is the future Exceed? For some, it’s been a while. Ten years ago, the late critic Mark Fisher wrote in his book “The Slow Cancellation of the Future,” ghost in my life, attributes cultural stagnation to our collective inability to “grasp and express the present.” For Fisher, the future is lost, not only because of the fragmentation and acceleration we now accept as part of life shaped by the internet, but also because of “a general situation: life goes on, but time somehow stops.” ”. This stagnation runs counter to how Fisher’s generation understood the future as a destination at the end of an arc-shaped arrow, brought about by the pursuit of knowledge, freedom, and technological innovation. The future has always been a myth whose certainty owes its certainty to Marxist dialectics and Henry Ford’s assembly line: we once rubbed sticks to make fire and lived in savage chaos; soon, we’ll travel in interdimensional spaceships and eliminate mass misery. This myth has all but disappeared as we witness the past, present and future burst into a simultaneous, repetitive, and notoriously unbalanced plane.
But wait – haven’t we witnessed the leap in innovation since then? ghost in my life? Ever since we put on VR headsets, watched esports tournaments in crowded stadiums, and put our salaries into shady blockchains, hasn’t it? If it reaches us now, how can the future be over?Nearly a decade before Fisher, queer theorist Lee Edelman no futureIn it, Edelman argues for a more specific abolition: “the reproductive future,” or the social and political organization around intergenerational inheritance.
Both reproductive futurism and what we might consider traditional innovative “corporate futurism” support superficial progress and narrative order, “not to bring about change, but … to turn back time to ensure repetition,” Edelman writes. Under the reproductive future, we collectively favor non-destructive and incremental change, against radical, queer or truly revolutionary so-called “natural order” that threaten biological gender, family values, and economic growth. So-called realism traps us in an endless present where even the most daring innovations can’t imagine a better, fairer world – in fact, if you think about Amazon’s delivery methods, their success actually depends The failure of our imaginations – demand just sets a precedent for further deteriorating working conditions; or how Elon Musk’s hyperloop only makes sense if there is no public transit in the future; or how the Meta can only take alternative dimensions Envisioned as an office-cum-mall that hasn’t even been corrected for the landlord.
There’s a lot to like about Edelman’s perspective, and we’re urged to embrace the “queer death drive” and move away from the vision of the future altogether. He ends the chapter with the slogan: “The future stops here.” If reproductive futurism focuses on meaning-making, such as drawing the poignancy of existence from the illusion of progress and inheritance, then Edelman’s proposition encourages ideology in the pursuit of ideology. The process of liberation rejects meaning and certainty itself. However, it is not this emancipatory orientation to the present, but a conspiracy of forces—the demands of survival, pessimism about political will, the systematic weakening of the working class and the racialized underclass, etc.—to make Many of us are in trouble. At present, maintaining the future in the management of a global company, its localization remains a top priority. You’re no doubt familiar with the self-proclaimed futurist without a shred of self-awareness who promises to take you through tomorrow’s risks and opportunities like a wand-wielding tour guide. Even financial futures – namely derivatives – rely on predictability, even if volatility is part of the mechanism.
Which brings us back to the point, where Lee Edelman’s successor, Rebecca Shelton, wrote: “In the name of the future, we must be protected from the future.” certainty, and reaching new heights of capitalism-cynicism, we will see an increased interest in the future beyond the obsessions of normative futurism; futures that disrupt rather than maintain the status quo. How can we if norm-futurism values difference only to exploit or overcome it, constantly reducing social relations to the unit of the individual, and forcing us to think about planetary problems – like hunger, extinction, and climate catastrophe – that are practically unsolvable And then build a future of difference and collectiveness? In the words of artist fka Victoria Sin, “How do we envision a future where the road is not the way forward, but the way down?”
In recent art and film, ideas surrounding different futures have crystallized in the form of ethno-futurism, such as Chinese Futurism, Indigenous Futurism, and Contemporary Afrofuturism. Many have proposed alternatives to Western progress based on revising history or reimagining geopolitics. For example, Indigenous Futurism and Afrofuturism raise the question: what would science, technology and industry look like if it were not as dependent on environmental extraction and human conquest as it is now? Still others, like Chinese Futurism and Gulf Futurism, simply ask, how would we see the future if the core concept of “progress” came from somewhere other than the West?