SF as theory; the predictive, the prefigurative, and the retrospeculative; forgotten futures
Kim Stanley Robinson describes the action of SF as like 3D glasses; one lens an attempt to imagine a future which is plausible or possible, the other a metaphorical vision of the present.[1] Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, Jr. characterizes science fiction as “a mode of awareness, a complex hesitation about the relationship between imaginary conceptions and historical reality unfolding into the future”, relying on two hesitations –historical-logical (“how plausible is the conceivable”), and ethical (“how good/bad/altogether different are the transformations”).
Ciscery-Ronay justifies science fiction as theory in the instances of Philip K. Dick and JG Ballard. To that list, we could add Samuel Delany, Ursula K. Le Guin, and Octavia Butler – just as a beginning. Conversely, Ciscery-Ronay presents theory as inherently science fictional, looking explicitly to Jean Baudrillard or Donna Haraway. Other examples are ready to hand; Vilem Flusser’s farsighted speculations in Into the Universe of Technical Images. It can be found in Immanuel Kant’s proposal of a humanity emerging from “self-imposed nonage” into an age of enlightenment just on the horizon, studying the present moment and projecting a possible future (and how to arrive there). We could look to the slogan of the World Social Forum: “another world is possible”, or, in counterpoint, Rosa Luxemburg’s admonition that “society stands at the crossroads, either transition to Socialism or regression into Barbarism”[2].
To these two axes (plausible-metaphorical, historical-ethical), we might add a third that entangles with these modes – the anticipatory and the prefigurative. Prefigurative, from “prefigure”: “be an early indication or version of (something)”; “imagine beforehand”. From Latin praefigurare, “represent beforehand”, from prae (‘before’) + figurare (‘to form, fashion’). Anticipation from the Latin anticipat- (“acted in advance”), anticipare, from ante- (“before”), capare (“take”).
Mihai Nadin, in Anticipation and Computing, introduces a partial taxonomy of prefigurative knowledge – guessing (“selection from a well-defined series of choices”, 294), expectation (“evaluation of an outcome based on incomplete knowledge”, 296), prediction (“inference based on probability”, 298), forecasting (“infer from past data-based predictions to the future under involvement of self-generated data”, 304). He goes on to observe that while machines so far show some ability at these categories, anticipation itself is yet to be emulated by deterministic, machinic intelligence. Thus far, it seems to be a province belonging exclusively to the living. (To paraphrase Nadin, anticipation is the definitory characteristic of the living.)
On the one hand, science fiction as a mode of awareness attempts to anticipate, which is to say, guess, predict, forecast. It deals with the emergent, already nascent in the present. On the other hand, science fiction as a mode of awareness attempts to represent ahead of time, to create, to give an example of how the world might be. It deals with the emergent, the way that narratives can create possibilities, then probabilities, and thereafter realities.
The two symbolic faces of SF are often asserted to be Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, the fabulist and the moralist. An alternate juxtaposition: Willem Bilderdijk and Mary Shelley.
On the one hand, we have Bilderdijk’s Kort verhaal an eene aanmerkelijke luchtreis en nieuwe planeetontdekking[3] (1813), a story of a person whose experiment with a hot air balloon gets out of hand, stranding them on a new planet between Earth and Moon – a narrative rich with attention to technical detail, presented in a scholarly style, including figures and recreations of alien script. On the other hand, we have Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus (1818), a well-known story, characterized by author Brian Aldiss as “the first true science fiction story”; a tale concerned with ethics, the questionable value of progress, the hazards and horrors awaiting us, a recognition that we do not merely act on matter, but sometimes, matter acts on us as well.
We have the world as it might be, and the world as it ought to be.
Science fiction offers a complex way of seeing the world as it is, as it could be, and as it should be. An anticipatory outlook that hopes to divine the possible from what is present, and a prefigurative vision for building possible tomorrows from the seeds of the present; visions of what technology makes possible, and admonitions of what is at risk.
[1] Robinson, Kim Stanley. “Q&A: ‘Utopian’ sci-fi author Kim Stanley Robinson”. Interview by Kerry Lengel. Azcentral.com. https://www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/books/2014/10/17/qa-utopian-sci-fi-author-kim-stanley-robinson/17399849/. 17 Oct 2014.
[2] The phrase is not a threat; it is a prediction. It is a promise.
[3] “Short account of a remarkable journey into the skies and discovery of a new planet.”
Works Cited:
Csicsery-Ronay Jr., Istvan. “The SF of Theory”. Science Fiction Studies. Issue 55, volume 18 part 3. November 1991.
Luxemburg, Rosa. "The Junius Pamphlet: The Crisis in German Social Democracy." Rosa Luxemburg: The Junius Pamphlet (1915). Marxists.org. 1915. Web. 04 Dec. 2017.
Nadin, Mihai. “Anticipation and Computation: Is Anticipatory Computing Possible?” From Anticipation Across Disciplines, edited by Mihai Nadin. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2016.
Robinson, Kim Stanley. “Q&A: ‘Utopian’ sci-fi author Kim Stanley Robinson”. Interview by Kerry Lengel. Azcentral.com. 17 Oct 2014. Web.