Reopening the futures
The advent of Western modernity had as its major characteristic the promise of a future marked by progress in all areas of social life. In this regime of historicity, the times to come were marked by the promise of betterment. Western modernity despite its undeniable progress in terms of public freedoms, technological advances and the modernisation of social life, has seen faith in progress resulting from an upward march of human history wane.
After the Great Depression, Auschwitz, Hiroshima and the Gulag, the metanarrative of a progress of Humanity carried by Reason is seizing up. The crises and multiple distopias that accompanied the reign of instrumental reason finally undermined belief in a better tomorrow. In the West, they have also led to a relationship with time characterised by a hypertrophy of the present, which historian François Hartog calls presentism. Postmodernity, characterised by an excess of presentism, has become a time marked by a future without promise, other than that of avoiding the multiple disasters it promises (ecological crisis, societies unravelling, health disasters, growing insecurities). The decreed end of Utopias since the failure of the grand narratives promising the advent of new times (communisms, socialisms, …) seems to characterise our era.
The only anticipations that still seem to operate are those of a technological future or a post-humanism.
This question of the future, for societies considered to be lagging behind the normal march of the world (Africa, Latin America, …), is posed somewhat differently. For these societies, the promise of economic development, democracy and societal modernity continues to be made or conquered. These retroactive teleologies lock them into a relationship of societal mimicry and maintain them in the myth of a linear march of history and progress. These societies are summoned to go through stages and reach societal states that other societies have already reached, as if the only possible destiny for them were to reproduce the single Western societal model that is offered as an example. Their differences, their socio-historical singularities, their temporalities ; their relationship to the present, past and future are thus denied and read in the single modality of backwardness. It is in this context that I wish to reflect on what it would mean for these countries to reopen their futures, but also for postmodern Euro-American societies.
For African nations, the question of thinking about their destiny (their present and their future) is crucial. This means drawing on their mythological universe, their history, their cultural references and their symbolic capital… In this endeavour, it is less a question of distinguishing oneself by withdrawing into an identity or advocating an imaginary purity, than of building on existing cultural resources in order to extract vital elements from them. A future cannot be envisaged outside the soil, far from the juices and alluvium of its lands and suns. Every society, culture or civilisation passes on a heritage and perpetuates a cultural matrix that is the repository of its dynamic identity through time, transforming it as the world changes.
Also, it is a question of allowing for the plurality of histories. It is impossible to conceive of a single history for all human societies.
In order to be complete, the analysis of the history of societies must also articulate different scales (global, transnational, regional, local) which complement each other and make it possible to account for the phenomena studied[2]. History shows that societies have their own trajectories, perspectives, dynamics, temporalities, which can be connected to others.
Before we look further at issues related to futures. Let’s take a look at the present and how the contemporaneity of African societies is portrayed. The present of the African continent is frequently represented as a dystopia. The categories used to assess social well-being are those of economism, which has usurped the lexicon of social well-being assessment since the 18th century. Dimensions relating to culture, psychology, relationality and the quality of links with the living world are generally absent from the lexicon used to assess the well-being of societies. Moreover, our era is characterised by an obsession with evaluation, the statistical abstraction of reality, and quantification as a major element of meaning. All this stems from the now preponderance of managerial lexicon to qualify social life.
Why is it necessary to reopen the future ? To emerge from a time without promise. Building meaning or a teleonomy for societies is fundamental. Societies need to take ownership of their present and future and invest it with meaning. Can we do this without rekindling the myth of progress? The times ahead are always a time of emerging possibilities. But the latter are often the bearers of contradictory dynamics there are concomitant advances (technical, societal…), but also setbacks (ecological crisis, genocides, forms of domination and destruction…).
The difficulty lies in configuring futures, as these are often unprecedented and do not necessarily occur in known forms. But they can nevertheless carry a desire for collective well-being, intentionality and potential energy (for example, by caring for the quality of the relationship with living things by reinvesting it with quality, we open up futures).
How to invent a regime of historicity that breaks with a teleological vision[3] of history on the one hand, and on the other, which puts an end to presentism, which is an atrophy of the past and a negation of the future ? Presentism by decreeing, for example, the end of history (Fukuyama) has the consequence not only of annihilating any future, by rendering vain any possibility of action, but perpetuates the present state of things (present inequalities and present systems of domination).
One possible way is to historicise events by showing that what seems to be ” natural “, established, or self-evident is the product of a complex process, a history, movements, dynamics resulting from a social construction and as such can be deconstructed.
