- Email: [email protected]
Futures languages in Taiwan
Futures 33 (2001) 659–664 www.elsevier.com/locate/futures
Report
Futures languages in Taiwan Jose Maria Ramos 4 Heath St., Pascoe Vale, Victoria 3044, Australia
Taiwan is a rapidly changing society, facing many challenges. In this state of flux, it is important to step back and see the big picture. The NewFutures 2000 conference, which commemorated fifty years of the of Tamkang University, in TamShui (the northernmost tip), Taiwan (Republic of China) and was held on 5–7 November 2000, gave Taiwanese an opportunity to gain just such a perspective. The ostensible aim of the conference was to explore ‘transformations in education, culture and technology’. But numerous perspectives and academic approaches were explored; predictions, normative visions, probable futures, alternative futures, ethical futures, epistemological re-constructions, studies and deconstruction’s of images of the future, myth and worldview—all received attention, sometimes overwhelming the participants with contradictory and overbearing ideas. Every language is composed of many grammatical forms that combine to facilitate a culture’s total expression of reality. Similarly, the particular grammar of each futurist combines into a language which facilitates an expression of the future from his/her particular perspective and worldview. I want to explore the grammar of each futurist at the NewFutures conference, and see how they might combine to form a language of the future. While the idea of grammar is only used as a metaphor, most grammars within languages already correspond to a complex orientation to the future. So, let me divide this report into sections that reflect the patterns of grammars and structures of a sentences: (1) Subjects and Objects, (2) Primary Auxiliary Verbs, (3) Modal Auxiliary Verbs, (4) Infinitives, and (5) Clauses, Honorific and Tags.
1. Subjects and objects The integral vision created by Ken Wilber articulates a unity of epistemologies. Richard Slaughter has taken this map and applied it to futures studies. First, Wilber’s integral cycle is seen to introduce a unifying system of knowledge E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Maria Ramos). 0016-3287/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 3 2 8 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 0 8 - 8
660
J.M. Ramos / Futures 33 (2001) 659–664
creation that may lay the foundations for the validation of knowledge within the discipline. The process is cyclic: 1. Objective Behavioural (Injunctive Strand) — selecting and applying a methodology. 2. Subjective Intentional (Intuitive Strand) — assembling the raw results of the study. 3. Subjective Cultural (Interpretive Strand) — subjecting the results to thorough interpretation. 4. Objective Social (Validative Strand) — seeking social confirmation or rejection of the results. Secondly, through a holistic approach toward a knowledge base, the subjects and objects of futures thinking are opened up, clarified and expanded. Dividing knowledge into four quadrants upon two axis that dichotomise individual/collective and objective/subjective, futures thinking is seen to belong to four distinct domains: I—the individual subjective: intention, dreams, psychology, meditation, art, love. It—the individual objective: behaviour, neurology, biology, physics, empiricism. We—the collective subjective: culture, worldview, myth, ethics, fiction. They—the collective objective: social structure, ecosystems, geology. To this topology, Ivana Milojevic added the He and She perspective. Although English has lost its gender distinctions in relation to nouns and become an androgynous tongue, Milojevic argues that the current form of globalisation is gendered. She created the gender based, dualistic male/female futures scenarios of Globotech and Ecarmony. In Globotech, it is business as usual as technological globalisation is superimposed on countries and communities hardly ready for the challenge. It is a macho future where trade liberalization and economic rationalization ensure that only the strong survive. Milojevic emphasises that we have a choice, and that globalisation is not a priori given. In emphasising an alternative to the masculine grammar, she portrayed Ecarmony as a vision of globalisation framed on feminine terms. She suggests that women’s issues are different from men, and that women’s perspectives need to be included to create a balanced form of globalization.
