- Email: [email protected]
Bertrand de Jouvenel: a futures thinking open mind
Second thoughts
unity and education are not equal, not to mention the economic capacity to negotiate. What have I learned from de Jouvenel? I have learned the humility of the researcher, plus commitment and rigour both particularly necessary for those of us who call ourselves futurists. The humility of continuous research and the acceptance of doubt also qualities especially important in the area of social sciences where needs, expectations, desires and fears are all important factors. The search for regularities, for structures, for systems of behaviour is a difficult one requiring humility. The search for different possible, probable and even desirable futures, needs even greater humility, the capacity to listen to other views of the future, the views of children, of those who do not have a voice for different reasons. De Jouvenel’s lesson of critical analysis, doubt and rigour is, I believe even more important today than in the past. I think that this theoretical basis: conjecture as likelihood, futuribles as many possible futures, and power as a combination of ‘pouvoir’ and ‘puissance’ are the basis for preferring de Jouvenel’s thinking to the more technocratic thinking of futures studies in many parts of the world. It is because of this difference that the message of de Jouvenel is more accepted in Latin America, Africa and some parts of Asia than messages by other futures thinkers. It is presumptuous to claim to know the truth about the future. Knowledge about the future is a tool that can be used for power in the sense of having power over others whereas conjecture and alternatives leave some space for choice and different decisions from the main ones. Is there still time for people or countries to have the power to choose their own future or do only some people or countries choose the future for others? This is the challenge that is still real
Bertrand de Jouvenel: open mind Fabienne Three
today; indeed it is even more real today than when de Jouvenel expressed it. Maybe it could be said that I am going beyond his thinking but I like to think that he would agree. I wish to close this re-thinking of Bertrand de Jouvenel with an image: in 1973 I organized the meeting of the newly created World Futures Studies Federation in Rome. It was the first time that many people from developing countries were present at a futures meeting: people of deep thinking as Romesh Thapar, together with people from the world of established futures studies, such as Fred Polak, John McHale, Elise Boulding, Jim Dator and Robert Jungk, or from Eastern Europe as lgor Bestuzhev-Lada and Andreij Sicinskj, plus those who in the years to come would contribute to futures studies as Sam Cole and Ian Miles and many others. Everyone was housed in very simple style in the outskirts of Rome (beautiful at that). I remember my young son, then 12, offering to help de Jouvenel carry his suitcase. I can still see the image of de Jouvenel thanking the boy but refusing his offer. He was a humble man and a humble scientist. In my understanding that means a great man and a great scientist.
Notes and references 1.
2. 3.
4. 5.
Cotta, S., Introduction to L’Arte della Congettura, Vallecchi Editore, 1967 Bertrand de Jouvenel, Du pouvoir, Geneva, 1945 Bell, W., The Foundations of Futures Studies. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 199 7 de louvenel, B., La Civilisation de la Puissance. Fayard, Paris, 1976 /bid, p. 1 (Free translation from the French text by the author).
a futures
thinking
Goux-Baudiment
great figures
rise up before us from the
The author may be contactedat proGective, 16 rue Mouton-Duvernet, 75014 43 95 65 00; fax: +33 [email protected]).
