$&" #$ '!( " " ' !

" "
" " "!%" "!&'"$
$! %&" " "(( "%* ' % " ! '(

)
! #41! $) " "
)
!.+.77) .+!-! 4)7
!/1! ++.##! .)
%,")++. .-34.1)
 BiBlioetera - interazioni
Collana del Centro Studi Internazionale
di Filosofia della Complessità “Edgar Morin”

Direttori:
Mauro Ceruti e Giuseppe Gembillo

Direttori di sezione:
Messina: Annamaria Anselmo, Luisa Damiano e Giuseppe Giordano
Bergamo: Gianluca Bocchi, Chiara Brambilla e Anna Lazzarini
torino: Chiara Simonigh
Parigi: Luciano Boi
Montpellier: Sabbah Abouessalam
Keele: Giuseppina D’Oro
Madrid: José Luis Solana Ruiz
Città del Messico: Alexandre De Pomposo, Emilio Roger Ciurana
e Pedro Orozco Gomez
Guadalajara: Enrico Manuel Luengo Gonzalez
Buenos aires: Leonardo Rodriguez Zoya
Montevideo: Luis Carrizo
lima: Teresa Salinas
Guayaquil: Juan José Rocha Espinosa
rio de Janeiro: Nurimar Maria Falci
San Francisco: Alfonso Montuori e Jennifer Wells
Berkeley: Fritijof Capra

Comitato editoriale:
Fabio Gembillo (coordinatore), Fabiana Russo (segretario),
Maria Rita Abramo, Costanza Altavilla, Carmelo Casella,
Antonella Chiofalo, Francesco Crapanzano, Adele Foti, Edvige Galbo,
Guido Gembillo, Gaetano Giandoriggio, Giuliana Gregorio, Cesare Natoli,
Letizia Nucara, Flavia Stramandino, Vincenzo Surace, Bruna Valotta, Angela Verso.

La Collana, edita anche on line

“via etere” (BIBLIOETERA) e a stampa (INTERAZIONI),
comprende testi sulla Complessità nella lingua-madre dei singoli autori.
Fritjof Capra - Nunzio Allocca - Luciano Boi
Fabio Gembillo - Alfonso Montuori
Ernesto Paolozzi - José Luis Solana Ruiz

CoMPLESSità
ed EtiCA
a cura di Fabio Gembillo

armando Siciliano editore

 Pubblicazione del Centro Studi internazionale di Filosofia
della Complessità “Edgar Morin”.

ISBN 978-88-7442-960-8

Copyright © 2021 Armando Siciliano Editore

Messina - Civitanova Marche
www.armandosicilianoeditore.it
info@armandosicilianoeditore.it
 Alfonso Montuori
Complexifying the Future

introduction

What has happened to the future? Where are we going? Where

can we go, from here? The futurist Ziauddin Sardar says we are living
in postnormal times, when nothing makes sense, including the future
(Sardar, 2010). The philosopher Nancy Fraser titled one of her books
the old is dying and the new cannot be born, which neatly sums up
the situation without the use of the prefix post- (Fraser, 2019).
For Edgar Morin, we are experiencing a “crisis of the future” (Morin
& Kern, 1999). This crisis entails the loss of the possibility of progress,
and the loss of a sense of what progress even means or might look like.
As a result, there is a loss of direction, of possibility, and of value
(our sense of what constitutes progress reflecting what we value). This
loss is exacerbated by the fear of environmental, nuclear, and other
catastrophes. Positive visions of the future are replaced in popular
culture by dystopian, post-apocalyptic scenarios. It is unclear how
to even think about the future, or what might be more desirable fu-
tures. Morin interprets the term crisis in one of its original Greek
meanings, as the moment when a diagnosis is possible, and this is
what makes his approach particularly relevant (Morin, 2020b).
The implications of the crisis of the future and the lack of positive
(non-dystopian, non-apocalyptic) visions of the future are considerable.
As the Dutch futurist Fred Polak has written (Polak, 1973), «The rise
Complexifying the Future 59

and fall of images of the future precedes or accompanies the rise and
fall of cultures. As long as a society’s image is positive and flourishing,
the flower of culture is in full bloom. Once the image begins to decay
and lose its vitality, however, the culture does not long survive» (p. 19).
Symptomatic of the crisis of the future is the fact that in the first
decades of the 21st century, the term progress has fallen out of favor.
There are few if any positive images of the future either in academic re-
search or popular culture. What were formerly viewed as sources of
progress - science, technology, and industry - are now also viewed as
sources of today’s unsustainable society. Science is no longer viewed as
an unqualified source of progress. This became painfully clear during
the Covid-19 pandemic. Utopian projects are mostly viewed as the roy-
al road to dystopias, whether in the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Jones-
town, or Rajneeshpuram (Featherstone, 2017). One significant exception is
the neo-liberal utopia of the free market, undergirded by the thought
of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek (Achterhuis, 2010).
In the West, the broad association of the future with linear progress,
technological advances and financial prosperity appears to have col-
lapsed (Jameson, 1991; Ryan, 2019). The Millennial generation is the first
generation to face the possibility of being worse off than their parents
economically. They are also faced with pandemics, looming envi-
ronmental catastrophes, global terrorism, resurgent nationalisms,
political chaos, a loss of faith in leaders and institutions, and the gen-
eral sense that the world is going to hell in a handbasket (Higgs, 2019).
A survey by the American Psychological Association suggests there has
been an ongoing mental health crisis in the United States, exacerbated
by the Covid-19 Pandemic, which has now particularly affected so-
called Generation-Z (APA, 2020).
It is not only the West that is struggling with the future. China has
seen a remarkable social and economic transformation in the last
30 years. Unprecedentedly, rapid economic growth has brought with it
serious environmental issues, corruption, inequality, severe dislocation,
60 alfonso Montuori

