Future Imaginaries

In dem Paper von Godhe und Goode bin ich auf das Konzept der ‚Future Imaginaries‘ gestoßen, das sie aus der Soziologie adaptiert haben:

„In our conception of CFS [(Critical Future Studies)], it’s important to interrogate “future  imaginaries”, that is, ideas about the future  which, at least in some – usually powerful – quarters, become taken-for-granted or congealed discourses. […] The concept of the imaginary is derived from philosophers Cornelius Castoriadis (1998) and Charles Taylor (2002). Today it is used in different contexts and with variations such as the social imaginary, the cultural imaginary, and the global imaginary. […] Apart from globalization, it is possible to briefly identify a number of future imaginaries. One obvious example is digitization: it is increasingly difficult to conceive of anything other than an intensification of digital ubiquity as developments like wearable computing, smart cities and the “Internet of Things” continue apace. […] But the point of drawing our critical attention to future imaginaries is not merely to dethrone, defamiliarize or loosen them. We see such deconstructive work as essential to CFS but also suggest that imaginaries can work not only to constrain future thinking but also positively as the semantic ground for expansive and potentially radical thinking.“

Michael Godhe und Luke Goode in Beyond Capitalist Realism

Ich liebe ja diese Phase, nachdem man auf ein neues Konzept oder einen neuen Begriff gestoßen ist und dann entdeckt, was dazu schon alles passiert ist.

Zu Future Imaginaries gab es z.B. letztes Jahr einen spannend klingenden Workshop am HIIG: We are on a mission – Exploring the role of future imaginaries in the making and governing of digital technology.

Kritische (Zukunfts-)Forschung nach Inayatullah

In einem Satz:

… the task is not so much to better define the future (forecast more accurately or gain definitional agreement) but rather, at some level, to ‘undefine’ the future, to question it.

Etwas ausführlicher:

The goal of critical research is thus to disturb present power relations through making problematic our categories and evoking other places or scenarios of the future. Through this historical, future and civilizational distance, the present becomes less rigid, indeed, it becomes remarkable. This allows the spaces of reality to loosen and the new possibilities, ideas and structures, to emerge. The issue is less what is the truth but how truth functions in particular policy settings, how truth is evoked, who evokes it, how it circulates, and who gains and loses by particular nominations of what is true, real and significant.

Sohail Inayatullah, Causal Layered Analysis – Poststructuralism As Method

Von der Netzneutralität zur neuen Netzrealität

Das Ende der Netzneutralität in den USA ist auch das Ende des Mythos vom utopischen Internet (frei und offen). Was nun?

[…] now is a great moment to engage with some of the work in media studies, STS, and the history of technology that has trained a critical eye on the history of the Internet and the way in which it actually functions. Try to look beyond the popular press hagiographies and instead consider the works that have never bought into the popular myths that frame the Internet as an inherently benevolent force. Unfortunately, we can say many things about our present technological impasse – but we can’t say that we weren’t warned.

Link: From Net Neutrality to the Net’s New Reality

Hoffnung ist eben nicht Optimismus 

„Je ungünstiger die Situation ist, in der wir unsere Hoffnung bewähren, desto tiefer ist diese Hoffnung. Hoffnung ist eben nicht Optimismus. Es ist nicht die Überzeugung, dass etwas gut ausgeht. Sondern Hoffnung ist die Gewissheit, dass etwas Sinn hat, ohne Rücksicht darauf, wie es ausgeht.“

– Václav Havel, zitiert von Heribert Prantl