In the realm of storytelling, narratives about the past and the future share striking similarities. Both are bound by what Reinhard Koselleck (2007, p. 71) called a „veto right of the sources“. This principle dictates that narratives are deemed unrealistic when facts—be it data, simulations, or documents—contradict them. As Armin Grunwald (2013) discusses the scientific value of Future Studies, this veto right ensures that our stories, whether historical or futuristic, remain tethered to reality, which gives them a different authority and motivational power than mere speculation.

Narratives, whether grounded in history or projected into the future, effectively hold the composition together through a process known as „narrative colligation“ (Morgan 2017). They organize ingredients of authority in sequential order to bridge larger distances in space and time and provide crucial guidance for our actions and collaborations (Emirbayer & Mische 1998). They provide us with heroes, helpers, victims, and villains, and suggest „discourse coalitions“ when narrators share similar perspectives on the past or future (Hajer 1993, Shannan et al. 2013), following culturally shared patterns that resonate across time. However, the methodologies employed in crafting these stories differ significantly.

Historians typically immerse themselves in archives and sometimes interview contemporary witnesses, piecing together the past like a complex jigsaw puzzle. In contrast, futurologists employ a more diverse array of methods, actively engaging stakeholders, citizens, and experts to collaboratively envision future technologies. They utilize simulations of climate or pandemic scenarios, to explore potential outcomes when fictional inputs meet scientific models and data. This participatory approach fosters a dynamic exchange of ideas, shaping possibilities that enhance and transcend current understanding, also encouraging utopian prospects that challenge conventional thinking and motivate action.

Notably, this perspective reflects the central findings of my research article, „Vision as Make-Believe“ (2021), where I explore how our imaginative processes shape these narratives. It’s crucial to distinguish between insufficiently speculative narratives—those that lack elements beyond current knowledge, such as the yet unproven potential of nanomedicines to cure certain types of cancer, thus remaining too anchored in the present—and those that are outright unrealistic, making claims that contradict present knowledge, like the fanciful notion of nanoscale robots shooting laser beams in our blood vessel. Both speculative and unrealistic visions pragmatically impact the present, for example by fostering the emergence of transdisciplinary and cross-sectoral discourses (Lösch 2006). Still, speculative visions that can be realistically hoped or wished for and unrealistic futures unfold their power in different kinds of discourse and deliberation.

Ultimately, the art of inventing history and future technology narratives lies in the delicate balance between imagination and reality. By acknowledging the veto-right of our sources while embracing creative speculation, we can craft stories that not only reflect our understanding of the world but also inspire us to explore the unknown.

Bibliography:

• Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294
• Grunwald, Armin (2013b): Wissenschaftliche Validität als Qualitätsmerkmal der Zukunftsforschung. In: Zeitschrift für Zukunftsforschung 2 (1), S. 22–33
• Hajer, M. A. (1993). Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalization of Practice: The Case of Acid Rain in Great Britain. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (pp. 43–76). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822381815-003
• Koselleck, Reinhart (2018): Sediments of time. On possible histories. Hg. v. Stefan-Ludwig Hoffmann und Sean Franzel. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press: Stanford University Press.
• Lösch, A. (2006). Anticipating the futures of nanotechnology: Visionary images as means of communication. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777168
• Morgan, M. S. (2017). Narrative ordering and explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 62, 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.03.006
• Roßmann, M. (2021). Vision as make-believe: How narratives and models represent sociotechnical futures. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 8(1), 70–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1853395
• Shanahan, Elizabeth; Jones, Michael; McBeth, Mark; Lane, Ross (2013): An Angel on the Wind: How Heroic Policy Narratives Shape Policy Realities. In: Policy Studies Journal 41 (3), S. 453–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12025