alienation, and many forms of crime that did not exist before the eco-
nomic explosion. Questions are emerging about what constitute desir-
able futures. The country’s radically different new direction and the ra-
pidity and seeming inevitability of the current changes has led to the
elimination and arguably the eradication of the previous culture.
This is true both physically, as entire cities are completely torn down
and rebuilt, and in terms of values and a sense of community and
history (Gao, 2015; Jacques, 2009).
Morin points out that the term crisis, which today has generally
come to mean a moment of great trouble or difficulty, historically also
referred to a turning point in a disease when a diagnosis and a decision
could be made (Morin, 2020b). One aspect of Morin’s diagnosis is that the
crisis of the future is an interconnected poly-crisis. This poly-crisis
is not limited to one factor such as the economy. It affects all dimen-
sions of human life, from the economy to the environment, from gender
roles to race, from work to play. The larger context of the crisis of the
future, and arguably one key reason for its pervasiveness and its radical
nature, is the current global transition between two ages. We are be-
tween stories: one age described variously as “modern” or “industrial”
appears to be ending, and, as Nancy Fraser’s book title suggests, no new
age or new stories have emerged as yet. This absence can be seen in the
ways scholars have described current times using the prefix post-.
Terms like post-industrial and post-modern have been in circulation
since the 1970s. The prefix post- indicates the acceptance that one age
is ending, but also the inability to fully articulate the emerging age.
During this transition phase, this interregnum, life has gone from be-
ing solid to liquid (Bauman, 2007). It has become postnormal (Sardar, 2010,
2015): everything seems upside down, nothing makes sense anymore.
There is a closing down of possibilities, most dramatically with the
restrictions imposed during Covid-19, but it seems few new possi-
bilities have opened up.
Complexifying the Future 61

How can i miss you if you won’t go away?

Why does this crisis of the future persist? Why has it been so hard
to get beyond “post-”? In order to understand the significance and im-
plications of the crisis, it has to be contextualized in the larger histori-
cal moment: the end of the modern era and the current transition be-
tween two eras or epochs. Momentous historical transitions like this
one, parallel to the shift from the pre-modern era to the modern era, do
not happen overnight. It should also be noted that the notion of a tran-
sition time may be familiar to some intellectuals, activists and in some
New Age circles, but it has not penetrated the political or the popular
discourse in quite the same way. Second, the transition is particularly
momentous. The impact of technological changes has been dramat-
ic. The internet and automation are just two notable examples. These
technological changes have contributed to the speed of the changes:
young people today watching a classic movie from the 70s are amused
as they see no computers, and characters run into boxes placed on
sidewalks to make a phone call. But arguably even more dramatic is the
challenge to humanity’s own self-understanding: what does it mean
to be a human being at the opening of the 21st century? As we shall see
there are, in broad strokes, two very different and contrasting views.
A strong global cultural trend that has been called a “silent revolu-
tion” of value change has been in motion since the 1960s. It is described
in this way: «The trajectory of value change first became evident in
Western societies during the early 1970s, bringing an era of student
protests. This cultural revolution was expressed through shifts toward
social liberalism in mainstream left-wing political parties, as well as
the rise of Green parties, and the mobilization of new social movements
advocating environmental protection and fighting climate change;
LGBTQ rights to employment in the military, adoption, and same
sex marriage; civil rights for minorities like the Black Lives Matters
movement; feminist networks with global mobilization on behalf of
62 alfonso Montuori

gender quotas in elected office; anti-domestic violence, and anti-sexual

harassment, international assistance for humanitarian disasters
and economic development, and human rights around the world»
(Norris & Inglehart, 2019, pp. 94-95).
The silent revolution challenges profound aspects of humanity’s
very sense of itself: humanity’s relationship to nature, gender, race, and
ethnicity. It further challenges the question of what kinds of relation-
ships are possible between humans and nature, men and women,
and different races and ethnicities. This global movement opens up
a remarkable set of possibilities. In fact, they are so remarkable they
threaten to overturn what for many is just the “natural order” of things.
It should not surprise us therefore that across the world there has been
a pronounced authoritarian backlash from social conservative and
fundamentalist movements of all stripes. Globally it has led to the re-
peal of legislation designed to protect the environment, the rights of
women and minorities and is accompanied by a cut to close borders to
prevent the entry of immigrants and a rise in xenophobia. Authoritarian
leaders tap into the “cultural anxiety” that has emerged for some
groups as a result of the silent revolution and its implications, who see
that they will no longer be a dominant majority, that their values no
longer reflect the nation’s and consequently feel that this is not their
country anymore (Jones et al., 2017).
But even beyond the cultural anxiety, there is what we might call
an existential anxiety. this period of transition, and specifically the
silent revolution, poses challenges to the very way human beings under-
stand what it means to be human, their nature, role, and possibilities at
a fundamental level. We will look at three interconnected crises and
challenges highlighted by Inglehart and Norris. They are the crises
of humanity vis à vis nature, gender, and race and ethnicity.
the implications of the silent revolution involve radical changes
to arrangements that have been in place in some form or other for
thousands of years. Many people regard these arrangements, such
Complexifying the Future 63

