Change Theory as a Futures Practice

Social Change Wrap-Up

Today I want to share my final thoughts on the University of Houston’s Social Change as part of the curriculum. The class was fun, if fun to you means reading and thinking about theory¹. It took a while to mentally align the different theories: some explain universal principles of change, some focus on specific changes and invite the reader to imagine the principles; some have a strong view about what the future holds, and others provide a framework for thinking about how to get to various futures; etc. A whole mess of apples vs oranges vs protons vs emotions. Like Systems Thinking, it’s less about directly applicable Foresight skills and more about enriching the worldview you bring to the process. Also, JT Mudge has the intellectual curiosity to make the class a fun romp through the history of both human society and the ideas around it.

As our final project, we got fully practical. The assignment was to connect change theory with Futures work in some way. I decided to take the excellent Seattle Public Library futures project and scrutinize the scenarios² using four theories that are opinionated enough to use for evaluation, but also diverse enough to cover a lot of ground: Marxism, Causal Layered Analysis, Cynefin, and Andy Hines’s values work. I’m including my paper below as an example of how treating Futures content intellectually seriously can enrich the output — in the same way that serious futurists have evidence from real-world events that ground the trends and scenarios they share, this work can ground those possible changes in theory and make them more defensible.

Whispers of Possible Futures

Change Theory and the Seattle Public Library Project Scenarios

The Report

The Seattle Public Library system commissioned the University of Houston Foresight program in 2022 to “explore the future of libraries into 2032” (The University of Houston Foresight Program, p. 18). A “by-the-book” implementation of the university’s Framework Foresight method, the project spanned framing, scanning and other primary and secondary research, the compilation of drivers, the development of six scenarios, implications, issues and options, an overall strategy, and a monitoring plan. As such, it matches the six stages of foresight competency identified by the Association of Professional Futurists: Framing, Scanning, Futuring, Visioning, Designing, and Adapting (Hines et al., p. 10).

One notable feature of the project was the impressive amount of community engagement. This included 50 interviews, a survey with 100 responses, and four in-person community events (The University of Houston Foresight Program, p. 4). The six scenarios, although more than typical for Framework Foresight, include the scenarios in trajectories using the new Houston Archetype Technique (Hines 2024b). Overall, the report is a very thorough example of the Framework Foresight method, both in terms of the depth of the report and the breadth of artifacts created.

This analysis will focus on the six scenarios in the image to the right (The University of Houston Foresight Program, p. 48), because they most directly reference and/or depend on an understanding of how change is likely to unfold (generally by describing the change in narrative form).

The Theories

This analysis will examine each of the identified artifacts in turn and then critique based on four perspectives: Marxism, Causal Layered Analysis, the Cynefin framework, and a values-focused approach based on the work of Andy Hines.

Karl Marx created a theory merging economics, history, and materialist philosophy (Noble pp. 72-76)³. The broad brushstrokes: society is principally defined by the relationships people have to the way things get made; people who share the same relationships form a class, which can be used as the primary unit of social analysis; and history changes as the (natural/inevitable) conflict between classes leads to violent shifts in the structure of power through a dialectical process (Noble pp. 78). This theory is useful mostly in the negative, as it predicts meaningful change is unlikely unless it’s occasioned by a change in the relations between the classes; this will create a straightforward framework for a critique of the scenarios and strategies. Note that, for these scenarios, I will consider three separate classes: the ruling class that own the means of production, the working class that feels compelled to sell their labor for the necessities of life, and the underclass that doesn’t participate in the labor market, lives without many “necessities”, and relies on government and private support to survive.

Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) is both a theory of change and a foresight technique invented by Sohail Inayatullah. CLA is an application of critical theory to futures work (Inayatullah, p. 5), and, as such, is primarily focused on questioning and challenging existing narratives and ideas about the future. It posits that the litany of events we see at the surface of reality are just the tip of an iceberg that holds the causal systems and history that create that litany, the worldviews that underpin those systems, and finally the deep stories and metaphors that give rise to the worldviews (Inayatullah pp. 9-10). This serves as a useful futures tool because if new litanies aren’t built on a supportive foundation, either by being reasonable outcomes of the same underlying reality or by shifting the underlying reality, they are unlikely to endure. This lining-up exercise will be a useful test for the scenarios and especially the strategies.

