Dialectical Waves of Change: Using Dialectics,Emerging Issue Analysis and the Futures Wheel to Develop a Tool for Applied Futures Research

Introduction

Early 2019, we—at the Open Time | Applied Futures Research knowledge center at the Erasmus University of Applied Sciences in Brussels—were approached by arts center nOna, from the Flemish city Mechlin. Having gone through a fusion with another organization, they thought it would be a good moment to think about the future of their center. After a first meeting, it became clear that they had a number of topics related to futures and uncertainties on their mind, but none of them was as prominent as their impression that the current cultural landscape in Flanders, Belgium was stuck in a creative standstill and because of that they had lost a sense of excitement. They were hoping for some kind of renewal in the artistic landscape and thought that we might help them to spot and facilitate possible future renewal.

Since this was a rather broad question and it was still unclear what kinds of topics and themes we would have to focus on, we concluded it would be best to conduct a “full” futures research project using Inayatullah’s (2008) Six Pillars approach. We started by mapping the recent past of the arts center and the landscape in which it operates, as well as uncovering what drove change in the Flemish arts in the past, by doing a shared history workshop. During such a workshop, participants discuss the main trends and events that have led up to the present, so that a time line to the present can be constructed (Inayatullah 2008).

While doing this with members of nOna, it became clear that their recent history was dominated by two contradicting forces: top-down policy/the government on one side and bottom-up creativity/artists on the other. The most important cultural and artistic changes in the last 60 years could be drawn back to the cyclic dance between these two opposing forces with often contradicting goals and interests. They created two oppositional waves, constantly interacting with each other, fighting for dominance in the artistic and cultural landscape and creating distinct time periods in which one or the other had the upper hand. The presence of these two opposing forces was then confirmed during a literature study about the recent past of the Flemish cultural sector, from the 1960s until the first decennium of the 21st century, and some interviews that had been held with some of the most prominent Flemish artists of that time period (De Pauw 2007; Meuleman 2006). It was this clear distinction between two contradicting sides in the cultural landscape, and their roles in change and renewal over the last 60 years, that led us to believe it would be interesting to look at this project through the lens of a certain theoretical framework: dialectics.

Dialectics Through History

Dialectical thinking, in both ontology and epistemology, has been around for ages, but has evolved through multiple iterations by different philosophers and academics from all over the world through different eras. Taoism, the Chinese natural philosophy and official religion under the Tang Dynasty (618-907 CE), embodied the yin-yang thought (Mark 2016), according to which the universe came to be as a result of the tension between two primordial opposing forces: non-being, or yin, and being, or yang (Koller 1985). Historian John M. Koller (1985) explains this belief:

“The changing world that is experienced-that is characterized as nature---can exist only when there is both being and non-being, for without being there is no coming-into-being, and without non-being there is no passing-out-of-being. Hence yin, the negative, and yang, the positive, are required as a source of nature” (Koller 1985).

This idea of the contradiction between being and non-being as the source of the universe can be brought back to philosophers in era of the Rig-Veda in ancient India, approximately 1500 BCE. They believed in a threefold dialectical mode, where non-being and being combined led to unity. According to Vedic philosophers, any pair of opposing premises or judgments could be combined and joined as one, including “life” and “death.” These ideas carried over to the scriptures of early Buddhism, where the most interesting problems and debates evolved around questions of antithetical forces (Baihui 1986). And in African philosophies, aspects of dialectical dynamics between two opposing elements or forces (e.g., good and evil, or day and night) can be found as well (Kanu 2017).

In the West, the dialectical method is most known as the conversational technique of the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, whose philosophies are known to us through the writings of Plato. Socrates’ technique consisted of the use of a specific set of rules during a debate between two people with different viewpoints concerning a topic. Using dialectics would lead to a mutual understanding and the establishment of a common truth (Biscontini 2017; Maybee 2019). Aspects of the interconnectedness of two opposites that lead to unity can also be found in the thinking of earlier Greek philosophers, such as in Heraclitus’ “unity of opposites” (Graham 2019).

Hegel further built upon this idea of argumentation between two opposing sides, but broadened the concept of “sides.” Where Socrates’ and Plato’s concept of dialectics was about dialogue between two people, Hegel’s opposing sides might also be more hypothetical or philosophical subjects, such as different definitions of “logic” (Maybee 2019). He introduced dialectics as a process in which contradicting concepts or ideas conclude through three stages: first, a thesis presents itself, inciting a reaction—the antithesis—which contradicts the original thesis. The resolution of the tension between these two is then the synthesis (Maybee 2019). Marx and Engels used dialectics as a framework to explain social change. They thought of Hegel’s dialectics as too idealist—as in the Hegelian idea that matter is dependent on mind or spirit—and not enough founded in material world conditions such as class, labor, and socio-economical interactions. Their theory, known as dialectical materialism, focusses on the dialectical development of human knowledge, socially acquired through practical interaction with things (Augustyn et al. 2016).

