Futures Triangle: A Method Examined

Introduction

This contribution to the Futures Triangle special edition aims to open dialogue with the reader about what lies ahead for the Futures Triangle method and Futures Studies in general. The subsequent paragraphs explore how viewing the Futures Triangle through the lenses of new philosophies and approaches could impact the traditional concepts of Futures Studies.

The three philosophical concepts employed are;

1. Foucault’s Technologies (Foucault et al. 1988; Hernandez-Ramirez 2017a) refers to the various methods, strategies, and practices societies, professions and institutions employ to exercise power and control over individuals or groups. There are four primary types of technologies: technologies of production, technologies of sign systems, technologies of power, and technologies of the self. These technologies are interconnected and function to regulate behaviour, create knowledge, and shape individual and collective identities,

The idea of “humanism” is referenced several times and is defined as a means of looking at the world from the point of view that separates the interest of ‘being’ human from the less-than-human (animals and those humans deemed not visible), non-human (technologies and the material world) and more-than-human entities (cognitive technologies, artificial intelligence, or AI). However, it is also worth noting that there is a separation between the Human as the tool user and humanism as the ideology that guides the beliefs, assumptions and narratives that shape the tool user’s perception of the world.

While there are limitations to the alignment of the lens used, the potential tensions created by the misalignments between the Futures Triangle and the philosophical approaches should be seen as an opportunity for dialogue and introspection rather than as a critique of the Futures Triangle. The three perspectives (lens) were selected to establish a position to question and rethink the assumptions underlying Futures Studies, challenging notions of anthropocentrism, the nature of agency, and the role of technologies in co-constituting our futures.

The basic concept of the futures triangle is to encourage deliberation on the tension between the three vertices, the weight of the past, the push of the present, and the pull of the future that shapes plausible futures. The futures triangle’s utility is that it engages the users, offering the future as a space not yet defined. As such, the future can be challenged, rethought, and mapped in new ways.

The mapping process unveils archetypal perspectives of the future rooted in humanism, which can be broadly organized into three primary categories: (1) Protopian and instrumentalist views that emphasize human-centric evolution and progress, where technology is both inevitable and manageable, with rationality and data driving advancements; (2) Utopian visions of humans developing technologies that help restore the environment, prolong human life, colonize other planets, and foster a sustainable Anthropocene; (3) Dystopian scenarios that highlight the pressures on human agency and free-thinking brought on by technological advances, while accepting issues of inequity, fundamentalism, climate crises, and institutional power accelerate the Anthropocene as society resists change.

Incorporating these philosophical concepts into the future triangle (Inayatullah 2013) enables a more holistic, multifaceted approach to understanding and shaping the world ahead. By incorporating emerging philosophical perspectives, interrogating power dynamics, and considering the interconnectedness of humans, non-human entities, and technology, we can better use future methodologies to create a radical and inclusive future for all.

Weight of the Past: Technologies of Power

Through the first lens, Foucault’s concept of technologies of power (Kosmala MacLullich 2003), the Futures Triangle (Inayatullah 2008) is imagined as a technology that exerts influence during the futures mapping process. Technologies take a broader definition and, from the essay’s perspective, are not limited to tools, machines or digital devices but are inclusive of the practical application of knowledge, skills and systems mediated and co-constituted through the tools, machines or digital devices that help humans achieve specific goals (Mercer 2022).

In the context of the Future Triangle (Inayatullah 2008), Foucault’s Technologies of power can be seen in the ways that various social forces, institutions, and historical legacies shape the three vertices of the triangle:

1. The ‘push’ of the present: Disciplinary power operates through current social institutions and trends, shaping the context in which people make decisions and create the future. This influence may determine which problems and opportunities are prioritized and the strategies deemed acceptable or effective for addressing them.

Therefore, the Technologies of Power establish “a mutually mediated relationship” co-constituted as a form of knowledge-power as a subtle, pervasive, and systematic control that weighs on individuals (Foucault et al. 1988; Hernández-Ramírez 2017b). Becoming a mediating influence that surfaces the underlying dynamics of how power operates through various forces shaping society, including how people behave, think, and envision the future. When the future triangle is considered a technology of power, the futurist and the participants do not have complete control over the process.