Cynefin is a framework developed by Dave Snowden for sensemaking. Situations can be classified into one of four archetypes based on the level of complexity: simple situations with straightforward causation; complicated situations where the systems have enough moving parts to require expert assessment; complex situations where emergence and complexity make it impossible to know the right answer, and experimentation is needed; and chaotic situations, characterized by turbulence and where things change too quickly and randomly for any strategy to work other than imposing order (Snowden and Boone pp. 70-75). The framework is useful for futures work because it explicitly charts paths between these states and strategies for getting from one to another. This can serve as a useful way to critique both the scenarios and the strategies for moving toward a preferred future.

Dr Andy Hines has spent several years distilling the work of the World Values Survey and Spiral Dynamics into a set of four values that broadly characterize the world: Traditional, Modern, Postmodern, and Integral (Hines 2024a)⁴. Hines observes that the data suggests that these form a sequence in development and that people are shifting over time from the earlier to the later values (Hines 2021). This is a great theory of change to use in futures work because it makes specific predictions both about the nature/source of change in society (development → values → social patterns) and the time-scale at which these changes occur (on the scale of generations). Because much of the Library project is focused on different conceptualizations or metaphors for the library, the values lens can help filter which shifts are more plausible.

The Critique and Recommendations

Baseline Scenario: “Not Enough”

This scenario essentially projects the problems of today forward into the future, especially the issues of growing demand and complexity without a corresponding growth in resources (The University of Houston Foresight Program, pp. 49-51). The fundamental effect of this and political instability is a shift away from seasoned library staff and toward automation and other expensive technology, and a general low level of public satisfaction with the library system.

Marxist critique: this scenario is plausible because it doesn’t require any shift or improvement in the power balance between the ruling class and others. In fact, the owners of capital are able to use their leverage to extract more of the library budget for automation and IT solutions rather than staff (higher employment of and returns to capital). Note that the net effect of this and the increasing reliance of the underclass on library services is the working class feeling alienated from the libraries that are supposed to be an expression of common civic goals and commitment.

CLA critique: this scenario raises no concerns, because it requires no meaningful change to the litany, systems, worldviews, or myths/metaphors. The underlying myth of competition and scarcity creates worldviews of libraries as either a critical resource or as a waste of government funds, with systems of election cycles driving budget cycles, and then the litany of shortfalls and increasing demand.

Cynefin critique: the scenario leaves libraries in a Complicated state, with many causal relationships not immediately obvious and expert input needed. For example, the net effects of replacing human labor with automation and AI could be a net positive (convenience) or negative (personal touch), and experts direct investment to the areas of highest importance. This is very plausible, as little in the underlying system changes.

Values critique: it makes sense that the demands and expectations on the library would continue to grow and change, especially as the rising number of people with predominantly Integral values raises the need for spaces for meetups and local organizations, lending of maker/DIY equipment, etc (Morgan). However, the shift away from Traditional and Modern values makes the back-and-forth of political prioritization/funding of libraries somewhat implausible.

Collapse Scenario: “Libraries for Some”

This scenario envisions a reinforcing loop for the libraries: budget-driven technology adoption decreases the need for people to visit the physical facilities, decreasing their relative importance, leading to a decrease in satisfaction and perceived value, leading to further budget cuts (The University of Houston Foresight Program, pp. 52-54). The structure is very similar to the Baseline scenario, but accelerated. Because of this, the critiques in the prior section are relevant here as well, with the following additions or modifications.

Marxist critique: note that by pressing their extraction of value to “Late-Stage Capitalism” proportions, the capitalists have degraded public services to the point where they are of questionable value to the working class (this is plausible). This sets the stage for revolution, whether in the full sense or in the creation of a new taxation regime that deprioritizes the concerns of capital and creates stable funding for public service.

