Futures research and complexity

Furwe. Vol. 28, No. IO, pp. X9 I-902. 1996 Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Pergamon

Printed in Great Britain.

All rights reserved

OOl6-3287/96

$15.00 + 0.00

PII: SO016-3287(96)00054-7

FUTURES RESEARCH COMPLEXITY A critical science Albert0

AND

analysis from the perspective

of social

Lo Presti

This article deals with the use of the new paradigm of complexity for futures research. The introduction of the ideas of complex thinking in futures research has been characterized by epistemological lacunae and contradictions. The main shortcomings derive from the superficial application of physical concepts to social sciences and the univocal theoretical approach to futures studies. The methodology of social sciences, instead, can help us to find critical arguments and correct indications for consistent futures research. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Futures

studies

first started

the paradigm

of complexity

concern

complex

with

epistemological

model:

to show

an interest

in the middle

thought, futures

in the innovative

but three stand out in particular: studies

have always

tended

there is a consequential link between scientific forecasting ment of complexity is a key issue for futures research;’ transdisciplinary

approach:

their

pline but is instead ‘attacked’,

theories

object

deriving

of the 1980s. There are several

cannot

using a variety

(1) they have the same

toward

systemic

analysis;

(2)

and complexity-the manage(3) they both use a heuristic,

be investigated

of different,

from

reasons for this

by one particular

and complementary,

disci-

techniques

and data. Despite relationship what these

the epistemical

links,

logical

and theoretical

contradictions

between futures studies and the theories of complexity. contradictions are, and why they arise, at the logical

Alberta Lo Presti is a sociologist. Rome, Italy (Tel: +6-68808069:

His address is: Fondazione fax: +6-68808071).

Nuovo

Millennio,

arise in the

This article explains and methodological

Piazza dell’

Orologio,

7 00186

HYI

Futures research and complexity:

level.

Two

problems

A Lo Presti

can be highlighted

need for transdisciplinarity tation

of concepts

research

is frequently

immediately: used to justify

from the area of natural

has been almost

exclusively

science

theoretical

a distorted

interpretation

the superficial,

to the social,

of the

approximate

human

adap-

context;

futures

and speculative

from the complex

studies,

often

per-

spective.

Futures studies, art or science? In discussing are logical

the field

of application

and methodological

the forecasting

exercise

is made to the absence

the much

debated

scientific Malaska

Wendell

it becomes

futures

discipline.

If it is possible

‘The presupposition

prevailing objects

sciences.

( The implication

is that futures

studies

sciences

and disciplines

foremost,

the historical

behind

that

‘enjoy’

more

and philological

future

are to be considered

prevent status,

events.

an artistic

is unknowable

is congenital

facts’.’

Pentti

it is possible

from the territory

of

its every essence is the lack of future

this concept

of the non-nature

at a disadvantage

‘concretely

disciplines,

that

to a scientific

objects,

that is separate

On or a

in the strict

There are no future

of new empirical

an enclave

are in some way

that there

always

that there exists a field of objects

The future field can do neither:

to observe’.

events

namely

and explained,

the existence

or to create

claim

their epistemological

of investigation,

it is non-existent.

to prove

a new science

Regarding

studies

to the senses, and can be observed

to establish

scholars

such studies which

Bell has this to say: ‘the future

the present,

is even more explicit:

belong

within

of an object

issue of whether

exercise, Until

innate

from being truly scientific.

reference

sence.

of futures

factors

with

of future

respect

demonstrable’

objects,

with their immediate

to those first and

records,

monu-

ments and documents. Yet several as 1857, dations

Johann

important Gustav

of the operation

metaphors

on which

constitutes

the material

entirely

empirical,

object

of our

methodological

Droysen called

individual

texts deny this alleged

was already

verstehen. action

He referred

we start to ask ourselves [.

.] the answer

what will

‘advantage’.

the historical,

very definite

to the nature

of our

it is that presents in no way

As early

philological

to the morphological

settles, and expressed

‘If, according

of history:

investigation

laying

foun-

and ethical views

on what

science,

that

is

itself to us as the

be: the past centuries

and

millennia. This would be the most dangerous of all illusions, it would mean the complete disappearance of the object and of our subjective way of seeing: as if an astronomer were

to take the apparent

this perspective, material

for history

course

is present or, as we could

for historical

research’

of celestial

‘the starting

point

bodies

for their

research

also say, the present contains

and ‘We could

by the later historiographical

work

of Benedetto

captured

Croce,h

In

we need

consists in restoring

There is, then, a logical link between the absence of ‘past events’ the absence of ‘future events’ for the futures researcher. This

reinforced

movement’.4

is the fact that its

all the material

say that the essence of research

colour to the faded features latent in that point of the present light of a lantern back into the night of oblivion’.5 and

effective

of all empirical

by projecting

the

for the historian point is further

Friedrich

Meinecke’

and others. The conclusions of this early methodological debate on historical and philological disciplines have a number of implications for futures studies. First, complexity is not a characteristic

892

of future

events

as such (or at least no more than

it was for the objects

of

A Lo Presfi

futures research and complexity:

historical

research)

at futures events. process

but of our models Futures research

of methodological

goals. To paraphrase

selection

of the way we approach

itself to the objects

involving

the

and look

of the present,

researcher

and the

following

a

pre-established

the metaphor by Droysen cited above, we can construct our postuas: ‘the essence of futures research consists of highlighting

late of prospective the features

of knowledge,

applies

analysis

of the present whose

dilation

may allow

the germination

of desirable

futures’.

