Introduction
The concept of the future has evolved, as has the perspective towards it, alongside the development of human thought. It has shifted from a viewpoint that sees the future as a “predetermined fate,” mapped out and planned by supernatural forces that cannot be surpassed in any way, leaving humanity with few options, to a view that originates from the principle of becoming and the ability of life to renew itself, seeing the future as a temporal dimension that can be controlled in its form. As Prigogine stated, “We cannot predict the future, but we can make it.”
According to McHale, the current state has provided human knowledge, science, and technology with immense capabilities to “choose its collective and individual future.” There is no future “except as we want it,” and every living being, as Jean-Paul Sartre says, “creates its future and must bear full responsibility for this creation.”
Cornish observed, in the early 1970s, two significant changes in people’s views of the future: first, people became convinced of the possibility of studying the future; second, there was an acknowledgment that the future is a world that can be shaped, not something predetermined. Humans do not walk blindly towards a deterministic world devoid of freedom of choice; rather, they are active partners in shaping the future world.
Thus, studying the future is not a luxury for those interested in contemplating their fate, but a venture that has its costs, which rise to the nobility of the goal, and a complex effort that ignites debate about its “nature,” yet there is no disagreement about its “importance” and the necessity of rooting it in the Arab homeland.
The Nature of Future Studies
The emergence of scientific methodologies for future studies was delayed, despite the richness of the intellectual and philosophical heritage concerned with the future, until the 1960s. Historians of futurism have traced early methodological works by thinkers, writers, and scientists that hinted at the scientific methodology of future studies. Some attributed these methodological beginnings to the 19th century, as in the famous prophecy associated with the English cleric Thomas Malthus, who presented a pessimistic future vision of population growth. Others traced it back to the French thinker Condorcet in his book “Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind,” published in 1793, where he used two methodological approaches in forecasting that are still widely used by contemporary futurists: extrapolation and conditional forecasting. The book included astonishing predictions that later came true, such as the independence of colonies in the New World from Europe, the abolition of slavery, the spread of birth control, and the increase in productivity per hectare.
Some attributed it to Lenin’s efforts in central planning for the former Soviet Union (1928-1931), until humanity was able, for the first time in the 1970s—thanks to the development of scientific knowledge and technological advancement—to place the future within a precise scientific framework. However, the debate remained heated and unsettled regarding the nature of future studies, with opinions varying widely between those who see it as a “science,” others who classify it as “art,” and a third group considering it to be in a middle ground between science and art, or a “cross-disciplinary study” that intersects various specializations and knowledge.
On the Scientific Level: There is a consensus among historians of futurism that Herbert George Wells—the most famous writer of science fiction—was the first to coin the term “science of the future,” making profound contributions to establishing scientific interest in future studies. He explicitly called for a “science of the future” in a lecture delivered on January 26, 1902, at the British Royal Institute and later rooted his call in his works: “The Shape of Things to Come” (1933), “A Modern Utopia” (1905), and “The Time Machine” (1895), all of which revolve around the lives and concerns of future generations.
Colin Gliflann, in a more precise formulation, called for the existence of a science of the future he termed “mellontology,” derived from the Greek word for “future,” in a thesis presented to Columbia University in 1920. There is agreement that Ossip Flechtheim is the originator of the term “futurology,” which appeared in 1943, marking the birth of a new science that seeks the logic of the future in the same way that history seeks the logic of the past. Flechtheim revived this term in his book “History and Futurology,” published in 1965, and called for teaching this science in schools. Flechtheim tends to consider “the science of the future” as a branch of sociology, closer to historical sociology, despite the fundamental differences between them; while the latter is concerned with past events, “the science of the future” anticipates future events by exploring the probabilities of their occurrence.
Bertrand de Jouvenal, in his book “The Art of Conjecture” (1967), asserts that the scientific study of the future is “an art” and cannot be a science. He even denies the emergence of a science of the future, stating that the future is not a world of certainty but a world of probabilities; the future is not definitively determined, so how can it be the subject of a science? In his critique of Flechtheim’s notion of “the science of the future” (1973), Fred Polak argues in his book “The Image of the Future” that the future is unknown, so how can we establish a science on the unknown? The term “science of the future” is an exaggerated label that suggests futurism clearly understands its goals and is capable of achieving truly guaranteed results, which is contrary to reality. Since it is closer to “art” when attempting to describe possible futures, imagination is essential in future studies to derive qualitative changes that are not measurable. Scientific rationality does not negate the necessity of employing all forms of imagination. Future studies, according to Robert Jungk, require crazy ideas, carnival freedom, the forbidden, the unseen, and the unreasonable, and thinking about what others dare not think.
