Abstract
How do we react to uncomfortable futures? By developing the notion of chronopolitics, this article presents two ways that we typically react to future challenges in the present. At the core of the chronopolitics of prevention, we find a striving for normalization and conservation of the present vis-à-vis dangerous futures. In contrast, the chronopolitics of preemption are geared towards a reformation, if not even a revolution of the present. Two case studies in the field of science and technology policy illustrate the difference between prevention and preemption. The debate on human embryonic stem cells illuminates prevention. The debate on nanotechnology clarifies preemption.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In an interview, Michel Foucault described the dispositif as “a thoroughly heterogeneous ensemble consisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions” [1]. The extension of this notion is almost limitless and is of little help when it comes to identifying a particular dispositif. Foucault, however, adds, that a dispositif “has as its major function at a given historical moment that of responding to an urgent need” [1]. Against the background of a dispositif’s strategic function, we may indeed characterize preemptivity as dispositif, because it is an answer to a variety of temporal problems, which slowly amalgamated in the 1990s of the last century: the fear of scarce resources in the future, the perception of slowly acting public authorities, the experience of fast-spreading pathogens in a globalized society, etc. As an allied answer to these and similar problems, the dispositif emerged in the 1990s; however, it became visible in its entirety only after 9/11.
Attentive readers will immediately notice the omission of the past. In fact, there is no reason to exclude the past from the domain of chronopolitics except this: Concerning the past and its difference to the present, historians have presented by far more elaborated concepts such as politics of memory, identity politics, and politics of traditions. The past and its relation to the present constitute such a finely chiseled terrain of reflection, research, and theory that describing and analyzing it in the name of chronopolitics would be comparable to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
One more plausible, but empirically not yet proven form is evitation. It would consist of a kind of intentional ignorance towards risky futures with the aim to avoid any actions in the present. If Jack Bauer is the epitome of preemption, Ivan Goncharov’s Oblomov might exemplify such a refusal of the future.
References
Foucault M (1980) The confession of the flesh. In: Gordon C (ed) Power/knowledge. Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Pantheon Books, New York, pp 194–228
Cooper M (2007) Life as surplus: biotechnology and capitalism in the neoliberal era. University of Washington Press, Seattle
de Goede M (2012) Speculative security: the politics of pursuing terrorist monies. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Anderson B (2010) Preemption, precaution, preparedness: anticipatory action and future geographies. Prog Hum Geogr 34:777–798
Opitz S, Tellmann U (2015) Future emergencies: temporal politics in law and economy. Theory Cult Soc 32:107–129
Kaiser M (2015) Über Folgen: Technische Zukunft und politische Gegenwart. Velbrueck, Weilerswist
Cameron J (1984) The Terminator. Orion Pictures
Zemeckis R (1985) Back to the Future. Universal Pictures
Virilio P (1986) Speed and politics: an essay on dromology. Columbia University, New York
Foucault M (1988) Technologies of the self. In: Martin LH, Gutman H, Hutton PH (eds) Technologies of the self: a seminar with Michel Foucault. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst
Bell W, Mau JA (eds) (1971) The sociology of the future: theory, cases, and annotated bibliography. Russell Sage, New York
Brown N, Rappert B, Webster A (eds) (2000) Contested futures: a sociology of prospective techno-science. Ashgate, Aldershot
Virilio P (2012) The administration of fear. Semiotext(e), Los Angeles
Collingridge D (1980) The social control of technology. St. Martin’s Press, New York
Wood S, Jones R, Geldart A (2003) The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon
Bush GW (2002) President’s remarks. Graduation speech. West Point United States Military Academy, West Point
Weber M (2011) ‘Objectivity’ in social science and social policy. In: Weber M, Shils EA, Finch HA (eds) Methodology of social sciences. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp 49–112
Raffill S (1984) The Philadelphia experiment. Pictures, New World
Zemeckis R (1989) Back to the Future Part II. Universal Pictures
Zemeckis R (1990) Back to the Future Part III. Universal Pictures
Cameron J (1991) Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Carolco Pictures
Mostow J (2003) Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. Action, Sci-Fi, Thriller. C-2 Pictures
McG (2009) Terminator Salvation. Action, Drama, Sci-Fi, Thriller. Halcyon Company
Kleiser R (1986) Flight of the Navigator. Family, Adventure, Sci-Fi. Walt Disney Pictures
Herek S (1989) Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure. De Laurentiis Entertainment Group
Nimoy L (1986) Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Paramount Pictures
Frakes J (1996) Star Trek: First Contact. Paramount Pictures
Rau J (2001) Wird alles gut?—Für einen Fortschritt nach menschlichem Mass. Berliner Rede May 18, Berlin
Nerlich B (2005) “A river runs through it”: how the discourse metaphor crossing the Rubicon structured the debate about human embryonic stem cells in Germany and (not) the UK. Metaphorik 8:71–104
Habermas J (2001) Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur: Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main
Bush GW (2001) Stem cell science and the preservation of life. The New York Times, August 12, sec. Opinion
Fiorenza J, Keeler W, Rigali J, D’Arcy J, Law B, O’Malley S, Flynn H et al (2001) Reaction to President Bush’s decision on embryonic stem-cell research. Origins 31:207–13
Walzer M (1977) Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations. Allen Lane, London
Kirgis FL (2002) Pre-emptive action to forestall terrorism. Newsletter of the American Society of International Law
Sofaer AD (2003) On the necessity of pre‐emption. Eur J Int Law 14:209–226. doi:10.1093/ejil/14.2.209
Brown C (2003) Self-defense in an imperfect world. Eth Inter Affairs 17:2–8
Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) (2010) Governing future technologies: nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime. Springer, Dordrecht
Dupuy J-P, Grinbaum A (2005) Living with uncertainty: toward the ongoing normative assessment of nanotechnology. Techné: Res Philos Technol 8:4–25
Phoenix C, Treder M (2014) Nanotechnology: precautionary principle analyzed. Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. http://www.crnano.org/precautionary.htm. Accessed March 23
Barben D, Fisher E, Selin C, Guston DH (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 979–1000
Mead GH (1959) The philosophy of the present. Open Court, La Salle
Acknowledgments
For helpful comments, I thank Corinna Virchow, Beatrix Rubin, Andreas Lösch, Marcus Müller, Christopher Coenen, two anonymous reviewers, and notably Colin Milburn. The paper is a revision and extension of a short draft published in Technikfolgenabschätzung—Theorie und Praxis 23:2 (2014) entitled Chronopolitik: Prävention und Präemption.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kaiser, M. Reactions to the Future: the Chronopolitics of Prevention and Preemption. Nanoethics 9, 165–177 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0231-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0231-4