The logic of complexity In discussing

the introduction

of complex

quently

refer only

to the theoretical

tioning

empirical

research

complexity

Referring thought

Research

Department

and instability

and

thought,

the signs of unitas multiplex ietic and chaotic of historical

and social

Eleonora

Barbieri

A semantic the scientists complexity. ies, being common

of complexity

Clearly, she is referring and groups,

given

corruption’

since chaos

and political

sys-

foundations entropic,

of

autopo-

equilibrium)

could

in relation language

reduction

say, ‘nowadays

its conceptual elaborate

foundations. Complex

the social

concepts

Clearly,

of complexity

by

concepts

of

those willing Futures stud-

can be found

matter

everywhere,

for economic between

pro-

social classes

is very complex,’ the complexity

this is all within enhances

of

statement.

conditions

of interactions

thought

para-

high price for this absence

also have been made 20 years ago when

in any dictionary.

among

of the forecasting

empirical

a deeper studies.”

thwarted

to describe

rigor to transdisciplinarity.

of calculating

by several

promote

are often

less

change.

to the complexity

system

pay a particularly

a typical

studies,

in the case of futures

seems to be more frequent

the propositions

and even

of social

risk, uncertainty,

says that chaos and complexity

of achieving

studies

in theories

selective

and theoretical

and uncertainty are all undoubtedly they are not sufficient in themselves seems inappropriate

of

Futures

that we can ‘observe’

of futures

using terms from ordinary

Novaky

of much more intricate,

to mean

systems for futures

conceptually

transdisciplinary,

digm had still to build of complexity

complex

also be emphasized

and so on. We could

that same statement

of chaos,

economic

of complexity

systems theory

to the difficulty

cesses, the difficulty

of the

from thermodynamic

of complex

for expressing

when

intrinsic

and the impact

Novaky

as the self-referential,

turbulence,

conceptual

by vocation standards

studies,

of the conceptual

to the development

motivation

a consistent,

a certain

social,

complexity,

issue should

This ‘linguistic

to sacrifice

as well

has classified

the nature

Efforts to build

in natural,

of states removed

offers little

Masini

about

an ‘undeniable’

Erzsebet

can be understood

(typical

The links between

conception

to futures

In the framework

thought

the issue of the logical

examples.

digm.

everywhere,

fre-

from men-

development.

But this approach to solving

believe,

scholars

and refrain

and development.

development,

‘everywhere’

peculiarities

sciences,

view,

states that we live in the epoch

relations6

NovZrky’s

is, they

in relation

on social

of Budapest

as in human

into the social

interaction

of chaos

chaos

can be found

tems as well

There

of social

to the theme

complex

complex

experience.

in the mechanisms

thinking

aspects of the complex

but para-

the definition

the scientific

and chaos. Problems,

content confusion

inner characters of the paradigm of complexity, but to define complex scientific reasoning. Above all, it

to use these characteristics

in areas that are clearly

of epistemological

competence, such as those relative to the transfer of a difficult context (futures research) within a definite paradigm (science of complexityi. On this point Jean Louis le Moigne

893

Futures research and complexity: A Lo Presti

is more than explicit: the invisibility intellectual [.

‘However,

of its content.

it may be defined, It is an absolutely

laziness or rhetorical

.I The “very

complicated”

as a grain of matter,

may prove

obtainable

it is frequently

may not be “very

On the basis of Heinz plexity’,

naughtiness,

the surprising

non-positive

part of complexity

notion. confused

complex”

is

Either because

of

with complication

and the “very

simple”,

such

to be very complex’.“’ von

Foerster’s

using the well-known

convincing

demonstration

knowledge

and not to the nature

considerations

Turing

of the fact that

machine,

complexity

of the objects

on the ‘measures

of com-

we can produce

the most

is ascribable

to our

models

of

of investigation.”

