Once again a video has inspired a post – this time a conversation with Geoff Mulgan about his latest book “Another World is Possible - How to Reignite Social and Political Imagination” (2022). Geoff Mulgan is a professor of collective intelligence and a Knight of the realm; a former CEO of Nesta and DEMOS think tank; Director of the government’s Strategy Unit and Head of Policy in the Prime Minister’s office. He is also the author of many books, including “Big Mind – how collective intelligence can change our world” (2018) which I’ve just started to read and which argues that -
...
the world has made great strides in improving health and has
accumulated an extraordinary amount of knowledge about it, yet still
has a long way to go in orchestrating that knowledge to best effect.
Similar
patterns can be found in many fields, from politics and business to
personal life: unprecedented access to data, information, and
opinions, but less obvious progress in using this information to
guide better decisions. We benefit from a cornucopia of goods
unimaginable to past generations, yet still too often spend money we
haven’t earned to buy things we don’t need to impress people we
don’t like. P13
For
institutions, the rising importance of conscious collective
intelligence is
no less challenging, and demands a different view of boundaries and
roles. Every organization needs to become more aware of how it
observes, analyses, remembers, and creates, and then how it learns
from action: correcting errors, sometimes creating new categories
when the old ones don’t work, and sometimes developing entirely new
ways of thinking.
Every
organization has to find the right position between the silence and
the noise: the silence of the old hierarchies in which no one dared
to challenge or warn, and the noisy cacophony of a world of networks
flooded by an infinity of voices. That space in between becomes
meaningful only when organizations learn how to select and cluster
with the right levels of granularity— simple enough but not
simplistic; clear but not crude; focused but not to the extent of
myopia. Few of our dominant institutions are adept at thinking in
these ways. Businesses have the biggest incentives to act more
intelligently, and invest heavily in hardware and software of all
kinds. But whole sectors repeatedly make big mistakes, misread their
environments, and harvest only a fraction of the know- how that’s
available in their employees and customers.
Mulgan
had rehearsed some of his arguments in a 2020 paper called The
Imaginary Crisis and in this
great interview a couple of years ago
One of the reasons I became interested in imagination recently was because perhaps
there was a missing piece in the theories of change. In the past, one of the things which
allowed change was people thinking ahead to a better possible society or utopia. And my
worry is that that kind of imagination has almost disappeared.
Why is that?
People can picture a much worse world, with climate change, ecological catastrophe, robots
taking over the world, populous demagogues. But very few people can give an articulate account
of how the world might be better socially. What might our health care look like? Our primary
schools, our libraries, our parliaments. And part of the reason is that the institutions which
should be working on this imagination have largely vacated that space - political parties,
universities, think tanks all for slightly different reasons. This has become part of a pathology
of our time.
You have a very mixed background, working in government with Tony Blair, founding and
running big think tanks like Demos and Nesta, teaching at university. What is your personal
ambition in all of this?
I spent half of my career as an activist, from the grassroots upwards, starting at the age of
14. I used to organize marches and pickets and I remained involved in community organizing
and social entrepreneurship trying to find solutions from the bottom up. And I have spent
the other half of my life working from the top down, with governments around the world,
the European Commission or UN now. To some extent, nearly all change has to involve some
alliance of the top down and the bottom up, the powerless and the powerful. I sometimes
call them the bees and the trees – the people with the ideas and the big institutions with
power. And, uh, money.
Where do you get your energy and optimism from?
I get some optimism from having seen how often you can transform things completely.
The great lesson I have learned or relearned, again and again, is that we overestimate
how much can change short term. But equally, most people underestimate how much can
change over one, two or three decades. There is nothing worse than an unrealistic fatalism
because it undermines the energy, the capacity to do the practical changes – which of
course won't solve climate change in 2022, but actually over 20, 30 years. W
e will completely transform our economy and society.
How much of your job is to try to design options for the future?
One of the institutions that you want to challenge and change is the university – for
THE NEW INSTITUTE you wrote a fascinating paper on what you call “exploratory
social sciences.” Can you explain your argument?
I mainly focus on social sciences, it is a very different story for engineering and the other
sciences. But in the social sciences, the fundamental question for an academic is: how much
of your job is to understand the present and the past, and how much of your job is to try
to design options for the future? Now in the 19th century, in the early days of social science,
it was assumed you did both. The London School of Economics for example was very much
formed as a place for academics to work on designing future health systems, welfare states
et cetera – not just to write books and analyze what had gone wrong. Over the last 50 or
60 years, academics have become quite fearful of designing the future. It is almost career
threatening.