A third trend classifies the scientific study of the future as part of “interdisciplinary studies,” considering it a new branch resulting from the interaction between one or more interrelated or unconnected specializations. This interaction occurs through educational and research programs aimed at forming this specialization. The Moroccan thinker Mahdi El Mandjra emphasizes that the scientific study of the future always follows an open path, relying on thinking about options and alternatives, and it is comprehensive with a multidisciplinary approach. Others view it as a product of the interaction between natural sciences and social sciences; it is not a science but builds its visions on various sciences. It is an interdisciplinary field that overlaps and transcends specializations and techniques from all knowledge and scientific methodologies, open to human creativity that does not cease in arts, literature, and sciences. Despite its steady growth and significant impact, it remains open to creativity and innovation.
In a survey adopted by the American Association for the Future of the World regarding the name that should be given to this type of study, published in its monthly magazine “Futurist” (February 1977), the vast majority of opinions (72 percent) preferred the term future studies and its synonyms, while only 14 percent voted for the term “futurology.” A report issued by the Swedish government in 1974 categorically rejected the term “science of the future,” instead favoring the term “future studies.” The International Association for Future Studies considers the scientific study of the future as a broader knowledge field than science, based on four main elements:
- It focuses on using scientific methods to study hidden phenomena.
- It is broader than the limits of science, encompassing philosophical and artistic contributions alongside scientific efforts.
- It deals with a wide range of possible alternatives and options, not with a specific projection onto the future.
- It addresses the future over time frames ranging from 5 to 50 years.
In his book “New Thinking for a New Millennium” (1996), R. Slaughter acknowledges that describing future studies as multidisciplinary is an accurate description of a new field of social studies aimed at the organized study of the future. Harold Shan defines the purpose of this new scientific specialization as assisting decision-makers and policymakers in making prudent choices among available alternative courses of action at a given time. Thus, future studies do not only involve studying past and present information and concerns but also anticipate possible and probable alternative futures and choose the desirable ones.
Despite the lack of consensus on the nature of future studies—whether it is a science, art, or interdisciplinary study—it draws from all these aspects. Therefore, it remains a human field where knowledge is integrated and diversified, aiming to analyze and evaluate future developments in human life rationally and objectively, allowing room for human creation and innovation. It does not issue prophecies but is an organized scientific endeavor that employs logic, reason, intuition, and imagination to discover future relationships among things, systems, and both macro and micro patterns, preparing for them and attempting to influence them. The future is not “written,” nor is it a final given; it is in the process of formation, and we must shape it. Future studies never provide a certain and complete picture of the future, nor do they present a single future; the future is multiple and indeterminate, open to a vast diversity of possible futures.
The Importance of Future Studies
Einstein attempted to justify his interest in the future with a few words, but they were suggestive when he was asked: “Why are you interested in the future?” He simply replied, “Because I’m going there!” This answer may not be sufficient or convincing; we are all headed to the future, and as Kettering said, we will all spend the rest of our lives in it! But under what conditions, and in what manner? What will we do there? Do we have a choice regarding the type of future we want, according to our interests? And do future studies have significance in choosing the future, exploring its depths, unveiling the hidden forces acting within it to influence them?
Humanity has always had an interest in reading its fate, and since the discovery of time, the future—the unknown that lies in the dark space of time—has been one of the most daunting and mysterious aspects of human thought. People have tried to understand and explore it, often driven by utilitarian purposes. This interest in the future has had tremendous economic and political implications for those capable of uncovering the hidden relationships between the positions of stars and planets and their movements in the sky and the seasons of rain and floods in river valleys. Astrologers, soothsayers, and priests became favored courtiers to kings and princes, wielding influence and wealth.