Paris, France (Tel: +33 1 1 43 95 62 62; email:
past whenever we evoke the early days of future studies in France. They are Caston Berger, the charismatic leader; Bertrand de Jouvenel, the political scientist with the universalist mind; and Pierre Ma&, institution man and French-style economic planner. All of them have had a profound influence on
865
Second thoughts
contributing to its distinfutures studies, guished status. While it may be true that the names of Gaston Berger, who was the director for higher education at the French Ministry of Education and a philosophy professor, and Pierre Masse, commissioner for French national planning, are unknown to the general public, Bertrand de Jouvenel, on the other hand, has enjoyed widespread popularity. This is due first of all to his family name, for several members of the de Jouvenel family have achieved fame, particularly Charles, the brilliant diplomat, and Henry, husband of the author Colette; and now Bertrand, a great observer of the world. The first thing which strikes us about Bertrand de Jouvenel-scholar and observer-is the encyclopaedic nature of his knowledge and experience. Then, towards the end of his life, we had the image of the white-haired old man who had taken on the air of a sage. It was as if he carried forward into our own time something of the magisterial 19th century, a century which was so full of curiosity and and which was so futureinventiveness, oriented. It was this future which interested him both as a political scientist (see Du Pouvoir‘On PoweJ-1945 and Arcadie, essais sur le mieux-vivre--Arcadia, essays on better living-1968), and as a citizen (creation of the Futuribles association in 1960 and the notion of the “forum previsionnel”. Because Bertrand de Jouvenel was first and foremost a democrat. Anxious as he was not to allow discussion of the future to be restricted just to the futurists and their clients-our rulers-he dreamed up the idea of a centre-the “forum previsionnel”-where the specialists in humanities studies could come and submit their ideas for discussion by thoughtful members of the public. In this way citizens would be involved in establishing their future. The turning point
It is clear just how ambitious such an idea could be, and, in consequence, what might be the major obstacles to carrying it through. To begin with, there are the obstacles which are connected with the debate on the future. In a country such as France, where political ideologies have at times already wrought havoc, any debate returns systematically to the traditional contest between left and
866
right. This being the case, what other debate can there be other than those debates which never cease to stir the political parties and which fuel their internal disputes. But let us imagine that a debate were actually to take place, going beyond the usual stereotypes, a debate which was rich and constructive: what impact would it have? How would it influence our rulers? How could we ensure that it continued as time went on? How could we avoid the “lead” effect? And, above all, how can we convince our decision-makers that they should integrate into the choices they make the image of what be desirable in the long-term? The next questions that of the social scientists. Bertrand de Jouvenel believed that the social function of organizing and sustaining futures studies belonged naturally to them, and he anticipated that in each of the various humanities disciplines “research which can clarify the way things are moving will come to the fore”. But how can we interest such researchers in futures studies? What can we do to get them really interested in foresight work, so that “thinking the future” becomes one of their main concerns. Let us imagine that we manage to achieve this: what funding would then be needed to enable them to do serious work in this direction? We would then in turn have to convince the possible sources of funding for such research, which in effect means government or business. Then we would need to tackle the problem of communication between the researchers: would they manage to find a common language, or respect the differences between their various disciplines so as to be able to build together something more than a patchwork of which was opinions? With the growing juxtaposed specialization of sub-languages, and the lack of follow-up to the repeated calls for interdisciplinary working, one thing is becoming clear: this is going to be no easy task. One last point, but an important one, is how can we involve the general public in this process? Behind this overall general question there are in fact a whole series of problems to be resolved. First of all, the question raises in turn the question of raising awareness, of motivation. It is necessary not only to attract the attention of ordinary citizens so that they will come and discuss questions about the future in the “forum pr&isionnel”, but also to make them understand that their presence will not be
Second thoughts