Evolutionary futures research The Finland

Futures Research Centre

etical foundations the theory deeply (that

of evolutionary

of complex

thought

in the direction

into issues of prospective is to

say,

productions)

studies

and futures

reside but without in common change enriching’,

of scientific

research,

‘understanding’ the theories studies social

of change

and social

Although could

strategic

level

management,

of change

of social

fixed

by an initial

and an end situation, measurement functional

situation

in which

is the time

discrimination

how

as belonging

change

are

to that field

nature of social

reality,

of ‘explaining’

and/or

reality;

social

level,

with

system

is also different: forecasting so-called

also impact

with

the present

change

of structure

has undergone

In theories

dimension

to how

might

towards

has a different impact on the frameor rather its unit of measurement is

of the s system of elements

of the change.

interchangeability.

issues related

a given

at least one element

on the time

of

mutually

etc).

the future. However, in this case, the time dimension work of research. In theories of social change, time, always

have

theories

but

of social

of the two theories

that address

and try to show

theories

the dynamic

the ‘micro’

research

as ‘difficult

the objective

of application

studies often co-

between

for semantic

more

literature

non-scientific

forecasting

theories,

Given to have

extent,

including

aspects of social

be defined

than are forecasting

The level

rather than going

the relationship

is no justification

act at the ‘macro’

evolve

these two

as justification.”

are also theories might

change

the theor-

at Turku develop

of futurological

sense,

lies in the fact that

and, to a certain

(risk assessment, system

widest

are understood

that reality.

in developing

change

in the

studies

extent

known

the ‘meso’

There

social

distinction

change

of social

study on what

of logic there

to a greater

of social

addresses

research,

important

acknowledged,

future

of futures

at the level

active

In the huge amount

instead they differ.

theories

A first

analysis.

the

an in-depth

and where

and

theories

on

has been particularly

futures studies. Most studies produced

of change,

change. there

A,B,C,.

.,N

The unit of

is no critical

or

respect to the goals of the futures

studies. In futures studies a distinction is made between the short, the medium and the long term, with the description of different possible empirical situations and possible (or desirable)

routes of change

in relation

to potential

choices.

We see in the last section

of

this article that Malaska does try to make a theoretical link between evolutionary theory and furture studies, using a kind of epistemic exaggeration achieved by postulating a number

of propositions that inevitably generate contradictions. Publications pointing to the foundation of evolutionary futures research first started to appear in the mid-1980s. The first to promote the new forecasting theories was Pentti Malaska,

894

whose

theory

of social change

has theoretical

roots in certain

important

formal

and

Futures rese,lrch

issues that emerged which

llya

science

the physical

was awarded

of complexity.

(Newtonian The

with

Prigogine

Natural

mechanics,

latter

are those

systems having tive systems,

systems

systems are not invariant

derive

from the above:

attractant

mainly

and the theory

focused

accepts

ingly,

development

linear

non equilibrium

hypothesis

fail

self-organizing,

between

endogenous

con-

described) from

concep-

equilibrium

evolution,

is clearly

statement,

because

that are triggered nuclei.

possible

to Malaska,

is always

social

evolutive

order.

because limits

it is

himself

bifurcation

to that of the industrial

it more or less explicitly

the result

and material

since Malaska

The

in response

nature-first,

no better defined,

or peren-

play a funda-

of evolutive

is only

of a metaphysical

is comparable

also proposes

a model system.

consideration

that the generation

orders of the societal

processes

(needs, values),

verifiable

as a result of non

by local fluctuations

according

to which

.I Accord-

[.

and not merely

non-equilibrium

the mental

change

emerging

nuclei

evolutionary

according

to

‘whose

revolution’;‘”

and,

accepts that social change

nature.

of the social

into

orders

of evolutive

with regard to a future,

in the long term

to take

changing

by local fluctuations,

and result in the formation

any empirically

and more important,

assumes

situation; some

in fact, launched

it the seeds of further

to Malaska,

needs. Hence, of change

a prophecy

harmony

has within

systems. They are generated

to build

Malaska triple

dissi-

consequences

a fundamental

distant

of complexity,

from the exterior

unsatisfied

is of a strictly

of processes that,

is that the formation

This theory

second

Moreover,

as

tends toward

(briefly

theory

of a process of interaction

importance

to the above

theory

3 According

equilibria.”

impossible

converge),

dynamics’

processes triggered

subsystems

to certain

conserva-

a kind of ‘privileged’

the idea of a unified

means

role in social

starting

such

Unlike Two

then evolution

the points

contribution

‘Each new stage of the development

in social

reaches

systems systems.

processes,

in the ‘phase space’. inversion.

for

for the

dynamic

to gaseous diffusions.

to temporal

event

and dissipative

rise to irreversible

on the non-linearity

‘transformational

studies

nial global

into conservative

on the system for evolution,

Prigogine’s

This theory,

was a major

of bifurcations.