All of the theories above carry the same notion of gaining knowledge or insights about reality through the interaction between two contradicting forces or ideas, in such a way that a third conclusion of both presents itself and becomes the new normative state or idea, until new contradictions manifest themselves in this historical process. A dialectical process can thus be understood as a cyclic process in which “the output of every stage serves as the starting point of a new cycle” (Rescher 2007). The biggest difference between all iterations is the subject on which this process is applied (being vs. non-being in Taoism—dialogue with Socrates—abstract constructs of the mind with Hegel—practical interactions in the material world with Marx and Engels) and their ontological position (realism with the Ancient Greeks—idealism with Hegel—materialism with Marx) (Laclau and Mouffe 1990). The possible applications are endless though. As Rescher (2007) states:

“Such effectively circular processes can be encountered in artifice and nature alike, with dialectical interactions occurring in inquiry, in history, in nature, and in social affairs. For pretty much any mode of agency or action can in principle proceed dialectically. And it does so whenever the processes involved react sequentially to or against their own prior products” (Rescher 2007, 1).

This process typically consists of three different stages, most famously formulated as the “dialectical triad” of thesis–antithesis–synthesis, but by Rescher (2007) described as initiation–response–revision & readjustment. The underlying principle is the same: the dialectical process is a cyclic process in which a current state of being (thesis) is confronted with or negated by a contraposition (antithesis), causing an interaction between the two that leads to a resolution (synthesis) that is neither fully the thesis nor its counterpart, the antithesis. The synthesis then becomes the new thesis, which will in its turn be confronted by another contraposition, starting the next dialectical cycle in this process (Dolan 2011, 2018; Rescher 2007) (Figures 1 and 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Simplified model of the dialectical process.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Dialectical process (Rescher 2007).

This triad should not be seen as an all-encompassing way to explain all change in history. Rather, we understand dialectics here as Ollman (2004) enunciates:

“Dialectics is not a rock-ribbed triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis that serves as an all-purpose explanation; nor does it provide a formula that enables us to prove or predict anything; nor is it the motor force of history. The dialectic, as such, explains nothing, proves nothing, predicts nothing and causes nothing to happen. Rather, dialectics is a way of thinking that brings into focus the full range of changes and interactions that occur in the world. As part of this, it includes how to organize a reality viewed in this manner for purposes of study and how to present the results of what one finds to others, most of whom do not think dialectically … understanding anything in our everyday experience requires that we know something about how it arose and developed and how it fits into the larger context or system of which it is a part.”

To understand how everything we experience fits into the larger context or system of which it is a part, “dialectics restructures our thinking about reality by replacing the common sense notion of ‘thing’ (as something that has a history and has external connections with other things) with notions of ‘process’ (which contains its history and possible futures) and “relation” (which contains as part of what it is its ties with other relations)” (Ollman 2004).

What Ollman (2004) means is that, when we try to explain our reality, we draw boundaries in time and space of the “thing” we are trying to explain, but those boundaries are mental and social constructs. Rather, dialectics focuses on the entirety of the process behind what we are trying to explain—thus also its past and its future—and the relations of it with other aspects of reality, all at once. If you drop your sandwich, the natural response to reflect on it would be to think about the actual event of dropping the sandwich. While doing so, we construct temporal and spatial boundaries to that event. But the dialectical method would also take into account the history leading up to the event, the future following the event and all the other aspects of reality that are related to that event, into one model which encompasses this process. It is in this sense that it presents an interesting framework to think of the future as a part of an ongoing dialectical process, making it a useful tool in futures studies.

Dialectics in Futures Studies

Dialectics has often been used to understand historical processes, but according to Dolan (2018) it also holds a lot of potential as a framing tool in Futures Studies. As he implies, the dialectical process is not just dichotomous in the sense that a solution is forced into one of two opposing poles. He states that the dialectical method “is specifically oriented toward assessing the range of potential pathways between poles with implicit understanding that neither is totally annihilated nor entirely dominant. In this, it is not dichotomous in forcing resolution into one pole or another. The synthesis is thus bounded by thesis and antithesis but is not entirely either, but a new species that transforms into the new thesis” (Dolan 2018).

Dolan (2018) represents the clash between the thesis and antithesis as a period of chaos, where it is uncertain what the resolution of the interaction will be. Multiple outcomes of this clash are possible somewhere on a range between both opposites. The synthesis always contains elements of both initial states, but is never truly either one of them. He calls this period, in which the eventual outcome of the oppositional interactions is still uncertain, the “zone of indeterminacy” (Figure 3).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Generic dialectical process (Dolan 2018).

The faculty of the dialectics as a framing tool in futures studies, according to Dolan (2018), lies in its capacity for framing oppositional forces and imagining a possible range of outcomes between the thesis and antithesis without knowing what those outcomes will be. This shifts the perception of outcome certainty and opens a new field of possibilities to anticipate.

