Brussels, May 30, 2013

At the beginning of the 2000s, a semantic and methodological consensus was established at various levels, built upon the framework of the intellectually creative convergence between the Latin or French prospective and the Anglo-Saxon foresight, especially the initiatives taken by the K2 Unit of the Research Directorate-General of the European Commission under the impetus of Paraskevas Caracostas, Günter Clar, Elie Faroult and Christian Svanfeldt in particular [1]. A formal definition emerged from this, of the sort that we hope for, because our rationality wants it, but that we also fear, because our freedom may suffer from it. This formalisation, fostered by the work of Futuribles (Paris), LIPSOR (CNAM, Paris), PREST (Manchester) and The Destree Institute (Namur, Wallonia), has been successively adopted by the Wallonia Evaluation and Foresight Society, the Mutual Learning Platform of the European Commission and the European Foresight College, originating in and supported by the DATAR in the second half of the years 2000. It is, roughly speaking, this definition that appears in the Regional Foresight Glossary that constitutes the outcome of the work of this College:

Foresight is an independent, dialectical and rigorous process conducted in a cross-disciplinary and collective way and intended to shed light on questions of the present and the future, on the one hand by considering them in their holistic, systemic and complex setting and on the other hand by relating them, over and above their historicity, to temporality.

This is supplemented by two paragraphs, placed in the comments in the glossary, which elucidate the field:

Exploratory foresight allows evolving trends and counter-trends to be detected, continuities, discontinuities and bifurcations of the environmental variables (actors and factors) to be identified, and the spectrum of possible futures to be determined.

Normative foresight allows visions of desirable futures to be constructed, possible collective strategies and rationales for action to be developed and, consequently, the quality of the necessary decisions to be improved [2].

A rich but unsatisfactory definition

On the one hand this is a rich definition, as it emphasises a process that frees itself from powers and doctrines to involve a perspective of free thought, exchanges with others, open deliberation, and teamwork, all while affirming the requirements of methodological rigour, a cross-disciplinary approach and collective intelligence, usually so difficult to achieve. Modern foresight incorporates these systemic and complex reflections which, from Teilhard de Chardin [3] to Edgar Morin [4], including Jacques Lesourne [5], Joël de Rosnay [6], Pierre Gonod [7] and Thierry Gaudin [8], have modelled or reinvigorated foresight. The author of La Méthode (Method) states the essence when he stresses that the interaction of the variables in a complex system is such that it is impossible for the human mind to conceive of them analytically or to attempt to proceed by isolation of these variables if one wants to understand an entire complex system, or even a sub-system [9].

On the other hand, this definition of foresight now appears unsatisfactory to me and has a manifest weakness insofar as it does not clearly indicate that foresight is resolutely oriented toward action. It must also be noted that it should be oriented toward an aim: action for action’s sake, noted Gaston Berger, the leap into the absurd that leads to anything whatsoever, is not genuine action either. This is a series of movements tending toward an end; it is not the agitation by which one seeks to make others believe that one is powerful and efficient [10].

The action that results from foresight aims for change, that is, transformation of a part or all of a system. Peter Bishop and Andy Hines were not mistaken: the first words of the reference work of these professors of Strategic Foresight at the University of Houston are: Foresight is fundamentally about the study of change [11]. This change, as has been known since the work of Gregory Bateson [12], can only be the result of a collective, motivational process. Far from just thinking that one could modify the future simply by looking at it, Gaston Berger saw change as a dynamic that is hard to implement and difficult to conduct, as the American researchers in social psychology whose models inspired him had shown [13]. The theories of change and transformation processes described by Kurt Lewin[14], one of the most important figures in 20^th century psychology, or of Lippitt, Watson and Westley[15], up to those of Edgar Morin [16] or Richard Slaughter cited below, all show the difficulty of changing the balances of power, of breaking through inertia and putting the system in motion.

The profundity of the changes to be realized must also be distinguished. Making use of the work of Chris Argyris and Donald A. Schön [17], Jean-Philippe Bootz has shown that foresight operates according to double-loop models of organisational learning, meaning that its mission is to convey innovative strategies, to make structural, intentional and non-routine changes [18]. The work of Australian foresight experts Richard Slaughter and Luke Naismith, used by the Regional Foresight College of Wallonia for the past ten years, has in fact shown the difference between a simple change as a variation in a given situation, repetitive and cyclic by nature, while a transformation consists of an essential alteration. Transformation assumes the need for a fundamental transition to another level of thought and action, a change in awareness [19]. Thus, to constitute a transformation, change must be systemic, of a magnitude that affects all the aspects of institutional functioning, rather than a simple change that affects only a part of it.

Observational foresight or transformational foresight?

In the tripod that supports foresight – long term, systemic approach to complexity, and change process – the first two features are in fact means, while the last involves ultimate aims.

Foresight for transformation is substituted for observational foresight, involving cosmetic regulation. However, this cannot be taken for granted. As Crozier and Friedberg indicate, even in the most humble context, the decisive factor in behaviour is the play of forces and influence in which the individual participates, and through which he affirms his social existence despite the constraints. But all change is dangerous, as it inevitably brings into question the terms of his operation, his sources of power and his freedom of action by modifying or eliminating the relevant areas of uncertainty that he controls [20]. One understands better why foresight frightens all those who want to see the system of former values, attitudes, behaviours and powers perpetuated. And if, by chance, they feel obliged to become involved, they will constantly attempt to control it. Of course, the insurmountable task, of this indiscipline, as Michel Godet indicates, can only be practised in a context of freedom [21]. Moreover, and this is the cornerstone of the classic L’Acteur et le système (The Actor and the System), which should never leave the bedside table of the corporate manager and the political decision maker: successful change cannot be the consequence of replacement of a former model by a new model that has been designed in advance by sages of some sort; it is the result of a collective process through which are mobilised, or even created, the resources and capacities of the participants necessary for developing new methods, free – not constrained – implementation of which will allow the system to orient or reorient itself as a human ensemble and not like a machine[22]. Indeed, we have experienced this in Wallonia several times…[23]

A definition of foresight that better takes these considerations into account could be written as follows. Foresight is an independent, dialectical and rigorous process, conducted in a cross-disciplinary way and based on the long term. It can elucidate questions of the present and of the future, on the one hand by considering them in their holistic, systemic and complex setting and, on the other hand, by relating them, over and above historicity, to temporality. Resolutely oriented toward projects and action, foresight aims at bringing about one or more transformations in the system that it comprehends by mobilising collective intelligence.

As for the distinction between normative and exploratory foresight, even if it seems enlightening as to the method that will be used – one explores possible futures before considering long-term issues, constructing a vision of the desirable future and building the pathways to resolve the issues and achieve the vision – it can lead to believe that one can confine oneself to one without stimulating the other. Exploratory foresight consequently becomes confused with a sort of forecast that keeps its distance from the system to be stimulated. Epistemologically attractive perhaps, but contrary to the ambition of foresight…

Certainly, much remains to be said beyond this definition, which is only just one among those that are possible. Openness to discussion is fruitful. Foresight is also a part of governance, which is now its particular field, of businesses, organisations or regions. It is probably the preferred method for approaching sustainable development, which by its nature calls for change, and for managing in this so-called transition period [24]. Moreover, this constitutes one of the phases of the change process incorporated into the model of Kurt Lewin, already cited… These considerations may seem abstract. But didn’t the German-American psychologist say that there is nothing so practical as a good theory? [25]

Philippe Destatte

https://twitter.com/PhD2050

---