as “traditional” roles for men and women, as “natural” or God-given.

As a result, any change for them is not just wrong but an attack on the
natural - and usually God-given - order. Furthermore, while images
of the old order are pervasive, images of a “successful” outcome of the
silent revolution are few and far between in the social imaginary.
Even for those who support the silent revolution, it is easier to cri-
tique the existing order than to articulate what the new order could
be like. Futurist and philosopher Jay Ogilvy (2011) has pointed out
the absence of scenarios of better futures (as opposed to utopian vi-
sions). Ogilvy has also emphasized the need to think about better fu-
tures and generate them in a different way, going beyond the opti-
mism-pessimism clash to a more complex “tragi-comic” view that
acknowledges the reality of suffering and the reasons for pes-
simism, while also retaining the optimism and belief in possibilities
that will get one off the couch and allow for hope (Ogilvy, 2011).
One key reason why the crisis is so pervasive is that it reflects -and
is the result of - a certain kind of thinking, a thinking that is reductive
and disjunctive (Morin, 2008). It should not surprise us that as the crisis
exacerbates and gets more and more complex, there should be an
emphasis on simplification. This appears for instance as an exclusive
focus on analysis, on isolating variables, and quantification. The domi-
nance of economic and business metaphors has created a monocul-
ture (Michaels, 2011), what the social critic Douglas Rushkoff has called
life inc (Rushkoff, 2009). The overwhelming complexity of the current
situation has led to an urge to simplify, to reduce life to cash value,
to measure success - and value - purely financially.
Interestingly, reductive disjunctive thinking was never able to
account for creativity. Its focus is on simplification of the complex, on
analysis, on taking things apart in order to understand them - not on
making new connections, creating new perspectives and insights. Even
what is known as the scientific method does not address creativity,
because it is too unpredictable, not law-like, ultimately not scientific.
64 alfonso Montuori

Until the 1950s, creativity was not studied scientifically and was a
phenomenon associated with Romanticism, figures of genius, and un-
explainable moments of inspiration. Modernity was in fact split into
two by the scientific-positivist-industrial view and the Romantic-artis-
tic view, which showed up in the classic dualisms of objective/subjective,
thinking/feeling, science/art, male/female, and so on (Harvey Brown, 1978).
The kind of thinking found in what Morin calls the paradigm of
simplicity cannot now envision convincing possibilities for the fu-
ture because it is precisely the kind of thinking that led to both the suc-
cesses, and now the exhaustion, of modernity. For our purposes, this
is most notable in the way creativity was conceived and practiced in
modernity, because human creativity is what generates possibilities
(Montuori, 2011; Montuori & Purser, 1995; Sardar, 2010).
As I have argued elsewhere, the Modern understanding and prac-
tices of creativity, focused as they were on the lone genius, presented a
rather simplistic reductive and disjunctive view of creativity (Montuori,
2011; Montuori & Purser, 1995). Creativity resided in the individual figure of
the genius. One was either creative or not. Creativity did not require
learning, and the creative genius emerged no matter what the social
conditions. The current situation demands a more complex creativity,
one that recognizes creative collaboration, emergence, complexity, and
the need to create environments that foster creativity. If the creativity of
modernity saw a close relationship between creativity and destruction,
captured most vividly in Schumpeter’s notion of “creative destruction”
and Picasso’s statement that every act of creation begins with an act of
destruction, the emerging creativity expands the dyad of creativity and
destruction to a trinity that is more like the Hindu Trimurti of Brahma,
Vishnu, and Shiva, respectively the Creator, the Preserver, and the
Destroyer. This is also a regenerative creativity, meaning not just a
creativity which is sustainable, but also one that works to enrich the nat-
ural and social environments, thereby making more creativity possible.
When the silent revolution is placed in a historical/evolutionary
Complexifying the Future 65