without results, and that the conclusions from the debate will carry real weight. Otherwise these citizens will quickly get the impression that they are wasting their time on this “free market for conjecture”. To sustain their interest, there will also be a need to keep changing the authors who come before them to present their work on futures studies. Otherwise there will be the risk of descending quickly into a boring routine and an intellectual fossilization which loses all interest, with the same people always debating the same issues and putting forward the same ideas. How to maintain at the same time diversity, quality, richness and a renewal of public and experts is a real challenge. Let us imagine that we have achieved all this: now what we need is for our enlightened members of the public to go home having assimilated the debate on board, that is to say they are now capable of taking it further by personal reflection and of communicating the principal elements of it to those around them. However, while any increase in cultural awareness never does mankind any harm, the “forum previsionnel” should be much more ambitious. The forum, after all, is the gobetween where the futurists (the word is used in here its broadest sense), the rulers (associates in the work of the futurists) and ordinary citizens (who, in one way or another, will be the ones directly affected by the choices which emerge from the work carried out) can meet each other. One problem, therefore, is how to make sure the opinions of the citizens are conveyed to the rulers. Moreover, this opinion must become public opinion, that is to say, it must be organized in some way. And members of parliament, who after all represent these citizens, must be willing to take on this role of a go-between; they would then find themselves defending choices even though-such is the transitory nature of politics-they cannot be certain that they will still be there to see these choices become reality. But... let us go even further, and assume that all the problems so far have been resolved. There still remain two questions, which are closely connected with one another. The first is whether we should not link the choices made in relation to the future to an overall strategy. If so, then everyone knows that any strategy, to be effective, must be kept secret. Moreover, bearing in mind the nature of the decisions to be taken-at times so tech-
nical, so difficult, or so delicate-should we are putting the questions underlying them to persons who, however enlightened them may be, do not possess all the skills which are required to contribute fully to the debate? In such a case, such persons could hammer out a wrong opinion and this in turn could lead either to conflict with the rulers (cf what happened with mad cow disease), or to a wrong decision made by the rulers, the consequences of which could be really damaging. At the same time, if we accept the basic principles of psycho-history, the effect of announcing a decision can have a marked effect on behaviour, and the result could be that the hypotheses on which the said decision was based are profoundly modified. In such a case, the basic data having been distorted, unforeseen consequences result, and the effect which was expected (and announced) does not come to pass. This being the case, is it really necessary to divulge the choices which have been made when such choices are longterm and of a strategic nature? It is clear from the fundamental questions which Bertrand de Jouvenel was asking at the time did deserve some serious analysis. And we have here touched on only a few of them. Does this mean, then, that all these wonderful ideas should be put back into the cupboard of the past? Certainly not! Because, although future studies did go through some worrying times in the 1970s and 198Os, and even if it might have seemed that they were abandoning their social and political elements in favour of macro and micro-economics, the conditions are there for such studies to reforge their links with that past.
Change
of paradigm;
the phoenix
rises again
Just as the Renaissance had its roots in the richness of the Middle Ages, the fall of the Berlin Wall, which marks the advent of a new era, is firmly anchored in the aftermath of the post-war period. A new world order is emerging, gradually revealing its new paradigm. In this transition stage, there is a coexistence of two paradigms, a dominant one, which has imposed itself on all human activities, and an emerging one, which points here and there, with highs and lows, but ever more frequently. No one knows what will actually happen, but as our business is exactly that of observing systems so as to construct new solutions, let
867
Second thoughts
us dwell awhile on the appearance of this emerging world, even if it is still too early to recognize all the elements which would make up a complete picture. We shall see that the indications so far identified are causing the thinking of Bertrand de Jouvenel to rise again, like the phoenix from its ashes. Although Ecology politics seem to have disappeared from the political scene, all this means is that this form of concern with ecology was not destined to last. Because it would be wrong to deduce from this that ecological concern has itself disappeared. Quite the contrary. Environmental awareness-which these days is being referred to as “the spirit of Rio” (a reference to the Earth Summit of 1992) is stronger than ever. But it is expressed in day to day matters (waste treatment, energy saving, careful use of water, environmentally friendly products) and no longer through organized movements. As Bertrand de Jouvenel rightly foresaw, worries about environmental issues are gradually coming to the fore because of pollution, town centre traffic congestion, and ubiquitous chemical additives. The particular attention he paid to the environment is today finding an echo. In his article “T&he de la prevision”The task of prediction-(Economic et Humanisme, no. 178, 1968), Bertrand de jouvenel explained that the task of the futurist was to “warn of the dangers which are arising”. Here again we are currently seeing a major requirement in this area. In fact the new problems which are arising are creating a greater need for response on the part of Science, not just to resolve existing problems-which has always been the case up to now-but, more and more, to anticipate how the problem might develop and to put us on our guard against such developments (AIDS, BSE, climate change, asbestos, tobacco etc.). But, at the same time, scientific expert opinion has never been so unsure of itself (two scientists rarely agree on the analysis of a problem), nor-a result of this-so much a matter for controversy. Public opinion is beginning to manifest real expectations, and this is shown by the deliberations on futures studies by the French national scientific research centre, the CNRS. In another area we are seeing that many large companies or public organizations are in the process of rethinking their futures studies
