- Email: [email protected]
The futurists' social responsibility
2
The futurists’ social responsibility Olaf Helmer
The fatalistic view that [the future] is unforeseeable and inevitable is being abandoned. It is being recognized that there are a multitude of possible futures and that appropriate intervention can make a difference in their probabilities. This raises the exploration of the future, and the search for ways to influence its direction, to activities of great social responsibility. This responsibility is not just an academic one, and to discharge it more than perfunctorily we must cease to be mere spectators in our own ongoing history, and participate with determination in molding the future. It will take wisdom, courage, and sensitivity to human values to shape a better world. But the time is short, for events move ever more rapidly. Now is the time to commit ourselves fully to the problems of the future of our society.’
The last 15 years have seen much progress in the application of futures research and in the quality of that research. But have we lived up to that responsibility stated above? In many ways we have, but largely by inadvertence rather than design. Too often we have, inevitably, been hampered by the need to prove ourselves in commercially rewarding ways, by producing studies under governmental or business sponsorship. These studies, by and large, have done much to establish a climate of reasonable, though not uncritical, respect for the community of futures researchers. Yet they have imposed certain restrictions that have not always been beneficial for the development of the field, notably by prescribing the subject matter to be studied, by fostering a less-than-systems orientation, and by encouraging reliance on tried techniques rather than experimentation with novel approaches. The result has been that, despite growing professionalism, there has also been some undeniable stagnation. It is perhaps not too soon to seek a revival of the spirit that characterized the futures field at its inception and to remind ourselves of our social responsibility of at least trying to make a small contribution to the improvement of the world around us. There are many potential directions in which we might advance to achieve that purpose. Here is my own starter list (which others, I hope, will add to and elaborate upon): approach to 1. Re-emphasize, and encourage in others, a systems-analytical problem-solving and decision-making, especially with regard to societal issues. Governments still tend to compartmentalize their allocation of effort, with departments. In systems analysis, at best, applied within government Olaf Helmer is Professor Emeritus of the University of Southern California, and a Futures Advisory member. His latest work is Looking Forward, published in 1983. He can be contacted at 26180 Valley Carmel, CA 93923, USA.
0016.3287/84/010002-02$03.000
1984 Butterworth
& Co(Pyblishers)
Ltd
FUTURESFebruary
Board View,
Futurists’ soctal responsibilrty 3
reflecting about the future of our society and analysing the implications of governmental policies, more attention needs to be paid to their overall, interdepartmental benefits, using a systems approach that embraces and cuts across such areas as defence, education, health care, and crime reduction. 2. Put previously tried methods to good use in addressing societal issues, even though their prior application had been primarily in non-societal areas. A case in point is gaming, which offers great promise in cases where social science lacks an adequate theoretical foundation. The prime example here is economics, although other areas, such as international relations or criminal justice, might also profit from new insights gained through simulation gaming. 3. Experiment with new methodological approaches. Let me suggest two possibilities here: I have once described the Delphi technique as one of ‘cybernetic arbitration’. Why not take the arbitration feature seriously? That is, instead of emphasizing the reasons for opinion differences, as has generally been done in Delphi applications, it may be more helpful in some contexts (especially when Delphi is used for decision-making) to seek to conciliate opposing views and thus to lay the foundation for a decision acceptable to all participants. My second suggestion concerns the possibility of extending the theory of games into a tool for dealing with real-life societal conflict situations. In its present form, game theory has made its greatest contribution by a conceptual enrichment of the vocabulary with which to discuss conflict (‘payoff’, ‘strategy’, ‘zero-sum’, ‘min-max’, ‘equilibrium point’, etc), but it has generally failed either to provide acceptable solutions to conflict situations or to predict the behaviour of adversaries. To overcome this deficiency it would be desirable to extend the mathematical theory of games by adjoining to it some elements of the psychological theory of conflict, which would recognize that the behaviour of game players is apt to be modified either by the availability of negotiable cooperative ploys or by the expectation of some tacit cooperation based on a pattern of past accommodation. A combined theory of this kind might offer some hope of alleviating, in particular, some of the tensions permeating the international scene. References 1. From the Institute
for the Future’s
FUTURES February 1984
original prospectus,
1968
The futurists’ social responsibility Olaf Helmer
The fatalistic view that [the future] is unforeseeable and inevitable is being abandoned. It is being recognized that there are a multitude of possible futures and that appropriate intervention can make a difference in their probabilities. This raises the exploration of the future, and the search for ways to influence its direction, to activities of great social responsibility. This responsibility is not just an academic one, and to discharge it more than perfunctorily we must cease to be mere spectators in our own ongoing history, and participate with determination in molding the future. It will take wisdom, courage, and sensitivity to human values to shape a better world. But the time is short, for events move ever more rapidly. Now is the time to commit ourselves fully to the problems of the future of our society.’