context, it becomes clear that, with some notable exceptions, despite

the enormous variety in global cultures, nature, gender, and race have
all been marked by relationships of simplification and of domination -
humans over nature, men over women, “us” over “them” (Montuori &
Conti, 1993). The global values change is threatening a status quo that
has been in existence for hundreds and even thousands of years. It
is threatening core aspects of what is perceived to be human identity,
and from within that frame of simplification and domination, either A
dominates B, or B dominates A. As a result, the change is interpreted
as a reversal loss for the dominant groups. It should perhaps be no sur-
prise then that there is a powerful backlash and extreme polarization.
The possibility of mutually beneficial, or what Eisler calls “partner-
ship” relationships, is not entertained as a possibility from the per-
spective of the paradigm of simplification (Eisler, 1987; Eisler & Fry, 2019).
Beginning with the human relationship to nature, we see that in
the past two thousand years, Judeo-Christian religions have histori-
cally preached man’s dominion over nature. Particularly since the
Industrial Revolution, humanity has gained more and more control
over nature. In the process, it has also separated itself from nature,
with the result that a vast proportion of human beings in industrialized
societies do not see themselves as interconnected and interdependent
in their relationship with nature or each other (Mathews, 1991; Morin &
Hulot, 2007). The current environmental crisis is to a large extent the re-
sult of this human dominion, particularly with industrialization. The
response to this crisis has led to the emergence of a powerful environ-
mental movement and proponents of a holistic worldview - a worldview
which more than echoes those held by indigenous peoples all over the
world (Cajete, 2000; Capra & Luisi, 2014; Wood, 2012). The nature of the cri-
sis is such that there have been arguments for drastic changes in
consumption and in the economy, changes that would in many ways
transform society. Along with this very clear and important economic
dimension, there is also a psychosocial, existential dimension.
66 alfonso Montuori

At an existential level, the environmental crisis leads to funda-

mental questions about humanity’s relation to nature. There has been
a call for a transformation in the relationship between humans and
nature. An “ecological self” is not like an individualistic atom, separate
from nature, but interconnected and embedded in nature (Macy & John-
stone, 2012; Mathews, 1991; Morin, 1985). It is a movement away from an
anthropocentric view, which holds that there is a clear dividing line
between humanity and the rest of nature and establishes human
superiority over the rest of the world. In this view, humanity is the
principal source of value and meaning in the world, and nature ex-
ists for the benefit of humanity (Purser et al., 1995). ecocentric views do
not put human beings as the sole source of value and meaning and
propose a number of variations on a more interconnected, interde-
pendent self that does not view itself as dominating nature, but in a re-
lationship of partnership (Eisler & Fry, 2019). On an existential level, the
environmental crisis is therefore also pointing to a new sense of human
identity, one that is not separate from Nature, but is more intercon-
nected and interdependent. This view clashes dramatically with the
“free market utopia” view that emphasizes the importance of the
economy and of independent, unfettered individuals above all. But
it should be noted that the full implications of ecocentric views have
not been articulated in a modern industrial technological context or ex-
tensively applied. This is also the case for the possibilities of partner-
ship relations, whether between humans and nature or men and
women. This adds to the uncertainty of the current situation.
The reality of interconnectedness and interdependence emphasized
by environmentalists as well as systems and complexity thinkers and
indigenous worldviews, has been made painfully obvious by the pan-
demic of 2020 (Cajete, 2000; Capra & Luisi, 2014; Morin, 2008, 2020a). In the
United States, this more complex view goes against the historically
strong valuing of individualism and the conquest of Nature. Historically
movements such as Romanticism valued Nature in less instrumental
Complexifying the Future 67

ways, and Indigenous societies throughout the world had radically

different views that are now being held up as models of harmony with
Nature. The interest and appreciation for indigenous cultures is also
leading to a questioning of the alleged cultural superiority of the West,
its cultures, and worldview(s). In other words, it is challenging the su-
periority of the West’s identity, and thereby the superiority of its people.
The environmental movement is asking human beings in in-
dustrialized nations to drastically rethink their relationship to the
environment, as well as rethinking a profound aspect of their identity.
The gradual shift away from industries that are associated with
Industrial Age pollution such as mining show the interconnection bet-
ween economics and identity and the interconnectedness of the
transformation: these are examples of the complexity of the poly-crisis.
Certain types of jobs are disappearing because of environmental
trends and automation. The disappearance of these jobs also leads
to the disappearance of certain kinds of identities - most notably tra-
ditionally male, working class jobs not requiring a college education.
The three crises are interrelated and turbocharged by current
communication technology and the resulting compression of time and
space. Vast numbers of traditional working-class jobs disappear be-
cause of automation and the green economy. Men without 4-year col-
lege degrees are particularly hard-hit. They have lost much of the
sense of identity that their jobs provided them, while also seeing no
hope for the future (Inglehart & Norris, 2017). A large number of white men
resist so-called green behaviors because they view them as fundamen-
tally “feminine.” For them, green and feminine are cognitively linked
(Brough et al., 2016). Avoidance of femininity has been found to be a cul-
tural norm for American masculinity (Mahalik et al., 2003). Notions of inter-
connectedness and interdependence are closely identified with the envi-
ronmental movement. They go against traditional views of masculinity
in the West, where the stress is more on self-assertion and independ-
ence, while being relational is associated with women (Eisler et al., 2016).
68 alfonso Montuori

