- Email: [email protected]
How I have lived and live the past and present of Futures and how I see its futures
906
Symposium / Futures 40 (2008) 893–926
think. I looked at the magnificent scene before me: the sun was shining on the Pacific in the distance, and a soft wind was blowing. I wiped a few tears of nostalgia from my eyes, and wondered about the futures of the futures. Will it ever make traction and move forward, or will we continue to spin our wheels forever in the present? What a great promise it once had. Would giants like its founders ever appear again? I walked back to the Futures Center, where Jake Dunagan, Stuart Candy, Shanah Trevenna, and Seongwon Park were at work, and I immediately knew the answer to that question. Yes! There the emerging giants of the futures were online with their cohorts around the world, taking over and succeeding where we had failed. While the futures of the world looks grim, the futures of futures looks great. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.025
How I have lived and live the past and present of Futures and how I see its futures Eleonora Barbieri Masini Via A. Bertoloni 23, 00197 Rome, Italy Available online 22 July 2008
1. Some articles from the 40 years of Futures to which I like to return and read again The first issue of Futures appeared 40 years ago, and I became acquainted with the journal as early as 1970 when I had my first direct contacts with the futurists of that time. In 1970 I attended my first Futures Studies conference where I met many of the scholars crucial for the development of Futures at that time. I had come to Futures Studies, or future research as it was then called, by chance, while conducting university research on social change and had encountered writers such Bertrand de Jouvenel, Robert Jungk and John McHale, to whom I wrote letters, at that time by ordinary mail. They all replied, and I hence became increasingly interested and decided to continue with these studies. Futures was founded in 1968, and it was crucial not only for me, a newcomer to the field, but also for futures studies in general. Futuribles was founded in 1975. The International Committee Futuribles Group had published Analyse et Pre´vision in 1966, by Bertrand and He´le`ne de Jouvenel in order to disseminate the work begun in 1960 in Paris and followed by Prospective in 1970. Technological Forecasting and Social Change started in 1969 and The Futurist in 1967: these two journals were both published in the USA. Futures was initially produced in cooperation with the Institute for the Future, at that time located in Connecticut. It was the most widely read futures publication in English in Europe, and its editor was Guy Streatfield, whom I had the opportunity to meet and appreciate in 1973 at the Special World Conference on Futures Studies. I organized this conference in Rome for the newly founded World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF), which was truly international with its more than 200 participants from all regions of the world including Eastern and Central European countries, Asia and Africa. It is interesting to underline that between the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s many of the most important journals in the area of Futures Studies, were started. On re-reading some of the articles in Futures contributed by so many thinkers over the years, one finds very good examples of how much had not only been already perceived but also deeply analysed. An interesting example in the issue of June 1971 is the article by Geoffrey Vickers, who argues that ‘‘distributive ethics are not the whole all of ethics. They monopolize attention only when collective goals cease to inspire vision and faith needed to achieve them’’ [1]. I think this is a point which has become increasingly important, and it would be interesting for futurists to analyse what and in which directions this process has changed or reinforced itself, so as to depict what kind of ethics are possible in the future. In the same issue, Fred Charles Ikle`, one of the contributors to the well known Towards the Year 2000 edited by Daniel Bell, discusses how values affect social forecasting, as it was then called, and writes: ‘‘Changes in values will influence the future as much as changes in technology’’ [2]. These examples show how much had been understood 37 years ago and, in many cases of futures studies, forgotten by many futurists, albeit with important exceptions such as Wendell Bell. The December issue of 1974 contains Christopher Freeman’s [3] discussion of Robert Heibroner on the same lines, as already developed in a special Futures issue in 1973, not very long after publication of ‘‘The Limits to Growth’’. The discussion concerned Heibroner’s book Human Prospect and received contributions from many members of the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, which played a very important role in the worldwide debate on the Club of Rome’s first publication, and on global models in general. E-mail address: [email protected].