Malaska’s

making

respect

(the area, in the phase space, where

tualizations

mental

give linked

no measure

with

structures.

in 1977,

of conservation)

(1) for t + ;c the system

is placed

cept for chaos theories.

futures

that

they conserve

pative

(2) if a constraint

of principles

force or phenomena

in general

of dissipative prize

systems are subdivided

validity

dynamic

friction

theory

a Nobel

A Lo Presti

complexitv:

the degree of new

whole

of social

He believes

is what

change

of satisfaction

needs

built

change:

of evolving

of overall

by the reciprocal

produces

on the transitions

that classifications

human

action

the economic

of the societies

needs

of the three order

and main

(that removes

resources from the environment and produces material well-being), the social/political order (intentional, consistent activities producing systems of justice, equality, security, distribution giving utionary

of wealth

meaning

etc), and the spiritual

to our being

dynamics,

humans).

we may speak of autocatalytic,

“orders” in society, on the one hand, those “orders” on the other’.” Essentially, autonomously

order

‘Describing

Malaska

generate

activity,

replicative

that each order while

ideas, values,

these concepts

and cross-catalytic,

is suggesting

its own

(producing

processes

interactive

within

different

processes

between

has the capacity

at the same time

inventions,

in the terms of evol-

to increase

using the ‘products’

and of

the other two that it needs in order to function and produce. This process of interaction is ‘harmonious’ or non- ‘harmonious’, depending on the quality of the relations between

895

Futures research and complexity:

the three.

If it is harmonious,

between

the three

indicate

A Lo Presti

orders

induced

for the social

by the exchange

system.

necessary

for social systems to change,

the same as that of the physical

sciences.

Malaska

evolutionary

energy

force

(evolutionary

energy)

concludes

of energy

As Malaska

of ‘energy’

total

the magnitude

the (effect of) resonance can be beneficial

that,

is at its maximum

does not

it is presumably

‘In resonance

compared

with

the total

flow’.lh Behind

framework

this conclusion

of a philosophy

the conceptual

there

is an issue that is worth

of social change.

Up to what

sphere of social developments

and, in general,

many

discrimination

other

interpreters

of the intention

that the analogy

and natural

of the science

of the concepts

may be extended

closer

examination

in the

point does the analogy

between

sciences apply? Since Malaska,

of complexity,

of energy

make no selective

and resonance,

to the highest semantic

we can conclude

level possible

for different

disci-

plines. According

to Malaska,

is at its maximum interaction flow

between

the economic,

is at its peak with

physical

in conditions

Laplace

or gravitational would

energies,

an abstraction

of the force of change,

equivalent

would

to the ideal

be the purpose

it hide? It is legitimate level

system

the role of human

volition

of development,

in conditions

conception

of change

tools

sciences. implications

between

character character

queries,

And,

if

would

the ‘in resonance’ What

is

of his model of Malaska’s

but these are beyond

the methodological

by the paradigm

use that can

of complexity.

of futures studies

seen that an exclusively is largely

responsible

research. taneously

In social developing

science methodology scientific tools of empirical investigation

American

philosopher would

the very

theoretical,

conjectural

for the epistemic

John Dewey’s be well

to graft the conceptualizations According to Dewey, from

ideological

important

paradigm

content

starting

also for the social sciences

The metaphysical

We have

of forecasting

of which

and the need for it to change?

raises other

In the

any past.

claims to be a fundamental

proposed

systems

systems of natural

is coordination

energy

system of

the issue as to whether,

What

In the next part, we examine

be made of the conceptual

New directions

there

of society,

or degradation.

and illustrate

force

in the mutual

of the conservation

to define

conservative

of resonance?

undoubtedly

the scope of this article.

it is possible

and nature

that Malaska

orders

deterministic

in particular,

of this abstraction?

to ask whether

of a social

in the quality

any future

of points,

of evolutionary

In other words,

and spiritual

is, for those

have been able to foresee

from the concept

functioning

that

the energy

flow.

effects of dissipation

is summarized

This aspect raises a variety

so, what

sociopolitical

respect to the possible

sciences this situation

electrical

of resonance,

level with respect to the total energy

advised

description

of the spirit of modern

to emphasize

of the exercise.

to the complexity

of evolutionary

futures

progress always requires and logical forms. Mindful the empirical

of the complexity paradigm. the logical aspect of scientific

beginning

approach

deficiences

research

By acknowledging

science,

components acquires

simulof the scholars

on which shape and

the primacy

of the

pragmatic moment over the conjectural, purely intellectual one, the logic of investigation is grafted on the directrix formed by the reciprocal contribution of methods and logical forms. There are no definitive, final formulations for logical matter; above all, it has no

896

futures research and complexity: A Lo Presti

autonomous gation

zones

or current

and cannot

the empirical

ies is seen as a solution

the science

suited to complex

Indeed,

techniques

We find frequent on economic,

cal experience casting.

of systemic

reference

statistical

it provides

futures studies with

terms of social

science

Edgar Morin elements

seen

al’.”

that

the

there

stresses that unitas

Morin

claim

cations

to an objective,

the

doned. arios,

approach

of complex

valid

also in

beyond

emerge

any

from

and at the same time

the

rejects

of the system to the whole.

introducing

into the study of systems necessary

to illustrate

calls ‘polyrelation-

the system observer/conceptualist

thought

between therefore

of indetermination’

and in its polysystemic position

in a par-

the physical

dimensions

effective

growth

and development

as, forecasts.

relative whole,

to two

conclusions:

to the determination

ie the inconsistency

as a fundamental

at fulfilling

It first developed

the methodological

points

of

of any

of system construction;

systemic.