Dolan (2018) states oppositional elements can be plugged into the model above in conjunction with emerging issues analysis. Indeed, there is a notable similarity between the concepts of thesis and antithesis and the possible lifecycle of emerging issues. The dialectical process could also be linked to the concepts of trends and driving forces. Established states, or theses, can be seen as today’s driving forces, which Dator (2018) describes as “problem/opportunities.” Indeed, a dominant state of being might present opportunities to one, while it constitutes a problem for the other. The latter might rather see a shift away from the status quo. Emerging issues that negate this status quo might arise. Dolan (2018) calls them “emerging contradictions” because they specifically contradict the dominant paradigm or prevailing state. Maybe these will never come to full fruition, but they might as well grow and move along the S-curve, evolving into trends and maybe even becoming problem/opportunities themselves one day. At least, the interaction between the current problem/opportunity and emerging contradictions will lead to a period of chaos, where it is uncertain what will happen, until a synthesis arrives which becomes the thesis, or established problem/opportunity, itself.

This means dialectical analysis might have a distinctive role to play in emerging issue analysis. Dolan (2018) suggests a step-by-step protocol to implement dialectics in this process:

“Identify the prevailing norm, institutional structure, or process or convention that provides the thesis element of the analysis.

However, the idea of this “continuum from low antithetical to high antithetical impact” seems to imply that a set of fixed outcomes at a certain time-horizon is identifiable and the possible pathways of emerging contradictions to those points are clear. Dolan (2018) uses dialectics for developing a “frame” in which specific outcomes of a dialectic interaction may appear on a fixed range between the thesis and antithesis. In his theoretical examples of historical dialectical processes, this idea may be applicable. As he states, dialectical analysis may be used to anticipate a collective compulsion to establish order from the disorder or chaos of the thesis/antithesis interaction, as is the case in historical dialectical processes, both in nature, in political and social systems or psychological theories and spiritual ideas. It might thus work from a theoretical standpoint, but it is less applicable when using dialectical analysis as a practical tool or technique in applied futures research. The main shortcoming of it in real-life, practical workshops is the lack of mechanics that take into account the time it takes for an emerging issue to develop and the different possible roads such developments can take over a longer period. In a practical or applied research context, when performing futures exercises with participants, it would be more accurate to reflect on these possible developments of emerging contradictions over time, rather than to immediately jump to the range of possible outcomes on the long term.

Let’s take a look at some techniques that evolve around this development of current issues over time: emerging issue analysis and the futures wheel. Both these techniques are considered useful tools in Inayatullah’s (2008) second pillar of “anticipation.” Here, “anticipating” means looking at future possibilities and opportunities based on the possible developments of present-day issues, which overlaps with the goal of using the dialectical framework to think about how emerging contradictions might evolve over time when clashing with an existing thesis.

Emerging issue analysis seeks to identify issues before they become unwieldy and expensive (Inayatullah 2008) and uses Molitor’s S-curve to envision the possible maturation of those issues into problem/opportunities (Dator 2018). The futures wheel is specifically designed to develop the consequences of today’s issues on the longer-term future, by defining first order impacts of an issue and continuing to identify second order impacts—being direct consequences of those first order impacts—and so on (Inayatullah 2008). Both techniques consider the arrow of time in thinking about the development and consequences of emerging issues. Dolan’s (2018) model focuses more on the fixed range of possibilities that can be defined by stating possible outcomes of the thesis/antithesis dynamic on a continuum from low antithetical impact to high antithetical impact, without any other conceptualization of time but the dialectical process itself. He does argue that dialectical analysis does indeed associate with “ongoing struggle” over time, pointing at the continuous cycle of synthesis turning into thesis and anticipating a new antithesis, which suggests continuous scanning for emerging contradictions. But this is something else then taking into account the time an emerging contradiction itself needs to develop into a problem/opportunity and the impact of broader contexts on this development.

To be able to use dialectics in a practical way during the nOna-project, we applied Dolan’s (2018) framework for using dialectical analysis in futures studies, and specifically its conjunction with emerging issue analysis, to create a technique that can be used in applied futures exercises with organizations looking for ways to cope with future uncertainties. We did this by creating a model of dialectical change that better indicates the passing of time in the development of a synthesis, using the Marxist iteration of dialectics, which we combined with a futures wheel to think about possible developments of emerging contradictions.