Symposium / Futures 40 (2008) 893–926
907
Jumping across the years I would like to cite a few more examples that resonate in the present because of their anticipatory perspectives. The February issue of 1989 is a special issue to which I often return for various reasons. It was edited by Magda Cordell McHale, who died this year, and it bore the title Gender and Change [4]. I return to this issue because it is a very good example of how important women’s role in building futures has been. It is also a rather rare example of a collection of writings by women as futurist thinkers. But the authors are not only women, because there are three articles by such excellent male futurists as David Loye, Ian Miles and Mochtar Lubis. Loye [5] takes up the thinking expressed by Riane Eisler in her article on partnership society at the global level, analysis which she is still developing and examines such a society both globally and at the level of dyadic partnership. This view of partnership at different levels is indeed of importance today in terms of possible alternative futures for societies, as well as for personal living. Alternatives to increasing conflicts at personal, community, nation state and global levels still seem mere utopias; but in my view they can be depicted as incipient, and they do exist if we look at what I have for some time been calling ‘‘seeds of change’’, and which have been recently termed ‘‘weak signals’’ by many futurists. Whatever one wishes to call them, they imply the possibility of alternatives, hence possibilities of futures alternative to the perpetuation and reinforcement of strongly visible trends such as increasing conflict at every level. These ‘‘seeds of change’’ raise challenges for futurists in search of possible alternative futures. Ian Miles underlines the implications for men of the changes in women’s awareness and he, at the same time, challenges, in my view, not only masculinity in its various forms, but more over a strong sense of responsibility by women in society. In the same issue Mochtar Lubis interestingly writes ‘‘it is time that women fully play their role in co-deciding the future of human kind in this world’’ [6]. At a distance of more than 20 years, the extent to which this is happening, and moreover how much has still to be done by women and men, is the main question. I think this issue of Futures affords much reflection on anticipatory thinking, as well as on the efforts made or not made sufficiently by women and men. It is in my view a call to reactivate what seemed clear; but it should be viewed in the present social context towards possible and needed futures. It is interesting that the special issue was conceived and put together by a futurist who was also an artist and a highly imaginative thinker. Going through the years of Futures, I wish to recall two further issues to which I often return and read again. One is the special issue of August–September 1996 edited by Sohail Inayatullah [7] on what Futurists think. This issue, after more than 10 years and with all the developments achieved by the various authors since then, highlights the differences and similarities among the authors at personal level, as well as providing a very good example of alternative futures as seen by each as well as most of them. I also return to these various contributions for encouragement. By this I mean reinforcement of my strong belief that being involved in Futures Studies means assuming responsibility for what we write or say, and most of all a responsibility towards future generations, even those not yet born. This last point is often forgotten in present Futures Studies, or it is not treated as it should be, on whatever subject. Above all, it is not considered in terms of the rights possessed in the future by the young or even unborn generations. I wish to conclude these reflections by going back to the special issue of April/May 2002 edited by Richard Slaughter on the ‘‘Futures of Futures Studies’’. In it the editor makes two points, which, in my view, are very important today at a time when many futurists and also organizations are reflecting on their role. ‘‘For those who have been associated with the field of Futures Studies (FS) for some time the outlook early in the third Millennium is ambiguous. On one hand, there are all the globe-spanning activities that make them a stimulating and ever more productive area of work. On the other, is a sense that, by now it should have done more, gone further’’ [8]. This is, I think, the same ambiguity that many of us involved in the area see and feel today. At the same time Slaughter adds that: ‘‘The majority of the papers presented here (in this specific issue), suggest that, while FS may yet not have achieved complete maturity as a discipline, it is well past adolescence. It embraces a range of powerful ideas and potentially transforming social practices’’ [9]. My question is this: has the field developed further in these 6 years? My answer would be that in some cases it has, and mostly in the awareness that Futures Studies need increasingly sound education in the area, as some interesting initiatives in Europe and Latin America show, whilst in other cases it has not developed significantly. I strongly believe that this is an important task for Futures in the coming years: to develop a debate on what is needed at this point in time and what steps should be taken. 2. What does the journal mean to me? The journal is, above all, a way for me to keep abreast of changes and developments in Futures Studies. This seems obvious, but at the same time it concerns specific interests, which I shall try to describe. Reading Futures means capturing international interests with their differentiations and commonalities. Specific areas of interest in a country or group of countries, in their turn, offer the opportunity to reflect on the reasons for the choice of a given topic usually reiterated in the same country or group of countries. Why do futurists or researchers in different disciplines, in a given country or set of countries, concentrate, for example, on technologies and often specific technologies and their social impact or, on the contrary, concentrate on the use of specific methods? Even more important, in my view, is that the areas chosen by futurists in certain countries show the values, which influence their choices. This consideration gives the reader better understanding of the reasons why the writers of a
