While the future was once the place of dreams and possibilities, it has been increasingly colonized as a place of realities and probabilities, of predictions rather than dreams. As the Western, linear mind has sought to colonize geographically, so too has it colonized time, and the future is more and more claimed by those who control the present. We conceive the future according to our view of the present, which is rooted in a concept of progress as a material, scientific, technological progress.

This ‘techno-futures’ vision leaves little scope for a more multi-dimensional future which sees progress in terms of weaving social fabric and improving the quality of our social relationships. And it is often surprising how intensive the resistance is when we try to see the future beyond the narrow confines of technology. Those who want to broaden the debate are contesting the accepted ‘wisdom’ of materialism and colonization, in which ‘the future’ is enlisted to convince us that materialism is progressive because it is linked with technology, and that planning ethical futures is the domain of Luddites.

The challenge thus is to create visions for the future which incorporate not only technologically good futures, but technological development within a good society. Indian philosopher P.R. Sarkar was a firm proponent of scientific advancement, but he argued that science should never be given a higher place in society than civilization. For Sarkar, the civilized society is not based on technology. Civilization is rooted in the development of discriminative judgment - a qualitative, rather than quantitative, measure of success.

John Ralston Saul sees civilisation in a similar way; he refers to western society as an unconscious, as opposed to a conscious, civilization. He argues that although we have become a knowledgeable society, we have not become a conscious society. Rather, we have become, worse than an immoral society, an amoral society. So, while the western world might proclaim itself ‘civilized’ and thereby monopolize the word, Sarkar and Ralston would redefine the notion of civilization.

Our future has become constrained by our amorality, by our lack of discriminative judgment. We have become victims of what ethicist Thomas Murray terms “unilateral moral disarmament”. In our society those things which are the essence of a civilized society are seen as liabilities. As Saul writes, “ . . . [G]rowth as we currently understand it, classifies education as a cost, thus a liability. A golf ball, on the other hand, is an asset and the sale of it a measurable factor of growth. A face lift is an element of economic activity while a heart bypass is a liability which the economy must finance.

“Holidays are among the pearls of the service industry, while child care is a cost.”

Stepping into the future

Similarly, the debate on what is ethical has been narrowed to the material world. There seems to be an almost universal commitment to what is ‘value free,’ which limits our efforts to develop ‘good’ futures. This, by default, commits us to techno-futures which we accept without serious questioning of the values within technology.
In this way, the future has simply been co-opted to support the dominant model of the present - materialism and utilitarianism. The result: more of the same, but dressed up as new. While ‘good futures’ may not make headlines in the same way as ‘techno-futures’, a renaissance of the future becomes part of the creation of a true civilization. To reclaim the future is an important first step in social transformation; for by reclaiming the future, we are reclaiming the right to dream and the right to hope.
The future has the potential to be a repository of hope for the whole society - a place in which the good and the better are possible. When we inhabit the future, we free ourselves from the usual constraints of the present, which censor creative thought and solutions. Stepping into the future can help us envision what we would want and hope for.
It also allows us to contest the uncontestable in the present. The future becomes a safe place for critical reflection on the present.

Thus to study the future becomes a process, rather than an end in itself. It matters little if our vision of the future actually becomes a predictable reality; the process of envisioning the future becomes a tool of liberation from power structures which define and confine our thoughts and actions. In the space between the present and the future we find a powerful force for individual and social transformation: optimism. This can shape the way in which we view and respond to the present. Thus the future brings meaning to the present.

The future then becomes not simply a place of dreams, a place to escape an unpleasant present and make us ‘feel good’; rather it becomes a place for the (re)generation of optimism and inspiration, a temporal version of the yogi’s retreat to the Himalayas. And what is generated in that place becomes a powerful tool of personal and social transformation - a mantra for the whole society.
Yoga psychologist Ananda Mitra cites research which connects hope and recovery in cancer patients. She relates this research to Eastern Tantric philosophy which recognises the powerful impact of the cakras (psychic energy centres in the body) upon our expression and sense of physical and mental well-being. She argues that hope, a propensity of mind associated with the heart cakra, is integral to our personal and, by extension, our social balance. Hope brings with it a sense of expansion of mind and of creativity which evokes powerful and resourceful personal and social responses; responses which differ markedly from those we find in a social climate where intuition and mystery are suppressed by an over-developed sense of realism, which stifles creative responses and creates a fear of challenging the status quo.

Alternative Knowing

In working for constructive social change, hope is essential. In its absence, social reform becomes a fatalistic form of damage control. This can only result in a ‘more of the same, but a little better’ vision of the future. This outlook may help us avoid disappointment in the short-term. In the long-term this fatalism creates such a dampening of the spirit that any social change is bound to be mere reform rather than revolution. Without the subtle energy which optimism brings to social action, the courage to contest that which has been made uncontestable remains elusive. Attempts at social change then become disempowered and, once disarmed, become tolerated as merely token pockets of dissent.

Thus visiting the future becomes important, not only in a solitary sense of creating a positive internal space, but also in a community sense. Future studies can be seen as a collective view of alternative possibilities, providing a sense of solidarity in the present, the sense of belonging to a broader movement which affirms alternative ways of knowing.

This sense of belonging to something larger is important to us all, for it somehow invisibly ties us together and becomes a force, a voice, behind the words which we each speak and somehow echoes our words, and amplifies their sound.

Placing ‘the good’ back on the social agenda is the first step in contesting the materialist model in which wisdom and the spirit are given a back seat to all that we can see and touch. And, for myself, that reclaiming of wisdom must be supported by the vision and force of optimism derived from a positive belief in the future.

References available upon request

This article was published in New Renaissance, Vol. 10, no. 1.

Jennifer Jayanti Fitzgerald was a lawyer, bio-ethicist, Ph.D. candidate and writer. She passed away 7 September, 2000. This was her last article for  New Renaissance.