2. Primary auxiliary verbs Have, do and be—this is the grammar of what is and isn’t, what exists and doesn’t. Arguing for principles that govern animate life, Alan Fricker suggested that it is foolish to believe that we can simply recreate human genetics, our ecosystems, and Gaia in our own image. There are limitations that, if unheeded, result in severe consequences. Nature is adaptive, recycles itself, and forms symbiotic relationships with its parts and the environment. Therefore, he advocated biomemisis, learning from and copying processes at the organic level so that processes at the human scale proceed in the same symbiotic and sustainable way.
J.M. Ramos / Futures 33 (2001) 659–664
661
3. Modal auxiliary verbs
There will be—this grammar expresses predestination or inevitability. The future is not abstract but tangible and determined. Therefore, human will is limited. Graham Molitor believes that the future can be predicted through rigorous trend analysis and a grounding in macro-history. He predicts five major overlapping waves that will remake society, starting from a leisure age (2015) to a life sciences wave (2100), to a mega-materials age (2200–2300), to a new atomic age (2100–2500) and finally to a space age almost a thousand years into the future. But while many in industrial countries share his technological optimism, the majority of the people in the world believe that there will be an apocalyptic end of time, said Wendell Bell. In doing a sociology on dominant images of the future, Bell discovered that millennialist images of the future still dominate the worldview of humanity. Characteristics of the millennialist mindset are a belief in a catastrophic end of time when the non-members will perish and members saved. This mindset tends to demonise and dehumanise nonmembers and exalt its own group. Ironically, Bell said that the majority of evil done in the world today is perpetuated under the pretence of doing good. We must—this is the grammar of what must be done, what is essential, similar to the imperative tense. Walter Kistler said that we must create a global system by which we will select the most talented of humanity, and train them to continue the march of scientific progress. Information and genetic technology must be the key to enhancing the human gene pool. As in the film Gattacca, humanity, like a machine, becomes a means to an end—the conquest of space. In contrast, Elisabet Sahtouris stressed the imperative of human transformation. She said that humanity was at a cross-roads and that human species need to mature into cooperative and symbiotic relationships. As with the eco-systemic crisis billions of years ago, in which cellular life moved out of single cell exploitative relationships and adapted into multi-cellular holarchical relationships in order to survive, humanity now needs to evolve from exploitative forms of globalisation into sustainable healthy living systems that cooperate in mutual self interest. I want, we need—this grammar deals with the normative and creative faculties. Hazel Henderson took a creative approach to the future, saying that all forecasting is normative. She seems to be in a Cloud Nine of her own—in interviews with a television station, the newspaper, and personally speaking with president Chen Shui Bien—Henderson promoted her vision of a new age of light, and advocated environmental and social economics, financing and forms of accounting. In contrast, WenHui Tsai argued for the transformation of the existing social construction of retirement and disengagement theory into the new model of activity theory. Not only has disengagement theory been a failure, leaving retirees marginalized and society fragmented, trends indicate that disengagement will not be possible in a world where people are living even longer, society is changing faster, there is an undersupply of skilled work, and the social safety net weakens with the boomers having to be supported by smaller and smaller work forces. He said that we need education for the elderly that will create the possibility of active aging. This will give the elderly
662
J.M. Ramos / Futures 33 (2001) 659–664
socially meaningful roles in an environment that doesn’t marginalizes elders, but redefines their roles in society in a meaningful way. We/they shouldn’t—this grammatical expression of right and wrong defines what our values are, and therefore what we will preserve with us into the future. Tony Stevenson questioned the ethical ground of economically based globalisation. Is it right to allow people to be put out of work through globalised trade but not retrained or aided in any way? What should we do about the rapidly expanding digital divide? What should be done about sweatshop labour? Should there be a standard minimum wage? Should we be allowed to manipulate human and other biological gene structures? Who should be involved in shaping the debate on globalisation? He suggested that the main players and pushers of economic globalisation should be held to account and should yield to the interests of all humanity. There will probably be/might be. This is the grammatical form which expresses likelihood. Is there a wildcard scenario we should prepare for? Lorne Tepperman, through analysis of Canada’s and global health trends, suggested that there is a probability of a major health care crisis. Using fuzzy