A rethought relationship with its cultural resources
For the African continent reopening the future involves first and foremost a reinvented relationship with its traditions, its cultural resources, avoiding the pitfalls of fetishisation and self-hatred. This enables a remobilisation of symbolic capital with the power to germinate and reactivate its cultural and social resources.
African societies over the long span of their history have been able to weave and reweave the social bond and make society. They have produced major and fruitful societal innovations that have enabled them to meet the challenges of their long and complex history. The point here is not to list them all and enter into a system of proof. But just to point out, whether in the fields of justice (courts of the word, restorative justice), conflict resolution, the creation of the community and the moral philosophies that sustain it (Ubuntu,…), the integration of the other and of difference (notion of kinship, extended family) ; there exists in these societies a significant repertoire of resources that not only make it possible to respond to current challenges, but which could inspire other places in search of social re-connection and the reconstruction of the political.
However, opening up futures also means reinventing the current forms of politics and economics on the Continent. Most African nations achieved independence at the turn of the 1960s. From the point of view of political organisation, most of these states adopted the system of representative democracy and its methods of choosing representatives and leaders. The effectiveness of this model of political organisation is open to question. The recurrence of political crises resulting from electoral processes on the African continent leads us to wonder whether this mode of political organisation has been definitively established. Moreover, the fundamental elements of a substantial democracy, going beyond the formal organisation of elections, are cruelly lacking. These are an operating system of checks and balances, the existence of deliberative spaces allowing the greatest number of people to participate in political decisions, the existence of a social contract based on an equitable sharing of well-being.
It should be noted that so-called representative democracy is in crisis everywhere. In Europe and the USA, it is being held hostage by various oligarchies (economic and financial, intellectual and media elites). We are justified in asking whether it has not been emptied of its true content, particularly when it has been led to promote xenophobia, sexism and vulgarity (USA/Trump) and no longer allows a plurality of economic and political options or real citizen participation in the decisions that affect them. Today in Burkina Faso and Tunisia, where a civil society and democratic culture are emerging, the desire for democracy in these places was the fruit of popular revolutions that put an end to dictatorial regimes. The forms of political organisation that are emerging in these areas will be built and consolidated in the non-linearity of their social and political history. These endogenous productions of the political are interesting to observe, as are the promises of reinvention that they carry with them.
On the Need to Reinvent Political Forms
African societies must reinvent the forms of their modes of political organisation and anchor their institutions in their history and cultural dynamics. They need to produce their own forms of representation, deliberation and participation. Pre-colonial Africa experimented with a variety of forms of political participation based on socio-professional category, age group, etc. …. How can we produce a collective voice that works? How can the greatest possible number of people be involved in political choices and decision-making processes? The wide range of historical experiences around the world could serve as a source of inspiration.
The idea is to build human communities that control their destiny and configure itnt. For African countries, this means rethinking the nation-state model. The latter emerged in Europe after the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), established to put an end to the Wars of Religion. The European nations of the time were fairly homogeneous from an ethnic and denominational point of view, and it was relatively easy to superimpose a nation on a territory. In the African context, where there is great ethnic diversity and territories are mobile and fluctuating, we can question the relevance of the nation-state form. In short, it is essential for the African continent to think of forms of political organisation stemming from its long and complex social history (process of legitimising representatives, organisation of powers and counter-powers). It also needs to develop forms of governance that are not necessarily linked to the state. Several forms of self-management already exist on the Continent and are rooted in the political and social productions of several social groups.
From the need to reinvent economics
The point is to start from the observation of the crisis of the dominant economy, to think of the economy as a cultural process as well as the need to reinvent its relationship to the social field.
Our context is that of a neoliberal economy in crisis. The symptoms of this crisis are persistent inequality and the inability of most of the world to satisfy its basic needs with dignity, under this system. So, the crisis is not so much linked to episodes of financial crisis (2008). It is linked to the fact that the dominant economy is not fulfilling its fundamental mission: to contribute to the well-being of the greatest number of people. Its main features are the globalisation of trade, which in reality consists of a privatisation of the gains of commercial exchange and a mutualisation of its risks and negative effects (anthropocene, climate change, ecological crisis). The crisis of the neoliberal economy is fundamentally a crisis of meaning and purpose which is rooted in a mechanistic cosmology and a utilitarian vision, stemming from the episteme of 19th century Europe (order, progress, rationality). Economic discourse therefore functions as an ecomyth in modern (industrial) societies whose function is the ordering of reality according to its narrative.