908
Symposium / Futures 40 (2008) 893–926
country or group of countries are interested in a specific topic. The reader’s view should also be deepened by searching for the reasons for the choices, and indeed the underlying values. One often discovers the underlying connections that extend beyond schools of thought or specific university groups. Over the years, reading Futures has encouraged me in this direction. The international, and even better the intercultural perspective, of the journal also makes it possible to see how changes are taking place in the various areas of human interest, and how they are affecting, or may affect more in the future, the lives of persons and societies in the different parts of the world. A good example is the growing interest of Futures Studies in converging technologies, not only in themselves, but more importantly in regard to their ethical, social and legal consequences. I have also appreciated the fact that some of the journal’s issues concentrate on specific methods in their different uses and developments. This encourages the critical approach, which, as already said, is indispensable in Futures Studies. 3. Where could Futures go during the next 40 years? One important indication is that Futures should become even more international, seeking out less visible future research and studies carried out in less well known environments and countries, such as Latin America, where much is being developed with different aims and hence different basic values. Futures could search for scholars working with different perspectives. This could be accomplished by contacting some of those futurists that have been operating for some time, as well as very new groups, which have been less visible at global level but are operating in regions less well covered by Futures Studies publications. These unknown areas will increase as countries become more and more aware of the need for future thinking and Futures could encourage their futures perspectives. There are very important geographical areas, such as Latin America, in which groups or people work in Futures Studies but which, to my knowledge, have not been sufficiently published outside Latin and North America. More difficult is finding research in Africa, as well as new developments in Eastern and Central European in recent years. In these countries, with the exception of Hungary, which is very active in the region and well known, there are other groups working in the area and in different manners. Indications could be found in Universities research in some of such countries. Interesting changes are taking place in the discipline in countries such as Poland and Slovenia, This would not only enlarge the international spectrum but would increase the visibility of such studies as well as enabling the further development of the intercultural and critical perspectives that Futures Studies should always foster. Determining how much is being done in these regions following mainly Western countries, and how much is being done in a critical and more culture-related manner, would be an interesting contribution by Futures to the discipline, developing further what it has achieved in recent years. Perhaps in some cases such endeavours are not pertinent to Futures Studies, but they have a medium and long-term future perspective, especially in alternative policy terms. Such areas could be investigated in regard to education, culture, as well as women’s issues. They are what I have called in different contexts ‘‘seeds of change’’, which may be indications not yet as well known as Futures Studies in other parts of the world but are nevertheless of interest for their possible development, not only in their context but also at a more international level. One way to recognize such ‘‘seeds of change’’ might be to follow suggestions by those whom, we futurists, have had as students from such regions and who have returned to their countries. Much of what is developed in the area in Asia and close to Asia and Australia has long been in Futures for historical reasons. It is now the time to enlarge the perspective, because the journal has always been open to what is new so as to foster its multicultural and critical perspectives further. Another area which I think may be useful is critical and open debate or dialogue among futurists, as well as, if possible, with the media, which often offer futures perspectives which are debatable and based on personal views and interpretations that may be appealing, or at least attract attention, but are not well founded. Again this is a critical approach serving a constructive and educational purpose. 4. Conclusion In the past 40 years, Futures has acted as a guide and resource for futurists all over the world by continuously enlarging its perspectives in terms of content as well as its international spectrum. At present, and in view of the future, Futures Studies will not only be needed in a constantly changing social context, but will have to find ways to achieve a stronger impact on decision making, whatever its level and area of interest. The inclusion of writings by the media could be a first step, however difficult, in starting this critical debate. Futures can well become the port parole of this change in future thinking. I also see the strengthening of a multicultural and critical attitude which is already very strong in Futures, and is, in my view, increasingly important for the future which will become ever more multicultural. This will indeed raising issues of more conflicts but also of possibilities of understanding differences, not only at the level of ideas with consequences for decision making, but also for people themselves in their decisions. Hence the ideas and debates which have always been carried out with responsibility in Futures, by its editors and writers, and which is one of its strong points will become, I believe, even more influential.