logic, Tepperman showed that health care will probably shift from professional hospital/clinic based care to semi-professional home based care involving many new communication technologies and medical innovations. So his comprehensive contingency plan for homecare, outlined in some detail, ought to be snapped up by anyone worried about the future of their health. There could be—this is the grammar of possibility by which futurists express alternative futures. Postulating an alternative future for university education, Sohail Inayatullah sang the eulogy of the university. Cause of death: globalisation, which brings efficient corporations into the education market. Once the site of wisdom, moral learning and dissent, teachers are no longer safe to criticise the powers that be. Off site learning, a product of the information revolution has now began to erode the campus centric base. Multiculturalism and its students also begin questioning the Eurocentric representations of knowledge, and demands for transparency challenge the club elitist nature of university life. There could also be, Cesar Villanueva suggest, four possible Asias. An Asia.com would mean a technologised Asia that is focused on rationalization and globalisation. It is a soul-less Asia where people resemble robots. A Yellow Fever Asia is one where mainland China and many small Chinas dominate. Everybody looks, eats, and acts Chinese. While this brings stability, it is also a loss of cultural diversity. A Terrorized Asia is torn by political class and ethnic wars, and people get lost and never find a foundation to live by. A Coexisting and Co-developing Asia maintains and strengthens local needs and identities, while at the same time strengthening the cohesion of all Asia through mutual self interest, and by developing sound economic structures and profound spiritual transformation. In comparison, Johan Galtung’s postulated the possibility of Six Chinas, an alternative to the One China vision that has kept the Nationalists and Communists deadlocked for almost fifty years. The six Chinas include Taiwan, the Mainland, Tibet, Mongolia, East Turkistan, and Hong Kong. An expanded vision of China would allow tribal elements to co-exist peacefully without sacrificing the integrity of the whole. It is a peaceful shared future.
J.M. Ramos / Futures 33 (2001) 659–664
663
4. Infinitives To live, to die, to become—the infinitive tenses in grammar have no past or a future, and are the root and base from which all tenses spring. It is a-temporal and therefore represents the mythic realm within this scheme. While speaking about his methodology, ‘Causal Layered Analysis’, Sohail Inayatullah said that it is often the myths within our culture that give rise to our worldviews, social causes, public litany, and even our images of the future. He asked what kind of future our mythologies privilege and what assumptions of the future our mythologies make preferable.
5. Tags, honorific and clauses It is true, isn’t it? It is true, you know—tags are the part of a grammar that recognise pre-existing agreement, the assumptions within a given culture and hence that culture’s worldview. In looking into the future and creating peaceful futures, Johan Galtung stressed the need to examine the worldviews among different cultures, particularly if those worldviews supported the notion of solving problems through force, if two worldviews are on a collision course and already in contradiction, or if a culture’s worldview encourages or accepts the suppression, domination or subordination of other cultures. Venerated and revered X—although within the English language they are, for the most part, extinct, most languages carry honorific, and these can be seen as a metaphor for the way that people expresses what is respected or what is sacred. Johan Galtung suggested that if cultures are to co-exist peacefully through the eons, we will have to be sensitive to what we all deem sacred, and create cultures of understanding and respect. When conflicts become sacred they enter the realms of metaconflicts. The goal of the peace researcher, for Galtung, is to help fighting cultures transcend the contradictions in their positions and ultimately realise the sacredness of all human life. I disagree that—the clauses within a grammar that critique the content of a statement are instrumental in critical futures. Davis Hicks argued that the ‘future of education’ and other predictive, deterministic and dogmatic visions merely reinforce existing structures, while ‘futures in education’ teaches teachers to become critics and creators of images of the future themselves. Through reflexive learning, Hicks suggested, we need to help teach teachers come to grips with the complexity of the world, their own feelings, and ultimately to develop a relationship to the future based not on fear and confusion but leading to action. I don’t think that—David Wright, in examining Japanese futures, used various methods to examine the perpetuation of the now outdated ‘catch up and overtake the U.S.’ model. Government’s monopoly on discourse, Japan’s mythology of uniqueness and racial purity, exclusion of non-Japanese methods of framing a problem, global images of the future, semiotics and fractures in society that disable communication, all contribute to sidelining a genuine and grass-roots articulation of a Japan beyond Japan Inc.