Toward a New Model: Dialectics and Social Change

Let us first consider why we focus on aspects of the Marxist dialectic here instead of other, more recent critical perspectives, such as those found in post-structuralism or post-Marxism. Post-structuralists—such as Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, and Deleuze—offered critique on Marx’ dialectic, associating it with totality, teleology, and determinism, with Marxist authors offering their critique on post-structural perspectives in return (Read 2010, 2011). Post-Marxist scholars, such as Laclau and Mouffe, moved beyond the essentialism of orthodox Marxism in their political theory (Laclau and Mouffe 1985, 1990). While these are valuable contributions to the field of political philosophy, it is beyond the scope of this article to elaborate on the ontological discussion of Marx’ historical materialism (or Hegel’s idealism, the Ancient Greeks’ realism, or other ontological positions). Marxist theory certainly comes with fallacies, but particular tools in the Marxist dialectic seem to correspond very well with certain needs in futures thinking. Hence, the model we will present is not Marxist as such, but rather borrows aspects from the Marxist dialectic to put in useful combination with certain methods of Futures Studies.

An important principle of dialectics is the transition of a change in the quantitative state of an object or subject (a measurable change in the quantity of something) to a change in its qualitative state (a change in the nature of something). The clash between two opposing forces changes the initial states of thesis and antithesis. But changes in quantity do not necessarily translate into changes in quality, as long as these measurable changes stay within certain boundaries in which the changes are not noticeable. The change would then not be tangible, unless you actually measure the quantitative changes. But when the quantity surpasses a certain point, a sudden change in the nature or qualitative state of an object or subject may follow. Hegel uses the example of water, where its initial qualitative state (being fluid) can be changed by differences in its quantitative state (temperature). Only once we pass a specific quantitative boundary (e.g., freezing point), its qualitative state will change from being fluid to being solid (Hegel, Findlay, and Wallace 1975).

This idea was later used by Marxist authors to think about social change, specifically the process of abstraction. According to Marx, nothing is simply and solely what it seems to be at a particular place and time. The notion of a machine, for example, is different from the perspective of a capitalist (seeing it as a mean to produce profit) than from the perspective of a worker (seeing an instrument that determines the steps in a production process). Since an object we think about can exist within a variety of spatial and temporal frameworks, we cannot employ all these possible frameworks at the same time. To discuss an object in a meaningful way, we must limit our thinking to a certain extension of space and time. Dialectical thinkers are better equipped for not making this abstraction of extension overly restricted or unrestricted, since they are interested in processes in which qualitative distinctions—a change in appearance and/or function—arrive from quantitative changes—an increase or decrease in size or number (Ollman 2004).

For example, according to Marx, money only becomes capital (in the sense that it can buy labor-power and produce value) once it reaches a certain amount. Or imagine, for example, a nation with a certain set of policies as the current social state (thesis). But there is discord, some individuals do not agree with these policies (negation—antithesis). The controversy grows, alternative images of society start to circulate and more and more people turn their backs on the government (change in quantity). This growing unrest is not noticed though, until—under the influence of external factors—a certain mass is reached which mobilizes. Their actions might cause a revolution (change in quality). The revolution succeeds and new ideas of policy are implemented to govern the nation, effectively becoming the new normal (synthesis—new thesis). Although the revolution seemed sudden (that is why it is perceived as a revolution), the movement was already growing for a while beneath the surface. If one would have held a poll at the time (or, in any other case, conducted, for example, a horizon scan to spot possible emerging issues), then one might have seen the quantitative changes taking place. But if that does not happen, the qualitative change comes unexpected. It seems as if a sudden jump in time took place.

This idea can also be applied to Polak’s (1971), and Mannheim’s (1949) conceptualization of the utopian as a catalyst in social change. Polak (1971) describes the utopian as one whose task is to hold up two mirrors—“one to reflect the contemporary generation, and one to reflect a counter-image of a possible future.” Mannheim (1949) says utopian orientations “…when they come to conduct, tend to shatter, either partially or wholly, the order of things prevailing at the time.” As Morgan (2015) states, in Polak’s idea of two mirrors, “the one reflecting ‘the contemporary generation’ represents the function of social critique since it involves self-reflection as a trigger for social evolution.” By unpacking assumptions and values underlying prevailing paradigms, the utopian “obtains objective social consciousness, which leads to foresight concerning social evolution, development, activism, and (at times) revolution. The assumption is that, when armed with such consciousness, the image of the future is clarified; consequently, the door is open for ‘reconstruction’—the function of the ‘other mirror’ in the realization of alternative futures as venues for social change” (Morgan 2015). Polak (1971), and Mannheim (1949) see the utopian as someone who does not passively speculate about alternatives, but proactively tries to reconstruct reality in order to create a better future (Morgan 2015).

This example illustrates the dialectical nature of social change. In this case, the radical utopian and its images of the future function as antithetical forces opposing the prevailing norms. This utopian, actively trying to reconstruct current reality, might gain traction with its actions, mobilizing enough people behind its cause, effectively changing the quantitative state of this antithetical force until a certain mass is reached and ideas of social change become reality—thus changing the qualitative state. Since Marxism itself portrays images of an ideal future society and lays out a plan or pathway to achieve this future, the idea of the radical or revolutionary utopian fits the Marxist dialectic well.