Symposium / Futures 40 (2008) 893–926
909
References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
G. Vickers, Changing ethics of distribution, Futures 3 (2) (1971) 132. I.C. Ikle`, Social forecasting and the problem of changing values, Futures 3 (3) (1971) 142. C. Freeman, The luxury of despair, Futures 6 (6) (1974) 450–462. M. Cordell McHale, Gender and change, Futures 21 (1) (1989) 3–112. D. Loye, The partnership society: personal practice, Futures 21 (1) (1989). M. Lubis, The praise of women and suffering, Futures 2 (1) (1989). S. Inayatullah, What futurists think, Futures 28 (6–7) (1996). R. Slaughter, Where now for futures studies, Futures 34 (3/4) (2002) 229. R Slaughter, Where now for futures studies? Futures 34 (3/4) (2002) 232.
doi:10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.026
Futures: The next big things Bruce Tonn * Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, McClung Tower, Room 1018, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA Available online 22 July 2008
Futures’ essential character was revealed in its very first issue, in 1968. Here are the articles that were published in that inaugural issue:
Futures—Confidence from Chaos by Anon. (0, 0) World Energy Resources in Future by J. McHale (2, 1) Future Prices in Long-Term Forecasting by E. Fontela and G. McNeil (0, 0) Value of Technological Forecasting for Research and Development Manager by M. Cetron and E. Mahinske (3, 1) Human Futures by R. Jungk (1, 0) The Role of Futures in Government by Y. Dror (4, 0) Problems of Futures Research in Social Sciences by K. Lompe (2, 0) Future of Eskimo by J. Lotz (1, 0)
Captured in these titles are concerns about a worldwide policy issue (e.g., energy), deep thoughts about the future of the human race, an appreciation for the transformative impacts of technology, an interest in methodology, and concerns for indigenous peoples. From the beginning, Futures has featured an eclectic and wide-ranging array of articles on topics as diverse as the future of Australia, the future of space exploration, and how to design and implement the Delphi technique. Appendix A contains the titles of the main articles published at four other times during Futures’ history, the first issues of volumes 10, 20, 30, and 40, published in 1978, 1988, 1998, and 2008, respectively. Each of these issues provides readers with the same delicious selection of multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary, and trans-disciplinary articles that futurists need for their intellectual sustenance. Some topics such as energy, technology assessment, and forecasting received repeated attention. Academia, action research, spirituality, manufacturing, and Canada are some of the other topics addressed by Futures authors in these milestone issues. To prepare myself to write this piece, through the wonders of the Internet I reviewed the titles of all articles ever published in Futures. Although I have been publishing in Futures since 1986, starting with my own eclectic piece entitled ‘‘Using Possibility Functions for Long Term Environmental Planning,’’ I wanted to make sure that my basic observations about Futures were supportable. I think they are, because one can add to the titles listed above and in Appendix A articles on such wide ranging topics as robotics, women’s issues, the future of Islam, complexity theory, cities and transportation, and nano-technology. For me, Futures has been the most important outlet for my thought pieces about the future, a gift that I will always cherish. Like most authors, I hope that people will read and appreciate my work. Certainly, within the futures community, I am pleased that several of my proposals have been critically received, such as the Court of Generations and non-spatial government. Also, like most authors, I hope that my work will be cited by others. In this regard, I have been disappointed but I am definitely not alone. Within the parentheses following each article title listed above and in Appendix A are two numbers. The first one shows how many times that that article has been cited by other authors in articles published in journals tracked by the influential Web of Science. The second numbers shows how many times that article were cited in other articles published in Futures. * Tel.: +1 865 974 7041. E-mail address: [email protected].
