Postnormal network futures: A rejoinder to Ziauddin Sardar

Sardar's “Welcome to Postnormal Times” describes the chaotic, contradictory and uncertain climate today, and analyses the failure of progress, modernisation or efficiency to provide ethical, political or even trustworthy economic solutions to the instability of the present. Missing in his analysis is the role of knowledge, especially as it is migrating from individuals to technical networks. This paper argues that recent developments in the networking of knowledge point towards a new constellation in which networks are emerging as major powers alongside the nation and the market, the two pillars of global political economy in the 20th and early 21st century. It responds to Sardar's challenge to imagine the future by imagining the political consequences of recognising non-human agencies as political actors.     

Frameworks for coping with post-normal times: A response to Ziauddin Sardar

This paper is a response to Ziauddin Sardar's “Welcome to postnormal times”. It agrees that times are indeed post normal, and discusses the reasons why this will continue. The paper then suggests three frameworks for helping people (and managers) recognise and deal with these times: a four level complexity hierarchy, scenarios, and the purposeful self-renewing organisation architecture.     

Postformal priorities for postnormal times: A rejoinder to Ziauddin Sardar

This essay is a postformal rejoinder to Ziauddin Sardar's Welcome to Postnormal Times. I have no quarrel with Sardar's conclusion that these times are postnormal, nor do I disagree with many of his observations, but our standpoints regarding implications are somewhat contradictory. Paradoxically, rather than jump into an old paradigm form of debate with Sardar's interpretations of postnormalcy, this rejoinder is a playful postformal response. I celebrate our complementary views as expressions of the complex truths of multiperspectivality. First I question the meaning of normal and postnormal in the context of such notions as “the pathology of normalcy.” Secondly I begin to explore the postnormal circumstances from a postformal perspective. This involves discussion of notions of progress, development, evolution and co-evolution from different points of view as an opener to coming to terms with complexity. I then explore how concepts such as complexity and paradox can be understood as paths to wisdom; how active imagination can be engaged in the service of life; and how engaged imagination can unfold new normative narratives of alternative futures. Such imaginaries of hope are vital for the wellbeing of young people. The essay closes with a call to embrace the richness of complexity and play with—rather than fear—the paradox of planetary pluralism.     

A futurist beyond futurists: the a, b, c, d (and e) of Ashis Nandy

Ashis Nandy is one of the most profound and penetrating futurists of our time. His thought has a deep and abiding significance. He has pioneered the notion of the future as an arena of awareness and future studies as a field of dissent. This article provides a distillation of Nandy's thought and relates his work on alternatives, colonialism and dissent to his vision of an open and pluralistic future.     

On the discontinuity of the future by other means: Reviewing the foresight world of Richard Slaughter

Richard Slaughter has made pioneering contributions to futures research. These contributions have been both procedural and substantive. This review seeks to appreciate some of the progress that his work has brought to the field through a review of two of Slaughter’s most recent books The Biggest Wake-up Call in History (2010) and To See with Fresh Eyes (2012). This paper traces how Slaughter’s intellectual wake-up built up over time. It highlights a set of fundamental tools, ideas and ideals that spring from Slaughter’s work over decades and is synthesised in these two books. This appraisal becomes an “augmented review” by also taking into account his book blurb material and peer-reviewed journal work. This review draws on this evidence to analyse and profile the multi-disciplinary resonance of these references and to illustrate the broader intellectual impact. In addition a bibliometric analysis offers a way beyond the two books and performs an out-of-sample assessment of the way Slaughter has continued to develop the foresight agenda.     