Africa can and must be a prime testing ground for this reinvention of the economic. The African continent was not heavily involved in the industrial adventure of the 20th century, and its societies have long practised forms of economicity based on circularity and the relational economy; the challenges facing the Continent oblige it, for the present and the century to come, to rethink the categories of work, market exchange, production, and the ends of the economy. This involves:
- To question the forms of economicities practised in African countries and indicate how they are creative, innovative and could constitute avenues for rethinking the economy in a global way. It is more than necessary to begin a serious reflection on post-capitalism
- Economic action in African societies is embedded in the respective socio-cultures. The economic is not a separate order. Its characteristic features are circularity, and reciprocity. In traditional African societies, the economy was part of a wider social system. It certainly obeyed its classic functions (subsistence, allocation of resources…) but was above all subordinate to social, cultural and civilisational purposes
- Economic Institutions are all historical inventions (savings, credit), there is nothing universal about them and they are not pure products of reason. It is a question of historicising their genesis and showing that the chips are not down once and for all. Capitalism in its neoliberal form is not inevitable. It is not a globalising alternative that will defeat the system, but singularities. Globalisation has been a long process of standardisation, producing a kind of universal, undifferentiated economic culture. It will be confronted by everything that retains an irreducible otherness. Faced with a culture of low frequency and resolution, oppose a culture of high definition.
Uchronies and counterfactuals
I would like to end by stressing the importance of the imaginary in the processes of creating the real. Cornelius Castoriadis has shown that societies are first established in their imaginary spaces. These play a fundamental role in the configuration of possible futures. Counterfactual reasoning, i.e. imagining what would have happened if things had gone differently, opens up the possibility of other presents and futures. Counterfactual history, or uchrony, involves changing an element of the past and imagining what might have happened if it had happened differently, and therefore what else might happen. Counterfactual reasoning tests the relationship between what is and what might have been. Taking an interest in possible futures that never happened, in aborted projects, in unfulfilled ideals, challenges the idea of the linearity of history and of time flowing towards a specific meaning, goal or purpose. This reinforces the idea that the facts (events) could have been different ; what has happened, this present we are living through, is merely an occurrence of plural possibilities ; and so what may happen remains open. Uchronic fictions make it possible to reveal the different potentialities of the past as well as the creation of alternative temporal paths. They make it possible to see History from the point of view of its possibilities, but also allow the resumption of unfinished processes of emancipation.
The story of what failed haunts what may be born. ” L’inaccompli bourdonne d’essentiel ” asserts René Char. Unfulfilled futures and utopias/dreams have been reactivated at different moments in history. Many of the liberation struggles that have succeeded are the replay of previous failed attempts from which they learned (RPF, Rwanda 1973, 1990, 1990, 1994). Counterfactual history, insofar as it enables the power of utopias to be reactivated, is a powerful engine for change.
Conclusion
In recent decades, the futures of African countries have been captured by the inscription of their teleologies in the idea of catching up with the countries of the North through societal mimesis. Reopening the future for African countries is a task that must first be accomplished in the space of thought and imagination. To give birth to an imagined community, it is essential to reconstruct the narratives about Africa (assessing its present and metaphorising its future) and to produce the knowledge needed for the types of society that Africans want to establish (the epistemological question). It is a question of getting away from the civilisational injunctions of progress, development and modernity, and allowing the advent of unconfigured futures and another regime of historicity, but which carry within them the fundamental aspirations of African populations.
A profound cultural mutation is underway on the African continent. Africa can become a laboratory continent and reinvent the economic, political and cultural in its spaces. It has all the assets needed for this reinvention: youth, space, resources, and the fact that it is not fully engaged in the industrial adventure of the 20th century. It can therefore do things differently and propose a different balance between the economic, ecological, political and cultural orders. By opening up new horizons of expectation, it could open up its spaces of possibility to infinite universes.
[1] Jérôme Baschet : ” Undoing the Tyranny of the Present. Temporalités émergentes et futurs inédits “. Editions la Découverte 2018
[2] For example, if we are working on the history of the impact of the Atlantic slave trade in Senegal in the 18th century, it is necessary to link Atlantic dynamics (the history of Europe, rivalries between European powers, and its ‘expansion’, trade, etc.) and local dynamics (the ‘colonial’ kingdoms).) and local dynamics (pre-colonial kingdoms, social stratifications, power plays, etc.) to understand how societies reacted to the slave trade. How a type of power, forms of domination are established, organised and reproduced.
[3] This one, for example, justified the colonial act by setting an expectation horizon for the colonizers, which was to civilize other nations and conquer spaces