Along with the crisis of human identity vis à vis Nature, the second
existential and interrelated challenge to traditional identity is gender.
Once again, a very long-standing arrangement that dates back at least
two-thousand years, the subservience of women to men, is being chal-
lenged. During that time in the West, but arguably across the world,
with some exceptions, men and women have had clearly defined roles
and status. Gender identities were defined in opposition to each other.
Being a man meant not thinking/feeling/doing like a woman, and vice
versa (Eisler & Fry, 2019). We saw an example of this oppositional identity
in the American cultural value for men of Avoidance of Femininity (Maha-
lik et al., 2003; Mahalik et al., 2005). Other cultural norms for men include
Negativity Toward Sexual Minorities, Toughness, Dominance, and Re-
strictive Emotionality, whereas female cultural norms include Rela-
tional, Put Others First, & Sweet and Nice. To change this fundamen-
tal relationship strikes at the very heart of gender identity, of what it
means to be man and what it means to be a woman. The critique of bi-
nary views of gender, and the increasing emergence of LGBTQ+ voices
have created a range of alternatives that were previously mostly sup-
pressed and make gender identity a much more complex phenomenon.
Women are now increasingly becoming bread-winners in the home,
going to university in greater numbers than men worldwide (Bilton, 2018),
as well as taking on roles that were previously reserved exclusively
for men. At the same time, men and boys are experiencing a crisis.
Roles and blue collar jobs from the Industrial that are traditionally
associated with men are eroding. Men and boys are unclear about
what it means to be a man. Many young men drift aimlessly, and
older men are committing suicide, the biggest victims of America’s
“epidemic of despair” (Case & Deaton, 2020; Hymowitz, 2011; Rosin, 2012;
Zimbardo & Coulombe, 2016).
A third crisis relates to race and ethnicity. As is the case with
environmental and gender issues, concerns about social justice, ethnic
identity, racism, prejudice, and discrimination have become louder and
Complexifying the Future 69

more insistent. The backlash to the silent revolution has focused

strongly on nationalism, on Us versus Them, and on maintaining the
inferior status of minorities and those perceived as out-groups by
the traditional majority. This has been the case in Europe as well
as in the United States, which saw the racist backlash that followed
the election of Barack Obama and the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
The symbolism of having the world’s most powerful country led by a
person of color joined by two women (Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton)
was a tipping point for people who rejected the possibilities opened up
by the silent revolution and the identity threat it created. The post-
Obama backlash coincided with the rising numbers of immigrants
seeking refuge from war-torn countries and the rejection of immigrants.
Martin Luther King’s vision was undoubtedly one of intercon-
nectedness (King, 1987; Wood, 2012), and the silent revolution presents
a more globally interconnected, global, cosmopolitan vision. Once again,
this trend involves a shift in an arrangement that has been the case for
thousands of years: the despicable tendency of one “race” or ethnicity to
view itself as superior to others. All three of these crises are based
on domination of one over another. And all of them can be used by
political leaders to manipulate groups to support specific interests.
The environmental, gender, and race issues at the beginning of
the 21st century reflect the possibilities of truly transformative changes.
They represent a call for changes to relationships and identities that for
thousands of years were viewed as “natural,” as «just the way things
are». “Man” has dominion over Nature, women, and “lesser” races, cul-
tures, and ethnicities. These issues also challenge the extent of human
possibilities: can human beings understand themselves as intercon-
nected and interdependent rather than either individualistically or
collectivistically? Can human beings create relations of partnership
rather than domination? More broadly, can human beings mobilize
their creativity to create these new possibilities, these new ways of
being in the world, these new identities (Montuori & Conti, 1993)?
70 alfonso Montuori

Crisis of Complexity

The Crisis of the Future is also a Crisis of Complexity. It is common-

place to say the world is getting more and more complex. In this con-
text the word complex may mean a number of things, which more of-
ten than not include not being able to make sense of it. Undoubtedly
the compression of time and space and communication technologies
have made a great difference in the last 20 years. The world is much
more interconnected, interdependent, and uncertain. It is changing
much more rapidly so than ever before. Information can travel over
the entire globe instantaneously, and people can do so in 24 hours.
With the internet, human beings have access to more information
than ever before. If until the middle of the 20th century the Encyclopedia
Britannica was an acceptable reference point for knowledge, today there
is an almost inconceivable proliferation of voices and perspectives,
and it seems humans are quite unprepared to deal with this informa-
tion overload. Information is also manipulated, with websites and bots
spreading propaganda and disinformation. As a result, the new term
“post-truth” refers to the absence of shared objective criteria for truth.
For Morin there is something deeply problematic about the very way
human beings in the West think, and more broadly, the way they make
sense of the world. Morin’s key point here could be summarized by the
apocryphal comment attributed to Albert Einstein: current problems
cannot be solved with the same type of thinking that created them. Is it
possible to think about futures and to create better futures with the
same way of thinking that informed the modern age? For Morin, the an-
swer is no. What is required is a different way of thinking. Morin refers
to it as “complex thought”. While reductionism, disjunction, abstraction,
and the quest for certainty have been historically been extremely suc-
cessful, this “strategy of simplification” has reached its limit. Its limita-
tions have become more obvious in a “networked,” interconnected, inter-
dependent uncertain world where context and connections matter. Morin
Complexifying the Future 71