Alvin Toffler emphasized in “Future Shock” that the motivations behind future studies were pragmatic. They emerged in the United States at the end of World War II to serve military purposes before providing civilian services to wide-ranging commercial, educational, and technological sectors. They were experimentally established in the U.S. Air Force in 1944, achieving two significant accomplishments: the first was preparing predictions about technological capabilities related to the U.S. military, initiating an era of technological forecasts that ultimately led to the establishment of the Army’s long-range technology forecasting agency in 1947. The second was commissioning Douglas Aircraft Company to create the Rand Corporation, which became independent in 1948 and quickly transformed from merely a study of alternative weapon systems into a think tank that devised innovative means to control future events and anticipate them, producing many leading futurists and contributing to the development of future study techniques, especially the Delphi technique and scenario planning.
After World War II, the West— not just the United States—witnessed a broad movement aimed at enhancing interest in future studies and deepening the concept of futurism in minds, turning future studies into an academic industry, a standalone scientific activity, and a practical methodology for management and planning. This interest has taken several indicators, the most important of which are:
- An increase in the number of scientists and researchers engaged in future studies in various universities and research centers.
- The emergence of numerous scientific centers, organizations, and institutes specialized in future studies.
- The proliferation of associations, societies, and organizations concerned with future studies, such as the International Futurist Association founded by Jouvenel and the World Future Society established by Edward Cornish in 1966, one of the largest future organizations.
- The Year 2000 Commission, chaired by Daniel Bell, which gave momentum to future studies through its famous study “Toward 2000,” adding scientific and academic respectability to the field.
It is noteworthy that the three major U.S. decision-making centers—the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon—are served by numerous well-known think tanks with a future-oriented and strategic focus, including the National Intelligence Council (NIC), which issues a report every four years, the latest of which was “Global Trends 2025,” published in December 2008. Other notable organizations include the Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution in Washington, American Enterprise Institute, Freedom House, and Heritage Foundation.
Western Europe, Japan, and India have also seen a significant number of units and organizations interested in future surveys, with Europe alone hosting 124 future-oriented agencies. Approximately 67 percent of multinational companies and military institutions apply future study methodologies, and 97 percent of the spending on future studies occurs in developed countries.
The interest in future studies has become an essential necessity for countries, societies, and institutions, no longer a luxury that these countries can adopt or abandon. Both developed and developing countries are equally engaged in this pursuit, as the 21st century brings forth storms of change that compel humanity to prepare for them, taking collective scientific efforts to anticipate these changes—through future forecasting tools—and the challenges they pose, as well as the opportunities they may present.
Localizing Future Studies Curricula in the Arab World
There was hardly any notable interest in future studies in the Arab world before the 1970s. Even the early attempts led by the first generation of intellectuals were limited, sporadic, and lacked advanced tools and techniques.
These studies gained increasing importance in the 1980s and 1990s due to shifts in development concepts. Traditional approaches that dealt with static situations were replaced with the concept of sustainable development, which is inherently future-oriented and focuses on the rights of future generations. This concept integrates social, cultural, and political considerations alongside economic ones. Development, in this sense, can extend over a time frame longer than what is traditionally considered long-term in economic planning, as evidenced by some Arab national experiences.
Future studies emphasize the interaction of various aspects of socio-political and economic systems within the framework of holistic system philosophy. This interaction is often discussed in the philosophy of development, yet it tends to disappear when using conventional methods for development planning, where the focus is usually on economic aspects. It has also become difficult to study the future of development in the Arab world without considering regional and global conditions. Some of these conditions exert pressure on the Arab future, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, the rise of ethnic, sectarian, and religious tensions, and the future risks stemming from them, which could, in one way or another, replicate the Sudanese, Iraqi, or Somali scenarios.
While the Arab world is fundamentally concerned with the issue of development, some of its developmental problems can only be studied in the long term, such as the issue of Arab integration and its central role in Arab development, and the issue of Arab preparedness for the post-oil era, as well as the era of climate change and water scarcity.
One confirmed reason for the importance of localizing future studies in the Arab world is the emergence of significant future projects that have implications for Arab countries, such as “The Project for the New American Century” (2002), which called for redrawing regional maps, altering its identity, and establishing a regional system alternative to the Arab system; the ten-year plan to change the Middle East from within, proposed by Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; and reports from the Heritage Foundation on restructuring the Middle East, as well as Israeli future projects like “Israel 2020” and “Israel 2025,” among others.