664
J.M. Ramos / Futures 33 (2001) 659–664
I don’t believe that—in critiquing the current obsession with the Gaia principle, and creating a cybernetic model of global change, Sesh Velamoor said that all normative, preferred and desirable interpretations of the future need be superceded by a process in which participation of all those who affect the future of humanity are enabled, knowledge concerning the long term future of humanity is increased and diffused, which allows the recipients of such information to be given information “in the raw”. In this model global change is proportional to the free flow of information. Self-organizing criticality is the operant process, with each recipient of the raw data one more grain of sand in the global sand pile. While he said that we would all collectively play a part, he also said that “in essence this is a play that never ends, and therefore a future that no-one will ever see.”
6. Disclaimer My goal within this metaphor has been to show that different styles of futures thinking are not mutually exclusive, but rather mutually dependent. We cannot simply function with one grammatical form, but need all forms to express a total essence that we have yet to discover. However, in doing so I have also sidelined or subordinated many of the ideas from the speakers at the conference that didn’t fit into this metaphor. But, I hope that my framing shows that every grammatical form has a place in the language of the future. There may be disagreement as to the appropriateness of when and where to use a different grammar. One might feel that Molitor’s predictions do not provide much of an alternative, that Sahtouris’ either/or is better served as a normative future, that Kistler’s vision should be classified as an aging and dying worldview, or that Henderson’s vision is an inevitability. One might also feel that ethics and honorific are one and the same, that myth and worldview shouldn’t be separated, or that gender and trajectory are or are not mutually exclusive. Yet, it is all this diversity that makes the world what it is and makes futures studies so fruitful.
Report
Futures languages in Taiwan Jose Maria Ramos 4 Heath St., Pascoe Vale, Victoria 3044, Australia
Taiwan is a rapidly changing society, facing many challenges. In this state of flux, it is important to step back and see the big picture. The NewFutures 2000 conference, which commemorated fifty years of the of Tamkang University, in TamShui (the northernmost tip), Taiwan (Republic of China) and was held on 5–7 November 2000, gave Taiwanese an opportunity to gain just such a perspective. The ostensible aim of the conference was to explore ‘transformations in education, culture and technology’. But numerous perspectives and academic approaches were explored; predictions, normative visions, probable futures, alternative futures, ethical futures, epistemological re-constructions, studies and deconstruction’s of images of the future, myth and worldview—all received attention, sometimes overwhelming the participants with contradictory and overbearing ideas. Every language is composed of many grammatical forms that combine to facilitate a culture’s total expression of reality. Similarly, the particular grammar of each futurist combines into a language which facilitates an expression of the future from his/her particular perspective and worldview. I want to explore the grammar of each futurist at the NewFutures conference, and see how they might combine to form a language of the future. While the idea of grammar is only used as a metaphor, most grammars within languages already correspond to a complex orientation to the future. So, let me divide this report into sections that reflect the patterns of grammars and structures of a sentences: (1) Subjects and Objects, (2) Primary Auxiliary Verbs, (3) Modal Auxiliary Verbs, (4) Infinitives, and (5) Clauses, Honorific and Tags.