Norse states very clearly

not be interpreted

is related

and thus allows

goes

that

that the French sociologist

involves

is extraordinarily

present

In explaining

for fore-

building

thought

of organization

the interconnections

absolutist

of the complexity

David

techniques

structure,

qualities

components,

requires

circuit

calls the ‘principle

idea of projecting

in the

and analyti-

and the intellect.

approach

in its context

complex

(2) the introduction of the creativity of the observer scientific, system analytical exercise. The scenario

issues of com-

at futures

research

procedure

of a research

of

and forms

perspective

system (physis)

the system

a controllable

explains

multiplex

an explanatory

The systemic

building,

to be particularly

in looking

Concrete

is a kind of ‘reduction’

the interrelations

process encompassing

(I 1 what

that

in its separate

in which

This polyrelational

of the world

scenario

and conceptual

aspect of scenario

studies

development

approach,

of the system

the system, following ticipatory

also for futures

seems to

methodology.

systemic

describing

not mentioned)

stud-

research

of the science

of scenario-building

the creation

approach

analysis.

the importance

us to envisage

decomposition

appears

themes

to the use of scenarios

and forecasting

to methodology:

have

building

important

(often

the holistic

investi-

of forecasting

of futures

in some cases the operational

important

We

empirical

and, especially,

Scenario

even anticipate

also demonstrate

Another

reductionistic,

from

components

deficiences methods

of complexity.

thought.

of scenario-building literature

itself removed

and methodological

to the epistemological

by the use made

in approaching

plexity.

consider

methodologies.”

That increasing be confirmed

a priori

procedures in Interfutures

the polyrelational

and spread trends

of the

impli-

in the 197Os, when

toward

that make

a future

it possible

that ‘scenarios

They are a means of improving

prerequisite

the

was abanto use scen-

are not, and should

our understanding

of the

long-term global, regional, or national consequences of existing or potential trends or policies and their interaction’.“’ Interfutures was a prospective exercise conducted by member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to respond to the need for managing rapid economic change. Thus it is not a coincidence that the scenario approach was developed also in response to the severe economic and trialized world. With future

oil

scenario

crises

that

techniques,

exists, as a multiple

were

destined

to condition

the idea of forecasting

perspective,

resulting

the

history

one future

of the

is abandoned.

from the process of construction

indusThe of the

NY7

Futures research and complexity:

researcher.

This

A Lo Presti

is assumed

by Michel

approach-‘L’avenir

est multiple’20-thus

able tool for reacting

to the tension

present their

system towards sophistication

implementing

and

The sociologist sociology

given

what direction that sociological Steenbergen ‘design

methodology

Scenario

building

will

in this context

sociologist

and guiding

of social

future,

are

the

scientists,

decisive

a new function

in

for macro-

in the future, but in

happen

alternative

design (or scenarios)

Somewhat

provocatively,

space to issues of forecasting

as ‘social

thus contributed

also by the social especially

studies,

designer’

and

With

of systemic

new conceptually

his multiverse

given

analysis,

van

‘macro-sociology’

conceptualizes

multiverse

of realities

The present

as

can be placed

the means of scientific the end could

and thinking.

solve what there really

place his multiverse sciences,

methods

of realities

Behind

ground

ent approaches

to complex

thought

in contrast

the idea by

that science

debate

in

does not

within

social

Weltanschauung,

rede-

reality.

of present reality

there are theoretical

seeking.

in their diversity,

Mannermaa

of the epistemological with

the

to be discoverable

of a logical-theoretical

this process of differentiation at the future,

is thought

is and is not in the reality’.>’

and its relationship

ways of looking

in scenario

levels which,

‘This means questioning

which

of the scenario

prospects;

There is no reason to think

in the context

but enters the hazardous

the tasks of science

and truth,

the function

of future

of the observer

to the type of observer/actor. reality

of future

basis behind

and conditionality

in terms of many contextual

one) universal

methods

emphasizes

The theoretical

the present dimension

concep-

prospects.

