THE FUTURE LIES BEHIND! Thirty years of teaching futures studies …

THE FUTURE LIES BEHIND!
Thirty years of teaching futures studies

Introduction to the special issue on "Teaching Futures Studies at the University
Level," American Behavioral Scientist, November 1998.

Jim Dator

Since futures studies has been a serious academic and consulting activity for more
than thirty years, worldwide, why have YOU never heard of it--or at least know so
little about it? Dator briefly outlines his own teaching and consulting experiences in
futures studies since 1967, and then introduces each of the twenty six authors whose
essays follow.

        Amazing isn't it?
        Here is a collection of essays written by 27 people from 10 different countries
describing the theories and methods underlying the courses they teach in futures
studies at the university level. And yet the chances are very good that, if you are a
typical subscriber to or regular reader of American Behavioral Scientist, you have
never taken a course in futures studies; never met a person who taught it at the
university level; teach or study on a campus where futures studies is not offered; and
probably associate "futures studies" (if the term means anything to you at all) either
with astrology and charlatans or with Alvin Toffler, John Naisbitt, or Faith Popcorn
(or, alternatively, with the late Herman Kahn and the late Julian Simon vs. the
Meadows and the Limits to Growth / Beyond the Limits ) (Toffler, 1970; Toffler 1980;
Naisbitt, 1984; Popcorn, 1992; Kahn and Weiner, 1967; Kahn and Simon, 1984; Simon,
1996; Meadows et al, 1972; Meadows et al., 1992) Of these, only Simons and the Meadows
were university professors, and they were more nearly arguing for or against one
particular future than primarily concerned with the study of the future, or beliefs
about the future, per se.
        Given the readership of and contributors to this journal, however, it is also
likely that "futures studies" might conjure up images of computer-based
mathematical models (such as those of the econometricians or those who would
provide disaster early warnings) which attempt or pretend to predict the future with
such precision that policy can be confidentially guided by the prediction.
        Your own reading about the future is, in all probability, restricted to Brave
New World and 1984 (if you are of a certain age-cohort), and/or to varieties of
science fiction and comic books (Flash Gordon among a host of others). Your most
fundamental images of the future are almost certainly shaped primarily by films and
videos you have seen in theaters or on television sets: The Twilight Zone, The
Invasion of the Body Snatchers, It, On the Beach, 2001-A Space Odyssey, the Planet of
the Apes series, Star Trek, Star Wars, Back to the Future, Blade Runner, Brazil, Total
Recall, Robocop, the Terminator series and the various Mad Max flixs (perhaps Buck
Rogers--if you are old enough--more recently Twelve Monkeys, Gattaca, Strange
Days, Johnny Mnemonic), or by visits to DisneyLand or the Seattle World's Fair (or
the 1939-40 New York World's Fair, if--can I say it again?--you are old enough).
        Some few of you (though many among the population at large) have images of
the future shaped by Armageddon and other visions derived from the Book Of
Revelations--perhaps as depicted in the film The Late Great Planet Earth.
        Statistically speaking, you are unaware of the existence of the World Futures
Studies Federation (WFSF), the World Future Society (WFS), or Futuribles
International, all of which were created in the mid 1960s, whose members
unfailingly read Future Survey (a monthly survey--compiled yearly into an
indispensable annual--of books, articles, and reports, in English, about or important
                                                                                           2

for the future, superbly edited by Michael Marien) and routinely publish in such
journals as Futures, Futures Research Quarterly, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change , Futuribles, Futuribili, Futura, Papers de Prospectiva, and the Manoa Journal
of Fried and Half Fried Ideas (...about the future) (journals also of whose existence
you are unaware--you might have seen The Futurist, published by the World Future
Society, in a library), and which have held world futures conferences (in the case of
the World Futures Studies Federation) in Oslo, Norway (1967), Kyoto, Japan (1970),
Bucharest, Romania (1972), Rome, Italy (1973), Berlin, West Germany (1975),
Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia (1976), Warsaw, Poland (1977), Cairo, Egypt (1978), Stockholm,
Sweden (1982), San Jose, Costa Rica (1984), Honolulu, Hawaii (1986), Beijing, China
(1988), Budapest, Hungary (1990), Barcelona, Spain (1991), Turku, Finland (1993),
Nairobi, Kenya (1995), and Brisbane, Australia (1997) with the next world conference
planned for Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in 1999 (See: WFSF Conference Publications)
        During the 1970s and 80s--until the forceful disintegration of Yugoslavia--
WFSF offered futures courses every spring through the InterUniversity Centre at
Dubrovnik, attracting university students from East and West Europe, as well as North
America, Africa, and Asia. With the cooperation of the Center Catala de Prospectiva,
the Unesco Centre of Catalunya, the Ministry of Education of Andorra, and the
Muncipality of Encamp, the WFSF has also more recently offered futures courses in
Andorra. Unesco has been a major supporter of many of the activities of the WFSF
and has sponsored Asia-Pacific Futures Courses in Fiji, Thailand, Malaysia, and the
Philippines since 1992.
        Presidents of the WFSF have been such highly-regarded scholars as Bertrand
de Jouvenel (France), Johan Galtung (Norway), Mahdi Elmandjra (Morocco), Eleonora
Masini (Italy) and Pentti Malaska (Finland). Tony Stevenson of Queensland
University of Technology in Brisbane is currently President. I was first Secretary
General and then President of the WFSF during much of the 1980s and early 90s.
        Indeed, I have been teaching futures courses since 1967 when I introduced
what is sometimes said to be the first undergraduate course on the future which went
through the normal channels of faculty/administrative approval, when I did so
while I was teaching for three years in the Department of Political Science at
Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia (Dator, 1971). I had more or less "invented"
futures studies during the previous six years (1960-66) while I was teaching in the
College of Law and Politics of Rikkyo University in Tokyo, Japan. But I am thankful to
Joseph Bernd, chair of the Department, and Leslie Malpass, Dean of the College of Arts
and Science of VPI for their active support of my embryonic futures work.
        Shortly after I arrived in Blacksburg in 1966, David Greene, a member of the
British Archigram Group who was a Visiting Professor in the School of Architecture
and with whom I shared a duplex house near the campus, told me that I "sounded like
Buckminster Fuller," who I had never heard of, and showed me a flyer announcing
the creation of the World Future Society by Ed Cornish in Washington, DC. I
immediately joined. Shortly thereafter, I published my first futures article in The
Futurist (Dator, 1967). It was an excerpt of a much longer, and never fully published,
essay titled, "Oh, we belong to a cybernetic, post-money, situational ethics society, my
baby and me." Recently the journal Futures, in its Second Thoughts" series, re-
published the old Futurist article, with four commentaries by futurists of different
age-cohorts and cultures (Dator, 1997; Jones, 1997; Nordberg, 1997; Serra 1997; and
Slaughter, 1997).
        Also while I was at Virginia Tech, I compiled an extensive bibliography of
books and articles relevant to the study of the future, which the WFS published in the
WFS Bulletin (the predecessor to the Futures Research Quarterly). This brought me to
the attention of John and Magda McHale (then working with Fuller at Southern
Illinois University) and Eleonora Masini who headed the Italian futures group,
IRADES, which published a quarterly newsletter on the development of futures
                                                                                              3

