On the intellectual unity of futures studies

In this paper, I discuss the intellectual unity of futures studies. The field encompasses methods that differ in their goals, objects of study, theoretical commitments, and procedures. I argue that different approaches in futures studies form tightly interconnected ecosystems of goals, objects, methods, and theories that resist piecemeal unification. Drawing on the philosophical literature on scientific pluralism, I show that the diversity of the field is a rational response to the complexity of its subject matter and to the diversity of questions worth asking about the future. However, pluralism alone does not establish that the field is unified. I propose that the intellectual unity of futures studies rests on three commitments shared across its diverse approaches: the commitment to the reality and relevance of future possibilities, implicit problem recognition, and the omnipresence of futures in human life. These commitments are minimal in that they do not dictate any particular method or theory but make the field's heterogeneity intelligible.