Holoptic Foresight Dynamics: Cooperative Perception of Emergence for Co-Creation of Transformative Futures (Part 2)

In Part 1 of Holoptic Foresight Dynamics, I covered the basics of holopticism, noting that a many-membered view of the direction and purpose of the ”Whole” (i.e. organizational vision, collective mission, global human transformation, universal cosmology, etc.) would not only strengthen and amplify our foresight ability and capacity, but would also result in the recognition of a foresight trait in humanity. At this point, an evolutionary question emerges: Is a holoptic practice only realized in the context of long-term human change, civilizational development and large-scale evolution, or is a holoptic environment something that we must intentionally create within conducive settings such as a “learning organization” or collaborative initiatives? I believe that the answer is “yes”… and “yes.”

3 States of Human Evolutionary Expression

In order to better understand a movement toward manifesting holoptic foresight in organizational, governmental and societal practices, I would like to offer a set of simple structural diagrams that highlight three general states of collective human expression in terms of evolutionary maturity.

(It’s important to note when viewing these diagrams that they are overviews, and do not necessarily account for conditions of overlap, environments that might supersede the next evolutionary step in human development, or the complexities of leadership, organizational, and human development presented through theories such as Integral, Spiral Dynamics, Action Inquiry, “Theory U,” Appreciative Inquiry, S-Curve Thinking, Systems Thinking, etc. As I stated earlier, HFD is meant to compliment these theoretical frameworks while also expanding on the evolutionary arrow of these practices through the lens of a large-scale futures thinking characteristic, both within the world of business, as well as in the larger setting of global interaction and human futures.)

In viewing these diagrams, a basic answer can be given to the question of why holoptic environments in general — and HFD in specific — is both a step forward on the natural evolutionary path of humanity (and the broader concept of consciousness, a topic we will cover in a later installment), as well as something that must be intentionally fostered in order to succeed. After all, as we further our social evolution, we are becoming more and more intentionally engaged in the process — technologically, governmentally, ecologically, bio-genetically, etc. Students of evolutionary theory will note that these states follow an evolutionary path of immature competition to mature cooperation, and this will become critical to our understanding of moving beyond a “fight and flight” response to our surroundings to a “perceive and achieve” level of existence.

Monopticism: Linear Competition

The first state of human evolutionary expression is Monopticism. A monoptic perspective or environment is characterized by separation between actors, and can be seen in settings where strong top-down hierarchy, promotion of extreme individualism, and “command and control” models are at work. “Monoptic” is primarily a medical term that means “relating to the presentation of different stimuli to one eye” or “single-eyed.” When this concept is applied to an organizational, governmental or social setting, it can refer to an environment where there is limited or linear vision in terms of what can be seen, imagined or acted upon. In such an environment, the various actors/players, leaders, and nodes that make up a system are not perceived as interconnected, thereby developing a culture in which the elements involved fail to move toward collaboration, creative diversity, and holistic innovation. (This can also be seen within the first tier memes of the Spiral Dynamics model that express survival, tribal order, exploitive self-desire, authoritative obedience and strategic achievism.)

As can be seen in the diagram displaying a basic monoptic environment, individual actors/players and leaders may communicate and have a sense of awareness of one another (certain actors/players “seeing” other actors/players, and some even having connective communication with each other; certain leaders “seeing” other leaders or actors/players, and vice versa), but overall, there is no systemic environment for collaborative connectivity, nor any platform for the development (or emergence) of a culture conducive to building holistic purpose and direction which would bring health to the individuals and organization itself. IN such an environment, foresight practice is viewed as a way to reinforce dominant narratives, block emerging ideas that are disruptive to dominant narratives, and dictate the definition of the future. This is often what is meant when you hear the phrase “future proof.” (See the article https://futuristfrankspencer.medium.com/climbing-the-foresight-ladder-1f719d95e6ad)

Panopticism: Linear Connection

The second state of human evolutionary expression is Panopticism, characterized by a greater ability in all of the actors/players and leaders in a system to “see” or sense the ideas and activities of the other actors/players and leaders within a given system. Traditionally, Panopticism is viewed as a social theory — originally developed by French Philosopher Michel Foucault — that describes an environment in which a central power has full visibility of all entities in a given system. This theory can be easily understood from 18th Century English Philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s architectural treatise entitled Panopticon or The Inspection House.