studies globally reflective in part of their role in the 1967 Oslo conference convened
by Robert Jungk of Austria and Johan Galtung of Norway, through Mankind 2000. I
thus also was drawn into the circle of futurists who eventually formally established
the WFSF in Paris in 1973 (See: Some Additional Early Futures Classics).
       In 1969 I went to the Department of Political Science at the University of
Hawaii specifically to teach graduate and undergraduate futures courses, and also to
participate in the activities called "Hawaii 2000" which, under the inspiration of
Daniel Bell's US initiative (Bell, D, 1968), were beginning under the sponsorship of
then Governor John Burns, President of the Senate David McClung, and Speaker of
the House Tadao Beppu, and under the main guidance of the Editor in Chief of the
Honolulu Advertiser, George Chaplin, and Glenn Paige, a colleague in the Department
of Political Science. Chaplin, Paige and myself attended the 1970 Kyoto Conference of
the WFSF in part to recruit people from the WFSF to participate in the Hawaii 2000
Conference held in 1970 which was, I believe, still the best example of "anticipatory
democracy" ever experienced (Chaplin and Paige, 1971; Dator, 1973).
       In 1972, the Hawaii State Legislature created the Hawaii Research Center for
Futures Studies within the University of Hawaii (eventually within the Social Science
Research Institute), which I still direct. The Center does contract and pro bono
futures work for public and private groups in Hawaii and the Pacific island region,
as well as throughout the United States, the Asia-Pacific region, and indeed,
worldwide. The Center is best known for work in judicial foresight, which began
with the Hawaii State Judiciary in 1971 (under the encouragement of Chief Justice
William Richardson and Chief Court Administrator Lester Cingcade). Especially
because of funding (1987-1997) from the State Justice Institute (SJI--a federal
funding agency), the Center has worked directly and extensively with eleven other
American state/territorial judiciaries (Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Florida,
Massachusetts, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Tennessee and most notably, since
1987, with the judiciary of Virginia which, under the leadership of Chief Justice
Harry L. Carrico, Court Administrator Rob Baldwin, and Court Planner Kathy Mays,
has elevated judicial foresight to exceptional heights).
       The Center has also worked indirectly with all American state judiciaries
though futures conferences and workshops sponsored by the SJI, the American
Judicature Society, the American Bar Association, and a wide variety of international,
national, state, and local judicial, bar, and legal organizations such as the United
Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders, in Tokyo; the Supreme Court of South Korea; the judiciary of the Federated
States of Micronesia and of the State of Pohnpei; the Subordinate Courts of Singapore;
the US Federal Judicial Center; the Fifth Federal Judicial Circuit; the Congress of State
Court Justices; the Conference of State Court Administrators; the Council of Chief
Judges; the American Judges Association; the National Association for Court
Management, the annual conference of the American Bar Association, the Western
States Bar Assocation, and many more (See: Judicial Foresight).
       In 1977, the Department of Political Science instituted a MA degree
specialization in Alternative Futures which has been pumping consulting futurists
into the world, at a modest rate, ever since. One of the features of that specialization is
a year's paid internship in a futures consulting firm so that students learn how
futures studies can usefully be applied in public and private organizations. Students
of the Hawaii program have interned at many places, but we have our closest
relationship with the Institute for Alternative Futures, in Alexandria, Virginia,
which was founded in 1976 by Clem Bezold (still the President), Alvin Toffler, Jonas
Salk, and myself, among many others (including Newt Gingrich who was then a
future-oriented professor at West Georgia College).
       It would be a big mistake to assume that I am alone in the futures field, as all of
the other essays in this issue of ABS will make abundantly clear. It has been an
                                                                                             4

extensive, worldwide activity from the beginning through the present. The national
academy of sciences of Finland, China, Russia, Hungary, Bulgaria and perhaps others
have futures studies departments.
       And yet you, average reader of ABS, say you have never heard of any of this?
       It is truly amazing indeed, and I am very grateful that a journal of the
standing of the ABS has volunteered, with no coaxing from me or anyone else
involved in this process, to lift the veil of unawareness from the eyes of the global
academic community, and help, I hope, lure you, and all your colleagues, into this
exciting and important area of intellectual and practical endeavor.

                              WHAT IS FUTURES STUDIES?
        So what is futures studies? What are the theories and methods underlying the
field? What are its basic concepts and metaphors? How is it related to other academic
and practical fields? What is the relationship between teaching and consulting?
        These are questions that I asked the authors of the papers in this issue of ABS
to address. While each responded to them in different ways, and some spent more time
discussing some issues and less time on others, an amazing unity emerged within the
overall breadth and diversity.
        Everyone agreed that futures studies does not try to "predict" the future, in the
sense of saying precisely what will happen to an individual, organization or country
before it actually happens. However, many of the authors admit that they were
originally drawn into futures studies in the hope that--indeed, often in the firm
belief that--it would be possible to predict the future if one just had the correct
theory, methods, data, and, of course, enough funding.
        I, too, had entered futures studies with this belief, having been very much
influenced by the 1950s-60s "behavioral revolution" in political science with its
emphasis on quantitative methods and formal modeling. Indeed, it was because I
attended Joe Bernd's NSF summer course in Mathematical Applications in Political
Science, offered at Southern Methodist University, in Dallas, Texas during the
summer of 1965 (Bernd, 1966) that I returned from Japan in 1966 and went with
Bernd to VPI to start the new Department of Political Science there.
        It was fascinating for me, then, to see that at the same time, in a completely
different part of the world, operating under a completely different ideological
system, two Hungarian futurists report in their contributions to this Journal that
they were similarly beginning their work confident that they, too, had (or could
soon have) the methodological keys which would unlock the ability precisely to
predict the future.
        Not one of the authors of the papers collected here believe in prediction in
that sense any more. Though some, more than others, feel they have theoretical
understandings and rigorous methodologies which enable them to forecast strong
tendencies (or even soft predictabilities) with considerable confidence, most of the
authors insist (as I do) on the reality of "alternative futures" rather than a single
"THE future." We have concluded (at least I have), that the future is fundamentally
plural and open--an arena of possibilities (which is what the French term,
"Futuribles" is intended to capture), and not of discernible inevitabilities.
        Most futurists therefore forecast a wide variety of "alternative futures" rather
than predicting "the future." They also seek to help people (students, clients,
community groups, even entire nations) invent and try to move effectively towards
their "preferred future", all the time monitoring their progress towards it, and
reconsidering their preference in the light of new information and experience
gained as time goes by.
        As Bell and Mau put it, quoting Robert Brumbaugh: "There are no future facts,
but there are no past possibilities." (Bell and Mau, 1971, p. 9) These are still among the
wisest words a futurist can utter.
                                                                                            5