Symposium / Futures 40 (2008) 893–926
think. I looked at the magnificent scene before me: the sun was shining on the Pacific in the distance, and a soft wind was blowing. I wiped a few tears of nostalgia from my eyes, and wondered about the futures of the futures. Will it ever make traction and move forward, or will we continue to spin our wheels forever in the present? What a great promise it once had. Would giants like its founders ever appear again? I walked back to the Futures Center, where Jake Dunagan, Stuart Candy, Shanah Trevenna, and Seongwon Park were at work, and I immediately knew the answer to that question. Yes! There the emerging giants of the futures were online with their cohorts around the world, taking over and succeeding where we had failed. While the futures of the world looks grim, the futures of futures looks great. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.025
How I have lived and live the past and present of Futures and how I see its futures Eleonora Barbieri Masini Via A. Bertoloni 23, 00197 Rome, Italy Available online 22 July 2008
1. Some articles from the 40 years of Futures to which I like to return and read again The first issue of Futures appeared 40 years ago, and I became acquainted with the journal as early as 1970 when I had my first direct contacts with the futurists of that time. In 1970 I attended my first Futures Studies conference where I met many of the scholars crucial for the development of Futures at that time. I had come to Futures Studies, or future research as it was then called, by chance, while conducting university research on social change and had encountered writers such Bertrand de Jouvenel, Robert Jungk and John McHale, to whom I wrote letters, at that time by ordinary mail. They all replied, and I hence became increasingly interested and decided to continue with these studies. Futures was founded in 1968, and it was crucial not only for me, a newcomer to the field, but also for futures studies in general. Futuribles was founded in 1975. The International Committee Futuribles Group had published Analyse et Pre´vision in 1966, by Bertrand and He´le`ne de Jouvenel in order to disseminate the work begun in 1960 in Paris and followed by Prospective in 1970. Technological Forecasting and Social Change started in 1969 and The Futurist in 1967: these two journals were both published in the USA. Futures was initially produced in cooperation with the Institute for the Future, at that time located in Connecticut. It was the most widely read futures publication in English in Europe, and its editor was Guy Streatfield, whom I had the opportunity to meet and appreciate in 1973 at the Special World Conference on Futures Studies. I organized this conference in Rome for the newly founded World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF), which was truly international with its more than 200 participants from all regions of the world including Eastern and Central European countries, Asia and Africa. It is interesting to underline that between the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s many of the most important journals in the area of Futures Studies, were started. On re-reading some of the articles in Futures contributed by so many thinkers over the years, one finds very good examples of how much had not only been already perceived but also deeply analysed. An interesting example in the issue of June 1971 is the article by Geoffrey Vickers, who argues that ‘‘distributive ethics are not the whole all of ethics. They monopolize attention only when collective goals cease to inspire vision and faith needed to achieve them’’ [1]. I think this is a point which has become increasingly important, and it would be interesting for futurists to analyse what and in which directions this process has changed or reinforced itself, so as to depict what kind of ethics are possible in the future. In the same issue, Fred Charles Ikle`, one of the contributors to the well known Towards the Year 2000 edited by Daniel Bell, discusses how values affect social forecasting, as it was then called, and writes: ‘‘Changes in values will influence the future as much as changes in technology’’ [2]. These examples show how much had been understood 37 years ago and, in many cases of futures studies, forgotten by many futurists, albeit with important exceptions such as Wendell Bell. The December issue of 1974 contains Christopher Freeman’s [3] discussion of Robert Heibroner on the same lines, as already developed in a special Futures issue in 1973, not very long after publication of ‘‘The Limits to Growth’’. The discussion concerned Heibroner’s book Human Prospect and received contributions from many members of the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, which played a very important role in the worldwide debate on the Club of Rome’s first publication, and on global models in general. E-mail address: [email protected].
