Possibility/Probability

--I'm taking a short break from the depths of dissertation writing to share an insightful comment from noted political theorist William Connolly. This comes from a footnote on p.216 in his groundbreaking book Neuropolitics.

I say possibilities, not probabilities. A key role of theory is to probe the positive possibilities that might otherwise be overlooked and that, indeed, may be unrecognized because they have been generated by new circumstances of being. The next thing to do is to inspire the pursuit of those possibilities that are most desirable. Paying too much attention to 'probabilities' undercuts these efforts. For, most of the time, the recognized register of probabilities consists of things that are already part of the established practice. Those who pursued Christianity, secularism, feminism, gay rights, and so forth at the key moments of their emergence from below the register of established practice were not probabilists of the sort annointed by most social scientists. They were acting to bring something new into the world even more than they were watching to see what was already there. And each time a project succeeds, in a large or small way, it provides another piece of evidence, for those who will look, against the ontology of much of contemporary social science. Possibilities are for visionaries and activists, probabilities are for spectators and consultants.

Connolly's observation captures important features of the approach that the field of futures studies (especially as taught and practiced at the Manoa School) attempts. The common over-emphasis on the likelihood of certain futures creates theoretical and anticipatory blindspots. Jim Dator has been tirelessly making similar critiques for decades and has not only recognized the limitations of mainstream academic (and pop) approaches to theorizing possibility, but he has also developed conceptual, pedagogical, and methodological tools for overcoming these aporias. It is nice to see these ideas finding purchase among increasing numbers of scholars, and hopefully most will discover (if not the source to begin with) the wealth of work already done in futures studies. Maybe we're finally seeing some "emergence from below" of Manoa-styled futures.

There is much more to say and discuss here, but I should probably get back to work...