Marxist dialectic, and specifically the search for quantity/quality change, presents a good framework for looking at the future as a part of the ongoing dialectical process. Or, as Ollman (2004) explains:

“It is a way of uniting in thought the past and probable future of any ongoing process at the expense (temporary expense) of its relations in the broader system. And it is a way of sensitizing oneself to the inevitability of change, both quantitative and qualitative, even before research has helped us to discover what it is. While the notion of quantity/quality is in no sense a formula for predicting the future, it does encourage research into patterns and trends of a kind that enables one to project the likely future, and it does offer a framework for integrating such projections into one’s understanding of the present and the past.”

In a historical process where there are two distinct forces constantly opposing each other—for example, prevailing paradigm versus utopian images of the future—we might visualize the historical dialectics of social change as two opposing waves—with shortening wavelengths over time to represent accelerating change—interacting with each other, regularly crossing the boundaries of quantitative to qualitative change. Let’s call them the “dialectical waves of change” for now (Figure 4).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Dialectical waves of change.

The aforementioned connection between emerging issue analysis and dialectical analysis becomes even more clear if we compare Molitor’s S-curve (Figure 5).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Emerging issue analysis S-curve (Lum 2015). “Dialectical waves of change.”

If one takes the specific part of a dialectical wave between the antithesis and the new thesis, it overlaps with the possible development of an emerging issue into an established issue or problem/opportunity. Both models include the distinctive “S”-form, which looks like half a wave itself. The cyclic process of emerging issues moving up the S-curve and developing into problem/opportunities, replacing the former ones, resembles the cyclic process of dialectics, in which the synthesis, caused by the negation of a current problem/opportunity by an antithetical force, evolves into the new thesis, replacing the former problem/opportunity. Dator (2018) explains this cyclic process in the coming and going of emerging issues and problem/opportunities:

“As Molitor makes very clear, the movement from an emerging issue to a problem/opportunity follows an ‘S’-curve of growth. There is an initial period of emergence and slow initial growth, followed by a period of rapid growth as a trend, finally maturing in a plateau as a problem/opportunity, then perhaps dying out entirely, or declining, only to begin the cycle at some point in the future once again as a series of overlapping ‘S’-curves” (Dator, 2018).

This should not necessarily be seen as a fluid, continuous process. The dynamics of emerging contradictions rapidly evolving—moving up the S-curve and causing a chaotic phase of indeterminacy, eventually leading to a synthesis that replaces the former problem/opportunity—rather approach the concept of “punctuated equilibrium.” Stephen Jay Gould coined the term in his 1972 monograph, “Punctuated Equilibrium” to explain how biological evolution takes place in quick shifts or “punctuations” and persists for longer periods of time in stasis or “equilibrium” (Gould 2007). In social theory, the notion that change is “punctuated” due to big changes in the surrounding social conditions with intermittent longer periods of stability can also be found in theories on group formation and development (Gersick 1988) or analyses of policy change (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). Regarding dialectical processes of social change, Dolan (2011) explains that the equilibrium can be seen as “the state of thesis as the normative state” and the punctuation as the antithetical contradictions that manifest themselves. Social change then again takes place in quick shifts—which fits the “sudden jumps” attributed to the transition from quantitative to qualitative change in the dialectical process (cf. supra)—followed by longer periods of stability. This can partly be attributed to the agency of social actors in the dialectical process. How the thesis/antithesis clash plays out is for a large part dependent on the position these social agents hold toward the thesis and antithesis, for example, to what extent the current thesis is internalized and institutionalized by society.

Combine the two techniques of emerging issue analysis and dialectical analysis and you can see how performing an emerging issue analysis based on emerging contradictions—emerging issues that specifically contradict the current/dominant state of being, thus serving as an antithesis—can help to reflect on possible future outcomes of a thesis–antithesis contradiction. This model allows us to think about quantitative changes taking place in the clash between the prevailing norm and the antithetical contradiction that steer us toward a certain resolution or qualitative change.

However, the model of “dialectical waves of change” above is based on historical processes. It is still incomplete to be used as a technique for applied futures research. It does not take into account that the resolution (synthesis) of the thesis/antithesis opposition is not fixed. Historically, we can easily analyze what the final resolution of a clash of opposing sides was and which quantitative changes were in play using the dialectic framework. But that, of course, is not possible when looking forward. Dolan’s (2018) zone of indeterminacy has to be implemented to complete the model (Figure 6).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

Dialectical waves of change for futures studies.

Now, we acknowledge the uncertainty of what the transformed state will be, leaving open many options to explore and anticipate. The different amplitudes of the waves after the zone of indeterminacy suggest the outcome is not certain. The extent to which the thesis or antithesis will affect the dynamic is not clear yet and maybe the clash between the two will never reach the qualitative tipping point leading to noticeable societal change—hence the dashed line that never crosses the qualitative boundary.