       Since the future is the arena of the possible and of the preferred, rather than
of the foregone and predetermined, it is also the arena of dreams and of values.
Ethical considerations are central to futures teaching and futures research. There is
no pretense of separating considerations of good and bad, right and wrong, beauty
and ugliness and other core values from academic inquiry into (or professional
consulting concerning) the future. Values are central, and must be clearly discussed
up front and in every stage of futures study and consulting.
       One of the continuing debates in futures studies (as everywhere) centers on
some kind of ethical and moral absolutism vs. various kinds of ethical and moral
relativism. Some futurists believe that there is a set of core values underlying all
human action across all cultures which must be the basis of all good futures studies
and futures consulting. In this collection, the paper by Wendell Bell comes closest to
representing this perspective. Other futurists believe that there is no such common
set of values--at least none which rises beyond vague generalities and which can be
used to require or outlaw specific actions (much less specific beliefs). I hold to that
view.
       Nonetheless, Bell and I (and all other futurists) believe that ethical discussion-
-and the professional ethics of the consulting futurist--are extremely important
issues which are central to all teaching and consulting in futures studies. There can
be no pretense to "truth," "objectivity," or "universality" on the part of anyone
teaching or applying futures studies, though each futurist will and should hold
certain views and actions to be better than others, and should not only constantly re-
examine their own most deeply held values but also challenge the values of their
clients as well as their students as a normal part of their futures work.
       At the same time there is a distinction between what is often called "futurism"
or "the futures movement" on the one hand, and futures studies or futures research
on the other. "Futurism" is clearly concerned about the achievement (or avoidance)
of one particular kind of future. People who speak of "the futures movement" or
"futurism" know from the outset what kind of future they want. They seek a Green,
sustainable future; or else they favor continued, unrestrained "free market"
economic growth. Or perhaps it is their dream to plunge us all into mining the moon,
terraforming Mars and expanding quickly into the cosmos. Or alternatively they are
focused on creating nonviolent, nonkilling local communities. Or in forecasting who
the next enemy might be and in developing the most effective, efficient, and lethal
weapons against it. Perhaps they wish to create global governance. Or libertarian
anarchy, or...well, the number of preferred images of the future is endless. And so,
thus, is futurism and the futures movement.
       Futures studies, on the other hand, is interested not in itself furthering any
particular view of the future, but rather in furthering both narrowly professional as
well as broadly participative inquiry into the future--understanding the roots and
consequences of each of the manifold images of the future which exist in people's
minds and in support of people's actions. We are interested in identifying and
understanding the many different images of the future which exist, understanding
why certain people have certain images rather than others, how their different
images of the future lead to specific actions, or inactions, in the present, and how
present actions or inactions themselves create certain aspects of the future.
       Thus, for many of the authors of this issue, just as futures studies does not seek
to predict things to come, so also futures studies does not try to study "the future"
since "the future" does not exist to be studied. What does exist, and what futurists can
and often do study, are "images of the future" in people's minds. These images differ
between individuals, cultures, men and women, social classes, age groups. One job for
futurists is to identify and study these varying images, to understand their origins
and history, to see how they animate individual and group action, and then to
anticipate how people, acting on the basis of an image of the future, "push" society
                                                                                           6

into one future or another, just as their images can be said to "pull" them forward.
        As various authors will make clear, these images can be optimistic or
pessimistic, frightening or ennobling, paralyzing or motivating, weak or robust,
unexamined and naive, or fully researched, articulated, tested, and developed. But
these images (from the point of view of futures studies) are not "right" or "wrong".
They simply are; they exist; they are the empirical "facts" that the futurist studies. I
would say that the concept "images of the future" and its corollaries, "forecasting
alternative futures" and "inventing preferred futures" in contrast to "predicting The
future" is key to understanding futures studies (Boulding, K., 1956; Polak, 1961; Mau,
1967; Boulding, E., 1971, Bell and Mau, 1971).
        But the future is not completely open. As important as images and dreams are,
you cannot do anything merely by dreaming and wishing it were so. While nothing,
good or bad, will happen without your dreams, "appropriate action" is also necessary
to make your dreams come true, and what "appropriate action" is depends not upon
your (or even the collective) will alone, but also upon environmental factors over
which you may have little or no control, but which you must understand and deal
with successfully.
        The metaphor I use to illuminate this dynamic interactive relationship been
subjective and objective factors is "surfing the tsunamis of change" (Dator, 1992).
        The objective factors are a variety of environmental forces with which any
image of the future (and struggle towards a preferred future) must contend. These
factors cannot be ignored or wished away. They must themselves be identified and
studied. Strategies for coping with them must be developed, tested and used.
        Now, what those environmental forces are (or are believed to be) depends on
one's theory of social change--one's understanding of what "society" is, what causes
it to change and what prevents change; what aspects of society change "easily" and
what aspects resist change.
        Different futurists have different theories of social change. One thing I asked
each contributor to this issue of ABS to do was to spell out their theory of social
change. Each did, in varying degrees of detail.
        For me, I have concluded that technology is a major agent of social change,
contributing significantly to the creation of all of the other "tsunamis"
(demographics, global environmental change, political-economic instabilities,
cultural transformation, etc.) upon which we all must "surf" (or drown). While it is
too long a story for me fully to explicate here, my understanding is captured best by
the aphorism of Marshall McLuhan: "We shape our tools and thereafter our tools
shape us" (McLuhan,1967).
        Humans become human, and change their understanding of what it means to
be human, by interacting with their environment and themselves through
technology. Values, ethics, mores, religious beliefs and laws are all made in relation
to how humans can behave (and what they then come to believe about themselves as
a consequence of their behavior). When technology changes, behavior changes, and
thus, eventually, self- and social-consciousness changes. New behavior (and new
self-awareness), permitted (and/or constrained) by new technology challenges
values and rules engendered by the behavior (and consciousness) permitted by old
technologies, and thus society changes.
        Learning how past technologies (and the environments they created) helped
shape behavior and beliefs, as well as how then-new technologies changed that
behavior, challenged prior institutions and beliefs and thus precipitated social
change is a major source of my understanding by analogy how new and emerging
technologies might serve as agents of social change for the future. Thus not only is
the study of history extremely important to me as a futurist, but so also are
anthropology, cultural studies, and evolutionary systems theories--indeed, they are
even more important because those disciplines cover longer and wider stretches of
                                                                                         7