868
activity. And this rethinking is often centred on the question: “how can we maintain futures studies vigilance in such a way that we can reevaluate as often as necessary our long-term vision?” Bertrand de Jouvenel formulates this problem thus: “the passage of time brings about new situations and new seedlings . . . . it is not a question of sketching out the future once and for all, but of continuous discussion of it” (L’art de /a conjecture--The art of conjecture-SEDEIS, Paris, 2nd edition, 1972). The whole problem consists of how to find an optimum solution between, on the one hand, the temptation of locking oneself once and for all into a chosen scenario, and, on the other, of interpreting the slightest sign as the germ of a change of direction. Finally, last but not least, the phenomenon of democracy is taking on a new dimension through new forms. Enough has been said about the end of ideologies; the public are known to be disaffected with politics and therefore with voting; their disgust is measured by the yardstick of “affairs” that tarnish the image of those in politics. It is easy to believe that the battlefield of politics is being deserted. But no, ordinary citizens have been more intelligent than that. Having taken note of the bankruptcy of the politicians, they have decided to take matters into their own hands. What we are in fact seeing is a veritable revival of local participatory democracy in all its forms. From district associations with informal mutual aid activities or letters to the editor in the big-circulation newspapers to the French employees of Renault supporting their Belgian colleagues are signs that the ordinary citizen (and no longer an entity called The People) is becoming active. He is becoming active, creating organizations, taking part in activities, expressing his thoughts, transforming himself little by little into an active and autonomous cell of a larger society which is restructuring itself as a veritable public opinion, just as Bertrand de Jouvenel hoped would happen. Tomorrow this ordinary citizen will begin to take an interest in his future and in the future of his children. Beyond tomorrow, he will be ready to define a desirable future which he expects to be part of making come true. Even today, as the phoenix soars towards the heavens, Bertrand de Jouvenel is giving us (again) the clues to our own rebirth.
unity and education are not equal, not to mention the economic capacity to negotiate. What have I learned from de Jouvenel? I have learned the humility of the researcher, plus commitment and rigour both particularly necessary for those of us who call ourselves futurists. The humility of continuous research and the acceptance of doubt also qualities especially important in the area of social sciences where needs, expectations, desires and fears are all important factors. The search for regularities, for structures, for systems of behaviour is a difficult one requiring humility. The search for different possible, probable and even desirable futures, needs even greater humility, the capacity to listen to other views of the future, the views of children, of those who do not have a voice for different reasons. De Jouvenel’s lesson of critical analysis, doubt and rigour is, I believe even more important today than in the past. I think that this theoretical basis: conjecture as likelihood, futuribles as many possible futures, and power as a combination of ‘pouvoir’ and ‘puissance’ are the basis for preferring de Jouvenel’s thinking to the more technocratic thinking of futures studies in many parts of the world. It is because of this difference that the message of de Jouvenel is more accepted in Latin America, Africa and some parts of Asia than messages by other futures thinkers. It is presumptuous to claim to know the truth about the future. Knowledge about the future is a tool that can be used for power in the sense of having power over others whereas conjecture and alternatives leave some space for choice and different decisions from the main ones. Is there still time for people or countries to have the power to choose their own future or do only some people or countries choose the future for others? This is the challenge that is still real
Bertrand de Jouvenel: open mind Fabienne Three
today; indeed it is even more real today than when de Jouvenel expressed it. Maybe it could be said that I am going beyond his thinking but I like to think that he would agree. I wish to close this re-thinking of Bertrand de Jouvenel with an image: in 1973 I organized the meeting of the newly created World Futures Studies Federation in Rome. It was the first time that many people from developing countries were present at a futures meeting: people of deep thinking as Romesh Thapar, together with people from the world of established futures studies, such as Fred Polak, John McHale, Elise Boulding, Jim Dator and Robert Jungk, or from Eastern Europe as lgor Bestuzhev-Lada and Andreij Sicinskj, plus those who in the years to come would contribute to futures studies as Sam Cole and Ian Miles and many others. Everyone was housed in very simple style in the outskirts of Rome (beautiful at that). I remember my young son, then 12, offering to help de Jouvenel carry his suitcase. I can still see the image of de Jouvenel thanking the boy but refusing his offer. He was a humble man and a humble scientist. In my understanding that means a great man and a great scientist.