Futurists and their schools: A response to Ziauddin Sardar's ‘the namesake’

A ‘futurist’ is the generic term for someone seriously engaged in the consideration of future conditions. ‘Futures research’ has a systems science orientation with a planning horizon in excess of 10 years. ‘Futures studies’ has a social science connotation and ‘foresight’ is the most popular term within the management science and corporate sectors. Five schools of futures researchers are defined: 1. Environmental and geosciences. 2. Infrastructure systems and engineering technology. 3. Social, political and economic science. 4. Human life, mind and information science. 5. Business and management science. The academic route to a futures qualification is outlined with a list of futures orientated organisations. The inclusion of urbanisation in the next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment, would involve replacing the notion of economic equilibrium by the concept of far-from-equilibrium stability. Finally futures research is described as an evolutionary science, which will possibly become integrated within complexity science by 2050.     

Futures-thinking and identity: Why “Futures Studies” is not a field, discipline, or discourse: a response to Ziauddin Sardar's ‘the namesake’

The term we use to describe the study or research of the future or futures is indeed important, and “futures studies” is preferable, although there is considerable dispute as to who and what is involved. Even more important is the far deeper problem of defining the “we” and what “we” in fact do. Futures studies not only considers wickedly complex problems, but it is itself a wicked entity, with many puzzles and contradictions. To illustrate, a taxonomy of 12 types of futurists, first articulated in 1985, is revisited, with special emphasis on the relative handful of Synoptic Generalists, the larger category of Specialized Futurists, the still larger entity of Futurized Specialists, and the largest entity of Closet Futurists who think about futures-often in a leading-edge way-but do not identify at all with futures studies, or are seen as futurists. Most contributors to Futures and other futures journals, as well as listees in the 2000 Futurist Directory, appear to have a secondary “futurist” identity at best. The fuzzy entity of “futures studies” is thus quite unlike any field or discipline, because it is easily entered by specialists who identify with the entity weakly, while many of the most important futures-thinkers are outside the entity. Instead of denying this paradox, the reality should be acknowledged, and an alterative paradigm for “futures studies” should be seriously considered.     

The past and the possible futures of Futures Studies: Some thoughts on Ziauddin Sardar's ‘the namesake’

The need to explain the concepts and terms used in Futures Studies, as in other sciences, has existed for a long time. But the necessity to do so has increased since the Second World War and is clearly important in recent debates among different groups involved in the field. This article traces the historical timeline of some of these terms in relation to the social and cultural contexts in which they were coined and first used. It argues that concepts and terms used in Futures Studies are mainly of Western origin and suggests that research should be conducted in different social and cultural contexts for concepts and terms embedded, and possibly used, in cultures different from that of the West. The article also suggests that some sort of ‘liberation movement’ should be started in this direction.     

中小企业的信贷风险管理——访汇丰银行专家贝志伟

信贷风险管理、尤其是中小企业信贷风险管理问题是中国银行业非常关注也急需解决的问题之一。本刊记者就此问题专访了汇丰银行派驻交通银行的专家组成员之一——贝志伟先生(RichardBisset)。贝先生详细阐述了汇丰银行在信贷风险管理方面的做法和经验,以及他个人对中外资银行信贷管理方面所存在差异的切身体会。贝志伟先生在汇丰工作了24年,在派驻交行之前,是汇丰银行日本分行信贷风险管理部门的负责人。     

Social predictions, institutional design and prestige loops: Richard Henshel’s contribution to futures studies

The article is both a contribution to the intellectual history of the field and a reminder that future studies have always been concerned not only with the epistemics and the cognitive procedures regarding the future but also with the impact of ideas on the very unfolding of the future. Cases when social predictions, by the mere fact of being made public, change the situations they have predicted, are an important challenge for social theory and institutional design. Richard Henshel dedicated an important part of his work to their study. The paper starts by mapping the conceptual contours of the problem. Then it outlines the ways in which various authors have dealt with its challenge, thereby putting the distinctiveness of Henshel’s unique contribution in a clearer perspective. The paper continues by presenting Henshel’s main arguments as they were developed around the key concept of ‘prestige loop’ as well as some of the implications of the fact that social predictions and ‘prestige loops’ not only challenge the way we understand the relationship between social theory and its practical applications, but also the ways we understand the very nature of applied social science and its relationship with futures studies.