The last 15 years have seen much progress in the application of futures research and in the quality of that research. But have we lived up to that responsibility stated above? In many ways we have, but largely by inadvertence rather than design. Too often we have, inevitably, been hampered by the need to prove ourselves in commercially rewarding ways, by producing studies under governmental or business sponsorship. These studies, by and large, have done much to establish a climate of reasonable, though not uncritical, respect for the community of futures researchers. Yet they have imposed certain restrictions that have not always been beneficial for the development of the field, notably by prescribing the subject matter to be studied, by fostering a less-than-systems orientation, and by encouraging reliance on tried techniques rather than experimentation with novel approaches. The result has been that, despite growing professionalism, there has also been some undeniable stagnation. It is perhaps not too soon to seek a revival of the spirit that characterized the futures field at its inception and to remind ourselves of our social responsibility of at least trying to make a small contribution to the improvement of the world around us. There are many potential directions in which we might advance to achieve that purpose. Here is my own starter list (which others, I hope, will add to and elaborate upon): approach to 1. Re-emphasize, and encourage in others, a systems-analytical problem-solving and decision-making, especially with regard to societal issues. Governments still tend to compartmentalize their allocation of effort, with departments. In systems analysis, at best, applied within government Olaf Helmer is Professor Emeritus of the University of Southern California, and a Futures Advisory member. His latest work is Looking Forward, published in 1983. He can be contacted at 26180 Valley Carmel, CA 93923, USA.
0016.3287/84/010002-02$03.000
1984 Butterworth
& Co(Pyblishers)
Ltd
FUTURESFebruary
Board View,
Futurists’ soctal responsibilrty 3
reflecting about the future of our society and analysing the implications of governmental policies, more attention needs to be paid to their overall, interdepartmental benefits, using a systems approach that embraces and cuts across such areas as defence, education, health care, and crime reduction. 2. Put previously tried methods to good use in addressing societal issues, even though their prior application had been primarily in non-societal areas. A case in point is gaming, which offers great promise in cases where social science lacks an adequate theoretical foundation. The prime example here is economics, although other areas, such as international relations or criminal justice, might also profit from new insights gained through simulation gaming. 3. Experiment with new methodological approaches. Let me suggest two possibilities here: I have once described the Delphi technique as one of ‘cybernetic arbitration’. Why not take the arbitration feature seriously? That is, instead of emphasizing the reasons for opinion differences, as has generally been done in Delphi applications, it may be more helpful in some contexts (especially when Delphi is used for decision-making) to seek to conciliate opposing views and thus to lay the foundation for a decision acceptable to all participants. My second suggestion concerns the possibility of extending the theory of games into a tool for dealing with real-life societal conflict situations. In its present form, game theory has made its greatest contribution by a conceptual enrichment of the vocabulary with which to discuss conflict (‘payoff’, ‘strategy’, ‘zero-sum’, ‘min-max’, ‘equilibrium point’, etc), but it has generally failed either to provide acceptable solutions to conflict situations or to predict the behaviour of adversaries. To overcome this deficiency it would be desirable to extend the mathematical theory of games by adjoining to it some elements of the psychological theory of conflict, which would recognize that the behaviour of game players is apt to be modified either by the availability of negotiable cooperative ploys or by the expectation of some tacit cooperation based on a pattern of past accommodation. A combined theory of this kind might offer some hope of alleviating, in particular, some of the tensions permeating the international scene. References 1. From the Institute
for the Future’s
FUTURES February 1984
original prospectus,
1968