human (and prehuman) experience than does "history."
       It is a very complex interrelation about which I continue to learn, unlearn,
and relearn more and more. (See: Technology & Social Change) In the essays that
follow, some authors share some of my focus on technology, while others develop
their theories of social change on entirely other bases.
       In addition to technology, I believe the tsunamis upon which the surfer of
human agency must ride are also shaped by cycles (especially the Kondratieff Long
Waves which are themselves influenced by the life-cycles of technologies) and age-
cohort analysis--the movement of what is sometimes called "generations" through
their own life cycle.
       Thus, for example, I see considerable value in the perspective of those (partly
informed by Wallersteinian World Systems theory and partly by
Jantschian/Prigoginean evolutionary systems theory) who maintain that (in the
American case) we members of the Silent and Boomer Generations (the dynamism of
the G. I. Generation, which coincided with the peak of the "4th Kondratieff Wave,"
now completely gone) are more or less "inevitably" wallowing helplessly within the
flaccid trough of the most recent Kondratieff Long Wave, while rushing towards us is
a new wave of growth and possibility, fueled by emerging technologies, which will
swell during the first several decades of the 21st Century and be surfed, well or
poorly, by the cohorts of what are now sometimes called the "Millennial" and "Cyber"
generations who will live in the 21st Century long after the last "Silents" and
"Boomers" are gone (Berry, 1991; Berry and Kim, 1994; Jantsch, 1976; Kleinknecht,
1992; Prigogine, 1997; Schlesinger, 1986; Strauss and Howe, 1995; Strauss and Howe,
1997; Wallerstein, 1979).
       My teaching of futures studies through the Political Science Department of the
University of Hawaii takes place on all levels. I teach an introductory freshman level
course, an advanced undergraduate course, two graduate courses, (one an
introduction to the Alternative Futures MA Option, and the other a specialized course
within it) and chair or sit on future-oriented PhD dissertation committees within the
Department and elsewhere.
       The freshman course and the introductory graduate course are both similar in
basic purpose and design, but quite different in execution. Both are oriented around
what I call the "basic paradigm" in futures studies:

                                       Theory


                          Trends       Images        Events


                                      Methods

       As I hope I have made it clear by now, I consider "images of the future" to be
the key focus of futures studies. So I begin my class by discussing the concept and
presenting a wide variety of different images of the future from different cultures,
classes, and periods of time. I also expect each of my beginning graduate students to
get to know the ideas of two different futurists very well, through all of their
writing, and personal contact where possible (Coates & Jarratt, 1989; Inayatullah,
1996; Marien and Jennings, 1987). I stress that all knowledge, including that about
"the future," is personal, and so I want them to try to discover why certain futurists
believe some things to be true about the future, while others believe something quite
different, but with equal fervor and certainty. Also, when and why did "their"
futurists become futurists? And have they substantially changed their views of the
future as they have matured, or not, and why?
                                                                                             8

       While I admit that any attempt to categorize the rich array of images of the
future which actually exist does violence to the richness of that array, and while I
know that other futurists have come up with different categorization schemes, I have
concluded that all images in all cultures that I have encountered can be lumped into
one of four major (generic) images of the future:
              Continuation (usually "continued economic growth")
              Collapse (from [usually] one of a variety of different reasons such as
       environmental overload and/or resource exhaustion, economic instability,
       moral degeneration, external or internal military attack, meteor impact, etc.)
              Disciplined Society (in which society in the future is seen as organized
       around some set of overarching values or another--usually considered to be
       ancient, traditional, natural, ideologically-correct, or God-given.)
              Transformational Society (usually either of a "high tech" or a "high
       spirit" variety, which sees the end of current forms, and the emergence of
       new (rather than the return to older traditional) forms of beliefs, behavior,
       organization and--perhaps--intelligent lifeforms (Dator, 1979).
       In my teaching and consulting, I try not to favor one category or image over
any of the others, nor to assume that one (or more) is "good" or "the most likely" or
"the best (or worst) case scenario"--terms which I think are irrelevant here. While I
certainly do have my own "vision" of what I call a "Transformational Society" (Dator,
1973; Dator, 1982, pp. 38-45), my interest is primarily in helping students (and
clients) understand that there are a wide variety of different (more or less firmly-
and reasonably-held) images of the future in existence; for them to reflect on what
their own image is--where it came from, how "robust" it is--and to test and exercise
their image by comparing and contrasting it to the images of their classmates, fellow
workers, other people in their community, and the broader world.
       In addition, I have found that these four generic alternative futures can serve
as the basis for a futures technique I call "deductive forecasting." That is to say, I can
forecast the general characteristics, in each of the four alternative futures, of any
present role or institution by deducing it from each of these four generic societal
images.
       So, for example, I can say something useful and coherent about the future of,
say, "the family," if the future is one of "continued growth", while "the family" will
have certain other characteristics if the future is one of "collapse"--or a "disciplined
society," or a "transformational society." And so on for any role, institution, or value
(Dator, 1981), One of the methods I encourage my students (especially in the
Alternative Futures M A Option) to learn and then to use in their consulting, as I do
in mine, is deductive forecasting
       Another method (among the many which futurists use) which I especially
feature in my teaching and consulting is emerging issue analysis." This derives from
early work done by Graham T. T. Molitor (Molitor, 1977). He observed that all
"problems" of the present at one time did not exist (the same is true of all
"opportunities" in the present). They each go through a more or less regular life
cycle ("S" curve) of earliest (usually totally unnoticed) emergence, through slow
(and barely noticed) growth, then rapid (and more frequently noticed) growth, until
they burst, as a full blown (and brimming with popular acclaim or disdain) problem
(or opportunity) in the present, whereupon a great deal of time and attention is
spent on the problem (or opportunity) until it eventually fades away, either to
nothingness, or, more likely until it re-emerges yet again, unnoticed, at some point
in the future.
       Most futurists work, not with "emerging issues," but with "trends"--at the
point where the growth of the problem/opportunity is most obvious to those who are
looking ahead though still not part of the contemporary policy and popular
discourse. Futurists often try to get decision makers and/or the public to be
                                                                                            9

