نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانشیار روابط بین الملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران.
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
Introduction:
The relationship between symbols (metaphor/myth) and political reality, viewed through the lens of critical futures studies, constitutes the central theme of this article. When examining the political history of nations and international relations, the interplay between the symbolic and the reality emerges as a fundamental issue. Which possesses agency? Which holds precedence or priority? Which constructs the other? Does the decline of the symbolic realm precipitate the construction of new realities within the political sphere, or does the emergence of new realities lead to the decline of the symbolic? Before addressing this question from the perspective of critical futures studies, a review of the history of political developments and international relations reveals: the symbolic has exercised agency to construct a reality, while at other times, the reverse has occurred. First, a new reality emerges; subsequently, the decline of old symbols and the gradual rise of new ones take place.
Research Objectives
The relationship between the symbolic and the reality within critical futures studies has been addressed through the framework of "Causal Layered Analysis." By examining and critiquing critical futures studies, this article aims to: first, analyze the field and—drawing upon the discourse analysis of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe—provide it with greater theoretical depth; second, compare the agency of the symbolic and the real in two history-making events—those in East Germany (1989) and the Soviet Union (1991)—from the perspective of critical futures studies; and third, demonstrate Beyond its claim of "revealing hidden layers of power within the futures studies process," critical futures studies can also be applied to "future-building" and assist decision-makers. These three aspects constitute the article's contribution.
Research Method: Causal Layered Analysis (CLA)
Causal Layered Analysis is less concerned with predicting a specific future and focuses instead on deciphering the past, present, and future to create alternative futures; it places less emphasis on the horizontal dimension of futures and focuses more on the vertical dimension. Compared to empirical perspectives that address only the surface level, Causal Layered Analysis offers a richer explanation and perspective. From Soheil Enayatollah's perspective, the best approach is to employ Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) prior to scenario building; this creates a vertical dimension for scenario construction and—by revealing hidden layers of power—provides the futurist with greater depth, resulting in more sophisticated scenarios. Soheil Enayatollah maintains that CLA makes no claim to—nor does it intend to—predict the future; rather, by adding depth to futures studies, it opens more space for creating alternative futures. He employs the concept of "deepening," describing CLA as a method for deepening one's understanding of the future. By employing the Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) method—and through the deconstruction and genealogy of the dominant discourse—futurists can gain insight into the cognitive frameworks of decision-makers; they can then outline scenarios and prescribe actions that align more closely with the decision-makers' discursive systems. Accordingly, critical futures studies do not claim to "create" the future; rather, it adds greater depth to the field of futures studies. Causal Layered Analysis comprises four levels: the litany, systemic causes, worldview and discourse, and metaphors and myths. In the following section, we will analyze and explain each of these levels.
Research Findings
In East Germany, the symbolic realm (myth/demythologization) paved the way for the discrediting of the communist discourse and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, serving as the primary driving force; conversely, in the Soviet Union, the realm of the real (political and economic inefficiency) precipitated the discrediting of the communist discourse and the fracturing of the symbolic realm within society, acting as the primary driver. Accordingly, from the perspective of Causal Layered Analysis (CLA), the construction of the future can be achieved by activating either the fourth layer (the symbolic realm) or the second layer (systemic causes).
Discussion and Conclusion
In the first part of the article, we examine critical futures studies and the Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) method; drawing upon the discourse analysis of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, we deepen our exploration of the hidden power relations within critical futures studies. The second part of the article critiques critical futures studies through a comparative analysis of two historical events: the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. By examining these "two future-shaping events of the past," we demonstrate that the Real sometimes constructs the Symbolic, while at other times, the Symbolic constructs the Real Critical futures studies assigns greater weight to the symbolic than to the real, whereas historical studies indicate that the real sometimes possesses agency and serves to construct the symbolic. The third section of the article focuses on the practical dimension of critical futures studies, aiming to offer decision-makers strategies for shaping the future based on the interplay between the symbolic and the real.
کلیدواژهها English