“Bentham uses a prison as an example: it is a building with a tower in the center, from which all the surrounding cells are visible. The inside of the tower, though, cannot be seen. It individualizes and leaves them constantly visible; never knowing when they are being observed. The occupant is always “the object of information, never a subject in communication.” This type of design can be used for any population that needs to be kept under observation, such as: prisoners, schoolchildren, medical patients or workers… By individualizing the subjects and putting them in a state of constant visibility, the efficiency of the institution is maximized. Furthermore, it guarantees the function of power, even when there is no one actually asserting it. It is in this respect that the Panopticon functions automatically. Foucault goes on to explain that this design is also applicable for a laboratory. Its mechanisms of individualization and observation give it the capacity to run many experiments simultaneously. These qualities also give an authoritative figure the “ability to penetrate men’s behavior” with extreme ease. This is all made possible through ingenious architectural design… Although Bentham presents the Panopticon as a specified institution, Foucault insists that we consider it to be a model of functioning. It is a “mechanism of power,” a “figure of political technology that may and must be detached from any specific use.” Fewer people have to exercise power, while more are affected by its assertion. Anywhere the principals of Panopticism are applied, the flawless exercise of power is possible.”

In this sense, a Panoptic environment is only concerned with surveillance, control, and discipline of a system. However, in an open-source atmosphere of Panopticism — much like we are seeing in today’s global culture — everyone is given the key to the panoptic architecture, creating an environment where all actors/players and leaders within a system can freely “see” one another, or discipline one another through what may be known as “sousveillance” (a “watching from below” or monitoring of authorities — and everyone, for that matter — by the general public). This type of panoptic environment — which he calls the “Participatory Panopticon” — has been expertly detailed by Futurist Jamais Cascio:

“Soon — probably within the next decade, certainly within the next two — we’ll be living in a world where what we see, what we hear, what we experience will be recorded wherever we go. There will be few statements or scenes that will go unnoticed, or unremembered. Our day to day lives will be archived and saved. What’s more, these archives will be available over the net for recollection, analysis, even sharing… And we will be doing it to ourselves… This won’t simply be a world of a single, governmental Big Brother watching over your shoulder, nor will it be a world of a handful of corporate siblings training their ever-vigilant security cameras and tags on you. Such monitoring may well exist, probably will, in fact, but it will be overwhelmed by the millions of cameras and recorders in the hands of millions of Little Brothers and Little Sisters. We will carry with us the tools of our own transparency, and many, perhaps most, will do so willingly, even happily… I call this world the Participatory Panopticon.”

This wider application of Panopticism is defined by open-source sharing and even a degree or type of collaboration, and its acceptance in today’s organizational and social settings is manifested in popular ideas such as “crowd-sourcing.” However, such an open-source environment does not automatically lead to “sense-making” of the direction and emergent properties of the “whole” of the system, but only grants access to its parts. In this state, 1+1=2, and seeing beyond the linear outcomes of multiple lines of sight is nearly impossible as individual r organizational viewpoints remained siloed. (This type of evolutionary environment can also be understood as a transition between the “First” and “Second-Tier Memes” of the Spiral Dynamics theory and model.) As pictured in the Panopticism diagram, actors/players and leaders can all “see” one another, but there is no nodal connection bringing about directive and purposeful holism to the system.