Without scientifically anticipating the Arab future, attempts to address major Arab issues will remain suspended and in the realm of wishful thinking. They will largely remain incapable of making decisive choices regarding the options on the Arab scene, such as the current situation in the so-called “Arab Spring” countries. These situations resulted from the collapse of corrupt, tyrannical regimes, replaced by systems lacking the experience or vision to manage transitional phases. These conditions were not subjected to scientific study to assess their future probabilities and direct or indirect impacts, nor to develop the necessary policies to address them. Perhaps the study “Egypt 2030” is the only one that ventured to outline political scenarios for Egypt after the January 25 Revolution. Aside from that, there seems to be no other Arab study that has addressed the future repercussions of the Arab Spring.
Arab Efforts in the Field of Future Studies
There are two key characteristics of Arab efforts in the field of future studies. The first is that these studies have primarily been the work of civil society institutions rather than governments—except in rare cases. The second is that these efforts have lacked continuity, accumulation, and persistence, making them seem like isolated islands with no bridges connecting them. Below, we can highlight the most notable of these efforts, whose earliest attempts can be traced back to the mid-1970s.
The pioneering study in envisioning the Arab future was published in 1975 under the title The Arab World in the Year 2000 by the Arab Projects and Development Foundation. It was the result of a collective effort led by Antoine Zahlan, with a group of Arab experts and intellectuals. The stated goal of the study was “to explore the expected and potential development of the Arab world up to the year 2000.” The project was based on the idea that “if Arabs do not plan their future themselves, others will plan it for them,” a concept that remains relevant today, perhaps even more so.
The study consisted of sectoral analyses covering population, education, urbanization, human resources, agriculture, irrigation, oil, transportation, and economic growth. Each sectoral study included a description of the current situation, simple projections for the future, and recommendations for action. These recommendations included calls to reduce population growth rates, encourage population movement between Arab countries, settle desert areas, and build roads connecting parts of the Arab world.
The study reached an optimistic conclusion for the Arab future, suggesting that if Arab countries utilized their resources optimally, the income gap between the Arab world and industrialized nations would shrink to 1:2 or 1:3 by the beginning of the 21st century.
However, the study was criticized for oversimplifying sectoral projections and lacking a comprehensive perspective. There was no attempt to link the sectoral projections, even through simple system tests, and the overall analysis lacked a solid scientific foundation.
Another significant effort was the Long-Term Planning Group for Arab Countries, also known as the Cairo Group (1977), led by Ibrahim Helmy Abdel Rahman and others from the National Planning Institute in Cairo, in collaboration with the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development in Kuwait and other Arab and international institutions working in future studies.
The primary goal of this group was to contribute to establishing and supporting an active long-term planning movement in the Arab world. The group developed a work program that included identifying national and regional development goals in the Arab world to use as benchmarks for evaluating future scenarios and constructing alternative future visions for long-term national and pan-Arab development, which included evaluating the impact of these alternatives on development goals.
Although the group conducted numerous preparatory studies for such an ambitious project, this grand vision for envisioning the Arab future never came to fruition, and the attempt was ultimately abandoned.
In 1978, the Trilateral Committee of the Arab Economic Joint Action Strategy issued a working paper authored by Burhan Dajani, Sayyid Jaballah, and Antoine Zahlan. The goal of the paper was to rationalize and enhance the role of the Arab joint sector. The document identified several practical axes, including the localization of technology, industrial development, commercial sector growth, and the facilitation of capital flows between Arab countries.
The paper was criticized for lacking a comprehensive and integrated future vision and failing to address issues related to the Arab world’s position in the new global economic system. It proposed building the future based on the current situation, with all its flaws and distortions, without suggesting mechanisms for transitioning from the present, with all its challenges and contradictions, to the new horizons envisioned by multiple future outlooks.
The Arab Economic Joint Action Strategy document of 1979, overseen by Youssef Sayigh, Mahmoud Abdel Fadil, and Georges Corm, was supported by the General Secretariat of the Arab League, the Arab Economic Unity Council, and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development. Although the document had a forward-looking approach, it did not go beyond the 1980s. It did not represent a qualitative shift towards envisioning the Arab future and failed to link its sectoral perspectives in an organic way. Instead, it adopted a pragmatic approach rooted in a reality burdened by underdevelopment and fragmentation, without daring to leap beyond this reality with a future vision worth striving for.