concerned about these "trends," pointing out that they will become problems (or
opportunities) in the near future, so why don't we deal with them (or take advantage
of them) now, while they are more malleable?
        Emerging issue analysis is interested in identifying future
problem/possibilities at their earliest possible emergence, rather than waiting until
they are fully formed and powerful trends. Identifying trends is important, but
seeing things in their first emergence is more useful. There are specific techniques
involved in learning how to spot emerging issues and then to present them to
decision makers usefully, that are important parts of how we teach (and use) futures
studies in what Chris Jones calls "the Manoa School of futures studies" (Jones, C. B.,
1992).
        Returning now to the content of my introductory undergraduate and graduate
futures classes, after discussing various "images of the future" introduce various
theories of social stability and change, and then various methods for forecasting,
inventing, and creating preferred futures (in part as I have indicated them above). I
focus more deeply and comprehensively on both theories and methods in the
introductory graduate course than I do in the introductory undergraduate course, but
it is important that students at all levels get a sense of the theoretical and
methodological perspectives underlying futures studies (Fowles, 1978; Godet, 1991;
Kurian and Molitor, 1996; Slaughter, 1996a; World Futures Studies Federation, 1986).
        I then identify and discuss certain forces ("trends") which seem to be looming
(or declining, as the case may be) in the future, and also how unexpected "events"
often interrupt and redirect the trends. It is here where I introduce things like
demographic change; arguments pro and con about "the limits to growth" and
"sustainability;" changing and persisting gender and age roles; new and renewed
economic and political systems, developments in telecommunications, artificial
intelligence and life, genetic engineering, space settlement; new and renewed
cultural forms and beliefs, and the like. I try to consider each of these "trends and
events" in the generic four "alternative futures" perspective. Examination of these
trends and events one-by-one is a more prominent feature of my undergraduate than
of my graduate introductory courses.
        In both courses, I expect students to develop a comprehensive statement of
their "preferred future". This is the major focus of both introductory classes. In
recent years I have asked students to do this not in terms of their own personal
preferences but in terms of what they have determined to be the needs and desires of
future generations. "Future generations" are defined as the unborn, not immediately
related to you, whose lives you will impact by the way you live your life now, but who
you can never know and who can never know you and so can never thank you or
criticize you for the world you have given them. "The unborn" can include
nonhuman, as well as human life (Busutil, 1990; Kim and Tough, 1994; Kim and Dator,
1995).
        Since I am a political scientist, I also teach two courses, one undergraduate and
one graduate, which focus on the future of political systems--specifically the design
of new political systems. Proceeding from the realization that society, in sum and in
all its parts, is a human invention, I seek to have my students become inventors of
new political systems. To do this they must first understand how various political
systems were invented and evolved, beginning with the earliest human
organizations--hence the importance of anthropology again--and moving quickly
through to the present, focusing especially on the design problems encountered and
overcome in the invention of the American federal Constitution. At this point we
discuss the concept of "constitutionalism" which underlies virtually all government-
building attempts even today. Then I problematize "constitutionalism" by contrasting
the "Newtonian" cosmology of the American Founding Fathers with "quantum
politics" on the one hand (Becker, 1991, Dator, 1984) and the cosmologies of
                                                                                         10

Confucian, Islamic and Hawaiian cultures, on the other, as perhaps resulting in
different political "design problems" to be overcome, as well as different notions of
what are acceptable "solutions". Finally, I ask the students to consider five of the
many "complaints" people often have about all current governments, and challenge
them to design a political system that overcomes those specific complaints (plus any
others that might be of particular concern to themselves), and to do so not only
singly but also in relation to the other four (or more) complaints raised against
existing systems of governance.
       Students can focus on any level of analysis they want, from the individual to
the cosmos, and they can either focus deeply on one or two subsystems, or broadly on
an entire system.
       Several years ago, in order to help my undergraduates rise above their own
narrow view of "history", the baggage of which they seemed inevitably to carry with
them in their political designs, I required that they design their political community
on Mars, and not on Earth. This turned out to be a fortuitous decision, since very few
people in the national or international space community have thought about issues
of governance beyond those of the very first explorers and pioneers (who will almost
certainly be under a kind of military command system) and of "space law" (which is
simply the extension of Earth law into space). Who actual settlers on Mars might be,
what their governance preferences might be, how the very different environment
of Mars might evoke a different kind of "natural law" for governance, and many
other matters unique to extra-terrestrial communities somewhat frees their minds to
think more creatively and yet seriously in ways that might also be helpful not only
for future space settlements but also for new forms of terrestrial governance.
       As a consequence of my "Mars politics" course, I have since 1993 been co-
director (with Prof. Ben Finney of the Department of Anthropology of the University
of Hawaii at Manoa) of the "Space and Society" division of the International Space
University (ISU). ISU is headquartered in Strasbourg, France, where it offers a
Masters in Space Studies degree. Also, since 1987, ISU has offered a ten week summer
session in interdisciplinary space studies, each summer at a different location
somewhere on Earth (so far). At ISU, I lecture on futures studies, space governance,
and social science and space studies in both the MSS and summer sessions.
       Finally, to return to the Alternative Futures MA in the Department of Political
Science of the University of Hawaii, students are also expected to take two methods
courses, choose among several electives, and, as mentioned before, have a year's paid
intern experience in a futures consulting firm. I direct the intern graduate seminar
that is the academic part of that intern experience.
       Both graduate and undergraduate students work on a voluntary or paid basis in
the Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies, which I also direct, and also have
access to the Resource Room of the Center which has one of the most extensive
libraries on the history of futures in existence. Magda McHale's Center for
Integrative Studies at the State University of New York, Buffalo, also has a rich
collection of futures material. In Europe the Robert Jungk Library in Salsburg,
Austria is also exceptional. Additional materials are in the collections of Eleonora
Masini in Rome and Pentti Malaska in Turku, Finland.
       The following professors within the Department of Political Science of the
University of Hawaii also have taught or still teach required or elective courses
within the Alternative Futures Option: Ted Becker (democratic theory), Doug Bwy
(methods), Dick Chadwick (computer modeling), Kathy Ferguson
(administration/feminist theory), Manfred Henningsen (political theory), Deane
Neubauer (public policy), Neal Milner (judicial politics), Glenn Paige (nonviolent
politics), Fred Riggs (governmental organization), Ira Rohter (Green politics),
Rudolph Rummel (peace and conflict studies), Glen Schubert (political behavior),
Michael Shapiro (political theory), Carolyn Stephenson (peace studies), Kate Zhou
                                                                                           11