1. Subjects and objects The integral vision created by Ken Wilber articulates a unity of epistemologies. Richard Slaughter has taken this map and applied it to futures studies. First, Wilber’s integral cycle is seen to introduce a unifying system of knowledge E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Maria Ramos). 0016-3287/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 3 2 8 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 0 8 - 8
660
J.M. Ramos / Futures 33 (2001) 659–664
creation that may lay the foundations for the validation of knowledge within the discipline. The process is cyclic: 1. Objective Behavioural (Injunctive Strand) — selecting and applying a methodology. 2. Subjective Intentional (Intuitive Strand) — assembling the raw results of the study. 3. Subjective Cultural (Interpretive Strand) — subjecting the results to thorough interpretation. 4. Objective Social (Validative Strand) — seeking social confirmation or rejection of the results. Secondly, through a holistic approach toward a knowledge base, the subjects and objects of futures thinking are opened up, clarified and expanded. Dividing knowledge into four quadrants upon two axis that dichotomise individual/collective and objective/subjective, futures thinking is seen to belong to four distinct domains: I—the individual subjective: intention, dreams, psychology, meditation, art, love. It—the individual objective: behaviour, neurology, biology, physics, empiricism. We—the collective subjective: culture, worldview, myth, ethics, fiction. They—the collective objective: social structure, ecosystems, geology. To this topology, Ivana Milojevic added the He and She perspective. Although English has lost its gender distinctions in relation to nouns and become an androgynous tongue, Milojevic argues that the current form of globalisation is gendered. She created the gender based, dualistic male/female futures scenarios of Globotech and Ecarmony. In Globotech, it is business as usual as technological globalisation is superimposed on countries and communities hardly ready for the challenge. It is a macho future where trade liberalization and economic rationalization ensure that only the strong survive. Milojevic emphasises that we have a choice, and that globalisation is not a priori given. In emphasising an alternative to the masculine grammar, she portrayed Ecarmony as a vision of globalisation framed on feminine terms. She suggests that women’s issues are different from men, and that women’s perspectives need to be included to create a balanced form of globalization.
2. Primary auxiliary verbs Have, do and be—this is the grammar of what is and isn’t, what exists and doesn’t. Arguing for principles that govern animate life, Alan Fricker suggested that it is foolish to believe that we can simply recreate human genetics, our ecosystems, and Gaia in our own image. There are limitations that, if unheeded, result in severe consequences. Nature is adaptive, recycles itself, and forms symbiotic relationships with its parts and the environment. Therefore, he advocated biomemisis, learning from and copying processes at the organic level so that processes at the human scale proceed in the same symbiotic and sustainable way.
J.M. Ramos / Futures 33 (2001) 659–664
661
3. Modal auxiliary verbs
There will be—this grammar expresses predestination or inevitability. The future is not abstract but tangible and determined. Therefore, human will is limited. Graham Molitor believes that the future can be predicted through rigorous trend analysis and a grounding in macro-history. He predicts five major overlapping waves that will remake society, starting from a leisure age (2015) to a life sciences wave (2100), to a mega-materials age (2200–2300), to a new atomic age (2100–2500) and finally to a space age almost a thousand years into the future. But while many in industrial countries share his technological optimism, the majority of the people in the world believe that there will be an apocalyptic end of time, said Wendell Bell. In doing a sociology on dominant images of the future, Bell discovered that millennialist images of the future still dominate the worldview of humanity. Characteristics of the millennialist mindset are a belief in a catastrophic end of time when the non-members will perish and members saved. This mindset tends to demonise and dehumanise nonmembers and exalt its own group. Ironically, Bell said that the majority of evil done in the world today is perpetuated under the pretence of doing good. We must—this is the grammar of what must be done, what is essential, similar to the imperative tense. Walter Kistler said that we must create a global system by which we will select the most talented of humanity, and train them to continue the march of scientific progress. Information and genetic technology must be the key to enhancing the human gene pool. As in the film Gattacca, humanity, like a machine, becomes a means to an end—the conquest of space. In contrast, Elisabet Sahtouris stressed the imperative of human transformation. She said that humanity was at a cross-roads and that human