Why is that?
Some of this has to do with the rise of positivism and quantification, the in many ways quite
welcome rise of attention to data, to empirical analysis, to looking at the facts. In many ways,
this has been good. It has made for a much more rigorous understanding of the present
and the past – but it squeezed out creativity and visions for an alternative future.
A scepticism vis-Ã -vis utopia or world-building?
There certainly was a disappointment with the grand ideological projects of the last century,
which led a whole wave of intellectuals to move into critique rather than creative construction.
It's a much safer place to be critiquing all that is wrong with capitalism rather than trying
to propose alternatives to it. I believe there is a need to recover a bit of that older tradition
of social science but align it to the best tools we have now, data and models and experiments
– and learn methods from design and the arts and other fields, which do creativity as a matter
of course.
Economics has been in many ways the leading social science of the last decades, and it
has often pretended to be more than that, more like a hard science. What is your take on that?
Weirdly, economics has taken almost no methods from any other fields, including from business,
in terms of its own creativity. There is a real intellectual narrow-mindedness, a lack of curiosity,
lack of hunger at a time when creativity methods are so widely used in everything from
film and design for products and services. My hope is that we will see university centers of
exploratory social science, which try to be as good at rigor as they are at imagination.
We have this paradoxical situation where the people with the deepest knowledge are not
doing the creativity and vice versa – and hopefully THE NEW INSTITUTE can be part of
changing that.
We need some really bold, radical thinking in this century
What is the politics in all of this? Traditionally, the left was aligned with the future,
the right with preserving the status quo. This has shifted, in surprising ways, hasn’t it?
Traditionally, the conservative right was skeptical of any designs for the future because
by definition what exists has been tried through history. For a time, that changed, left and
right swapped places. A lot of conservatives became almost more utopian than the left.
They pictured a future run by markets, supported by technologies, with a slightly crazed
enthusiasm. In the last 20 years, they have returned back to a much more traditional conservative
position, with nostalgic pictures of race and community and manufacturing-based economies.
And the left?
The left is still in a rather fearful state – a political fear of being exposed by having
genuinely novel, genuinely challenging ideas. You are much more likely to make it as a public
intellectual by reviving old ideas rather than coming up with new ones. Which is pretty disappointing.
Because we need some really bold, radical thinking in this century if we are going to cope
with climate change, with AI, with the threats to democracy. And our intellectuals are not
serving us that well.
You explore a few tools and methods in your paper to get to that point where the
new can happen: experimentation, complexity thinking, design. How can we unleash
our societal imagination?
Extension is an example, you can use it for almost any phenomenon – like re-imagining your
local library or childcare. Then you go through a series of transformations. What would
happen if you extended one aspect of it radically, the way that we have extended ideas of
rights to cover everything from animals to transgender. There is also inversion: What happens
if the farmers become bankers or patients become doctors? Or grafting: You take an idea
from a very different field and try and apply it to your library or your childcare.
What is the next step?
That is just the starting point. Then the deep knowledge comes in. You have to think about
building your world, your designs, and see how plausible they are, what might be an evolutionary
route for them. The challenge is to find a balance between the willingness to leap ahead
and jump beyond what is realistic now to what might be possible in 20 years. And not to
fall prey to what I call unrealistic realism.
What does that mean?
It is striking that many academic disciplines are very good at explaining why change won't
happen. And when it does come, they have no way of explaining why it did happen because
they hold on to their unrealistic realism. And at the same time avoiding fantasy, illusion,
ideas which have absolutely no plausible prospect of ever happening. I would like to see in
universities cross-disciplinary teams becoming good at creating these alternative worlds,
interrogating them, seeing what their implications are, what their economic base might be,
the legitimacy of them.
Imagination as practice.
Every society needs some sense of where it might be headed in the future in order to be
healthy, just as we do as individuals. We need some shared pictures of where we could be
headed 30, 50, 70 years into the future, pictures which aren't only ecological disasters
or technological determinist triumphs. That's the missing space in our collective imaginaries
which we really need to address. Because the downside is that all sorts of other dark forces
may fill that space instead.
