How should we respond to claims that the field of foresight — a mindset and practice that needs to be normalized in our schools, organizations, governments, and throughout society — is limited by academic and professional “gatekeepers”, and what is the best way to “democratize the future?”
Frank Spencer
Over the past several years, there’s been a lot of talk about “gatekeeping,” not only in my own field of foresight, but in many other fields as well. What is gatekeeping, what does it mean to “democratize the future,” and how does this all relate to our growing distrust in expertise?
Gatekeeping is the practice of controlling or limiting access to any domain (i.e. knowledge, information, capability, practice, substance, etc.) by those who have experience, tenure, stature, or some type of structural power. As we move further into a period of historic transition in which everything from work to money, from governance to identity, and from education to human purpose is reframed and redefined, people are no longer afraid to challenge the control, access, and “official story” of those in authority. Leaders in every field are now feeling the pressure to be more transparent about their information and activities, and the demand for open access to that information via digital platforms is growing by the day. The result has been an exposé of secret and corrupt practices, a decentralization of previously siloed knowledge, and the inclusion of the general public in the creation of new ideas and innovations. In many ways, this is a good thing!
When I’ve heard people talk about gatekeeping in the field of foresight, it has mostly referred to new and excited practitioners feeling as if established figures are setting the rules and standards by which they can or can’t practice. Of course, there is also the charge that foresight as a field has largely been occupied, defined, and colonized by white men — a reality that would be hard to argue. Thankfully, it’s also true that foresight and futures thinking is continuing to grow, morph, and expand — as any living field should — and that generally happens when a field is open to innovative voices, fresh insights, diverse perspectives, and multiple ways of knowing. So, even though there is some degree of gatekeeping present in the foresight field — and that’s a bad thing — many practitioners in the field welcome new blood and nascent ideas, and this trend is only accelerating.
Problem solved, right? Not so fast!
One reason that the screams of “gatekeeping” have echoed around foresight is because some deem the thinking and practice to still be ill-defined, and this has led to the belief that the field is a wide open space for wildly different definitions. Yes, the very nature of foresight and futures thinking definitely lends itself to broad input from various perspectives and diverse worldviews — that’s what makes it so powerful (I’ve often said that foresight is a “funnel discipline,” drawing from many other fields such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, technology, neuroscience, and many more). However, foresight isn’t nearly as ill-defined as some have proclaimed, and this is where the cry of “gatekeeping” takes a turn.
Imagine for moment that you were around for the creation of the wheel. It would certainly be problematic if the creators of the wheel were the only ones allowed to own a wheel, or possess the knowledge of how a wheel is made. It would be equally problematic if the masses wanted to make their own wheels or create variations on the wheel that enhance its capabilities or make it better for various users, but had no knowledge of the dynamics of wheel-making, and even dismissed or rejected the knowledge gained over time of how a wheel was made (or what a wheel even is). In other words, it’s problematic for many reasons when we try to reinvent the wheel.
“Who do these experts think they are to tell us how a wheel is made? Maybe a wheel can be flat or square. Maybe we don’t even need wheels. What if wheels were created to force the masses to adopt the transportation of the elites? WE REJECT YOUR WHEELS AND THE WORK THAT INSPIRED THEM!”
We desperately need to “democratize the future,” meaning that we need EVERYONE engaged in imagining and co-creating actions that lead to prosperous futures for all. However, that doesn’t negate experience and expertise in the philosophies, theories, methods, and practice that help us to achieve the former. Challenging established learnings without a deep understanding of subject matter expertise is also giving birth to a dark environment of conspiracy, collapse and chaos.
I’ve often said that those of us in foresight have done an awful job of bringing everyone into the future, allowing large swaths of people to be left behind by the technocrats and corporatists who have intentionally shaped the future for us all. This results in political, economic, and social confusion as many lose trust in “those in charge.” Subsequently, expertise becomes an abhorred target, even though the knowledge and foundations offered by that expertise is desperately needed. Right or wrong, in this environment the experts are labeled as gatekeepers. (We see this today in the besmirching of scientists warning about the pandemic or climate change.) But expertise isn’t the enemy — the enemy is centralized power!
Democratizing the future is a decentralization of power over the future, a recognition that many voices, cultures, and ideas create a prosperous future for all. Most studied and practiced futurists promote that idea and welcome others into the fold of study and practice with open arms.
However, none of this negates the need for continued rigor in foresight (or any field for that matter). Don’t fall prey to the pied-piper of anti-intellectualism and the rejection of expertise. It’s important that we recognize the need for theoretical and methodological rigor while naturally continuing to expand upon it — especially in a field like foresight where thinking intentionally about the future and unlocking this trait throughout our populations is critical to the development of evolutionary consciousness, regenerative justice, and transformational creativity.
If you’re met with real gatekeeping (i.e. racism, patriarchy, control), then fight it — by all means, I’ll be fighting alongside you. If the cry of “gatekeepers” is to dismantle the intellectual rigor that acts as a foundation upon which to build and expand — and to then define the field of foresight in whatever way best suits your co-opted goals — then we need to recognize who is benefitting from the fracturing and exactly what they gain.
Lastly, true expertise in any field requires a diversity of voices beyond the “lone genius” — a long-standing fallacy that should be put to rest. However, we don’t throw out the baby, just the old bathwater. And, in any healthy field, the basin should continue to grow and expand.