CLA critique: the only additional challenge is that a dying library system might trigger an outcry in public demands for increased funding, based on worldviews about American entitlement to public infrastructure.

Cynefin critique: in many ways, this is pushing the library system into Simple territory: buildings are minimally funded to keep people out of the weather and perform a few other functions, and AI services (mostly vendor-provided) serve the information needs. Each of these continue to search for additional efficiency. Note that this is another indicator that the system is close to a chaotic reorganization.

Values critique: this presses further on the implausibility of shifting values not valuing libraries. A possible exception would be if other spaces opened up that served the making/gathering purposes and the libraries as constituted became obsolete.

New Equilibrium Scenario: “Pushing the Limits”

This is a story of a transformative effort that falters, specifically the re-direction of the library toward tools, resources for makers and social services (The University of Houston Foresight Program, pp. 55-57). Overextending results in the need for an expensive refocusing effort, an echo of the Mont Fleur “Icarus” scenario warning about dramatic but unsustainable change (Beery et al. pp. 14-16).

Marxist critique: the inciting incident for the scenario is the conversion of a huge proportion of downtown Seattle vacant office space to housing for the homeless (with an analogous change happening in library facilities). This kind of change would limit the ability of the underclass to serve as a visible reminder of the need for the working class to accept extractive wages for labor, so it would be somewhat surprising to see the library go in this direction. However, the quasi-privatization of the library with corporate grants for tools and software in exchange for access to the creators is on point, as is the city’s subsequent cutting of funding to redirect budget toward other priorities.

CLA critique: refocusing the library around social services and access to maker’s spaces and tools can grow from an expanded metaphor of libraries as critical social infrastructure (Asal et al.). This supports the worldview that their purpose should shift to equitably provide the key social services and access to useful equipment that leads to the litany described in the scenario. Note that there are some changes in the system (private partnerships), but not enough to fully remove public funding contingent on old assumptions, so the litany is unstable and eventually starts to revert; this is exactly where CLA would place the faultline.

Cynefin critique: by adding different missions, funding sources, and missions, this scenario takes the Library system into Complex territory. The budget reduction in response to an increase in grants is exactly the kind of non-obvious outcome that complex systems are full of. Note that, predictably, the journey back from Complex into Complicated requires a fair amount of energy/resources to undo the entropy introduced (Berg).

Values critique: the shift to Integral values makes a pivot to maker spaces, DIY supports, etc very natural (Morgan). It’s possible to read this scenario as moving in this natural/inevitable direction faster than society’s values are actually shifting, leaving too many people with traditional/modern values behind, hence the reversion at the end.

Transformation Scenario 1: “Taking a Stand”

In this scenario, Seattle’s left-leaning majority remakes the library system in its own image, creating a backlash and the establishment of private right-wing analogues (The University of Houston Foresight Program, pp. 58-61). They become a space where ideas like carbon neutrality, climate resilience, and DEI can be pursued without limit.

Marxist critique: this scenario doesn’t correspond neatly to a straight Marxist narrative about class struggle. However, note the undertone of dialectical struggle in the story: the establishment of a model leftist library system (the thesis) creates conflict that leads directly to the establishment of the right-wing “knowledge centers” (the antithesis). The theory suggests that this arrangement is unstable and will lead to the creation of some new synthetic form.

CLA critique: the litany changes dramatically in this scenario, as does the worldview (“we do not have to be representative of every world view, but we do feel strongly about the values of our community”); note that the systems don’t change much to accommodate this, which spotlight a potential weak point of the scenario’s construction; for example, what are the consequences of people feeling like their neighborhood library no longer welcomes them because of their political views?

Cynefin critique: this scenario takes the library system further into Complex space. The establishment of parallel library systems is a good example of the surprises that can arise in such systems. The implication is that it would be plausible for the system to slip into chaos (perhaps in a way similar to that mentioned in the Marxist critique).