Steps 1 and 2 of Dolan’s (2018) proposed protocol can be implemented in this model:

1. First you identify the prevailing state/norm/system/structure/…—the thesis;

But then, to be able to determine what might happen with this emerging issues over time (e.g.. 10, 20, 30, or even 80 years), we need to find a way to develop possible pathways of those emerging contradictions interacting with the thesis. To this end, we implemented a futures wheel in this model, as a technique to think about what might happen in the zone of indeterminacy. The futures wheel fitted the purpose of this exercise, being an anticipating tool designed to develop the consequences and impacts of today’s issues on the long term. The futures wheel is prone to developing second, third, or even fourth order consequences that are not necessarily consistent with the other stated consequences or that might not fit into the same future. That means we should be able to identify multiple possible resolutions or synthesis’ of the thesis/antithesis clash, which is ideal for this dialectical analysis, since the negation takes place in the zone of indeterminacy and there are always multiple possible outcomes of this.

Using the quantitative/qualitative changes-feature of Marxist dialectic, we can facilitate this process of defining multiple possible outcomes, by constantly asking which quantitative changes drive these consequences, in which manner they do this and when an antithetical force gains enough quantitative power to inflict qualitative change. We should thus ask participants following questions during this process:

Which quantitative changes can you see today that effect the development of the emerging contradiction or which quantitative developments confront and oppose the prevailing state?

This way, we can create multiple possible resolutions of the thesis–antithesis clash while taking into account the temporal process space. Instead of ranging those from high to low antithetical impact, we cluster the final set consequences that fit each other and can co-exist in the same future, effectively creating multiple possible resolutions, represented as “2A, 2B, & 2C” in the model shown in Figure 7.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 7.

Dialectical waves of change, enhanced with the futures wheel.

We might even take this exercise into the “transformation” pillar of Inayatullah (2008) by asking participants which of these possible developments and resolutions are the most preferable and how they might stimulate the quantitative changes or drivers behind them today. This way, we can pick the specific outcomes of the development of an emerging contradiction that fit the wishes and goals of the organization and help them to see how they could facilitate the preferred development of an emerging contradiction in the present.

Now we have a new protocol for using dialectics in applied futures projects, based on Dolan (2018) protocol, but revised to fit the purpose of real-life practical exercises:

Identify the prevailing state/norm/system/structure/…—the thesis;

A Case Study: Arts Center “Nona” in Flanders, Belgium

nOna is an arts center in the Flemish city of Mechlin. They were not quite familiar with the field of Futures Studies when they approached us. At first, they even did not really have a clue why they contacted us and what they wanted us to do for them. But—as most organizations—they did have questions and uncertainties surrounding their own future. One of the most prominent of them being the standstill, they felt the Flemish arts landscape had been in for over 20 years. The lack of renewal in the Flemish arts causes a feeling of loss of excitement, and they feel like the context and the structures in which supporting and mediating institutes, like themselves, have to operate are part of the cause. They wanted to see how renewal could breathe new life into the Flemish arts in the future and how their organization could play a facilitating role in that process.

As mentioned at the beginning of this article, we started this project by doing a shared history workshop, as described by Inayatullah (2008), to map the recent past of the arts center and the landscape in which it operates, as well as to uncover what drove change in the Flemish arts in the past.

It was this workshop, in combination with a literature study, that led us to the identification of the two opposing forces shaping the cultural landscape in Flanders: the government/top-down policy on one hand and the creative foundation/artists/bottom-up creativity on the other. The dialectical struggle between these two is what drove the most important changes and time periods over the last 60 years in the cultural sector in Flanders and still explains the contradicting forces that are in play today. In this cyclic process, the government’s goal usually is to maintain a regulated sector in which public resources are well spent. A regulated sector is dominated by traditional arts and well established, hierarchic arthouses, theaters, and other institutions, which leaves not much room for bottom-up creativity. In such scenario, new artists have troubles competing with these established and well-funded organizations. This describes the situation of Flemish arts and theater before the ‘70s (De Pauw 2007).

On the other hand, you have the artists and creative minds “at the bottom” of the cultural landscape, who want to break the dominance of traditional arts. During the ‘70s and ‘80s, they mobilized and drew attention by creating new movements, festivals, expositions, etc. Under the right circumstances and international influences, these kinds of bottom-up movements flourished and created a wave of change in the arts landscape.

In the Flemish context specifically, such a wave came during the ‘80s. Supported by the political Zeitgeist of May ’68 and with more and more international artists finding their way to Flemish festivals and stages (= quantitative change), the so called “Flemish Wave” brought new artistic influences to our regions. The cultural landscape back then allowed artists to show their work on their own stages and form their own companies. A whole generation of dancers, choreographers, cineasts, and actors such as Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker, Jan Decorte, Marianne Van Kerkhove, and Jan Fabre would rise to prominence (De Pauw 2007). It was a time in which Flemish arts flourished and democratized. There was a growth in the amount of artists and artistic education gained popularity (= quantitative change). It ushered in an era of artistic novelty and the reconstruction of the cultural landscape in Flanders (= qualitative change).