writes that «We need a kind of thinking that relinks that which is disjoin-
ted and compartmentalized, that respects diversity as it recognizes uni-
ty, and that tries to discern interdependencies. We need a radical think-
ing (which gets to the root of problems), a multidimensional thinking,
and an organizational or systemic thinking ...» (Morin & Kern, 1999, p. 130).
An increasingly complex - interconnected, interdependent, uncer-
tain, pluralistic world requires a way of thinking that can address
this complexity. The criticism of dominant ways of thinking in the
West, which found support in systems theory and cybernetics, has been
that analysis breaks apart complex phenomena in order to under-
stand them, but in the process gives a partial view only, not address-
ing interconnectedness and emergent properties (Gembillo & Anselmo,
2013). This is particularly apparent when addressing living systems. It
is also the case, as I argued above, that current problems cannot be
solved with the same creativity that created them. What is needed is
as more complex, contextual creativity.
Complex can be contrasted with simple. As numerous thinkers
have pointed out, the human identities we are referring to here, vis à vis
Nature, Gender, and Race, are oppositional identities, meaning where
men define themselves in opposition to women, whites in opposition to
blacks, and humans in opposition to Nature (e.g. the insult “he behaved
like an animal”) (Eisler, 1987; Wilden, 1987). These oppositional identities
are relatively “simple,” something most people would view as stereo-
typed, with clearly defined roles. They can be framed in terms of a sim-
ple either/or. One is either male or female, one is on top, the other on
the bottom. From that frame, the trans movement and notions of “flu-
id” identities are shocking, opening up unacceptable possibilities.
The fact that these identities, “human nature,” “gender,” “race and
ethnicity” are changing means they are becoming more complex, and
one example of the greater complexity is gendered identity. Instead of
embracing one fixed pole of a duality, there is a cybernetic relationship
between, and transformation of, what were formerly the two choices of
72 alfonso Montuori

male and female. Such cultural norms as Toughness for men and Sweet
and Nice for women are traditional cultural ideals, and not just in
America. They represent a polarization which drastically limits the full
humanity of men and women by reducing what it is possible for a
human being to be. Gender roles are, in this sense, a trap, a box. We
can see this clearly in such norms as Avoidance of Femininity and Re-
strictive Emotionality (limited emotional range) for men, and Sweet and
Nice, Thinness, Put Others First, for women. The breakdown of the op-
positions leads to more complexity and a process of navigating between
the range of possibilities. Research on individuals defined as creative
shows that they generally do not conform to social gender stereotypes
and are psychologically androgynous (Barron, 1972; Jonsson & Carlsson, 2000;
Kaufman, 2013; Norlander et al., 2000). Beginning with Maslow’s early re-
search on self-actualization, we see psychologically healthy as well as
creative individuals embody the resolution of dichotomies that were
normally viewed in an either-or frame (e.g., either tough or sensitive)
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Kaufman, 2020).
Creativity is the source of possibilities. The creativity of modernity
led to an incredible global transformation. But this creativity had
certain characteristics which are now quite counterproductive. It was
rooted in what Morin calls the paradigm of simplification, it was es-
sentially atomistic, focusing on individuals (the lone genius) and in-
dustries at the expense of their context, their environment (Montuori &
Purser, 1995). It was compartmentalized (e.g., restricted to the individual
of “genius” and the arts and sciences), not taking account interde-
pendencies or context. The image of the lone genius was very much
associated with self-destructiveness, not just with “madness,” but with
abuse of the body (the “environment” of the “spirit”) whether through
drugs, drinking, or illness (McMahon, 2012). Creativity in industry was
decontextualized and industrial pollution, for instance, was simply
dumped into “the environment”. The business of business was business.
The disjunctive thinking split humans and nature, and more gener-
Complexifying the Future 73

ally any system from its environment. As a result, the environment was
seen as something “other” to humans, and its condition had no impli-
cations for humans, with results that are now becoming all too obvious.
This individualistic, atomistic view of creativity is now increasingly
being challenged (Glăveanu, 2017; Glaveanu et al., 2020; Montuori & Purser, 1995).
Alternative practices and philosophies, such as regenerative culture
and biomimicry, are offering radically new approaches with very dif-
ferent views and relationships between any system and its environ-
ment (Benyus, 2002; Wahl, 2016). For the emerging generations that have
grown up in a networked society, interconnectedness is just a fact of
life. Generations that have grown up in an interconnected, networked
society (Millennials, Generation Z), appear to see creativity differently
than baby-boomers, viewing it as a more relational, everyday process
(Montuori, 2011).
A feature of the emerging creativity, expanding on the principle of
a more complex creativity (i.e., contextual, collaborative), is an explicit
move beyond the realms of art and science, where it clearly resided
in modernity, into the realms of expanding human possibilities.
This includes what Maslow called “self-actualizing creativity,” or cre-
ativity directed to the process of “self-creation,” in order to develop a
more complex sense of human identity (Maslow, 1959). It also includes
creating win-win interactions, striving to direct creativity towards
making human interactions in an interconnected, interdependent
world mutually beneficial, something that becomes an ethical im-
perative in a time of transition.
The crisis of the future is also a test of human possibilities, of
what human beings are capable of. Can human beings learn to know
and think in a way that does justice to the interconnectedness, inter-
dependence, and uncertainty in the world? Can human beings learn
to create mutually beneficial, win-win relationships? Can human beings
recognize their own creativity and the creativity of nature, and take
responsibility for their creations?
74 alfonso Montuori