(comparative politics). Outside the Department, Dan Wedemeyer (Communications
Department), teaches one of the two required methods courses. Ben Finney
(Anthropology), Majid Tehranian (Communications), David Swift (Sociology), and Pat
Takahashi (Engineering) also teach frequently-chosen courses.

                              THE ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE
        As I have said repeatedly, I am by no means alone in the area of futures
studies. Twenty six people responded to my invitation to describe how they teach
futures studies and engage in futures consulting. I have arranged the contributions
to this issue in the following order.
        Following this introductory essay is a brief piece by Immanuel Wallerstein
which I believe stands as a splendid challenge of certain aspects of the future to all
who would try to help students or clients prepare for it.
        This is followed by six articles which each and together serve as a kind of
overview to and history of futures studies. The first is by Wendell Bell, of the
Department of Sociology of Yale University. Prof. Bell has been involved in futures
studies for as long as I have (Bell & Mau, 1971), and his story of the struggle to
introduce the perspective at Yale is informative, to say the least. Prof. Bell has also
recently written what is surely the most comprehensive attempt ever made to explain
futures studies (Bell, 1996). Anyone interested in finding out more about futures
studies should read Bell's two volumes--after finishing reading all of the essays in
this issue of ABS first.
        Bell's essay is followed by an article by Eleonora Masini, Professor of Futures
Studies and of Human Ecology at the Gregorian University of Rome. Dr. Masini is the
major academic figure in European futures studies, in my judgement, important not
only for her long and influential work at the Gregorian University but also--and
perhaps even more importantly--for her work which led to (Masini, 1971), and then
within, the World Futures Studies Federation as Secretary General, President, and
then Chair of the Executive Council at various crucial stages in the growth and
development of the WFSF. Without her, the WFSF would not exist today, certainly not
at its high level of international prominence and influence. Several years ago she
also wrote a much-needed overview to futures studies (Masini, 1993). In her
contribution here she discusses why most conventional academics have ignored and
sometimes ridiculed futures studies--and why some futurists have ignored
conventional academia to their peril and our embarrassment.
        Reed Riner is Professor of Anthropology at Northern Arizona University in
Flagstaff and brings a perspective on futures studies which contrasts nicely with
that of Bell and Masini. This is partly because he is an anthropologist, and they are
sociologists. But it is also because of his different pedagogical modes (using MUDs,
telecommunities, and simulations as well as regular classroom techniques) and his
interest in simulated space settlements as sources for anthropological research and
theory-making. The narrative of his various activities is informative and
illuminating. Prof. Riner acknowledges the contribution of another anthropologist
to futures studies--Prof. Robert Textor of Stanford whose Ethnographic Futures
Research technique Riner discusses (Textor, 1990). Prof. Ben Finney in the
Department of Anthropology of the University of Hawaii (and of ISU) is another who
should be mentioned again because of his work in future space settlements (and what
he calls "the cosmicization of humanity and the humanization of the cosmos").
        W. Warren Wagar, our next contributor, is especially important because as an
historian, at Binghamton University of the State University of New York, he views
futures studies as a natural part of the discipline of History--being simply the history
of the futures instead of the past. He very clearly points out that if the past is an
acceptable academic endeavor then so must be the futures. The past is as
"unknowable" by empirical methods as are the futures. The past is also as contestable
                                                                                           12

and re-interpretable as are the futures. What one believes about the futures, as about
the past, strongly influences what one believes about herself, and how she acts,
today.
        From my point of view (and here also combining a point that Jordi Serra
discusses in his paper), one of the key academic concerns of futures studies is the
conception of time. My introductory undergraduate course always opens with a unit
titled, "It's about time!" Here both history and anthropology have much to contribute.
Futurists should not naively accept their own culture's notions of time, but should
problematize the very notion of time itself. Not all cultures speak of "past, present,
and future" and it is by no means clear that they--much less only those three
categories--"really" exist. The boundary between each is extremely fuzzy. "The
future" is far too vague a term--stretching from here to eternity--without obvious
demarcation. Futurists need be clear what they are talking about when they refer to
"the future(s)." Generally speaking, I mean (for a variety of reasons I will not discuss
now) "the next 20-50 years, and usually the next 20-30." When I mean a longer or
shorter time period--or when I mean "from NOW to some period in the future," as I
sometimes do, then I must indicate what that is, and why.
        And what does one mean by saying--as so many commencement speakers do
say--that "we must face the future with confidence?" What does it mean to "face the
future?" Does the future really "lie ahead," and the past "behind" us? Some early
Greeks believed the reason the future sometimes was so surprising is because we face
the past (which we can "see" well until it, too, fades in the distance and over the
horizon). But the future "suddenly" appears in our view from in back of us. Could it
be that, in fact, "the future lies behind?"
        Thus, from one perspective, history (and anthropology) and futures studies
should combine into a single discipline called, perhaps, "chronology"--the study of
human ideas about time, and of the beliefs about and interpretation of the evidence
of the movement of humans through time, from the earliest emergence of human
communities through to the end of "time." In any event, it is quite a mistake to
assume that futures studies is opposed to, uninterested in, or ignorant of "history."
        Alternatively, just as some historians become experts in some past time and
place, so might futurists become experts in one or another future time and place. For
several decades, because of George Orwell's famous book, the year "1984" served as a
symbol of the future--in this case of a thoroughly dystopic future. Then 1984 finally
arrived, with considerable fanfare and discussions--is 1984 "1984" or not?--and then
passed, with scarcely a subsequent mention. Presently "The Year 2000" seems to many
to represent all that needs to be said about "the future," though it too will become the
past (even if the "Year 2000 [Computer] Problem" brings our civilization, if not to its
end, then perhaps to its knees for a while).
        My idea is that some futurists might choose some date (day, year, decade, or
era) in the future, collecting all the information they can find beforehand about it,
and all the information about the date when it actually happens, and then serving as
a source of information about the date when it recedes into the past.
        Why not? That way history and futures studies become more obviously joined,
as they should be (Fletchtheim, 1996, Heilbroner, 1960).
        Richard Slaughter, a Britisher living in Sydney, Australia, has done more than
any single person to describe and develop what he calls "The Knowledge Base of
Futures Studies." He has recently edited four important volumes on this issue, and
written several books and numerous articles describing what futures studies is in its
totality. His contribution to this volume is especially important because it draws upon
this impressive body of work (Slaughter 1992; Slaughter 1993; Slaughter 1995a;
Slaughter 1995b; Slaughter,1996a; Slaughter, 1996b; Slaughter 1996c; Slaughter 1996d;
Slaughter and Tough, 1997).
        Sohail Inayatullah, from Pakistan, but currently affiliated with the
                                                                                            13

Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, makes it abundantly
clear in his contribution that there are many different kinds of futures studies--all
legitimate, but some perhaps more valuable in the long run than others. Dr.
Inayatullah (like Dr. Masini), focuses especially on the cultural dimension on the one
hand and (like Dr. Slaughter) on the critical dimension of futures studies on the
other.
       Dr. Inayatullah, one of the most prolific, learned, creative, and active scholars
in the field, also represents a "new generation" of futurists--at least in comparison
with myself and the five previous futurists. Other younger futurists featured here
include Huston, Jones, Rubin, and Serra, with the rest of the contributors falling
somewhere in between the old timers and the new blood. But futurists younger still
(representing the views of "Generation X" perhaps) are emerging from graduate
schools everywhere and will be represented in a reprise of this issue of ABS, should
there be one, ten years from now.
       The next section of this issue I labeled "Laws, Chaos, Evolution" because the
essays in it come the closest to reflecting the scholarly lines typically found in this
Journal. Peter Manicas, a philosopher of social science (Manicas, 1987) and head of
the Liberal Studies Program of the University of Hawaii, discusses the philosophical
and theoretical differences between (and similarities in) "explaining" the past and
"predicting" the future.
       Peter Bishop of the Studies of the Future Department of the University of
Houston, Clear Lake, outlines his understanding of social stability and social change
concluding that both "transformational change" (so popular among certain
futurists) and slow incremental change (the way most non-futurist seem to feel) are
rare. In contrast to both, Bishop says, change is "sticky"--like plate tectonics--with
stability lasting longer than it should, and transformation rarely happening, though
"jolting" when it does occur.
       The next two articles are especially interesting. The first is written by Erzsébet
Novaky and the second by Eva Hideg, both affiliated with the Futures Research
Department of the Budapest University of Economic Sciences. They each in their own
way describe the evolution of futures research from its optimistic and positivistic
roots and assumptions in the 1960s and 70s through the days of opening and
excitement in the 1980s (when I first met the two scholars at what was then called the
"Karl Marx University" of Budapest) through the collapse of the socialist systems and
the revitalization of futures research within a Hungary which is now part of the
global capitalist world.
       These two Hungarian scholars show the importance of evolutionary systems
theory to their current work. Dr. Mika Mannermaa, who held the chair in futures
research of the Finnish Academy of Science and has been for some time a major
theorist as well as futures activist, develops that perspective in somewhat more detail,
while Jan Huston of the University of Hawaii makes the strongest case of any
contributor to this issue that evolutionary systems theory permits--indeed requires--
futurists to understand both the general direction of society and also the general
process through which all social change occurs. Thus, while "alternative futures"
play an important part for Prof. Huston, the feasible alternatives are not nearly as
numerous and open as many futurists seem to assume. They are carefully bounded
and identified by the logic and reality of the theory, he maintains.
       A similar statement of a more rigorous and guiding theory and methodology is
presented by Dr. Kaoru Yamaguchi. His perspective, which he designates "FOCAS"
("Future-oriented complexity and adaptive studies"), emerged from discussions which
he has had over the past several summers with a global network of scholars he has
brought to Awaji Island, on the Inland Sea of Japan. Prof. Yamaguchi's article is
interesting not only because of the areas of the future it presently explains, but also
because it identifies what new areas of research are most pressingly needed.
                                                                                              14

        The next eight articles, grouped under the heading "Courses and Methods,"
tend to be more or less explicit descriptions of how the authors teach futures studies
at the university level. This, of course, is what I asked all the contributors to this
issue of ABS to do, and all did this. These eight however did so in a bit more detail, and
thus are, I believe, unusually helpful for people interested in knowing how to get
started in teaching futures themselves. It is especially important to note that the
authors come from a variety of academic disciplines.
        Markku Sotarauta describes how he teaches "Futures-seeking communicative
policy processes" within the Department of Regional Studies and Environmental
Policy of the University of Tampere, Finland. In a way reminiscent of the story told
by Profs. Novaky and Hideg in Hungary, Prof. Sotarauta contrasts the assumptions
about teaching planning and engaging in planning consulting under the old
concept of "the government of uncertainty" (which characterized planning in the
1960s and 70s) with "the governance of ambiguity" which is the concept which best
describes the paradigm of planning in the present, he believes.
        Professor Graham May, Principle Lecturer in Futures Research at Leeds
Metropolitan University in the UK, next tells a hauntingly similar story of his
odyssey from Geography, to Planning, and thence to futures studies, as well. By now
we are beginning to see that this is a familiar tale, told by most of the early futurists.
        The next four contributors in the "Courses and Methods" section--Christopher
Jones (Eastern Oregon University), Jordi Serra del Pino (Centre Catala de Prospectiva,
Barcelona), Anita Rubin (Futures Research Centre, Turku, Finland), and Paul
Wildman (Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia)--represent the younger
generation of scholars for whom overcoming positivism (and modernity) was never
an issue. They live in the postmodern, de/reconstructed world--and understand that
their students live there even more intensively. They each show how it is necessary
to connect to their students (as well as to understand the dynamics of their world)
through images of the future in popular culture (a point also made by Huston). While
all of the four stress the key role of "images of the future", this is especially the focus
of Anita Rubin in her teaching, consulting, and research.
        Paul Wildman's article is of special importance because it describes how he
designed and taught a futures course on the web. He also indicates that he uses the
web in his consulting in order to involve his clients more directly in the creative
process. They (just as his students) are no longer passive "consumers" of futures, but
even more clearly active imaginers and creators of their future.
        David Hicks is Professor of Futures Education at Bath Spa University College in
the UK, responsible primarily for teaching future teachers how and why to include
futures studies into their curricula. Like Rubin and Gidley, he too believes that it is
extremely important for the future itself that students at all levels become familiar
with the theories, methods and substantive ideas about the future which futures
studies brings. He, as many others in this issue, point out the continued serious social
consequences of an educational system and a popular culture both of which are
either mindless of the future or else project negative, indeed paralyzingly
apocalyptic, images of it.
        This section concludes with a fascinating article by Oliver Markley, also of the
University of Houston at Clear Lake. He shows the ways in which he uses visionary
techniques--"guided cognitive imagery" such as "virtual space travel" and "depth
intuition"--to aid his students and his business clients to gain positive control over
their future. He concludes by pointing out that these methods have much in common
with those with which most behavioral scientist feel comfortable, however strange
they might initially appear to be.
        I have titled the final section "Concerns" because these four articles come
closest to reflecting those of academics who are passionately committed to the
achievement of a specific kind of future and/or who focus on a specific kind of
                                                                                          15