Notes and references 1.
2. 3.
4. 5.
Cotta, S., Introduction to L’Arte della Congettura, Vallecchi Editore, 1967 Bertrand de Jouvenel, Du pouvoir, Geneva, 1945 Bell, W., The Foundations of Futures Studies. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 199 7 de louvenel, B., La Civilisation de la Puissance. Fayard, Paris, 1976 /bid, p. 1 (Free translation from the French text by the author).
a futures
thinking
Goux-Baudiment
great figures
rise up before us from the
The author may be contactedat proGective, 16 rue Mouton-Duvernet, 75014 43 95 65 00; fax: +33 [email protected]).
Paris, France (Tel: +33 1 1 43 95 62 62; email:
past whenever we evoke the early days of future studies in France. They are Caston Berger, the charismatic leader; Bertrand de Jouvenel, the political scientist with the universalist mind; and Pierre Ma&, institution man and French-style economic planner. All of them have had a profound influence on
865
Second thoughts
contributing to its distinfutures studies, guished status. While it may be true that the names of Gaston Berger, who was the director for higher education at the French Ministry of Education and a philosophy professor, and Pierre Masse, commissioner for French national planning, are unknown to the general public, Bertrand de Jouvenel, on the other hand, has enjoyed widespread popularity. This is due first of all to his family name, for several members of the de Jouvenel family have achieved fame, particularly Charles, the brilliant diplomat, and Henry, husband of the author Colette; and now Bertrand, a great observer of the world. The first thing which strikes us about Bertrand de Jouvenel-scholar and observer-is the encyclopaedic nature of his knowledge and experience. Then, towards the end of his life, we had the image of the white-haired old man who had taken on the air of a sage. It was as if he carried forward into our own time something of the magisterial 19th century, a century which was so full of curiosity and and which was so futureinventiveness, oriented. It was this future which interested him both as a political scientist (see Du Pouvoir‘On PoweJ-1945 and Arcadie, essais sur le mieux-vivre--Arcadia, essays on better living-1968), and as a citizen (creation of the Futuribles association in 1960 and the notion of the “forum previsionnel”. Because Bertrand de Jouvenel was first and foremost a democrat. Anxious as he was not to allow discussion of the future to be restricted just to the futurists and their clients-our rulers-he dreamed up the idea of a centre-the “forum previsionnel”-where the specialists in humanities studies could come and submit their ideas for discussion by thoughtful members of the public. In this way citizens would be involved in establishing their future. The turning point
It is clear just how ambitious such an idea could be, and, in consequence, what might be the major obstacles to carrying it through. To begin with, there are the obstacles which are connected with the debate on the future. In a country such as France, where political ideologies have at times already wrought havoc, any debate returns systematically to the traditional contest between left and
866
right. This being the case, what other debate can there be other than those debates which never cease to stir the political parties and which fuel their internal disputes. But let us imagine that a debate were actually to take place, going beyond the usual stereotypes, a debate which was rich and constructive: what impact would it have? How would it influence our rulers? How could we ensure that it continued as time went on? How could we avoid the “lead” effect? And, above all, how can we convince our decision-makers that they should integrate into the choices they make the image of what be desirable in the long-term? The next questions that of the social scientists. Bertrand de Jouvenel believed that the social function of organizing and sustaining futures studies belonged naturally to them, and he anticipated that in each of the various humanities disciplines “research which can clarify the way things are moving will come to the fore”. But how can we interest such researchers in futures studies? What can we do to get them really interested in foresight work, so that “thinking the future” becomes one of their main concerns. Let us imagine that we manage to achieve this: what funding would then be needed to enable them to do serious work in this direction? We would then in turn have to convince the possible sources of funding for such research, which in effect means government or business. Then we would need to tackle the problem of communication between the researchers: would they manage to find a common language, or respect the differences between their various disciplines so as to be able to build together something more