In the early 1980s, the Alternative Arab Futures Project emerged, executed by the Third World Forum in Cairo in collaboration with the United Nations University and published by the Center for Arab Unity Studies.
The goal of the project was to raise awareness of the importance of future studies in the Arab world and demonstrate that there is more than one possible future. The project’s core message was that any of these alternative futures depends on current choices, as today’s decisions shape tomorrow’s future. Therefore, it called for rational decision-making based on a sound understanding of the future. The project stressed that the future development of the Arab world would not be driven by economic factors alone but would occur within the framework of a comprehensive cultural evolution.
The project offered two scenarios for the Arab future: a pessimistic scenario, assuming the continuation of the current state of affairs and the limited capacity to adopt a renaissance project, and an optimistic scenario that capitalized on available opportunities to create a better future for the Arab world.
Despite its contribution to future studies, the project was criticized for not providing quantitative models of possible future developments in the Arab world and for relying on intuitive techniques like surveys, which exposed the results to personal biases. The project’s database was also narrow and weak. It also failed to specify a timeframe for the proposed future scenarios.
By the end of the 1980s, the Center for Arab Unity Studies in Beirut presented the Arab World Future Outlook Project, which resulted in three alternative scenarios for the Arab world. The first, the Arab Fragmentation Scenario, assumed the continuation of the current situation. The second, the Coordination and Cooperation Scenario, focused on the rational and optimal use of Arab resources. The third, the Arab Unity Scenario, envisioned a federal union where political decision-making is unified while respecting the Arab world’s social and cultural diversity.
Although the project laid a solid foundation for future studies, it was criticized for failing to anticipate significant events like the Arab Spring.
There were also important national studies, including Ismail Sabri’s study of Egypt in 1977, which explored three alternative scenarios: the rejection of the revolution, the freezing of the revolution, and the continuation of the revolution. Several other national projects were developed, including Egypt 2020, Egypt 2030, Qatar 2030, and Syria 2020.
Projects like Egypt 2020, with their broad scope and extensive scientific teams, represent a leading effort in national future studies.
In conclusion, despite the modesty of these efforts, they have created a body of knowledge that will be an invaluable resource for future researchers, scholars, and Arab thinkers.
Translation with minor modifications:
2- The Culture of Future Studies: Challenges and Opportunities
The growing importance of future studies is not matched by equal attention in the Arab world. We still suffer from an almost total absence of a forward-looking vision in most of our institutions, in many aspects of our lives, and even in our way of thinking. The few future studies we have are merely an expression of the intellectual impoverishment that characterizes this field, as most of these studies remain confined to a narrow academic scope and do not form part of the general social fabric of thought or practical application, whether at the governmental or individual level. They have not yet permeated as a culture or method of thinking in public and private organizations, let alone their lack of a comprehensive, integrated vision, and they rely on a limited scientific base of data and information.
There are undoubtedly methodological difficulties that hinder the spread of future studies culture in the Arab world, which can be summarized as follows:
A – Difficulties arising from the absence of a future vision in the structure of the Arab mind: The dominance of a negative outlook toward the future in our Arab culture, the persistence of inherited taboos, the prevalence of “inside the box” thinking, and a preference not for new ideas but for dominant, pre-packaged ideas and herd mentality are all issues Woody Allen warned against. He urged those working in future studies to focus on searching for the “black swan” among flocks of white swans.
B – Difficulties stemming from the weak theoretical foundation of future studies in Arab heritage: Arab thought, in both its traditional inherited form and modern adaptations, is more fascinated with reproducing the past than concerned with reading or shaping the future. The sarcastic idea that “Arabs predict the past and remember the future” has become widespread. Future thinking, with its critical and rational approach, faces an inherently hostile cultural environment, as it is a scientific system based on logic and intellectual coherence, which is in contrast to the conservative thinking that seeks to build the future in the image of the past and revive lost paradises. This heritage has left its mark on the weak presence of future concepts in the Arab mind, the inability to sense change, and its impact on thinking about the future, and anticipating or preparing for its surprises. However, this does not entirely negate the presence of rational future visions in Arab heritage. Jerome Glenn, author of Future Mind, acknowledged the role of Arab scholars in the philosophy of future thought, specifically referencing Al-Kindi, and others mentioned Ibn Rushd. Ibn Khaldun used the concept of “future anticipation,” and was rightfully the pioneer of “historical sociology,” with future studies being an extension of this science.
