Master's Degree course in Futures studies, dia set no. 1

1. THERE
1.
The Meaning of Value
Consideration
in Futures Studies
Anita Rubin
ELSEWHERE
E
ND
YO
R

2. Future is the only time there is that we can influence — at least a
little — with our own decisions and choices. The past is beyond our
reach, even though we can choose
•what we want to know about it,
•how we want to interpret what we know, and
•whose viewpoint we choose to do that.
 Need for value discussion.
On the other hand. The only moment to make concrete choices is
now, but then again,
 when is NOW?
The future which will then take place some day is tied to our
decisions and choices today. Those, for their part, are tied to the
expectations, wishes, hopes and fears which we link to the future.

3. The desire to know about the future as such is an
inevitable human need.
Human history is bursting with efforts to change the
world to become more predictable and, thereafter,
better.
On the other hand, only the future — the not-yetexisting state of affairs — can tell, whether our present
activities and choices were good or bad.

4. The meaning of futures studies is to find or invent,
explore and evaluate, as well as suggest possible,
probable and desirable futures.
In order to do that, futures researchers search
information on
•what can or may be (the possible);
•what probably will be (the probable), and
•what should be (the desirable) in the future .
Wendell Bell 1997

5. The consideration of the future (be it prediction, futures
research, or foresight)
•gives meaning to the past;
•helps in analysing the present;
•supports to make better decisions;
•makes the choice process meaningful;
•diminishes arbitrariness, unwanted/unexpected consequences
and dependence on coincidence;
•gives grounds to choice-making by opening up the values
behind choices;
•contributes to power/power relations/democracy;
•helps to assess and evaluate probabilities, and
•helps to structure wholes (systems thinking).

6. As long as most of our everyday choices could still be made on
a routine basis, it was not necessary to consider the values
behind every decision.
People could rely on the values of human society which were inbuilt in the ways of acceptable action
➔The responsibility of a human being was to conduct his/her
behaviour according to the guidelines on which social
consensus prevailed.
➔it was not necessary to actively evaluate or even think about
values each time a new situation was confronted.
18.11.13
6

7. Values and decision-making cont.
However, now we are in trouble every time when we face a
situation where routine methods and the traditional way of conduct
do not work (= bring about the expected outcome) anymore.
The social endorsement on which we could lean for so long and
thus know that our choices and decisions were acceptable and
good, is not self-evident anymore.
Instead, in our everyday life there is a growing inflow of various
different social groups, cultures, habits and ways of actions,
traditions, practices etc. which we have to take into consideration,
evaluate and choose from.
18.11.13
7

8. Visions, goals, images
of the future
Strategies
Passive
Missing
Go with the flow
Reactive, i.e.
adaptive
”Business as usual”
(BAU)
Adaptable, coping
strategies
Preactive, i.e.
anticipatory
Based on trend
analysis, probable
alternatives
Foresight
Proactive, i.e.
creative
Scanning possible
alternatives
Innovation, creativity
Attitudes
Original source: Godet 2001
18.11.13
8

9. People live their lives in places.
Society
Culture
Organisations
No more dependent
on spatial or
temporal limits
Economic
structure,
power
relations,
values
Result: new forms of coexistence
or
value collisions; different interpretations of
same values
18.11.13
9

10. People aim at rational behaviour (= rationally-oriented action
towards one or several goals).
•However, what is regarded as rational is culture-specific and
becomes re-defined by the needs and conditions given by culture.
There is a constant, systemic interaction guiding cultural
development: individuals search for a rational explanation to their
behaviour from their society and culture, while their choices and
decisions then reinforce and also gradually change the culture.
18.11.13
10

11. In addition to rationality, people are morally responsible beings.
1.
•
•
Behaviour, choices and decisions are determined by
past individual experiences;
social environment
 Similar situations are interpreted differently by different people.
2.
People have free will and freedom of choice in the situations of
decision-making.
 moral responsibility
3.
Dilemma: If responsibility both requires and is based on free will,
then, if there is no free will, what happens to responsibility?
Rationality in the choices for the future?
18.11.13
11