Mannermaa

the alternativity

redefines

in relation

Mika

of com-

from Luhmann’s

to the systemic

thematic

system relationship.

is conceptualized

of one (and only

to the use of the theory

differentiation,

consistent

of realities,

in the observer/actor

techniques

significantly

sciences from the 1980s. The impulse

his theory

opened

observer

fining

the

envisages

paths of development’.2’ little

deciding

the

scenario

the variables.

is not in what

devotes

for the

are the most suit-

the creativity

about

even

point

sociology’.

plexity tion,

to

of planning,

process,

thinking

wants to develop;

starting

that scenarios

and selecting

interest

and desirable

refers

in

hypotheses

Bart van Steenbergen

a society

can show possible

In this vital

sensitivity

that ‘The main

as the

emphasizing

of the science

the future.

the theoretical

Godet

that produces

sociological

many different

issues that place the differ-

with each other.

The ‘sociology

of ambiv-

alence’ proposed by Achille Ardigo to abandon the post-modern redefines the relationship between observer and social system in an empathic and phenomenological key. This ‘binary view

scheme

of actors

and,

outer,

private

event

and typed

theory’

consists of vital

at the same time,

and public,

intersubjectivities

roles, as far as possible

contingencies and the events.L 1 At the level of futures research,

world

way

alternative

in which

scenarios

the same operation

external

that are enriched

standardized the multiverse

more genuine issues of a theory of complexity empathic understanding of the observer. How and builds

and social

the objective

is not a priori is performed

systems, the inner point point

of view,

inner

by the contingencies,

and therefore of realities

repeated,

of and the

despite

the

seems to translate

the

without eluding the mechanism of the an ‘expert’ sociologist looks at the future more complete by an individual

or comprehensive thinker.

than the

The problem

is

clearly not methodological: the reality experience and known by each actor is different, the way of looking at the future, of indicating alternative futures, must also be different. The system ‘in the present’ is different. Every version of social reality has an impact on

Flltures

the development “object”

of the present

of futures Enriching

ducted

towards

the future

this “totality”

‘and

A Lo Presto

is the research

research’.14

the theoretical

an empirical

profile

of the theory

study to control

and verify

of complexity

This is demonstrated

late’ futures research,

by the current,

basing arguments

without

the conceptualizations

tably leads forecasting analysis into a perverse development cal foundations. Futures studies risk moving in the direction forecasting.

and romplexity:

research

that undermines of a metatheory

absolutely

not on theories

having

produced

premature,

its theoretiof scientific

attempt

but on postulates

coninevi-

to ‘postu-

needing

no con-

trol. In a recent work utionary

Mika

Mannermaa

model

of futures

research.”

in this exercise

provides

us with

expected

to solve,

(1) ‘Societies

if it wants

as their

people,

and

Societies

as their

form

their

to those levels;

human

beings,

it cannot

at the societal

zation

of historical

catalytic

models adhering

Laszlo

processes.

to those

as society

societies,

may seem to) be, are nonetheless to ask oneself

however

human

are the result of evolutionary

biological

and of natural

producing

a consistent

the effort is to no avail foundations as an overall of complex

of complex extension thought.

believes

conceptual because

system

with

Laszlo proposes

of parts-organisms, complexity

but a universally

structure

prevents

what they

complexity

as those aimed

processes. with

at

However,

respect to the

the basic conceptual also what

of

the epis-

and hypotheses

system as an emerging

does encompass

legit-

and autonomy

Laszlo tries to moderate

a social

Ervin

may (or

and have evolved

of lLaszlo’s argument

but avoids

in the dia-

nothing

Is it not therefore

and social

in

to the auto-

of the same type

arguments

of societies

of the weakness

thought.

thoughts’,

he has found

point

is not correct

belong

individuals,

dynamics

making.’

The self-referential

and autonomous

their

of

process

based on the organi-

And this is precisely

despite

systems in general!“”

of this starting

Admittedly,

to as ‘simplifying

Laszlo.

up of organisms,

these individuals.

societies,

processes

and decision

organisms

of biological

between

through

such an exercise

complex

of

environment.

is due to the actions

planning

of human

equilibrium,

and the evolutionary

is Ervin

structures.

composed

interactions

whether

insensitivity

evolve

of social evolution

is made

(real or apparent) species,

human

be

organizations

natural

of societies

Clearly,

same explicative

has to say: ‘Human

temological

and they

the

will

apparatus.

and many of these find an explicative

by extension,

on the basis of complex imate

a model

In sum, if the processes

of evolution

and

implicit

research

and other

from these activities,

promote

and cultural

terms.

gram of bifurcation, it from

of organization the development

for the evol-

thermodynamical

societies

of this first postulate

inspiration

futures

epistemological

communities

other

be derived

forerunner

of biological

epistemological

beings,

level is not a result of conscious

The authoritative models

levels

although

postulates

contradications

that

systems far tram

human

environment

own

typical

problems

its theoretical

non-linear

components

six reference

study of the logical

a list of the

to reorder

are dynamical,

having

proposes

Careful

whole,

mechanisms Morin

referred

never with the trustworthy enthusiasm of one who valid, scientific, heuristic model. More recently, Silvo

Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz have proposed the idea of post-normal science, which is based on the overcoming of every form of epistemological reductionism, as the direct result of the genuine logizing

the social

late avoids

complex

thought

and the biological

important

(emergent

complexity).”