Symposium / Futures 40 (2008) 893–926
907
Jumping across the years I would like to cite a few more examples that resonate in the present because of their anticipatory perspectives. The February issue of 1989 is a special issue to which I often return for various reasons. It was edited by Magda Cordell McHale, who died this year, and it bore the title Gender and Change [4]. I return to this issue because it is a very good example of how important women’s role in building futures has been. It is also a rather rare example of a collection of writings by women as futurist thinkers. But the authors are not only women, because there are three articles by such excellent male futurists as David Loye, Ian Miles and Mochtar Lubis. Loye [5] takes up the thinking expressed by Riane Eisler in her article on partnership society at the global level, analysis which she is still developing and examines such a society both globally and at the level of dyadic partnership. This view of partnership at different levels is indeed of importance today in terms of possible alternative futures for societies, as well as for personal living. Alternatives to increasing conflicts at personal, community, nation state and global levels still seem mere utopias; but in my view they can be depicted as incipient, and they do exist if we look at what I have for some time been calling ‘‘seeds of change’’, and which have been recently termed ‘‘weak signals’’ by many futurists. Whatever one wishes to call them, they imply the possibility of alternatives, hence possibilities of futures alternative to the perpetuation and reinforcement of strongly visible trends such as increasing conflict at every level. These ‘‘seeds of change’’ raise challenges for futurists in search of possible alternative futures. Ian Miles underlines the implications for men of the changes in women’s awareness and he, at the same time, challenges, in my view, not only masculinity in its various forms, but more over a strong sense of responsibility by women in society. In the same issue Mochtar Lubis interestingly writes ‘‘it is time that women fully play their role in co-deciding the future of human kind in this world’’ [6]. At a distance of more than 20 years, the extent to which this is happening, and moreover how much has still to be done by women and men, is the main question. I think this issue of Futures affords much reflection on anticipatory thinking, as well as on the efforts made or not made sufficiently by women and men. It is in my view a call to reactivate what seemed clear; but it should be viewed in the present social context towards possible and needed futures. It is interesting that the special issue was conceived and put together by a futurist who was also an artist and a highly imaginative thinker. Going through the years of Futures, I wish to recall two further issues to which I often return and read again. One is the special issue of August–September 1996 edited by Sohail Inayatullah [7] on what Futurists think. This issue, after more than 10 years and with all the developments achieved by the various authors since then, highlights the differences and similarities among the authors at personal level, as well as providing a very good example of alternative futures as seen by each as well as most of them. I also return to these various contributions for encouragement. By this I mean reinforcement of my strong belief that being involved in Futures Studies means assuming responsibility for what we write or say, and most of all a responsibility towards future generations, even those not yet born. This last point is often forgotten in present Futures Studies, or it is not treated as it should be, on whatever subject. Above all, it is not considered in terms of the rights possessed in the future by the young or even unborn generations. I wish to conclude these reflections by going back to the special issue of April/May 2002 edited by Richard Slaughter on the ‘‘Futures of Futures Studies’’. In it the editor makes two points, which, in my view, are very important today at a time when many futurists and also organizations are reflecting on their role. ‘‘For those who have been associated with the field of Futures Studies (FS) for some time the outlook early in the third Millennium is ambiguous. On one hand, there are all the globe-spanning activities that make them a stimulating and ever more productive area of work. On the other, is a sense that, by now it should have done more, gone further’’ [8]. This is, I think, the same ambiguity that many of us involved in the area see and feel today. At the same time Slaughter adds that: ‘‘The majority of the papers presented here (in this specific issue), suggest that, while FS may yet not have achieved complete maturity as a discipline, it is well past adolescence. It embraces a range of powerful ideas and potentially transforming social practices’’ [9]. My question is this: has the field developed further in these 6 years? My answer would be that in some cases it has, and mostly in the awareness that Futures Studies need increasingly sound education in the area, as some interesting initiatives in Europe and Latin America show, whilst in other cases it has not developed significantly. I strongly believe that this is an important task for Futures in the coming years: to develop a debate on what is needed at this point in time and what steps should be taken. 2. What does the journal mean to me? The journal is, above all, a way for me to keep abreast of changes and developments in Futures Studies. This seems obvious, but at the same time it concerns specific interests, which I shall try to describe. Reading Futures means capturing international interests with their differentiations and commonalities. Specific areas of interest in a country or group of countries, in their turn, offer the opportunity to reflect on the reasons for the choice of a given topic usually reiterated in the same country or group of countries. Why do futurists or researchers in different disciplines, in a given country or set of countries, concentrate, for example, on technologies and often specific technologies and their social impact or, on the contrary, concentrate on the use of specific methods? Even more important, in my view, is that the areas chosen by futurists in certain countries show the values, which influence their choices. This consideration gives the reader better understanding of the reasons why the writers of a
