Overview
Henchey (1978) describes the taxonomy of futures as four main classifications- preferable, possible, plausible, and probable. Charles Taylor (1990), wrote of a theoretical framework, by which one could project their thoughts into the future. This framework consisted of a range of plausible futures by having various planes of projected scenarios. It also compromised a ‘back cone’ which allowed to have a range of plausible pasts. Theorists have since, built on the ‘cone of plausibility’ and expanded the four classifications to include 6 significant aspects of futures adding ‘preposterous’ and ‘projected’. A classification of ‘wildcard’ also exists in some frameworks, which by definition are low probability events that might make huge impacts if occurred.
These classifications are based on the starting point of the cone, which is the present moment. As the present moment changes with increments in time, these classes are subject to change.
Voros (2003) speaks about yet another classification, the predictable future- the future which is most likely to happen. This is the future that ‘someone’ claims will happen. Many futurists are now focusing on exploring the plausible and probable futures in the hope of shaping a preferable future (Amara, 1991). Uncertainty has become fear and designers are being asked to ‘fix’ a plausible future into a preferred one.
Voros(2003)
Theory of changeTheory of change is a process wherein a group of stakeholders plan a process by using a framework to identify long term goals and unfold the actions needed to be done today in order to achieve that goal. It describes the actions and interventions needed to be taken to achieve the desired outcome.
A pathway in the theory of change is the path taken to reach your long term goal. This sets the world on the path to a preferred future. Designers and innovators use the framework of the futures cone and inculcate the theory of change. New technologies are invented using these frameworks by considering the path to be taken from the present moment.
The uneven cone
The origin of the futures cone (Voros,2003) is the present moment. However, this present moment is denoted by a point of reference in the ‘Now’ line axis. The fact that everyone is at a single point in the present moment can be inferred from these diagrams. This draws attention from the fact that every individual will have their own single point of the present moment thus altering their cones of the future. Tonkinwise(2014) says this assumption is captured accurately by the diagram when it insists that “we” are all at one singular point in time, the apex of the cones from which all possible futures narrowly extend. He compares his cone to the communities of indigenous people and points out that his cone would be different than theirs due to his position of privilege.
These classifications are based on the starting point of the cone, which is the present moment. As the present moment changes with increments in time, these classes are subject to change.
William Gibson says, “The future is already here- it is just not very evenly distributed.” The explanation for this quote might be interpreted as the inequalities of the past and the present being carried on to alternative futures. Often, experts and visionaries, while creating narratives of the future exclude certain social groups (gender, class, race, physical ability, etc.) be it intentionally or not. In order to create a future wherein there is lesser or hopefully, no exclusion or isolation, the present moment has to be taken into consideration. These inequalities can be dealt with in the present by exploring the existing differences that can create unequal futures. This would be helpful to those who are excluded from mainstream narratives of change. (Charton, Newmarch, 2017)
The back cone
Taylor, in his cone of plausibility, mentions a back cone, which explores the range of plausible pasts. This cone has a historical significance plane, with increments in time that finally comes to the past and in turn the today. The back cone has lines of the axis which are - limit of interpretation and the limit of evidence. The baseline for the back cone is described as the line of historic facts.
The possible worlds as a range of plausible pasts can be sought by using the framework of a back cone. This can help shed light on our past and the path to the alternative futures as well. Taylor believed that trends could be traced back to their origin and with that information, explore new alternative futures. Shultz (2015) speaks about the futures cone and how it should include a mirror image cone of alternate pasts which funnels into an aspect of the ‘now’.
The back cone along with the futures cone can prove to be an important area of problem framework and can be used to understand different perspectives. The wildcards, as mentioned above, might be recognizable in the back cone framework. As the study of the past by the use of multiple planes would be conducted, a future path of the expected future could be identified as well.
This also forces us to think if the back cone is narrower than the future cone as shown in many simplified and modern alternatives that have been developed by futurists including Trevor Hancock, Clement Bezold, and Joseph Voros. Is it possible to have wildcards in the past as well?
Events that have happened in the past which lie in Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns.
Tactical Technology Collective
Working for the Tactical Technology collective, we explored how trust can be built through tracking and tracing, during the pandemic of 2020. We investigated self-tracking through the help of physical maps. Using a problem framework, we looked at the brief through a different lens and realized we needed to map out future trends as well.
The research question, ‘ What happens when the pandemic ends?’ was raised. This forced us to think about different sets of alternative futures.
Current circumstances do not allow room to have a relative amount of certainty for a short time. Short term futures are usually an extension of the present moment. Due to the pandemic’s abrupt changes, the short cone of plausibility has widened exponentially. In my view, the virus can be seen as a ‘wildcard’.
While thinking of how different countries would tackle life in and after the pandemic, we realized that there are different socially complex problems every country has to face individually. This would mean that the future of these countries would be in turn, very different. None of these countries are at the same standpoint at the present moment even though the whole world is experiencing the same pandemic. It would be impossible for these to follow the futures cone in the same manner. Cultural differences, political standings, economic disparities all contribute to these factors. As the virus raises the death toll, experts are trying harder than before to shift into the preferred future. Here a question can be formed as to ‘preferred for whom?’ Looking at the origin of the virus has helped with contact tracing. Similarly, studying the back cone could help us identify the wildcards.
Critique
The back cone might not be useful in correcting the inequalities which exist in present narratives. It can be merely used as a problem framework to generate knowledge about inequalities.
Understanding injustices to strategize about the future seems to be superficial. Experts should understand these issues as whole to change the expected present to the preferred present.
Conclusion
While designing or predicting future studies, it is imperative to first understand the past and the present. Futures narratives require an understanding of how inequalities could be changed culturally, economically, and politically in the present.(Chatterton, T. and Newmarch, G., 2017.) To implement a significant change in the present system, it is beneficial to go with a strategy of a bottom down rather than the top-up approach. Injustices and inequalities must be addressed now to be recovered in the future. The longer they are left, the more embedded they will become.(Chatterton, Newmarch) We should address and work toward how can an equitable future be created.
The back cone is introduced as a potential framework, it would allow experts and designers to think of the possible present instead of a possible future. The tools and mindsets of the back cone can be useful for unraveling the past and help us speculate alternative futures.
References
Amara, R 1974, ‘The futures field: Functions, forms, and critical issues’, Futures, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 289-301. doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(74)90072-X
Chatterton, T. and Newmarch, G., 2017. The future is already here: it’s just not very evenly distributed. interactions, 24(2), pp.42-45.
Gibson, W., 2003. The future is already here–it’s just not evenly distributed’. The Economist, 4.
Hancock, T & Bezold, C 1994, ‘Possible futures, preferable futures’, Healthcare Forum Journal, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 23-29.
Henchey, N., 1978. Making sense of future studies. Alternatives, 7(2), pp.24-27.
Schultz, W.L., 2015. A brief history of futures. World Future Review, 7(4), pp.324-331.
Taylor, CW 1990, Creating strategic visions, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, USA.
Tonkinwise, C., 2014. How we intend to future: review of Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, speculative everything: design, fiction, and social dreaming. Design Philosophy Papers, 12(2), pp.169-187.
Voros J 2003, ‘A generic foresight process framework’, Foresight, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 10-21. doi: 10.1108/14636680310698379