While the futurist does have agency in identifying, interpreting, and influencing the intra-actions, their control is limited by various factors, such as existing power structures, dominant narratives, and social preconceptions. Additionally, they have the challenging role of navigating these complexities, guiding the group through the triangle’s different elements, and highlighting alternative perspectives through dialogue and reflexivity. In this context, the futurist’s control over the process is not absolute but contingent upon their ability to be aware that their position and perspectives might be shaped by the power structures they seek to challenge.

While normal for researchers to concentrate either on the “social construction of the technological or on the technological construction of the social” (Hughes et al. 2001, 8), if technology is a mere tool for human use, then the design and dependencies to the technologies of power which renders them transparent to futures studies, only the trends and efficiency of practice become noteworthy. However, if technology has the power to colonize the future, it works to constrain our vision toward future archetypes. Technology then becomes the architect of our destiny.

The Push of the Present: Agential Realism/Intra-Actions

Karen Barad’s concept of agential realism is a complex, innovative and controversial philosophical framework that seeks to reconceptualize how we understand the nature of reality, matter, and agency (Hollin et al. 2017). Agential Realism is rooted in the philosophy of quantum physics, emphasizing that the world comprises phenomena that emerge from entangled agencies (Barad 2007). Agential Realism challenges the traditional subject-object binary and instead argues for a more interconnected understanding of the world, where knowing and creating futures are part of a continuous process of intra-action (Barad 2007, 139). Furthermore, Agential Realism questions human agency as the dominant force in shaping the futures and sees agency as co-constituted between humans, non-human entities, technology, and the environment.

Drawing from a wide range of disciplines, including physics, feminist theory, posthumanism and philosophy of science, Barad’s work proposes a profound shift in how we think about the relationships between humans, non-human entities, and the material world. One of the key tenets of agential realism is the idea of intra-action, The term “intra-action” assumes that individual agencies are separate and precede their interaction. The notion of intra-action, however, posits that an individual’s agency does not precede but instead emerges through their intra-action (Mercer 2022). It is not so much that they change from one moment to the next or from one place to another, but that space, time, and matter do not exist before the intra-actions that reconstitute agency through the intra-action (Barad 2007).

Under the lens of Agential realism, the futures triangle loses stability as it collapses the separation between the observer and the observed and rejects the world as a series of push, pull and weights waiting to be discovered and described.

“Instead, specific agential intra-actions that a differential sense of being is enacted in the ongoing ebb and flow of agency. That is, it is through specific intra-actions that phenomena come to matter in both senses of the word” (Barad 2007, 141).

Intra-action suggests that there is no fixed or predetermined set of futures. This reconceptualization forces the futurist’s influence to the forefront, becoming crucial in mapping possible futures. Instead, it challenges the notion of a stable, external reality and proposes a fluid, interdependent, and interconnected world in which entities are continuously constituted and reconstituted through their entangled relations.

In this view, the properties of the Futures Triangle are not intrinsic but result from ongoing processes of differentiation and entanglement. The boundaries and properties of entities, as well as the agency they possess, arise from the complex, intertwined relationships between them.

By focusing on intra-action, agential realism offers a new perspective on the Futures Triangle, moving away from the idea that agency is an inherent characteristic of individual entities in mapping the futures. Instead, it argues that agency is an emergent property of the Futures Triangle, arising through the complex entanglements and processes of differentiation that constitute the world.

Agential Realism underscores that the traditional boundaries are not inherent to the world but are the product of conventional humanism archetypes. There are no defined separations of past, present or futures in agential realism that awaits discovery ‘out there’ prior to the futurist’s engagement with the future; our vision of the future is always relational to how we engage (Hinton 2013; Niemimaa 2016) with the future. In accepting this, we are invited to question the assumptions and practices that sustain these divisions and explore alternative ways of understanding and engaging with the world.

Pull of the Future: Philosophical Posthumanism

The concept of Philosophical Posthumanism is an intellectual movement that, in part, proposes an alternate way of examining the human relationship with the future, rejecting the technology dualism and the embedded anthropocentric mode of thinking (Ferrando 2019).

It is also a theory and practice that rejects the binary separations of humanism that have crept into contemporary critical futures studies and technology studies. When the human is the centre of Futures Studies and unit of measurement, it implies that humans are inherently more valuable than other humans, non-humans and more-than-humans (Mercer 2022).