12. The futures story (scenario, picture, strategy e.g.) is composed of
multiple levels and several varying viewpoints, for instance, social,
technological, ecological, economic and political  the original
STEEP analysis (sometimesadded with C=cultural and V=values).
 By nature, futures studies
•is multidisciplinary (striving for holistic models of reality);
•aims at being distinguished from the futures scanning of different
individual sciences by especially emphasising the holistic point of
view, and
•utilizes systems theory and other methods and tools which highligh
diversity.
12

13. In addition to personal experiences, human choices derive
from both the knowledge base and from the value base –
i.e., from instrumental and intrinsic values.
Values play a role first in the selection of the idealised
outcome, and then the selection of the means to achieve
that outcome.
Choice of behaviour (based on available information,
which is defined as relevant to the issue at hand and
understood as reliable.)
18.11.13
13

14. The so-called ’Hume’s Guillotine” reminds us that we cannot make claims
on what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. What is is
descriptive, while what ought to be is normative and includes a value.
Bell does not see it meaningful to separate the values and the central
means or factual assertions on those from each other. This idea derives
from ”Means – ends model”:
•If you want x, then you ought to do y.
In human decision-making, people do not make a difference on their
desire to do something and their means to reach that as a goal.
Also many endeavours may be goals as such  the activity itself already
is a pleasure, i.e.
Georg Henrik von Wright (Finnish philosopher) makes a clear difference
between values (as goals) and the things which bear that value (value
bearers)  i.e. healthiness (value) vs. eating fresh food; exercise; mental
balance, etc. (value bearers)

15. Ethical responsibility presupposes a broader perspective than just
the consideration of wishes and expectations of individuals at the
moment at hand.
Structures and social institutions of modernity that used to support
identity-construction and decision-making, are rapidly
disintegrating or moving onto a more abstract level – i.e. global.
•In general, ethical considerations have been delegated to
increasingly abstract social actors;
•The consideration of grounds behind personal choice have
become a private matter;
•People are losing touch with "larger-than-life" moral questions
and consequently set aside ethical ideals.
18.11.13
15

16. Living with constantly developing technology
➔dependency on technology (esp. social media and networking)
➔growing social vulnerability to disturbances and breakdowns.
Living within constant change
➔need to be continuously open to new influence and things
➔constant re-learning and
➔constant alert.
Living with social pressures
➔responsibility of individual success the modes of which are
repeatedly re-stated by the culture
➔hardening of values.
Vanishing meaningfulness (Spranger, Krohn)?
18.11.13
16

17. The set of adopted cultural and social values form the ground on which
lifestyles are constructed.
Traditionality
• Habits and traditions guide decision-making and choice of action
• Ordinary, conventional, unchangeable  tendency to act in a
similar way in similar conditions
Emotionality (instinctiveness, intuition, emotionality)
• Action based on emotions a goal in itself
Value rationality
• The contents of action determine the objective.
Means-ends / goal-oriented rationality, instrumental rationality
• Goals more important than the contents of action in itself
Source: Modified from Pirjo Ahponen’s presentation
18.11.13
YKP-PK -11 Luennot 12-13
P. Ahponen
17

18. Public debate emphasizes reactivity: how to cope in growing
transition? Everything is going to be worse. How then to gain
such abilities, skills and learning that we will pull through the
global challenges facing us in the future?
The ethos of coping
What are those qualities?
➔Learning lists, required skills and know-how, the discourse on
innovation and effectivity  Futures method Causal Layered
Analysis (CLA) and its first horizontal level “Litany”
18

19. Are we asking the correct questions?
 What among all information is relevant and, in that, critical and
therefore valuable?
Are we asking enough questions?
What amidst all (available) information is sufficient?
Are we targeting our questions correctly?
Who, when and how do we ask?
Can we search information from adequate sources?
 Source criticism: in what (and in whose) sources of information
do we trust?
What is the precision of our enquiry?
➔Economy: Do we really need all the information which we can
gain/which is of interest to us?
And yet we have to ask, if we truly want to know about the
future…

20. Who has the responsibility?
Immediate relationship to Nature/the environment/reality:
•Experiential
•Intuitive
Indigenous people,
•Automatic
history
•Natural
children
•Non-verbal
•Narrative
Indirect relationship to Nature/the environment/reality:
•Analytical,
technology,
•Contemplative,
science
•Verbal,
culture
•Rational
Navigating in the still more uncertain, complex and abstract spacetime requires both.
 Individual vs. collective responsibility