than a patchwork of which was opinions? With the growing juxtaposed specialization of sub-languages, and the lack of follow-up to the repeated calls for interdisciplinary working, one thing is becoming clear: this is going to be no easy task. One last point, but an important one, is how can we involve the general public in this process? Behind this overall general question there are in fact a whole series of problems to be resolved. First of all, the question raises in turn the question of raising awareness, of motivation. It is necessary not only to attract the attention of ordinary citizens so that they will come and discuss questions about the future in the “forum pr&isionnel”, but also to make them understand that their presence will not be
Second thoughts
without results, and that the conclusions from the debate will carry real weight. Otherwise these citizens will quickly get the impression that they are wasting their time on this “free market for conjecture”. To sustain their interest, there will also be a need to keep changing the authors who come before them to present their work on futures studies. Otherwise there will be the risk of descending quickly into a boring routine and an intellectual fossilization which loses all interest, with the same people always debating the same issues and putting forward the same ideas. How to maintain at the same time diversity, quality, richness and a renewal of public and experts is a real challenge. Let us imagine that we have achieved all this: now what we need is for our enlightened members of the public to go home having assimilated the debate on board, that is to say they are now capable of taking it further by personal reflection and of communicating the principal elements of it to those around them. However, while any increase in cultural awareness never does mankind any harm, the “forum previsionnel” should be much more ambitious. The forum, after all, is the gobetween where the futurists (the word is used in here its broadest sense), the rulers (associates in the work of the futurists) and ordinary citizens (who, in one way or another, will be the ones directly affected by the choices which emerge from the work carried out) can meet each other. One problem, therefore, is how to make sure the opinions of the citizens are conveyed to the rulers. Moreover, this opinion must become public opinion, that is to say, it must be organized in some way. And members of parliament, who after all represent these citizens, must be willing to take on this role of a go-between; they would then find themselves defending choices even though-such is the transitory nature of politics-they cannot be certain that they will still be there to see these choices become reality. But... let us go even further, and assume that all the problems so far have been resolved. There still remain two questions, which are closely connected with one another. The first is whether we should not link the choices made in relation to the future to an overall strategy. If so, then everyone knows that any strategy, to be effective, must be kept secret. Moreover, bearing in mind the nature of the decisions to be taken-at times so tech-
nical, so difficult, or so delicate-should we are putting the questions underlying them to persons who, however enlightened them may be, do not possess all the skills which are required to contribute fully to the debate? In such a case, such persons could hammer out a wrong opinion and this in turn could lead either to conflict with the rulers (cf what happened with mad cow disease), or to a wrong decision made by the rulers, the consequences of which could be really damaging. At the same time, if we accept the basic principles of psycho-history, the effect of announcing a decision can have a marked effect on behaviour, and the result could be that the hypotheses on which the said decision was based are profoundly modified. In such a case, the basic data having been distorted, unforeseen consequences result, and the effect which was expected (and announced) does not come to pass. This being the case, is it really necessary to divulge the choices which have been made when such choices are longterm and of a strategic nature? It is clear from the fundamental questions which Bertrand de Jouvenel was asking at the time did deserve some serious analysis. And we have here touched on only a few of them. Does this mean, then, that all these wonderful ideas should be put back into the cupboard of the past? Certainly not! Because, although future studies did go through some worrying times in the 1970s and 198Os, and even if it might have seemed that they were abandoning their social and political elements in favour of macro and micro-economics, the conditions are there for such studies to reforge their links with that past.