In terms of foresight, this is the concept of being “future ready” or even “future empowered” as such a state grants the ability to categorize trends from multiple domains, gather data from multiple sources, and define external forces of change, and then use that information to become more resilient, adaptive and innovative. (See the article https://futuristfrankspencer.medium.com/climbing-the-foresight-ladder-1f719d95e6ad) The William Gibson quote “The future is already here, it’s just not evenly distributed” is a great descriptor of a panoptic environment, and reinforces the idea that foresight’s main objective is to support our efforts to manage uncertainty and alter our course for optimum success. (BTW, the acolytes of AI will be happy to inform you that technology will soon do all of this for you; be very careful buying into that story as sense-making goes much deeper than quantification.) The pros and cons of such a state are apparent — but is there more to foresight’s vision than this popular stage of human development?

Holopticism: Non-Linear Cooperation

The third state of human evolutionary expression is the condition upon which the HFD model is based. As defined in Part 1 of this series, Holopticism is:

… a combination of Greek words holos (whole, holistic, all), optiké (vision), and tekhné (art, technique). It expresses the capacity for players in a given organization (or group) to perceive the emerging whole of that organization (or group) as if it were a unique entity, be it in a natural physical space or an online space (virtual).

The difference between a Panoptic and Holoptic environment can be expressed in the phrase, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” In Panopticism, the actors/players and leaders may be able to “see” one another, but there is little to no intentional interconnectivity that gives birth to the “whole” as a distinct entity (an emergent expression of the system). In a Holoptic organization, the nodes within the system are aware of both their distinct diversity or individuality within the system, and how the parts fit into ( and help to create) the larger purpose and direction that is unfolding within the system. This holistic awareness is a result of operating within the “Second Tier Memes” of the Spiral Dynamics theory and model, which is characterized by integrative and inclusive benefit to the system, but does not exclude the need for reciprocal benefit to the nodes as well. Such an environment displays a blurring of hierarchy, decentralization created by recognition of complex adaptive systems/complex responsive processes/complex potential states at work, and a “swarming” experience that is much more intentionally holistic than the mechanically disconnected sharing and intelligence creation produced in panoptic crowd-sourcing.

In terms of foresight, this is the state where we are no longer attempting to reinforce the dominant narrative and control the outcome, but rather we are cooperatively perceiving, aligning and co-creating with the emerging realities birthed through natural and creative complexity. This is a state of collective diverse “futures consciousness” that reconnects us with the anticipatory environment around us, and allows for transitory and transformational development that can lead us into healthy systems of economics, governance, agriculture, education, energy development, ecological conservation, etc. for the entire planet. Further, this demonstrates the need to understand foresight from an evolutionary perspective rather than solely a methodological viewpoint that serves to improve our systems and actions. As you will see in future installments of this series, a Holoptic Foresight locus puts us in harmony with evolutionary directionality, and is a trait that we must intentionally foster if humanity desires to fulfill its purpose.

About the author:

Frank W. Spencer IV

Frank is the Founding Principal and Creative Director at Kedge — a global opportunities firm that leverages its expertise in integrated thinking, foresight, innovation, and strategic design to empower organizations to seize aspirations, transformation, and growth. He also serves as a Lead Instructor at The Futures School, a world-renowned futures thinking, foresight and design futures learning ecosystem. Prior to Kedge, Frank worked for 15 years as a leadership coach and developer with entrepreneurs, social communities, networking initiatives, and SMEs, helping them in areas such as development, innovation, and networking. He holds a Master of Arts in Strategic Foresight from Regent University. With a strong background in both business and academic foresight, Frank was the creator and lead instructor of The Futures Institute: Shaping The Future Now at Duke University’s Talent identification Program Institute, teaching students to use Futures Thinking and foresight to develop transformative solutions to grand challenges (2010, 2011). He has worked on Strategic Foresight projects for companies such as Kraft, Mars, Marriott, and The Walt Disney Company. He is a prolific speaker, having delivered presentations to groups and conferences around the globe for over the last 20 years. Frank holds memberships in World Futures Society (WFS) and Association for Professional Futurists (APF).