The pathos of process: imagining impact and outcome in public interest scenario projects

• In Event: Culture and the Construction of Expectations & Outcomes

Abstract

This paper addresses the relationship between imagination, action, and outcomes by studying the social and political effects of public interest scenario interventions. Scenario exercises convene heterogeneous – and sometimes adversarial – groups of participants in purposeful, facilitated deliberations that explore multiple possibilities for how collective futures could unfold. Scenario techniques have been used since the 1990s to facilitate conversations on problems ranging from the future of democracy to transitions from armed conflict, urbanization, energy use, food security, and adaptation to climate change. Many proponents have high hopes for the transformative potential of scenario work; they see its extended time horizons, multi-perspectival thinking, and dialogic ethos as antidotes to many of the maladies of transnational interventions focusing on development, democracy, and peacebuilding. Yet these projects have struggled for credibility in comparison to conventional forecasting tools, and their political, institutional and personal consequences are hard to trace. I examine the precarious link between imagination and outcomes through an investigation of five clusters of public interest scenario work across multiple world regions in 1991-2017, with a particular focus on projects in East Africa and Latin America. I examine the theories of change expressed by practitioners and participants, along with their assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of this work and its influences on networks and careers. I also draw on media and historical sources for evidence of the degree to which scenario interventions have (or have not) resulted in the reframing of political projects or policies. I consider the sense of paralysis (or “pathos”) that can emerge as people attempt to transform imagined possibilities into tangible outcomes amidst uncertainty and crisis. Finally, I consider to what degree the credibility struggles of this method may stem directly from its pragmatist commitments, including its insistence on reflective dialogue and the unpredictability and multiplicity of futures.

Author

• Ann Mische, University of Notre Dame