Conclusion

The crisis of the future is the result of an interrelated poly-crisis in

a time of transition, as modernity is dying. Amplified by the effects
of technological developments such as the internet and automation,
a movement of global value change, a silent revolution transforming
humanity’s relationship to nature, as well as gender and racial equality,
has emerged. Its effects can now be seen in the attitude of younger gen-
erations, but also in an authoritarian backlash. Because they touch
on core aspects of our identity as human beings, our identity vis-à-vis
nature, gender, and race/ethnicity, the threat posed by these changes
has in turn led to great polarization. An old world - and with it, a form
of human identity - is dying.
The crisis of the future is also a crisis of complexity. The world
is more interconnected, interdependent, uncertain, and pluralistic.
In order to make sense of it, and in order to comprehend the complexity
of emerging post-binary post-oppositional identities, a different kind of
thinking is needed, which Morin refers to as Complex Thought. In
order to create new worlds, a complex creativity is necessary, one that
recognizes human complexity and expands human possibilities, where
creativity is directed towards the creation of mutual benefit. The crisis
of the future is, finally, a test of human possibilities, a test of what hu-
man beings are capable of - how they think, create, relate, and act.

References

Achterhuis, H. (2010). De utopie van de vrije markt. [the utopia of the free
market]. Lemniscaat.
APA. (2020). Stress in america 2020: a national Mental Health Crisis. APA.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2020/sia-mental-health-cri-
sis.pdf
Barron, F. (1972). artists in the making. Academic.
Complexifying the Future 75

Bauman, Z. (2007). liquid times. living in an age of uncertainty. Polity

Press.
Benyus, J.M. (2002). Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature. Harper
Perennial.
Bilton, I. (2018). Women are outnumbering men at a record high in uni-
versities worldwide. Si news independent news for international Students.
https://www.studyinternational.com/news/record-high-numbers-women-out-
numbering-men-university-globally/
Brough, A.R., Wilkie, J.E., Ma, J., Isaac, M.S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is eco-friend-
ly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable con-
sumption. Journal of Consumer research, 43(4), 567-582.
Cajete, G. (2000). native science: natural laws of interdependence. Clear
Light Publishers.
Capra, F., & Luisi, P.L. (2014). the systems view of life: a unifying vision.
Cambridge University Press.
Case, A., & Deaton, A. (2020). The epidemic of despair. Will America's mor-
tality crisis spread to the rest of the world? ForeiGn aFFairS, 99(2), 92-102.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity : flow and the psychology of discov-
ery and invention (1st ed.). HarperCollinsPublishers.
Eisler, R. (1987). the chalice and the blade. Harper Collins.
Eisler, R., Donnelly, G., & Montuori, A. (2016). Creativity, society, and gen-
der: Contextualizing and redefining creativity. interdisciplinary Journal of
Partnership Studies, 3(2 Spring/Summer), 1-33.
Eisler, R.T., & Fry, D.P. (2019). Nurturing our humanity: how domination
and partnership shape our brains, lives, and future. Oxford University Press.
Featherstone, M. (2017). Planet utopia : utopia, dystopia, and globalisation.
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Fraser, N. (2019). the old is dying and the new cannot be born: From pro-
gressive neoliberalism to trump and beyond. Verso Books.
Gao, G. (2015). as smog hangs over Beijing, Chinese cite air pollution as
major concern. The Pew Report. Retrieved 4/16/2016 from http://www.pewre-
search.org/fact-tank/2015/12/10/as-smog-hangs-over-beijing-chinese-cite-air-
pollution-as-major-concern/
Gembillo, G., & Anselmo, A. (2013). Filosofia della complessità. [Philo-
sophy of complexity.]. Le Letter.
Glăveanu, V.P. (2017). A culture-inclusive, socially engaged agenda for
creativity research. the Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 338-340.
76 alfonso Montuori

