notice that if the world is an unfinished process, it can be taken as an experiment and therefore it is still undecided whether the world will arrive at some positive outcome or end in disaster – at least for us. That is, the experiment that is the world may fail (again, for us) (Bloch, 1985). Here is where the decision-making role of Futures Studies becomes relevant. Futurists do not limit themselves to look, imagine, fantasize, or glimpse at the future; they work with the future, they exploit the future within the decision-making processes they are involved in or contribute to (Poli, 2019b). Precisely because future-based exercises should result in decision-makings, futurists bear a responsibility: they may positively or negatively contribute (or fail to contribute) to the outcome arising from the experiment that is the world. To compound difficulty (and further raise the level of responsibility) one may add that the horizons the world tends toward are far from being crystal-clear, visible, or well-defined endpoints. What really matters is that the tendency toward continuously renovated horizons shows that the processual unfolding of the world is neither random nor blind but includes a direction.
Courtesy by Edward Elgar publishing.