The hypothesis

level that is at the basis of Mannermaa’s

issues such as the dialectic

between

the holistic

of homofirst postu-

and individualistic

Futures research and complexity:

A Lo Presti

approaches in social science methodology. seems to be the concept of unitas multiplex (2) ‘There

is asymmetry

most important be written

between

societal

The second

postulate

the past and the future

transformation

from the present

physical/biological elaborated

in a sociological/historical argument.

evolution’,

but this has little heuristic

ception

of the kind: is one, more Max

unique

definite

adopts

for the historical

that seems to configure ideal/type

conditional

frameworks’.

used in its negative

with

of our knowledge;

knowledge

for the formation

possibilities’

involves

of the process

the basis of one or various

elements

a process that changes

in relation

proposes

methodology

for historical

construction

of ideal/type

intervening

conditionalities’.

Indeed, in scenario

what

scenarios

this could

that

The redefinition

on the basis of different

typing,

conditional

proposals

translate differ

of the complexity

could

and Weber

all of which

are

The ‘judgment

of

that are formed

but by conceptually In other

not on building

words,

Weber

for our purposes

as ‘the

in relation

be useful for analysing

of the actors and processes selected. to the genuine

possibility,

moments,

frameworks,

we might

that ‘is not I. . .I of our ignorance,

in this case it means

by the historian.

“realities”,

of

or to our “nomological”

to one or some “conditions”.

historical

building

of existing

conception a ‘technique

of possibility

and objective

studied

that

in order for it to be

it is an expression

[. . .] of fantastic

‘the creation

call

matter,

of causal

warrant

remember

a methodological

on the contrary,

of the multiplicity

methodology

we should

about the “rules of becoming”,

This has to do with causal motivation

uses it to address the complexity

to

past

to be built.

we might

historical

use of the category

must relate

and the method-the

studies, what

due to the constating a truism

the problem

multiple,

sciences

investigation In dealing

it must make

to a positive

necessary

of forecasting

form, that is in the sense in which

or of the non-completeness knowledge’.2”

potential,

and

(the symmetry

intended

raised by social science

and social

for historical

considered a science,

reference

of view

be changed,

to the

The link of the second

that Mannermaa

and the future

in relation

is ambiguous

the investigation

considerations

From the point

them

to go back in history

no more than a proverb.

in which-for

and

need to be re-

terms of reference

and irreversibility

can only

of the social

and irreversibility

Without

in the past cannot

given,

and linguistic

caution. Weber

made

of becoming

The logical

relevance.

with asymmetry

Scenarios

round’.

be ‘it is not possible

since it is unthinkable

decisions

a configuration

could

of complexity

due to the fact that

line of homologization

of asymmetry

puts it), it is worth

of the method,

way

key, if one is to understand

One meaning

proposal

of a society

are irreversible.

not the other

the ‘hard’

The concepts

forecasting

methodological

processes

to the future,

continues

levels.

axis, as Mannermaa

The response of the science proposed by Edgar Morin.

to the choice of

the diachronic

of the history be one response

dimension

of actors and processes of forecasting

studies

paradigm.

(3) ‘The evolution of societal systems consists of stable evolutionary epochs with some degree of predictability, and breaks or chaos phases, the outcomes of which are unpredictable

and consisting

of a variety

of possibilities

for different

development

paths in the future’. (4) ‘The development

of societal

systems

is leading

towards

ever-increasing

of societies and towards the growth of dynamicity of these systems increased and more rapid flows of information, energy and material’. (5) ‘Evolution in societal systems is emergent in the sense that interaction

900

complexity

in the sense of between

exist-

ing systems has a tendency ent properties to increase

typical

similarity

In the beginning, plexity

within

paradigm

system

are helpful a specific

of future

for it concerns

theory

by the Finnish

by futures

research

research

by the group

This last postulate,

object

connected

for empirical

futures

constitute

a new issue,

to Mannermaa,

‘the

signs of distabilisation

after the “bifurcations”,

for the future.“’

of futures research,

Futures studies would

produces

major

issues and problems

evolutive

etc. and in

social,

econ-

that can be

epochs’.

the present,

is a multiversal

totality

realities’.

to the famous research,

research.

is on the one hand to identify

evolution

the ‘stable

different

and futures of evolutionary

According

alternatives

other

tendency).

it, but the com-

This is no secondary

innovations,

there are many

also during

of several

School.

emerg-

has a tendency

level.’

but in no way

analysis.

of crises, when

But surely

change

of social development possible

below

of a new

of social

studies

level

(convergence

the area of application

a kind of a map of possibilities

changes.

