Compromising Futures: Half-a-Loaf Is Better Than Nothing

Let’s explore the role of compromise in futures work, which is especially relevant given our current focus on After Capitalism. Too often we fail to act because a proposal is not perfect. We want to make an initiative more participatory or sustainable or whatever, and if we can’t, it is tabled and fades away. This all-or-nothing approach too often ends up as nothing.

What’s missing? Clarity of vision with a sense of priorities.

For instance, a client decided to translate a survey into more than a dozen languages in the spirit of inclusiveness. Everyone felt good about it being inclusive, but it took time, money, and effort, and we ended up with zero responses in different languages. There was a vision of inclusion, but not a clear sense of priorities. Could the time, tudget, and resources have been more effectively invested elsewhere? Perhaps stakeholder interviews? an expert workshop? a MOOC-like activity to significantly boost participation numbers?  In this case we proceeded, but you have probably have been part of an initiative that was tabled or postponed because the time, budget, and resources needed to make it perfect were not available.

The “Ineffective Left” driver in After Capitalism notes this in describing how the Left’s suspicion of big ideas or grand plans tends to keep it focused on small, local, “politically correct” proposals that virtue signal but have no real chance of scaling. If a proposal doesn’t check all the boxes, it is often rejected. Compromise is seen as selling out. Don’t get me wrong — I really like the idea of small, local, and networked and thing that is the way to go. But how do we get that approach to work as a new After Capitalism operating system on a global scale? We want more participation, more direct democracy, more energy efficiency, etc., etc., but if we don’t have the resources to do it 100% perfect today, are we willing to do say 60% today to get it in motion?

I’d argue and imperfect “getting something” is better than a perfect “getting nothing.” Of course we continue to push for “more.” We can’t keep doing business-as-usual and wait for the day that the magic resources arrive. Here it is so super duper vital to have clarity of vision that can be applied on a case-by-case basis to know when to hold out for more, when to take the 60%, or when inaction is the wisest course.  

Let’s take an example. A client makes a decision to invest in making a fossil fuel plant more sustainable. What a conundrum, right? As purists, we should have nothing to do with fossil fuel.  Or, is it more useful, to “get something” and make the best of the situation? If you have clarity of vision and sense of priorities I believe you can make the “getting something” choice here without losing your soul, so-to-speak. We can comprise … a long as we have clarify of vision and a sense of priorities. – Andy Hines