student/client in their work and teaching.
       Ian Lowe, of Griffith University, Nathan, Australia, is especially concerned
about sustainability and countering the pathologies of blindly continued economic
growth. He is, of course, by no means unique among the contributors to this issue in
that respect. It is just that his contribution here is more clearly focused on that
concern. It is also important to know that Dr. Lowe was executive director of the
Commission on the Future which the Australian Federal Government created, under
the championship of The Hon. Barry O. Jones, a decade or so ago, who is an
exceptional futurist, as well as politician, in his own right (Jones, B, 1995).
       Jennifer Gidley is another Australian who (like Anita Rubin and others) is
especially concerned about the fact that so many young people have negative images
of the future (and of themselves in the future) which often lead to profoundly anti-
social behavior and sometimes suicide. She shows that futures visioning workshops
conducted with young people in Australia have helped them develop more
responsibly positive images of their future, and to begin to act more appropriately to
achieve them.
       Arthur Shostak, Professor in the Department of Psychology, Sociology and
Anthropology, Drexel University (Pennsylvania), is probably unique among all
futurists in that he works primarily with organized laborers helping them develop
positive images and understandings of the future. He describes here his experiences
teaching futures at the AFL-CIO's George Meany Center for Labor Studies in Silver
Spring, Maryland.
       Finally, William Halal, Professor of Management at the George Washington
University in Washington, DC argues that futurists today are the "high-tech
equivalent of the ancient prophets" and that it is our job both to announce the end of
the old world and to give heart by proclaiming the better world to come. Prof. Halal
outlines what he believes can and should be the major contours of this better future.

                                      FINAL WORDS
       A few final words before I let you loose to savor the ideas that follow. One is
that futures studies is, or should become, a specific academic discipline, with its own
theories, methods, journals, conferences, courses, professors, students, funding, and
the like. This is both proper and unfortunate. It is proper that futures studies become
a normal, widely accepted part of the each university everywhere on the planet and
beyond. I hope all the readers of this issue of ABS will help it become so.
       It is eaually unfortunate if this should happen because futures studies is and
must be a profoundly cross-disciplinary (and cross-cultural) activity. A futures-
orientation should be a specific part of all academic endeavors, and not become a
separate discipline. Each academic discipline should become future-oriented--as
should all other aspects of society, most certainly governance (Kim and Dator, 1998).
       Futures studies should not be relegated to some academic departmental ghetto,
and should not become just one discipline among many. Indeed, one of the major
problems of contemporary academia is clearly its segmentation into departments and
specialties which not only no longer make any sense, if they once did, but which are
also contributing to the demise of the modern university because of the inability of
any one discipline to address the pan-disciplinary, future-oriented problems of the
world (Wallerstein, 1996). That a certain school of economics is now privileged by
decision makers over other social sciences--and that there is no fully-integrated
applied as well as theoretical future-oriented social science anywhere--is one of the
more serious problems of the present, itself contributing to an increasingly
unsustainable future.
       Secondly, for futures studies now to become a normal and well-integrated part
of modern universities is like it becoming just one more proverbial deck chair on the
Titanic.
                                                                                         16

       The 19th and 20th Century public university of mass education does not have a
bright future. While a handful of largely private elite universities will almost
certainly survive into the 21st Century to serve the children of the rich and
powerful, and while a myriad "convenience store" virtual, distance, corporate and
campusless training opportunities for the poor and powerless will certainly flourish,
the old public, moderately open, "land grant," brick-and-mortar university for
which the United States is especially famous (and which finds its counterparts in
contributors to this issue especially in Australia and Finland) is about to go the way
of the dodo bird--as in many ways it should (Inayatullah, 1998).
       Futures studies--which is not a product of this intellectual heritage, but is
rather is a harbinger of intellectual perspectives still to come (Dator, 1986; Dator,
1996)--should thus not go down with it. That would be the greatest irony of all.

                                         REFERENCES
Becker, T. (Ed.) (1991). Quantum politics. New York: Praeger.
Bell, D. (Ed.) (1968). Toward the Year 2000. Work in progress. Boston:
        Houghton Mifflin.
Bell, W. (1996). Foundations of futures studies. Volume I, History, purposes
        and knowledge; Volume II, Values objectivity, and the good society.
        Rutgers, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Bell, W. and Mau, J.(1971). Images of the future: Theory and research. In
        W. Bell and J. Mau (Eds.). The sociology of the future (pp. 6-44). New
        York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bernd, J. (1966). Mathematical applications in political science, II. Dallas:
        Arnold Foundation Monographs, Southern Methodist University.
Berry, B. (1991). Long wave rhythms in economic development and
        political behavior. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Berry, B. and Kim, H. (1994). Leadership generations: A long-wave
        macrohistory, Technological Forecasting and Social