History and Future

The Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of African American History and Culture has suggested creating a new set of panels for an exhibition on the struggle for civil rights…in the future. Currently, the exhibition looks at the shift from 1863-1963. Would it be possible for historians to create a panel on 2063 in 2016? To try and determine if this will work, it is important to look at Dr David Staley’s argument in his book: History and Future.

First off, Dr Staley reminds us that as is, historians only study a very small portion of the historical field. Meaning there is so much more to discover than what “history buffs” enjoy reading about (meaning major, textbook historical events). To study the future, we must go outside the realm of what is typical and expected. During the course of the twentieth century, historians would finally begin looking into to these wider historical fields….can one of these include delving into future events?

Societies, as Staley reminds us have different ways of looking at time. Some look at time as something that cyclical. It goes around and around repeating itself and making it easy to try and predict; however this does not mean that that follow this mind set believe they can do anything to change the future. Other societies look at time as something that is linear. Predetermined, but never destined to repeat itself. Considering this, the question we must ask ourselves is: “Can we predict what is going to happen in the future by looking at patterns or is the future something that will remain a mystery until it happens?”

Historians are not the only ones who try to get a glimpse into the crystal ball. Many businesses try to use “visioning” to try and make accurate predictions for their company that will determine their motives and the way they conduct their business. As trying to look into the future became more necessary for historians and financiers, etc., the future began to adopt many scientific methods such as the ‘scenario method’ adopted by Herman Khan. Khan suggested that if one were to try and determine the future they should create a series of scenarios about what may possibly happen. According to Khan, “a scenario results from an attempt to describe in more or less detail some hypothetical sequence of events. Scenarios can emphasize different aspects of ‘future history.” (36) This is similar to the way we might try to determine the history of the future.

The problem with trying to determine what the future will be is that is doesn’t exist someplace else; therefore we cannot use technology or mathematical skills to try to answer our questions. That’s why historians are perfect for this role. The role of this historian is to ask questions and try to answer them using evidence and inferences. Sometimes historians can go and search for the answers to their questions in an archive; but, as Staley states, historians are capable of using literally anything for evidence—it all depends on how they interpret the evidence around them and how they have been trained to ask questions. Another way a historian is a good fit for the job of determining the future is that we are different from a logistician—we know we are never going to find a determined answer. Evidence of the past will always be incomplete—it would be impossible to have a perfect representation of past events; so why not use this method of thinking to try and understand the future by making historical inferences?

When dealing with trying to understand the future, the events depend on the context of the situation. In the case of this museum, the time and events which already took place and our interpretation of them. Staley says “rather than seeking the one true statement about the future, historians of the future should produce many such statements and then subject these statements to a ‘competition among hypotheses” (65) Meaning we are not making predictions about the future; but we will be able to make the attempt to make various arguments about what might happen. Staley uses an example of how this would work. He makes the argument that book will still exist in the future; but possible in the way of smart pages, etc. He uses the evidence that he has in present day that e-books are not in the highest demand and physical books still sell. He is able to make an argument about the future by using the historical method which “is the flow of events is context dependent and unique. A history of the future should be no different.” (62)

Because the past, like the future, does not exist to where we can visit it and be immersed in the events, we must try to recreate and envision; but never try and create our own truth. That is why study of future is not about making predictions or telling stories like a palm reader; but to build and reconstruct something that already has a sort of foundation.

To attempt to create panels for an exhibition on 2063, like Staley suggests I would look at the evidence that I have. How have the events progressed and altered from 1863 to 1963? How have they altered from 1963 to the present? What is currently happening which would have an effect on the future for African American civil rights. We have a lot going on currently that may determine where the fight for African American equality takes us in the next fifty years. Will it change with who is in control of Congress or the White House? It is necessary to look at all the scenarios that could possibly happen. What evidence do we have? Violence toward African Americans is prevalent in the media. We have Black Lives Matter movement making their voices heard on the political stage and in just about a week we will have elected a new president (both of our candidates having vastly different views and relationships to these issues which will cause to try and create a whole new series of scenarios).

Conclusively, these new panels should discuss as many scenarios as we can try and create using this evidence whatever the historians determine and interpret that evidence to be.