But then came the ‘90s. The increase in the number of artists and cultural organizations and companies outside of the regulated structures and institutions (= quantitative change) meant a loss of control over what was happening with public funding. The government started funding a lot of these initiatives. The subsidies were welcomed by many of the organizations with few resources to maintain their activities (= quantitative change).

However, successive governments started to decrease these subsidies for the cultural sector (= quantitative change). A growing number of rules and regulations concerning efficient management were implemented (= quantitative change). Organizations which could prove their worth would keep their funds, others would have to go. Corporate logics were gradually implemented in the cultural landscape. Many organizations were forced to fuse and grow to gain efficiency (De Pauw 2007).

These neo-liberal policies created a situation in which the main focus in the arts shifted from the creative bottom to the facilitating institutions, which are funded by the government and thus subject to regulations. They are expected to run their organizations as businesses. This causes “manageritis.” Instead of focusing on artists and their work, cultural organizations have to spend a lot of time and resources on administration and management. Artists become dependent on them. These organizations have become the gatekeepers of the artistic landscape. Because measurable worth has become one of the main criteria to gain subsidies (De Pauw 2007), the selection of artistic work is often based on marketability or the potential to meet cultural goals constructed by the government. This instrumentalisation leads to a smothering of creativity, leaving little room for bottom-up creation, which causes the creative standstill of the artistic landscape today. Financial and statutory uncertainty leads to a precarious situation for artists and facilitating institutions. This period in time, starting somewhere in the mid-nineties and continuing today, is also referred to as the “professionalization period” (= qualitative change) by members of nOna. During the shared history workshop, one of the directors of the arts center expressed this feeling of standstill during this period of time:

“We’re stuck with the professionalization of the landscape and for ten or fifteen years, we’ve been discussing the same issues within the entire sector. And there is no carryover such as during the eighties and nineties. You have a continuation of the riches, but also of the same [returning] problems. … I would like to have a new [creative] wave, but I cannot cause it myself. This is something that must come from the artists in particular and I don’t feel that right now. … And that is what I mean with that ‘professionalization’. Since then, we are floating along as a landscape.”

The feeling of “then” versus “now” was very apparent among board members, as one participant stated:

“There is a big difference. Back then, we created. Now, we support.”

These opposing forces in the cultural landscape and the subsequent different time periods and the interaction between those two created were confirmed during a literature study of the recent past of the Flemish art landscape, the arts center nOna and recent cultural policy (De Pauw 2007; Meuleman 2006, 2018; Van den Bossche et al. 2007; Schauvliege 2009; Gatz 2013; Jambon 2019).

In the model of the dialectical waves of change above, the recent history of the Flemish landscape could be visualized as shown in Figure 8.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 8.

Dialectical waves of change in Flemish arts landscape.

Note that this figure only represents a specific timeframe—a thin slice, so to speak—in a larger ongoing historical process. The dialectical dynamics leading up to this period go far back in history and continue on today, as will they in the future. This is the same as the very first model of dialectical waves we presented in this article, the one without the addition of the zone of indeterminacy. That is because here we represent a historical process in which the outcomes of successive clashes are known.

The opposing forces in the arts landscape and the consequences of their historical interaction, as experienced by members of nOna, fits the Marxist dialectic too, as the original antithetical wave—the bottom-up/artistic wave that opposed the prevailing, regulated sector—served as a form of social critique, posing other ideologies as alternatives for what arts are and could be and how the artistic landscape could serve social purpose; thus, one might say, they pose alternative, maybe utopian, images of the future of arts. Today, similar alternative images of the future might even oppose the current neo-liberal paradigm in cultural policy. Furthermore, quantitative changes during the interaction can be identified that induced qualitative changes once certain critical points were reached.

Now, after mapping the past and identifying the driving motors behind change, we could use the technique of combining this model of dialectical waves of change with emerging issue analysis and the futures wheel to try to anticipate possible future change and the possible outcomes of this change as a consequence of the dialectical interaction between the two opposing forces in the arts landscape. To do this, we followed the protocol described earlier in this article. We started by identifying emerging contradictions—specific emerging issues that contradict the prevailing state/structure, or thesis—by conducting a horizon scan in combination with a brainstorming session. We identified a number of emerging contradictions in the Flemish arts landscape today that negate the current “professionalization period,” characterized by neo-liberal policies, instrumentalisation of culture, and precariousness for artists.