Values critique: the scenario is directly about aligning to the values of the majority of the community, so it closely follows the logic of Hines’s work. Note that the kind of policies pursued and the elevation of these values via political institutions like libraries are a manifestation specifically of Post-Modern values. It is plausible that Post-Modern values dominate over the next 10 years in Seattle, but it also suggests that this outcome wouldn’t be very stable as more of the population shifts to an Integral orientation.

Transformation Scenario 2: “Trusted Third Space”

This scenario posits three big interconnected developments: technology advances to allow decentralized provision of existing and novel services, this is developed and deployed in a way that increases the agency of existing staff instead of decreasing it, and enough extra money enters the system to provide all this without painful sacrifice (The University of Houston Foresight Program, pp. 62-65).

Marxist critique: this scenario strains plausibility, because it posits easy access to outside funding that doesn’t reinforce existing class arrangements (and by providing additional free resources such as 3D printers regardless of location in the city, subtly undermines them). Some backlash should be expected, such as the working class and the underclass being pitted against each other via elite narratives.

CLA critique: again, there is a massive hole in the scenario at the system level describing what changes to create a new stable funding source (especially one that doesn’t become an excuse for the city to repurpose budget, as in the New Equilibrium scenario). I don’t see a worldview issue with the scenario (as mentioned previously, Americans feel entitled to high-quality public infrastructure), but leaving the systemic question as an exercise for the reader damages the plausibility.

Cynefin critique: this scenario pushes the library system into Simple territory: money flows in, tech-enabled, human-centered, distributed services come out, everyone is happy, the money keeps flowing, repeat. This does raise the risk of the system slipping into chaos: for example, imagine that some part of the pipeline that networks all these library services either stops working due to a vendor pivot or collapse, or the data is stolen and people become outraged.

Values critique: the ideas here about being a place for people to meet and gather for “inspiration, learning, creativity, and support” are very consistent with Post-Modern and Integral values, and so this scenario plausibly highlights a likely future change in priority.

Preferred Future: “Ecosystem Anchor”

In this scenario, the library evolves into society’s nervous system, connecting people, community organizations, and government agencies and organizing around collecting information and making it available to patrons (The University of Houston Foresight Program, pp. 66-70). This is possible partly because of society-wide prioritization and funding of educational institutions.

Marxist critique: the peaceful transition to strong valuing of the provision of social goods doesn’t pass Marxist muster. Strong elite resistance should be expected along the path being described here.

CLA critique: the biggest change in the litany here is the library serving as a hub or connective tissue between non-profits, which creates a broad consensus on its importance. This would require not only some new systems to create the information ecosystems, but also some underlying worldview changes about institutional self-reliance that leads all these organizations to develop their own attempts to handle all these functions.

Cynefin critique: connecting the library to all the other civic infrastructure will force the system into Complex territory. This creates risk of falling into chaos; for example, lack of clear boundaries between organizations could lead to cascading failures. The attributes of complex adaptive systems suggest useful additions, such as collecting and distributing information and using it to anticipate outcomes and change behavior (Holland 1992, p. 20).

Values critique: this is almost a perfect expression of Integral values, with bringing people together, creating community, and building strong networks across society. As such, it may be too advanced for a 10-year future.

Overall Recommendations

Overall the scenarios are well-crafted and contain an admirable amount of variety to enlarge the imagination of stakeholders. The critical perspectives in this paper highlight a few possibilities for improvement. First, the narratives do a good job at describing the imagined 10-year future state, but could do more to build a sequence of events that creates a compelling, logical path that would lead to that state⁵. At a structural level as well, allowing readers to peek behind the curtains and see a little more depth in the worldbuilding would help them cohere in a logical way. Last, these scenarios all presume that the outside world mostly continues as normal – no climate catastrophes, no domestic war, no riots and breakdown of social order, no proletarian revolution, etc, not even as wildcards. While this restriction helps maintain agency by focusing on things SPL has some control over, it does leave some blind spots which the change theories used above could help to identify and illuminate.