Change
of paradigm;
the phoenix
rises again
Just as the Renaissance had its roots in the richness of the Middle Ages, the fall of the Berlin Wall, which marks the advent of a new era, is firmly anchored in the aftermath of the post-war period. A new world order is emerging, gradually revealing its new paradigm. In this transition stage, there is a coexistence of two paradigms, a dominant one, which has imposed itself on all human activities, and an emerging one, which points here and there, with highs and lows, but ever more frequently. No one knows what will actually happen, but as our business is exactly that of observing systems so as to construct new solutions, let
867
Second thoughts
us dwell awhile on the appearance of this emerging world, even if it is still too early to recognize all the elements which would make up a complete picture. We shall see that the indications so far identified are causing the thinking of Bertrand de Jouvenel to rise again, like the phoenix from its ashes. Although Ecology politics seem to have disappeared from the political scene, all this means is that this form of concern with ecology was not destined to last. Because it would be wrong to deduce from this that ecological concern has itself disappeared. Quite the contrary. Environmental awareness-which these days is being referred to as “the spirit of Rio” (a reference to the Earth Summit of 1992) is stronger than ever. But it is expressed in day to day matters (waste treatment, energy saving, careful use of water, environmentally friendly products) and no longer through organized movements. As Bertrand de Jouvenel rightly foresaw, worries about environmental issues are gradually coming to the fore because of pollution, town centre traffic congestion, and ubiquitous chemical additives. The particular attention he paid to the environment is today finding an echo. In his article “T&he de la prevision”The task of prediction-(Economic et Humanisme, no. 178, 1968), Bertrand de jouvenel explained that the task of the futurist was to “warn of the dangers which are arising”. Here again we are currently seeing a major requirement in this area. In fact the new problems which are arising are creating a greater need for response on the part of Science, not just to resolve existing problems-which has always been the case up to now-but, more and more, to anticipate how the problem might develop and to put us on our guard against such developments (AIDS, BSE, climate change, asbestos, tobacco etc.). But, at the same time, scientific expert opinion has never been so unsure of itself (two scientists rarely agree on the analysis of a problem), nor-a result of this-so much a matter for controversy. Public opinion is beginning to manifest real expectations, and this is shown by the deliberations on futures studies by the French national scientific research centre, the CNRS. In another area we are seeing that many large companies or public organizations are in the process of rethinking their futures studies
868
activity. And this rethinking is often centred on the question: “how can we maintain futures studies vigilance in such a way that we can reevaluate as often as necessary our long-term vision?” Bertrand de Jouvenel formulates this problem thus: “the passage of time brings about new situations and new seedlings . . . . it is not a question of sketching out the future once and for all, but of continuous discussion of it” (L’art de /a conjecture--The art of conjecture-SEDEIS, Paris, 2nd edition, 1972). The whole problem consists of how to find an optimum solution between, on the one hand, the temptation of locking oneself once and for all into a chosen scenario, and, on the other, of interpreting the slightest sign as the germ of a change of direction. Finally, last but not least, the phenomenon of democracy is taking on a new dimension through new forms. Enough has been said about the end of ideologies; the public are known to be disaffected with politics and therefore with voting; their disgust is measured by the yardstick of “affairs” that tarnish the image of those in politics. It is easy to believe that the battlefield of politics is being deserted. But no, ordinary citizens have been more intelligent than that. Having taken note of the bankruptcy of the politicians, they have decided to take matters into their own hands. What we are in fact seeing is a veritable revival of local participatory democracy in all its forms. From district associations with informal mutual aid activities or letters to the editor in the big-circulation newspapers to the French employees of Renault supporting their Belgian colleagues are signs that the ordinary citizen (and no longer an entity called The People) is becoming active. He is becoming active, creating organizations, taking part in activities, expressing his thoughts, transforming himself little by little into an active and autonomous cell of a larger society which is restructuring itself as a veritable public opinion, just as Bertrand de Jouvenel hoped would happen. Tomorrow this ordinary citizen will begin to take an interest in his future and in the future of his children. Beyond tomorrow, he will be ready to define a desirable future which he expects to be part of making come true. Even today, as the phoenix soars towards the heavens, Bertrand de Jouvenel is giving us (again) the clues to our own rebirth.