908
Symposium / Futures 40 (2008) 893–926
country or group of countries are interested in a specific topic. The reader’s view should also be deepened by searching for the reasons for the choices, and indeed the underlying values. One often discovers the underlying connections that extend beyond schools of thought or specific university groups. Over the years, reading Futures has encouraged me in this direction. The international, and even better the intercultural perspective, of the journal also makes it possible to see how changes are taking place in the various areas of human interest, and how they are affecting, or may affect more in the future, the lives of persons and societies in the different parts of the world. A good example is the growing interest of Futures Studies in converging technologies, not only in themselves, but more importantly in regard to their ethical, social and legal consequences. I have also appreciated the fact that some of the journal’s issues concentrate on specific methods in their different uses and developments. This encourages the critical approach, which, as already said, is indispensable in Futures Studies. 3. Where could Futures go during the next 40 years? One important indication is that Futures should become even more international, seeking out less visible future research and studies carried out in less well known environments and countries, such as Latin America, where much is being developed with different aims and hence different basic values. Futures could search for scholars working with different perspectives. This could be accomplished by contacting some of those futurists that have been operating for some time, as well as very new groups, which have been less visible at global level but are operating in regions less well covered by Futures Studies publications. These unknown areas will increase as countries become more and more aware of the need for future thinking and Futures could encourage their futures perspectives. There are very important geographical areas, such as Latin America, in which groups or people work in Futures Studies but which, to my knowledge, have not been sufficiently published outside Latin and North America. More difficult is finding research in Africa, as well as new developments in Eastern and Central European in recent years. In these countries, with the exception of Hungary, which is very active in the region and well known, there are other groups working in the area and in different manners. Indications could be found in Universities research in some of such countries. Interesting changes are taking place in the discipline in countries such as Poland and Slovenia, This would not only enlarge the international spectrum but would increase the visibility of such studies as well as enabling the further development of the intercultural and critical perspectives that Futures Studies should always foster. Determining how much is being done in these regions following mainly Western countries, and how much is being done in a critical and more culture-related manner, would be an interesting contribution by Futures to the discipline, developing further what it has achieved in recent years. Perhaps in some cases such endeavours are not pertinent to Futures Studies, but they have a medium and long-term future perspective, especially in alternative policy terms. Such areas could be investigated in regard to education, culture, as well as women’s issues. They are what I have called in different contexts ‘‘seeds of change’’, which may be indications not yet as well known as Futures Studies in other parts of the world but are nevertheless of interest for their possible development, not only in their context but also at a more international level. One way to recognize such ‘‘seeds of change’’ might be to follow suggestions by those whom, we futurists, have had as students from such regions and who have returned to their countries. Much of what is developed in the area in Asia and close to Asia and Australia has long been in Futures for historical reasons. It is now the time to enlarge the perspective, because the journal has always been open to what is new so as to foster its multicultural and critical perspectives further. Another area which I think may be useful is critical and open debate or dialogue among futurists, as well as, if possible, with the media, which often offer futures perspectives which are debatable and based on personal views and interpretations that may be appealing, or at least attract attention, but are not well founded. Again this is a critical approach serving a constructive and educational purpose. 4. Conclusion In the past 40 years, Futures has acted as a guide and resource for futurists all over the world by continuously enlarging its perspectives in terms of content as well as its international spectrum. At present, and in view of the future, Futures Studies will not only be needed in a constantly changing social context, but will have to find ways to achieve a stronger impact on decision making, whatever its level and area of interest. The inclusion of writings by the media could be a first step, however difficult, in starting this critical debate. Futures can well become the port parole of this change in future thinking. I also see the strengthening of a multicultural and critical attitude which is already very strong in Futures, and is, in my view, increasingly important for the future which will become ever more multicultural. This will indeed raising issues of more conflicts but also of possibilities of understanding differences, not only at the level of ideas with consequences for decision making, but also for people themselves in their decisions. Hence the ideas and debates which have always been carried out with responsibility in Futures, by its editors and writers, and which is one of its strong points will become, I believe, even more influential.
