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.