Is Futurism Dead?

Or does it just need to evolve...

Photo Credit: Michael Marais

“Pursuing answers along with the rest, we obsess over another compass: trends. 

Trends are our patterns. Our explanations. Our order and organization amidst chaos”.

Matt Klein, Cultural Theorist & Foresight Lead, Reddit

“Capitalism and its related mythologies have resulted in an all-consuming imagination capture. We live and breathe in reality dominated by the market, which makes it hard to distinguish movements that don’t embrace that perspective. When you assess the viability of the future through a market lens, it is only natural to receive signals that reflect the market.” Cultural Anthropologist, Philip McKenzie

A friend and colleague recently wrote a piece on Medium entitled, Mind the Gap, F*** the Signals,’ critiquing the clique of self-designated “futurists” for their annual launch of trends and predictions at the start of the new year. His criticism is targeted at the nature of the predictions, and how all of the trends start to sound like “futurewashing” based on their generic recycled opinings. And more importantly his skepticism is rooted in a profession which typically is centered on the white male experience and this leads to the identification of future signals and preferred futures which reflect white male-centric norms. 

I cannot disagree that the foresight profession tends to be occupied by predominantly white men and a few white women. Recently, I have started to see that shift a little but not a whole lot. Does this make the practice of foresight a futile waste of time? I would tend to disagree with a complete disavowal of the profession, but I am certainly open to a revision of the practice.

In a recent piece Matt Klein, a cultural theorist and foresight lead at Reddit, calls for a review and greater transparency of the methodology being used in the development of future trends and signals. He also calls for greater historical accountability.  This is something I would wholeheartedly support. 

“To conduct cultural analysis correctly (accurately and ethically) we need many things: a coherent and consistent methodology, quantitative rigor, a diversity of input and collaboration, iteration (learning from past findings), a removal of organizational and personal bias or agendas, reflection, risk, realism, a curiosity about the fringe and overlooked, and a vision of a preferred future.”

Klein, like my colleague Philip McKenzie also calls for more diversity of input and collaboration which is greatly lacking in the current practice. As the founder of a VC supporting minority startups recently said to me, he wants to share foresight methodologies with his startups, however it is a source of frustration that most of the time foresight practitioners look more like me (white) than him (person of colour).

In recent weeks I have come across Alison Taylor, a NYU clinical professor and research scientist of ethical systems. She is currently teaching a course on Leadership for the 21st Century: Delivering on Purpose and Profit. Her course is focused on three tiers: 1. Look Out: Consider your social, environmental, ethical and moral obligations to the broader society, 2. Look In: Create human-centered business practices within your organization, 3. Look Within: Develop the personal skills and perspectives needed to lead effectively. 

The integration of a tiered approach to leadership and to strategic foresight makes a lot of sense. It encourages the exploration not only of external and organizational drivers but of our own intrinsic personal motivations. Over the last three years as we rode the waves of the pandemic, as a foresight practitioner and human being, I have begun to find that this inner work and reflection is just as important as the scanning of external drivers. It demands that in the same way that white society finally acknowledges indigenous claims and rights to lands, we acknowledge our own bias and status/place in society as we construct and share future narratives with external audiences. It begins to acknowledge how these future predictions are rooted in white systems that center the white experience and it begins to open up the space for minority voices traditionally pushed to the margins. The revision of foresight methodologies and practices is a natural evolution and progression for the foresight profession. By mindfully creating the space for more diverse input and collaboration we set the stage for more authentic and empathic narratives of the future.

I've been lucky to work in the field for the last twenty years. I got my start at the global engineering firm Arup where we tried to be incredibly methodological in our practice and rigorous in our approach. It was by no means perfect but bless them, engineers need to see the methods to buy into the outcomes. Personally I have begun to re-examine the practice of foresight as a more mindful set of activities. On top of the analysis of external drivers I think it's equally important to observe the organizational ones, and the deeply individualistic intrinsic ones. Perhaps with reimagined foresight frameworks we can begin to create  deeper and more meaningful views of the future.

I am particularly excited to spend more time exploring Afrofuturism and recently came across the work of Ingrid LaFleur an afrofuture strategist, artist, curator, and pleasure activist focused on creating equitable futures using art, culture, and emerging technology. She gave a recent talk as a guest of the Futures School and shared her desire to be in conversation with global futures which include Muslim, Chicano, and other perspectives beyond the Western culturally specific ones. It is becoming abundantly clearer that we need to expand our conversations including the ones about our collective global futures. We need to center new voices, and I for one am excited to engage and listen.