Glaveanu, V.P., Hanchett Hanson, M., Baer, J., Barbot, B., Clapp, E.P., Co-
razza, G.E., Hennessey, B., Kaufman, J.C., Lebuda, I., Lubart, T., Montuori, A.,
Ness, I.J., Plucker, J., Reiter-Palmon, R., Sierra, Z., Simonton, D.K., Neves-
Pereira, M.S., & Sternberg, R.J. (2020). Advancing creativity theory and re-
search: A socio-cultural manifesto. the Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(3),
741-745.
Harvey Brown, D. (1978). Symbolic realism and sociological thought: Be-
yond the positivist-romantic debate. In R. Harvey Brown & S. M. Lyman (eds.),
Structure, consciousness and history (pp. 13-37). Cambridge University Press.
Higgs, J. (2019). the future starts here: adventures in the 21st century.
Weidenfeld & Nicholson.
Hymowitz, K.S. (2011). Manning up: How the rise of women has turned
men into boys. Basic Books.
Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2017). Trump and the populist authoritarian
parties: the silent revolution in reverse. Perspectives on Politics, 15(2), 443-454.
Jacques, M. (2009). When China rules the world: the end of the western
world and the birth of a new global order. Penguin.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism.
Duke University Press.
Jones, R. P., Cox, D., & Lienesch, R. (2017). Beyond economics: Fears of
Cultural Displacement Pushed the White Working Class to trump. Prri/the
atlantic report. Prri. https://www.prri.org/research/white-working-class-atti-
tudes-economy-trade-immigration-election-donald-trump/
Jonsson, P., & Carlsson, I. (2000). Androgyny and creativity: A study of the
relationship between a balanced sex-role and creative functioning. Scandana-
vian Journal of Psychology, 41, 269-274.
Kaufman, S.B. (2013). Blurred lines, androgyny and creativity. https://
blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2013/09/01/blurred-lines-an-
drogyny-and-creativity/
Kaufman, S.B. (2020). transcend. the new science of self-actualization.
TarcherPerigee.
King, M.L. (1987). the words of Martin luther King, Jr. Newmarket Press.
Macy, J., & Johnstone, C. (2012). active hope : how to face the mess we're
in without going crazy. New World Library.
Mahalik, J.R., Locke, B.D., Ludlow, L.H., Diemer, M.A., Scott, R.P.J.,
Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the conformity to mascu-
line norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 3.
Complexifying the Future 77

Mahalik, J.R., Morray, E.B., Coonerty-Femiano, A., Ludlow, L.H., Slattery,

S.M., & Smiler, A. (2005). Development of the conformity to feminine norms
inventory. Sex roles, 52(7-8), 417-435.
Maslow, A. (1959). Creativity in self-actualizing people. In H.H. Anderson
(Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 83-95). Harper & Row.
Mathews, F. (1991). the ecological self. Barnes & Noble Books.
McMahon, D.M. (2012). Divine fury: a history of genius. Basic Books.
Michaels, F.S. (2011). Monoculture: How one story is changing everything.
Red Clover Press.
Montuori, A. (2011). Beyond postnormal times: The future of creativity and
the creativity of the future. Futures: the Journal of Policy, Planning and Future
Studies, 43(2), 221-227.
Montuori, A., & Conti, I. (1993). From power to partnership. Creating the
future of love, work, and community. Harper San Francisco.
Montuori, A., & Purser, R. (1995). Deconstructing the lone genius myth:
Towards a contextual view of creativity. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,
35(3), 69-112.
Morin, E. (1985). la Méthode, tome 2. la vie de la vie [Method, volume 2.
the life of life]. Seuil.
Morin, E. (2008). la méthode: Coffret en 2 volumes. [Method: Boxed set in
two volumes.]. Seuil.
Morin, E. (2020a). Changeons de voie. les leçons du coronavirus. [a
change of path. the lessons of the coronavirus]. Denoël.
Morin, E. (2020b). Sur la crise [on the crisis]. Flammarion.
Morin, E., & Hulot, E. (2007). l'an i de l'ère écologique, et dialogue avec
nicolas Hulot [Year 1 of the ecological era and dialogue with nicolas Hulot].
Tallandier.
Morin, E., & Kern, B. (1999). Homeland earth: a manifesto for the new
millennium. Hampton Press.
Norlander, T., Erixon, A., & Archer, T. (2000). Psychological androgyny
and creativity: Dynamics of gender-role and personality trait. Social Behavior
and Personality, 28(15), 423-435.
Ogilvy, J. (2011). Facing the fold: From the eclipse of Utopia to the restora-
tion of hope. Foresight, 13(4), 7-23.
Polak, F. (1973). the image of the future. Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company.
Purser, R.E., Park, C., & Montuori, A. (1995). Limits to anthropocentrism:
78 alfonso Montuori

Toward an ecocentric organization paradigm? academy of Management review,

20(4), 1053-1089.
Rosin, H. (2012). the end of men: and the rise of women. Penguin.
Rushkoff, D. (2009). life inc. : how the world became a corporation and
how to take it back (1st ed.). Random House.
Ryan, C. (2019). Civilized to death: the price of progress. Avid Reader Press.
Sardar, Z. (2010). Welcome to postnormal times. Futures, 42(5), 435-444.
Sardar, Z. (2015). Postnormal times revisited. Futures, 67, 26-39.
Wahl, D.C. (2016). Designing regenerative cultures. Triarchy Press.
Wilden, A. (1987). Man and woman, war and peace: the strategist's com-
panion. Routledge.
Wood, L.S. (2012). a more perfect union: Holistic worldviews and the trans-
formation of american culture after World War ii. Oxford University Press.
Zimbardo, P., & Coulombe, N. (2016). Man, interrupted: Why young men
are struggling & what we can do about it. Red Wheel/Weiser.