Thinking about the last couple of chapters of the History for Tomorrow . .  the thing that surfaced for me that I’m keen to talk about in class is this idea of the 'images of the present' that we create and embed in culture. We talk a lot in foresight about images of the future but what about images of the now? how are we visualising our culture in the present through either images themselves or the stories we tell and the language we use? and who creates them and what purpose do they serve? who wins from these images and who loses? When we look at some of the examples in the book - whether it’s the Yellow Peril, the society of Al-Andulus and the people living together somewhat harmoniously . . and even the Edo period in Japan . . we can see the critical role that images and stories of the present time played, in shaping how people visualised their lives and their place in those communities. We know that images of the PRESENT (or the PAST) like the Yellow Peril aren’t based in any kind of fact. Krznaric shows this to be true.

Harvard Research. also proves that The Chinese Exclusion Act actually lowered income for all workers, and caused a sharp contraction in manufacturing, mining and agriculture. The results from the research show that Chinese and other workers were complements in economic production and the exclusion of the Chinese had a negative impact on economic development of the Western United States.

Krznaric talks about migration ‘being the story of humanity’ . . and in seeking solutions to migrant inclusion and cohesive community, later notes that economic factors can be a major barrier to the emergence of conviviality. What strikes me is that Krznaric's rational approach seems to  understate another truth of humanity . . . our emotional tendency to OTHER each other. Or to use OTHERING as a primary mechanism for social control - culturally, politically or economically. These images which OTHER groups like the Chinese (but also at play with many other marginalised groups today) perpetuate systems of racism (or sexism or classism) by framing the population as OTHER. He talks about the political demonising of the Chinese and we've seen this play out in many arenas, an obvious one being Trump's constant use of the term during Covid of 'China virus'.

It seems OTHERING is also the story of humanity.

Krznaric talks about discrimination and racism, and the economic realities which lie underneath these kinds of perspectives . .  it seems to me that the protection of the economic system is what drives this intentional othering. I guess the distinction I’m making is that economic factors (as an exogenous influence) are not undermining our potential for conviviality, but rather are the motivation that drives us to intentionally use these forms of othering as a social control mechanism - in order to justify and perpetuate what is in the best interests of the dominant class. The 'Us' versus the 'Them'.

In the case of the Yellow Peril, this othering served to justify and perpetuate the inequality and division of labour that privileged the dominant class. In Al-Andalus you could be forgiven for thinking it was the urban living and 'webs of economic dependence' that helped to cultivate conviviality but this cultural infrastructure was the physical or material expression that told the story of the primacy of Andalus citizenship -  which served the interests of the rulers - it was distinctly and intentionally anti-other in its approach . Likewise in the Edo period the interconnected web of resource dependency, meant that the rulers at the time had to cultivate an anti-othering approach in order to maintain stability and sustain their people. The material expressions of 'anti-othering' he describes, including the Singapore housing development system are critical but underneath that . . is a deliberate and pervasive understanding that 'Othering' is the dial leaders can turn up or down, depending on the conditions they seek to cultivate or protect.

And to jump back to our discussions last week around language; even the word “tolerance” always rubs me the wrong way. Think about the actual definition of tolerance for a minute - a word we still use within racial, sexual and gendered identity politics today. 

That word sets a pretty low bar don’t you think?