For this stage, it is important to specifically pick emerging contradictions, not just emerging issues, since only the issues that oppose the current state of being can serve as antithetical forces creating dialectical change over time. Emerging issues that would develop into “more of the same” are not interesting in an exercise where the specific goal is to see where renewal could take place and how a change from the current state could be reached (Figure 9).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 9.

Identifying emerging contradictions on an S-curve.

Next, we picked a couple of those emerging contradictions to further build upon, specifically the ones nOna found the most interesting or accommodating to their cause. These were:

The rise of artists as “advisors”—with strong statutory protection of intellectual properties— on creativity and soft skills;

We then used these emerging contradictions as the middle nodes in futures wheels. Participants were asked to formulate possible first, second, and third order consequences of these emerging contradictions over time (Figure 10).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 10.

Developing a futures wheel surrounding an emerging contradiction.

In the discussions that followed, the recurrence of some topics led to the crystallization of key nodes concerning preferred change in the landscape, such as the statutory protection of artists, intellectual properties, possible opportunities and threats of digitalization, the importance of a local support base, and ownership by artists and publics.

We finished the project with several open conversations about the implications of the gained insights for the arts center and the themes, phenomena, or possible resolutions they would like to build upon as an organization. Two concrete action points were formulated. First, the board would like to develop a shared vision with artists, public, and other stakeholders about digitalization and virtualization in the arts, an image that they would then like to implement or at least spread throughout the landscape as an alternative image. They realized that they were preparing for a digital future that is not fixed yet and that does not necessarily match their own preferences or that of their most important stakeholders. Second, they would like to explore the possibility of starting a cooperative with artists and publics, to take ownership of the landscape into their own hands and change the narrative of the ongoing struggle between artists and structures regulated by the government.

Findings and Discussion

The insights surrounding the use of the model of dialectical waves of change in practical exercises, as described throughout this article, came at the tail end of the project cycle with nOna, which was spring 2020, the time the global COVID-19 pandemic struck. The possibilities for experimenting with the proposed technique were greatly reduced because of this, often leading to online sessions obstructed by technical issues and a lack of continuation because of missing participants. The online meetings became more like “demonstrations” of the techniques, rather than dedicated workshops for testing. As such, the outputs were limited and there are few substantive results of the use of the proposed technique to report. Further experimentation with the use of this technique in practical contexts is still needed to provide more insights in its application in practice and in what could be adjusted toward productive implementation as a tool in applied futures research.

The insights and learnings gained can still help us, or others, to prepare and conduct similar sessions in the future. First, the dialectical analysis of the recent history of the Flemish cultural landscape led to an accurate illustration of the forces and changes taking place in the sector, according to members of the arts center. This suggested to them that it would also be a useful framework for looking forward. The identification of emerging contradictions then helped them to gain insights into present-day issues through the dialectical lens. What also worked well was the development of the emerging contradictions in multiple futures wheels. The discussions and results to which it led helped the participants to comprehend how these contradictions might develop over time, which key moments could be defined and which roles the arts center could play in possible future changes.

However, we had some issues concerning the technique that did not necessarily have anything to do with the technical and practical limitations we encountered because of the pandemic response. For example, the set of questions we posed for specific futures wheel exercises concerning the quantitative and qualitative changes were difficult to address for participants. Brainstorming about possible developments and consequences was not an issue, but trying to identify the quantitative drivers behind them on the spot was not easy and did not lead to many results the participants thought of as useful moving forward. This process could be better supported by conducting more desk research concerning these quantitative drivers before doing the exercise—to be able to give some input to participants to think about—or afterward—to complete their input with insights from other sources. Other questions, mechanics, or techniques could also possibly be used to reflect on these topics. Further exploration of other possibilities to complete the last part of this protocol would be desirable.

Overall, it would be interesting to open up this exercise to be conducted with broader publics. We completed the entire project with members of the board of directors of the arts center, but the dialectical analysis—and specifically the consideration of external factors in the broader context influencing the process—could be more extensive and exhaustive if other groups of stakeholders were involved. This could lead to more variation in perspectives and a higher number of possible results or outcomes. In this sense, it could be useful to explore other contexts of co-creation with local communities and networks of different stakeholders, such as Cittadellarte’s framework of Demopraxy, which on its own already explores emerging issues through a process that resembles dialectical analysis (Cittadellarte n.d.).

The model of “dialectical waves of change” created during this project could help other futurists to use dialectical analysis in applied futures research contexts. As a technique that focuses on the historical processes behind change, current contradicting elements and the possible future outcomes of a dialectical clash, it provides a hands-on protocol that facilitates the process of imagining possible developments of emerging contradictions over time while also taking into consideration forces in the broader context influencing these possible developments. Although further exploration of the practical implementation is recommended, this technique could prove to be particularly useful in futures projects where two opposing forces shaping a certain landscape can be identified. We hope it will further encourage the use of dialectical analysis in futures studies as a way to comprehend past, present, and futures dynamics as parts of an ongoing historical process.