I have spent more than 10 years, probably 20 in one way or another, making use of creative thinking processes to free people up from assumptions about whatever complicated, messy social change problem we’re wrestling with.  The art of the possible amidst seemingly intractable, intertwined, amorphous problems.  The basic equation is something like:

“collective (imagination – assumptions) = collective agency”

There’s a whole load of diplomacy and negotiation to construct the spaces where this is possible.  But it does seem to work.  And with a healthy dose of critical examination of process, and attention to what’s changing around us, it does seem to be at the core of a lot of credible futures practices.

However, I came back from the 2024 Anticipation Conference at Lancaster University just over a week ago with one of those stomach churning with butterflies moments.  What if there are flaws in my basic assumptions?  That I need to rethink how I practice?  Am I prepared to be wrong?

Let me explain two core logics I am making use of before I go any further.

Firstly, that time is an incredibly abstract concept.  So we constantly use metaphors to describe it, to make sense of it, to communicate it in a meaningful way.   And in fact, across multiple cultures and languages we commonly use spatial metaphors.  Time is distance from here.  Time is somewhere else.  Time means ‘over there’.

What if there is a massive unintended consequence of these creative thinking devices that use time as distance from now to free up our thinking?  That the distance it creates works against our motivation to act?  In spite of our best efforts to relate future imaginations into action today.

Secondly, that the lack of predictability and danger of pretence otherwise, makes it futile and unethical to engage in action that is not resonant today.   The future is not ‘over there’ and something we can have confidence about in our actions tomorrow.  If your futures activities, perhaps your planning intent, fail to catalyse meaningful action today, then it may create more harm in the comfort it provides or the (not unending) resources it commands.

It may be that we are reducing both the proximity of our actions that relates to intrinsic motivation,  and the external accountabilities with the illusion that deferred action is ok.

So what to do?

The idea that I’ve been doing more harm than good is difficult to swallow, and perhaps it’s not as binary as that.  However, I’m seeing something significant in how our community of practice is intentional with this ease of distancing time; the ‘othering’ of future socio-economic-environmental systems, and by consequence our own behaviour.  Perhaps this is at least one of the factors that have constrained the impacts of work I have done.

So how might we incorporate this into our practices in a way that is creatively and contextually resonant?

Perhaps we might practice exploring ‘the future today’ as a way in, instead of taking a distant timeframe as the starting point for a creative device.  Thinking today, acting today, creating a future in our present moments.  Practicing making ‘with our hands’ alongside ‘head thinking’ as an alternative way into creativity.

Perhaps we might explore our assumptions about ‘given’s’ and ‘the art of the possible’ not through historical or future imaginations, but through dialogue and reflection with people who hold different viewpoints.  Making our assumptions visible through these interactions.

I had a conversation with an 8-year old this week about science being more than the ‘Science’ lesson at school – there’s actually science of behaviour and music and history to start with a relatable three.  Whatever our jobs and joyful curiosities, we can all be scientists when we’re looking for evidence, looking for the limitations in what we know, and adapting what we do in the light of these.  First and foremost, to learn and improve, we have to be prepared to be wrong.  Let’s take the courage to be so.