C – Difficulties due to the absence of democratic traditions in Arab scientific research: Future studies fundamentally rely on democratic traditions in research and scientific work, which are nearly absent in Arab scientific culture. These traditions involve teamwork, collective effort, dialogue, knowledge exchange, intellectual and political tolerance, and acceptance of diversity and difference. These traditions are linked to research techniques that have a participatory democratic content, relying on interdisciplinary knowledge integration within a social framework and techniques that expand participation in study, such as workshops, the Delphi method, scenario building, trend analysis, and other future research methods. Thanks to these traditions, future studies researchers can open up to various schools of thought—scientific, intellectual, and political—and break the closed circles that have characterized scientific projects in previous periods.
D – Difficulties arising from the lack of information and restrictions on its flow and accessibility: The absence of legal and legislative systems regulating information flow and protection comes at a time when future studies and scenario-building require an unrestricted information base and guarantee researchers the right to access information, forbidding its withholding or restriction for any reason.
E – The absence of specialized institutional frameworks for future studies: The few that exist are mostly preoccupied with present concerns rather than future issues. Some of these institutions operate within Arab universities and institutes, others—rarely—are governmental, while some belong to civil society organizations and the private sector. The absence of such research institutions is due to the weak demand for their “products” from governments, companies, institutions, parliaments, and other decision-making circles in the Arab world. This demand was the driving force behind the emergence and growth of future studies centers in the West.
The few existing centers in this field are characterized by traditional management, face many obstacles, and lack experts and specialists, not to mention the intellectual paternalism and bureaucracy that stifles creativity and innovators, drying up the scientific environment for future studies. Moreover, there is a shortage of experts and researchers proficient in using future studies techniques, whether they are theoretical or applied futurists who practice future methodologies in government or private institutions. These roles, widely present in the developed West, are nearly nonexistent in Arab countries.
However, it is important to note that these difficulties and challenges hindering the spread of future studies culture in the Arab world have not entirely stifled the few efforts in various Arab countries that can serve as a foundation. Nor have they overshadowed courageous initiatives by individuals or groups that have carved out this clear, flowing stream of future studies, paving the way for it to become a powerful societal scientific and cultural current. These challenges also demonstrate that awareness of the importance of future studies is no longer confined to specialists but has become a concern for everyone who believes in the progress, development, and unity of Arab society, as well as its present and future stability and security. This growing interest in future studies depends on the evolution of public awareness and an agenda of concerns that strengthen the chances of this culture’s prosperity, its spread through institutions and organizations, and its becoming not only a “dominant societal mode of thinking” but also a way of life. Let’s open the agenda of these concerns together:
A – Increasing awareness among the general public: The growing interest in future studies cannot happen without an increase in public awareness, whether through modern media or by systematically instilling this awareness through educational programs in schools and universities. Developed countries, led by the United States, recognized early the importance of spreading future studies culture among school and university students to help them face future challenges and acquire the ability to think scientifically to change its course.
B – Reorienting the Arab research force: Efforts should focus on preparing new generations of researchers necessary to revitalize Arab research centers and studies. This requires shifting from traditional conservative research methods to innovative future studies methods.
C – Establishing flexible structures: These should include a database of future studies and known experts, both locally and internationally. One option could be the creation of an “Arab Council for Future Studies” within the framework of the United Nations University.
D – Promoting social demand for the outputs of future studies centers: This could be achieved through media outlets and training programs to build the capacities of members of public and private institutions in using these outputs.
E – Establishing independent administrative units for future studies in governmental and private organizations: These units would be tasked with proposing policies and strategies for development, providing decision-makers with future-oriented references, and predicting the future effects of current policies, legislation, and decisions.
In conclusion, the culture of future studies in the Arab world will remain stagnant unless we reshape the Arab mind and create a national and regional current capable of fostering a critical, rational mindset, free from inherited and artificial taboos.