species need to mature into cooperative and symbiotic relationships. As with the eco-systemic crisis billions of years ago, in which cellular life moved out of single cell exploitative relationships and adapted into multi-cellular holarchical relationships in order to survive, humanity now needs to evolve from exploitative forms of globalisation into sustainable healthy living systems that cooperate in mutual self interest. I want, we need—this grammar deals with the normative and creative faculties. Hazel Henderson took a creative approach to the future, saying that all forecasting is normative. She seems to be in a Cloud Nine of her own—in interviews with a television station, the newspaper, and personally speaking with president Chen Shui Bien—Henderson promoted her vision of a new age of light, and advocated environmental and social economics, financing and forms of accounting. In contrast, WenHui Tsai argued for the transformation of the existing social construction of retirement and disengagement theory into the new model of activity theory. Not only has disengagement theory been a failure, leaving retirees marginalized and society fragmented, trends indicate that disengagement will not be possible in a world where people are living even longer, society is changing faster, there is an undersupply of skilled work, and the social safety net weakens with the boomers having to be supported by smaller and smaller work forces. He said that we need education for the elderly that will create the possibility of active aging. This will give the elderly
662
J.M. Ramos / Futures 33 (2001) 659–664
socially meaningful roles in an environment that doesn’t marginalizes elders, but redefines their roles in society in a meaningful way. We/they shouldn’t—this grammatical expression of right and wrong defines what our values are, and therefore what we will preserve with us into the future. Tony Stevenson questioned the ethical ground of economically based globalisation. Is it right to allow people to be put out of work through globalised trade but not retrained or aided in any way? What should we do about the rapidly expanding digital divide? What should be done about sweatshop labour? Should there be a standard minimum wage? Should we be allowed to manipulate human and other biological gene structures? Who should be involved in shaping the debate on globalisation? He suggested that the main players and pushers of economic globalisation should be held to account and should yield to the interests of all humanity. There will probably be/might be. This is the grammatical form which expresses likelihood. Is there a wildcard scenario we should prepare for? Lorne Tepperman, through analysis of Canada’s and global health trends, suggested that there is a probability of a major health care crisis. Using fuzzy logic, Tepperman showed that health care will probably shift from professional hospital/clinic based care to semi-professional home based care involving many new communication technologies and medical innovations. So his comprehensive contingency plan for homecare, outlined in some detail, ought to be snapped up by anyone worried about the future of their health. There could be—this is the grammar of possibility by which futurists express alternative futures. Postulating an alternative future for university education, Sohail Inayatullah sang the eulogy of the university. Cause of death: globalisation, which brings efficient corporations into the education market. Once the site of wisdom, moral learning and dissent, teachers are no longer safe to criticise the powers that be. Off site learning, a product of the information revolution has now began to erode the campus centric base. Multiculturalism and its students also begin questioning the Eurocentric representations of knowledge, and demands for transparency challenge the club elitist nature of university life. There could also be, Cesar Villanueva suggest, four possible Asias. An Asia.com would mean a technologised Asia that is focused on rationalization and globalisation. It is a soul-less Asia where people resemble robots. A Yellow Fever Asia is one where mainland China and many small Chinas dominate. Everybody looks, eats, and acts Chinese. While this brings stability, it is also a loss of cultural diversity. A Terrorized Asia is torn by political class and ethnic wars, and people get lost and never find a foundation to live by. A Coexisting and Co-developing Asia maintains and strengthens local needs and identities, while at the same time strengthening the cohesion of all Asia through mutual self interest, and by developing sound economic structures and profound spiritual transformation. In comparison, Johan Galtung’s postulated the possibility of Six Chinas, an alternative to the One China vision that has kept the Nationalists and Communists deadlocked for almost fifty years. The six Chinas include Taiwan, the Mainland, Tibet, Mongolia, East Turkistan, and Hong Kong. An expanded vision of China would allow tribal elements to co-exist peacefully without sacrificing the integrity of the whole. It is a peaceful shared future.
