The Poisonous Future
Humans have a very odd relationship to the future. On one level no doubt the future is the forge within which we make ourselves what we are. By which I mean we take an attitude to the future – and forge ourselves through that attitude – and in the light of it. That attitude (often manifest in beliefs) then patterns how we act in the present. We act in the present not at if we were really living in some present – but rather as we see that present in regard to a greater future of which it is merely the transitory phase towards ‘IT’ – whatever it might be. Our attitude to the present is then dominated by this attitude to the future. A future that might be understood in terms of an absolute certainty – into which we are always already moving (that is, some kind of fatalism) or as merely a possibility amongst others – a possibility which we must allow for; or even in perhaps its purest form a taking of an attitude towards a series of possibilities – understood as just that possibility (and therefore not as certainty).
However things are of course not that simple. The ‘real future’ (although this phrase is of course in a sense a total oxymoron – the future by definition is not real) – lies not so much in the fact that we are endlessly struggling towards some goal – or even that we are holding ourselves within the light of possibility towards which we work – but rather that in fact that any goal – any purpose towards which we strive, almost by definition cannot be reached as such. I.e. the point about the future is not that we use it to think about how we must strive towards certain goals – the future is then firmly not teleological. The point is then, rather than the goals, - the striving. That is, what actually makes something about the future is that it is linked to a striving – an attempting to make things not quite as they are - an attempt to move beyond what we currently are, and into something else. Its point therefore never lies in teleology and achieving a goal is, after all, a very different thing from to striving for it. The future lies then in striving – striving that will almost by definition not be achievable. I.e. for most futures the very act of striving actually changes the nature of what is being striven for. It appears to us in the act of being striven – and not in any sense how it actually could be if it were there at all. This of course in turn changes the sense of striving. Striving is less a teleological goal – less something that we wish to actually and completely achieve – and more simply a way of assessing how we are changing. Therefore striving (and goals) are that a way we arrange ourselves within change - and exist across and through it. Or to put it another way – it is the way we attempt to create categories within our minds that are capable of expressing for ourselves the complexity of changes that lie in a sense before us – that is, before our consciousness – and which we – to all intents and purposes, exist in the shadow of.
The effect of this is then profound. Humans are challenged by the future and are hence in constant need of having a paradigm (which may or may not be ‘true’), and which can operate as a single axis within which that future can be located. This situation is strenuous enough. But perhaps the interesting thing about current times is that we have made this problem – this source of tension, far worse – far more complex within each new discovery that has happened. Humans are now not only just moving into a future which they cannot comprehend – but it is a future where it is more than likely that all the parameters in which we locate ourselves, will likewise vary. It is a future that is in short utterly uncertain – or perhaps I should say, has a new dimension to its uncertainty. Now it is clear that even the rules by which we have the right to any ability to have a future, may themselves change. We might be able to interfere with that which makes the rules - and create endless new possible futures – endlessly new ways of pulling ourselves apart – across time. The problem is of course how one responds. What paradigms are capable of expressing this utter uncertainty?
Here a fascinating split happens. There are two ways one could express such a future. One could constitute the future in terms of something utterly ‘other’ to any human being – something that arises out of the action of humans and yet remains utterly external to them – and beyond them – and yet is from this position of being beyond, then able to transform (negatively) their lives. I mean of course one can express this absolute uncertainty in terms of an environment (or mother nature) – that will resist or limit or somehow undermine any conscious changes we make. The utter uncertainty is then not a product of humans (although it is certainly produced through their actions) – but is rather firmly beyond us – and caught within the utter uncertainty of the natural world itself. Of course the trouble with this viewpoint (which to my mind at least is the most rational response to the current situation – Global warming is after all happening – and very soon the damage will be permanent) – but the trouble within this viewpoint is that the enemy is either hidden or too scary. That is, it is too much of a ‘real’ future (and hence too complex and/or terrifying) – and remains so even when expressed through mysticism.
The trouble is of course that the alternative is much worse. If the uncertainty is not the product of nature – with humans merely being present in terms of the sum of their effects – the alternative is that somehow the future is being created by man. There must be men – or rather Daemons, capable of making bad futures in the present – and acting towards the betrayal of us now – the betrayers of our futures. In this of course September the 11 is emblematic. It represents, if you like, the apotheosis of such a model – the moment when it emerged as the dominant model in the world. The enemy is (as it was in the cold war) not the environment - and not ‘everyone’ – but rather a certain axis of evil. The absolute evil of the treacherous (and satanic) future exists in our midst – and can and must be uprooted. We are committed to a never ending war against no one in particular. The problem therefore, about the ‘war against no one by everyone’ (a kind of modern war of all against all I guess) is that there are no targets. The point after all about the future is that it is unknown. It is the localisable and yet hidden: How can one fight the unfightable? Particularly as what is making that future will (by definition) be what is localised in the now – what appears to be doing something else. That is – the point of the future is that it is being made in the present by something engaged in doing something else. That is, by people engaged within their strivings of everyday life - struggling within which something quite different emerges. Effectively then, government demands that we all have to wage war on the normal – in the pursuit of the odd.
I suppose one might typify these two approaches as the desire to wage war on the behalf of the future (environmentalism) and the desire to wage war against a future - the war against nothing in particular (called terrorism). The point of both these wars – as is the point of the future – is that they must problematise everyday life. After all, what is the future but such a problematisation – the striving after that which strives? Our options then, are to side as it were with the future – with the planet – with mother earth – whoever – and wage war on behalf of what we could become (against what we are currently doing). It is therefore in a sense to actually become the futures apostles. The demand is for change – change to stop change – change to stop a certain future ever being. The alternative is of course the absolutely fruitless struggle against the future - but a future localised in the present. Certain futures have to be weeded out – and destroyed – certain madnesses and mad cells eliminated. The myth then being, that if only we can do this, then we will have the right to continue our present (and present lifestyles) indefinitely.
Both these driving forces of course, originate elsewhere - and are expressions of a very real problem. Namely, that we have greatly problematised the future - and how we feel about what it is to have a future – and at the same time, that we have questioned all the previous paradigms of future construction. (Of course the questioning of these paradigms is a necessary part of this problematisation.) In a sense then, the question is not between two different possible futures – as if these futures were true and real. Futures are never real or true - and that is the point. It is rather between two ways that we aim to manifest the nature of the future that is endlessly questioning what we are - and making us different. Do we seek to eradicate it from our minds? – or do we embrace the other nature of tha future – and try to live under the shadow of its otherness (an otherness that will problematise ourselves and everything we do)? I very much doubt we can choose both – each paradigm will by its very nature think the other of lesser import – that is the point after all, of such paradigms. So your only real question – is where are you going to line up? Are you going to express your uncertainty in terms of an endless witchhunt - an endless problematizing of the normal – in order to eliminate rogue futural elements (the war on terror/asylum seeker paranoia) – or are you going to accept the uncertain nature of the future and try to act in the light of that uncertainty? (i.e. attempt to change our lifestyles and policies to cease promoting any irrevocable change in the environment/climate/massive increase in all round uncertainty.) For me at least the choice is clear – let us hope it is for everyone.