It is also important to emphasize that Philosophical Posthumanism is not anti-human; it simply rejects humanism as an acceptable form of thought and research. From a theoretical position, it positions technology as a trait of the human experience, non-divisible and co-mediating. The philosophy recognizes that the human experience is entangled with non-human, the more-than-human, and accommodates unexplored possibilities that humanism rejects (Ferrando 2013).

Philosophical Posthumanism expands our approach to the future triangle by encouraging the reconsideration of the anthropocentric focus that often dominates our visions and what is considered trends and drivers of plausible futures. Technology as a trait calls into question the notion of technology as an external trend and humans as separate, autonomous entities. By doing so, they encourage us to re-evaluate and reconceptualize the nature of the relationships between humans, technology, and non-human entities. The impact of advanced technologies on the human condition, such as biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and cybernetics, become essential considerations on how these technologies might reshape our understanding of what it means to be human and how they might alter the ‘push’ of the present and the ‘pull’ of the future.

The clear focus on the post-Anthropocene challenges the human-centric focus of most future visions, urging us to consider the implications of our actions on non-human entities, such as animals, artificial intelligence, and the environment. This broader perspective would encourage the incorporation of ethical considerations and embracing the complex entanglements between humans and non-human entities, and acknowledging the role of technologies in shaping a more inclusive, diverse, and ecologically responsible perspective on the future.

Implementing the Futures Triangle from a philosophical Posthumanism perspective could change how we approach and analyze the rigid boundaries between humans and non-human entities and encourage a critical examination of historical legacies and cultural traditions, particularly those that have perpetuated anthropocentric biases and social exclusions (Dalibert 2014; Ferrando 2016).

This approach would enrich the future triangle by expanding the possibilities and fostering a more inclusive and pluralistic understanding of the future. The future triangle would advocate the development of more sustainable and responsible strategies, considering the long-term consequences of our actions on the planet and its inhabitants (Ferrando 2019).

When considering technology as a human trait, posthumanism highlights that it is not just an external tool humans create and use to shape their environment. The conventional view of technology re-enforces the idea of a tool, external object or system that humans create, manipulate, and control to enhance or facilitate human activities. This approach assumes a clear distinction between human users and technologies without considering the complex entanglements and reciprocal influences between them.

Instead, Philosophical Posthumanism sees technology as deeply embedded in biological, cognitive, and social development. This view challenges the traditional separation between humans and technology, recognizing that technology has always been intertwined with human evolution. For example, technologies such as fire, clothing, and writing systems have played crucial roles in shaping our biological and cognitive development and an intrinsic part of who we are as a species.

This shift in perspective also has implications for the developing and governance of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and cybernetics. By recognizing the complex interconnections between humans and technology, philosophical posthumanism calls for a more inclusive, responsible, and ethical approach to technological innovation, considering the long-term consequences of our actions on human and non-human entities. Incorporating Philosophical Posthumanism into the future triangle would lead to a more inclusive, diverse, and ecologically sustainable vision of the future by challenging anthropocentric assumptions and embracing the complex entanglements between humans, non-human entities, and the environment.

Final Thoughts

It is doubtful that we can envision a coherent future without technology. However, the barriers to a more expansive view of Futures Studies are often hidden behind our concept of humanism. The philosophical approaches presented allow for considering how our current modes of thinking are predated by our more ancient and primal relationship with technology and the planet. Our evolution as a species is mirrored in the technological advances that sustained our hominin forebearers (Schick and Toth 2013). However, codifying human beliefs and philosophies that created the boundaries between humans and the material world came much later in the relationship (Van Den Eede, Goeminne, and Van den Bossche 2017).

Technological development is intimately entangled with human cognitive processes and our images of the future. Humanity’s long intra-dependent evolution with technology reminds us that Futures Studies and Humanism are human-made ideologies and assumptions that meet the needs of a particular time but, when left unchallenged, become structured facts and accepted behaviours.

Foucault’s concept of technologies of power offers a critical lens through which to examine the Futures Triangle and the complex dynamics at play within the process of mapping the future. By understanding the futures triangle as a technology of power, we acknowledge the mediating influence it has on surfacing the underlying power structures, dominant narratives, and social norms that shape society and our visions of the future (Foucault 1982; Graham 2014).