References

Asal, Elaine, et al. “Libraries Are Crucial Social Infrastructure for the 20-Minute City.” Gensler, 3 March 2023, https://www.gensler.com/blog/libraries-crucial-social-infrastructure-20-minute-city. Accessed 28 November 2024.

Beery, Jenny, et al., editors. The Mont Fleur Scenarios. vol. 7, Global Business Network, https://exed.annenberg.usc.edu/sites/default/files/Mont-Fleur.pdf. Accessed 28 November 2024.

Berg, Martin. “Cynefin - can Vige make sense in different domain?” Vige, 13 November 2021, https://www.vige.se/blog/2020/6/20/cynefinvige. Accessed 28 November 2024.

De Witt, Annick, et al. “A new tool to map the major worldviews in the Netherlands and USA, and explore how they relate to climate change.” Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 63, 2016, pp. 101-112, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116301794. Accessed 23 November 2024.

Hines, Andy. “ConsumerShift.” Hinesight....for Foresight, 2024, https://www.andyhinesight.com/books/consumershift/. Accessed 23 November 2024.

Hines, Andy. “Houston Archetype Technique: Introducing the HAT – Houston Foresight.” Houston Foresight, 15 July 2023, https://www.houstonforesight.org/houston-archetype-technique-introducing-the-hat/. Accessed 19 November 2024.

Hines, Andy. “Values Shifts the Key to After Capitalism?” Hinesight....for Foresight, 9 June 2021, https://www.andyhinesight.com/values-shifts-the-key-to-after-capitalism/. Accessed 23 November 2024.

Hines, Andy, et al. “Building Foresight Capacity: Toward a Foresight Competency Model.” World Futures Review, vol. 9, no. 3, 2017, pp. 123-141, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319148774_Building_Foresight_Capacity_Toward_a_Foresight_Competency_Model.

Holland, John H. “Complex Adaptive Systems.” Daedalus, vol. 121, no. 1, 1992, pp. 17-30.

Inayatullah, Sohail. “Causal Layered Analysis: an Integrative and Transformative Theory and Method.” Futures Research Methodology: Version 3.0, edited by Jerome C. Glenn and Theodore J. Gordon, Millennium Project, 2009, pp. 0-51. MetaFuture, https://www.metafuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Causal-Layered-Analysis-FRM-version-3-2009.pdf. Accessed 26 November 2024.

Morgan, Tim. “After Capitalism: Values-Driven STEEP Entities.” Houston Foresight, https://www.houstonforesight.org/after-capitalism-values-driven-steep-entities/#. Accessed 27 November 2024.

Noble, Trevor. Social Theory and Social Change. Palgrave Macmillan, 2000.

Snowden, David J., and Mary E. Boone. “A Leader's Framework for Decision Making.” Harvard Business Review, vol. November 2007, pp. 69-76.

The University of Houston Foresight Program. “Strategic Foresight Towards a Preferred Future.” SPL Strategic Foresight Report, January 2023, https://www.spl.org/Seattle-Public-Library/documents/about-us/SPL%20Strategic%20Foresight%20Report%20-%20University%20of%20Houston.pdf. Accessed 16 November 2024.

1. This isn’t a dig I have a Political Science degree, so I’m definitely on board.

2. JT Mudge was one of the authors of the report, and luckily academics tend to enjoy having their work thoughtfully critiqued.

3. Like Noble (pp. 71-72) I restrict my use of Marxism to the work of Marx rather than engage his wildly prolific and diverse intellectual progeny.

4. Interestingly, Hines isn’t the only one to reach these conclusions from the World Values Survey; another example is De Witt et al, whose four values are almost identical in conception, other than the fourth being named “Integrative” rather than “Integral” (De Witt et al).

5. The report gestures in this direction at a meta-scenario level, by mentioning the Houston Archetype Technique and putting the scenarios themselves in sequence, though an attempt isn’t made to explain how the particulars of an earlier one might transition to a later one (The University of Houston Foresight Program, p. 75).