by Ana Keser
Futures studies generally assume a linear progression of time in which past, present, and future
follow one another seamlessly. This assumption seems so self-evident that alternative
conceptions of time and development are often neglected. But what if this restricts the
representation and perception of new phenomena?
Historian Zoltán B. Simon's (2021) concept of time domestication offers an interesting perspectiv
to critically question the modern Western understanding of history as a processual development.
The domestication of time describes a cognitive strategy by which new phenomena are described
as part of an overarching historical process and thus made more familiar. Three linguistic means
are central to this:
- (re-)describing the new: By describing new developments with familiar terms and concepts, they appear more familiar.
- Setting time markers: Historical references or statements such as "has always been" create links between the past and the future.
- Creating continuity: The new is presented as a logical extension of the existing.
These mechanisms give the impression that the future is feasible and desirable, especially if it is associated with ideas of progress. But they can also have a negative effect: The new, as something radically different and disconnected from the present and the past, is defused in this scheme of continuous process. It becomes harder to see its novelty and urgency.
How we understand time and development has a decisive influence on how we think about the future. A more critical examination of the mechanisms of time domestication could help us to understand better the limitations of thinking in terms of continuity and to gain insights into the presentation of futures. In this way, futures studies might come a step closer to its ultimate goal of anticipating the unexpected.
Sources:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0961463X211014804 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/hith.12190