This perspective on the Futures Triangle highlights the intricate relationships between knowledge, power, and control, emphasizing that the futurist’s agency is not absolute but contingent upon their ability to navigate and negotiate the various forces at play. By recognizing that the process of mapping the future is influenced by structure and beliefs, we can better understand the constraints, opportunities, and limitations that the futurist faces in guiding the process.

In considering the Futures Triangle through Foucault’s lens, we can also appreciate how various social forces, institutions, and historical legacies are intertwined, shaping our understanding of the present, the future, and the past. This intra-connectedness underscores the importance of acknowledging the power dynamics that permeate the process and the need for the futurist to facilitate spaces that challenge these dominant narratives and norms. This enhanced understanding helps the futurist and participants to critically engage with the various forces at play and be more aware of their positions and perspectives within these power structures. This critical approach enables identifying and exploring alternative visions and pathways, challenging dominant narratives and assumptions that often constrain our collective imagination (Riedy 2021; Ahlqvist and Rhisiart 2015; Milojević & Inayatullah, 2015).

Moreover, recognizing the Futures Triangle as a technology of power reminds us that our visions of the future are not neutral or detached from the social, political, and historical contexts in which they are conceived. As such, the futurist’s role extends beyond simply mapping the future; they must also be mindful of the power dynamics at play and actively work on challenging and disrupting, thus creating spaces for alternative voices and perspectives to emerge.

Agential realism as a philosophical framework transforming how we comprehend reality, matter, agency, and the world’s interconnectedness. By challenging traditional subject-object binaries and embracing the concept of intra-action, agential realism reveals the continuous, entangled processes that give rise to agency and the properties of entities. As a result, this perspective calls into question the Futures Triangle’s stability and the assumptions underpinning it.

Agential realism’s focus on entanglements and intra-actions redefines the relationships between humans, non-human entities, technology, and the environment, emphasizing the continuous co-constitution of these entities. This paradigm invites us to explore alternative ways of understanding and interacting with the Futures Triangle that challenges traditional humanism archetypes and opens up new possibilities for envisioning and shaping the future. This approach not only broadens our perspective on the nature of reality but also has the potential to foster innovative strategies for addressing the complex challenges that lie ahead. By embracing the insights of agential realism, we can move beyond traditional binaries and assumptions to create a more prosperous, inclusive, and interconnected vision of the future.

“Technology as a trait” and entanglement are related concepts in that they both emphasize the interconnectedness and interdependence of human existence, technology, and the non-human world. By challenging traditional boundaries and separations, these ideas invite us to explore alternative ways of understanding and engaging with the world around us.

The concept of technology as a trait highlights the mutual shaping of humans and technology throughout history. It acknowledges that technology has always been integral to human evolution, culture, and society, shaping and being shaped by human experiences and actions. Similarly, the idea of entanglement emphasizes the ongoing processes of differentiation and mutual constitution through which entities emerge, as well as the complex web of relationships that shape the beliefs and agency of those entities.

Recognizing technology as a human trait, the deep interconnectedness of humans, technology, and the non-human world, these concepts invite us to explore new ways of understanding and engaging with the future that emphasizes collaboration, co-creation, and co-evolution. This shift in perspective can help us develop more sustainable, equitable, and inclusive approaches to addressing the challenges and opportunities for a more expansive vision of the futures.

This essay explored the impact of new philosophies on traditional Futures Studies concepts, explicitly focusing on the Futures Triangle method. Three philosophical lenses: Technologies of Power, Agential Realism, and Philosophical Posthumanism offered new viewpoints, challenged Futures Studies’ assumptions, and encouraged dialogue between the Futures Triangle method and philosophical concepts.

The essay identifies three archetypical visions of the future: protopian, utopian, and dystopian can be expanded, re-interpreted or eliminated by finding new ontological and epistemological concepts to interpret the future maps produced by the Futures Triangle. Finally, the essay suggests it is part of a more extensive journey to understand how new philosophies and approaches impact the traditional concepts of Futures Studies and open a dialogue with the reader about what lies ahead for the Futures Triangle method and Futures Studies in general.

The essay hopes to evoke new ways to imagine the futures triangle that goes beyond the traditional practices and understandings, echoing the words; “beyond the confines of time and space within which we are situated” (Mayo 2021, 51).