ing implications forecasting.

the evolution

technological

in moments

levels

A Lo Presti

complexity:

systems having

than the levels

of forecasting

movements,

only

(6) ‘The empirical formed

as claimed

it is to try to outline

this way to create

addressed

with

of forecasting

in this model

social

then be relevant or other

at the lower

for defining

the very objectives

signs of breaks,

omic

increases

level societal

The new emerging

is less complex

sector

studies,

role of futures research On the other,

level

tries to link Pentti Malaska’s

These postulations research

new higher

to this new level.

of the components

a new

of the whole

Mannermaa

to create

only

and

research

Fixtures

mu/tib,erse

but remains

oiredlities,

suspended

has many

within

stimulat-

a metatheory

of

Notes and references Futures research is here used as that part of futures studies which seeks for a scientrfic paradigm. For a complete survey of the different ways of thinking about the future, see Barbieri Masini, E., Why Futures Studies!. Grey Seal, London, 1993, pp. 54-56. Bell, W., Is the futures field an art form or can it become a science!. Futures Research Quarter/v, 1987, 3(l), 32. Malaska, P., La ricerca nel campo del futuro. Futuribili, 1994, 1, 90 (translation from Italian). Droysen, J.C. Historik. Die Vorlesungen von 1857. trans. Von P. Leyh, Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt, lY77 (translation form Italian edition, 1994, pp. 87~jB). /hid., p. 162. In 1915 Croce formulated his famous theory according to which ‘All true history is contemporary history’, since the interest always starts from the present toward the past. See Croce, B., Zur theorie und Geschic hte der Hisforiographie. Tubingen, Mohr, 1915. Friedrirh Meinecke discusses the confluence of past and present in one scientific experience, through a process of spiritual enrichment that is the condition for conscious, free indrviduality. See Meinecke, E., Vom geschic htlichen Sinn und vom Sinn der geschichte. Leipzig, 1939. Novaky, E., Chaos theory and futures research, Abstract of paper for the Third International Summer School ot Coriria, ii-9 September 1994: The Problems of the New Europe-Futures Studies, Simulations and Scenarios fat Europe. See Barbieri Masini, E., Why Futures Studies! Crey Seal, London, 1993, pp. 32-36. I e Moigne, I-L., The intelligence of complexity, in The SC ience and Praxis of Complexity, United Nations University. IJNU, Tokyo, 1985, p. 37. Von Foerster, H., Disorder and Order. Proceedings oi the Stanford lnternationnl Symposium 114-l 6 Set,tember 1981). In ed. Paisley Livingston. Anma, 1984. On the difference between the context of discovery and the context of justification, see Keichenbach. H.. Experience ,md Prediction. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1938. Malaska, P., Economic and social evolution: the transformational dynamics approach. In The Mw Evolotiona/-y f’arxfigm, ed. E. Laszlo. Gordon and Breach, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1991, 11. 134.

Futures

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

902

research

Ibid.,

and complexity:

A Lo Presti

p. 133.

Malaska, P., Threefold harmony and societal transformation. Dialogue on the Transition to First International Global Society, 3-9 September 1990, Landegg Academy, p. 3. Ibid., p. 7. Dewey, J., Logic, the Theory of Inquiry. Henry Holt and Co., New York, 1939. Morin, E., la methode. 1. La nature de la nature. Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1977. Norse, D., Scenarios analysis in Interfutures. Futures, 1979, 11 (5),p. 414. Coder, M., De /‘anticipation 2 /‘action. Dunod, Paris, 1991, p. 40. Van Steenbergen, B., The sociologist as social architect. A new task for macro-sociology?. Futures, 1983, 15(5), p. 376. Mannermaa, M., Complexity and system thinking in futures research: from ‘Neutral’ scenarios to value considerations. System Practice, 1988, l(3), p. 286. Ardigb, A., Crisi di governabilki e mondi vita/i. Cappelli, Bologna, 1980 (in Italian). Mannermaa, M. Complexity and systems thinking. ., op. cit., p. 287. The six postulates are proposed in Mannermaa, M., In search of an evolutionary paradigm for futures research. Futures, 1991, 23 (4), p. 358 et seq. Laszlo, E., L’evoluzione della complessita e I’ordine mondiale contemporaneo. In La sfida de/la complessiti, ed. G. Bocchi, M. Ceruti. Feltrinelli, Milano, 1985 (translation from Italian). Funtowicz S. and Ravetz, J.R. Emergent complex systems. Futures, 1994, 26 (61, pp. 577-578. Weber, M., Kritische Studien auf dem Gebiet der Kulturwissenschaftlichen Logik (1906), Gesammelte Aufsdtze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Mohr, Tubingen, 1922 (translation from Italian edition, 1958, p. 217). Mannermaa, M., In search.. ., op. cit., p. 358.