Symposium / Futures 40 (2008) 893–926
909
References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
G. Vickers, Changing ethics of distribution, Futures 3 (2) (1971) 132. I.C. Ikle`, Social forecasting and the problem of changing values, Futures 3 (3) (1971) 142. C. Freeman, The luxury of despair, Futures 6 (6) (1974) 450–462. M. Cordell McHale, Gender and change, Futures 21 (1) (1989) 3–112. D. Loye, The partnership society: personal practice, Futures 21 (1) (1989). M. Lubis, The praise of women and suffering, Futures 2 (1) (1989). S. Inayatullah, What futurists think, Futures 28 (6–7) (1996). R. Slaughter, Where now for futures studies, Futures 34 (3/4) (2002) 229. R Slaughter, Where now for futures studies? Futures 34 (3/4) (2002) 232.
doi:10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.026
Futures: The next big things Bruce Tonn * Department of Political Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, McClung Tower, Room 1018, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA Available online 22 July 2008
Futures’ essential character was revealed in its very first issue, in 1968. Here are the articles that were published in that inaugural issue:
Futures—Confidence from Chaos by Anon. (0, 0) World Energy Resources in Future by J. McHale (2, 1) Future Prices in Long-Term Forecasting by E. Fontela and G. McNeil (0, 0) Value of Technological Forecasting for Research and Development Manager by M. Cetron and E. Mahinske (3, 1) Human Futures by R. Jungk (1, 0) The Role of Futures in Government by Y. Dror (4, 0) Problems of Futures Research in Social Sciences by K. Lompe (2, 0) Future of Eskimo by J. Lotz (1, 0)
Captured in these titles are concerns about a worldwide policy issue (e.g., energy), deep thoughts about the future of the human race, an appreciation for the transformative impacts of technology, an interest in methodology, and concerns for indigenous peoples. From the beginning, Futures has featured an eclectic and wide-ranging array of articles on topics as diverse as the future of Australia, the future of space exploration, and how to design and implement the Delphi technique. Appendix A contains the titles of the main articles published at four other times during Futures’ history, the first issues of volumes 10, 20, 30, and 40, published in 1978, 1988, 1998, and 2008, respectively. Each of these issues provides readers with the same delicious selection of multi-disciplinary, inter-disciplinary, and trans-disciplinary articles that futurists need for their intellectual sustenance. Some topics such as energy, technology assessment, and forecasting received repeated attention. Academia, action research, spirituality, manufacturing, and Canada are some of the other topics addressed by Futures authors in these milestone issues. To prepare myself to write this piece, through the wonders of the Internet I reviewed the titles of all articles ever published in Futures. Although I have been publishing in Futures since 1986, starting with my own eclectic piece entitled ‘‘Using Possibility Functions for Long Term Environmental Planning,’’ I wanted to make sure that my basic observations about Futures were supportable. I think they are, because one can add to the titles listed above and in Appendix A articles on such wide ranging topics as robotics, women’s issues, the future of Islam, complexity theory, cities and transportation, and nano-technology. For me, Futures has been the most important outlet for my thought pieces about the future, a gift that I will always cherish. Like most authors, I hope that people will read and appreciate my work. Certainly, within the futures community, I am pleased that several of my proposals have been critically received, such as the Court of Generations and non-spatial government. Also, like most authors, I hope that my work will be cited by others. In this regard, I have been disappointed but I am definitely not alone. Within the parentheses following each article title listed above and in Appendix A are two numbers. The first one shows how many times that that article has been cited by other authors in articles published in journals tracked by the influential Web of Science. The second numbers shows how many times that article were cited in other articles published in Futures. * Tel.: +1 865 974 7041. E-mail address: [email protected].