J.M. Ramos / Futures 33 (2001) 659–664
663
4. Infinitives To live, to die, to become—the infinitive tenses in grammar have no past or a future, and are the root and base from which all tenses spring. It is a-temporal and therefore represents the mythic realm within this scheme. While speaking about his methodology, ‘Causal Layered Analysis’, Sohail Inayatullah said that it is often the myths within our culture that give rise to our worldviews, social causes, public litany, and even our images of the future. He asked what kind of future our mythologies privilege and what assumptions of the future our mythologies make preferable.
5. Tags, honorific and clauses It is true, isn’t it? It is true, you know—tags are the part of a grammar that recognise pre-existing agreement, the assumptions within a given culture and hence that culture’s worldview. In looking into the future and creating peaceful futures, Johan Galtung stressed the need to examine the worldviews among different cultures, particularly if those worldviews supported the notion of solving problems through force, if two worldviews are on a collision course and already in contradiction, or if a culture’s worldview encourages or accepts the suppression, domination or subordination of other cultures. Venerated and revered X—although within the English language they are, for the most part, extinct, most languages carry honorific, and these can be seen as a metaphor for the way that people expresses what is respected or what is sacred. Johan Galtung suggested that if cultures are to co-exist peacefully through the eons, we will have to be sensitive to what we all deem sacred, and create cultures of understanding and respect. When conflicts become sacred they enter the realms of metaconflicts. The goal of the peace researcher, for Galtung, is to help fighting cultures transcend the contradictions in their positions and ultimately realise the sacredness of all human life. I disagree that—the clauses within a grammar that critique the content of a statement are instrumental in critical futures. Davis Hicks argued that the ‘future of education’ and other predictive, deterministic and dogmatic visions merely reinforce existing structures, while ‘futures in education’ teaches teachers to become critics and creators of images of the future themselves. Through reflexive learning, Hicks suggested, we need to help teach teachers come to grips with the complexity of the world, their own feelings, and ultimately to develop a relationship to the future based not on fear and confusion but leading to action. I don’t think that—David Wright, in examining Japanese futures, used various methods to examine the perpetuation of the now outdated ‘catch up and overtake the U.S.’ model. Government’s monopoly on discourse, Japan’s mythology of uniqueness and racial purity, exclusion of non-Japanese methods of framing a problem, global images of the future, semiotics and fractures in society that disable communication, all contribute to sidelining a genuine and grass-roots articulation of a Japan beyond Japan Inc.
664
J.M. Ramos / Futures 33 (2001) 659–664
I don’t believe that—in critiquing the current obsession with the Gaia principle, and creating a cybernetic model of global change, Sesh Velamoor said that all normative, preferred and desirable interpretations of the future need be superceded by a process in which participation of all those who affect the future of humanity are enabled, knowledge concerning the long term future of humanity is increased and diffused, which allows the recipients of such information to be given information “in the raw”. In this model global change is proportional to the free flow of information. Self-organizing criticality is the operant process, with each recipient of the raw data one more grain of sand in the global sand pile. While he said that we would all collectively play a part, he also said that “in essence this is a play that never ends, and therefore a future that no-one will ever see.”
6. Disclaimer My goal within this metaphor has been to show that different styles of futures thinking are not mutually exclusive, but rather mutually dependent. We cannot simply function with one grammatical form, but need all forms to express a total essence that we have yet to discover. However, in doing so I have also sidelined or subordinated many of the ideas from the speakers at the conference that didn’t fit into this metaphor. But, I hope that my framing shows that every grammatical form has a place in the language of the future. There may be disagreement as to the appropriateness of when and where to use a different grammar. One might feel that Molitor’s predictions do not provide much of an alternative, that Sahtouris’ either/or is better served as a normative future, that Kistler’s vision should be classified as an aging and dying worldview, or that Henderson’s vision is an inevitability. One might also feel that ethics and honorific are one and the same, that myth and worldview shouldn’t be separated, or that gender and trajectory are or are not mutually exclusive. Yet, it is all this diversity that makes the world what it is and makes futures studies so fruitful.