“I see changes where I imagine”.”
A reflection on the results of the "Questionnaire for the Future" launched in May 2020.
Concomitentes aspires to weave together places of encounter between art and society, by putting citizens at the centre of the production of works that are interrelated, situated and interdependent. In these processes, listening is fundamental, and it is in line with this way of doing things that we launched “A questionnaire for the future” in the spring of 2020, at the very moment of the outbreak of the pandemic. This We conceived it rather as a space for conversation at a time when citizen dialogue had become muted., The aim is to encourage a debate that is more necessary than ever about the world we want to live in as individuals and as a society.
This initiative - in which 498 people from Spain and ten other European countries took part - was one of the few surveys that had been generated at this time, which in addition to its conversational value also gives it a certain importance as a snapshot of an exceptional period. We have here a testimony on how we imagine our future when the feeling of uncertainty was in the mood of all of us. Now, in the summer of 2021, reading these answers gives a different perspective, although it is true that the uncertainty of spring 2020 is still present.
When we asked how they imagined the months following their imprisonment, the answers already showed a mixture of mixed feelings combining concern and scepticism.
“I think we are an immature society, still giving a thousand laps to our politicians, who are showing that they do not trust the citizenry” or «‘We live on adversity’, as Helio Oiticica said», with other impressions more crossed by openness and curiosity: “A mixture of great concern for the growing loss of our basic rights and the feeling that there is a possibility of a new union”; or “I am torn between thinking that something will change the model that did not work, but I think it will not be possible”.
And the fact is that the crisis triggered by covid unveiled the curtain on a systemic crisis, beyond the economic one, which is reflected in ecological and environmental emergencies, in health, education, migration and housing policies, and in profound social imbalances.. “It is already a crisis. A crisis within a crisis. Like a matryoshka. But everything is always, in a way, always in crisis. I don't know if ‘normality’ really exists”, replies one respondent. Another respondent says: “We are in a continuous crisis, but there are moments when there is an overflow that exceeds our capacity to analyse and conceptualise the world. Things are born and die in the interregnum.
Reactions to a lock-in: “Everything can be replaced, but the question is whether it will be fun or not”.”
One of the initial and obvious changes triggered by the pandemic was how we moved our social and professional activities into the digital sphere. Faced with the impossibility of direct, physical contact, the digital environment partly satiated the need to “be together” and avoid the “fear of the other”. In this sense, 89% of respondents believed that the experience of working remotely, gained during the pandemic, would change our future working lives. For the better, as travel and commuting would be reduced and we would be able to better reconcile work and family life. But, in contrast, this digital incursion also raised concerns: from a gender perspective, complicating the differentiation between personal and professional spheres, from a technological point of view, multiplying dependence on digital devices and proprietary software, and above all about the use of digital tools to track our movements.
There was clear concern about how the drive to control the pandemic might infringe on our right to privacy, although there were also dissenting voices - «In case of extreme necessity, I would not be against it, but only for a certain period of time”, commented one participant. Thus, with “under no circumstances can we live in a controlled state/society that restricts movement or monitors us”, most of the responses underlined the need to rely on collective responsibility and citizen awareness, in order to increase a form of self-managed control: “In the face of civility, control is totally unnecessary. On the other hand, I am sure it would lead to abusive practices or commercial interests.
When asked the question: Will digital replace face-to-face spaces and public space? The data from the questionnaire was clear: 97% agreed that digital media would not replace key aspects of our lives such as unplanned social events, drifts, chance, serendipity, hugs or tokens of affection. Despite this assertion, 65% of respondents speculated that their behaviour in public space would be different, initiating a process of learning, readjusting and adapting. Some of the responses already put on the table drifts that were addressed throughout the pandemic: “Physical distance” and “remoteness from others”; “I will be more anxious. I will avoid crowded situations that I wasn't afraid of before”; or “unfortunately it will change the way I greet family and friends, not hugs”.
(Re)imagining the relationship with the local environment and the community bond: “Let's hope that some of the idea of the commons will promote some change”.”
Another key aspect of this questionnaire was to encourage us to imagine a post-pandemic world that has overcome the initial shock and found its new place. An exercise in vision, imagination, almost a game, in which a wide range of effects are combined, starting from the digitalisation of affections, to the standardisation of the use of public space, the increase in surveillance, alterations in mobility and tourism, mental health disorders or changes in values and ethics, resituating priorities. This is where the great adaptability of citizens can be appreciated. There was a surprising number of voices that made a dialectical exercise, between utopias and more realistic visions, about the possible society that could emerge from this crisis, based on the increase in the will for mutual help and social solidarity, creating a new public, shared and common environment. A public sphere that does not assume the deprivation of already won rights, where free market policies, big state alliances or big business entities do not prevail. “I believe that fostering commonality, support and collaboration makes us aware of our capacity to participate and transform, which in itself is the best antidote to the fear of the other.
73% of people did not believe that, in the wake of the pandemic, only the practices associated with public space would change, to combine with the digital and adapt to increased bureaucratisation.
It points to a picture in which civic solidarity prevails, with almost 75% of respondents stressing the importance of close social contacts, 85% being willing to give up some personal welfare for a more local production and distribution system, and 88% willing to invest part of their time to collaborate in projects that promote the common good.
Gradually, from a digitised space and with social distances, the answers project key concepts such as proximity, care, affection and collaboration. In fact, 64% of the participants predicted that in the future, more attention would be paid to care and 77% that solutions would be found in proximity production systems in the face of a collapsed economic system. This is shown by phrases such as these in response to the question of what society would emerge from the health crisis: “I believe that this would contribute to a return to times that are more in line with the human rhythm and less machine-like (stress and the illnesses it generates would be reduced), to thinking more collectively and in the long term”. However, there were also voices that warned that this reaffirmation of the local should not lead to isolationism: “Greater local resilience should not be at odds with global or continental governance”. Especially voices from Germany see international interconnectedness as a reality as well as a necessity: “I would find it difficult to go back to local structures. I like an international world, I am a friend of a united Europe and I don't want to go back to guarded national borders.
The value of culture: “The cultural sector can break new ground in crisis situations and promote interdisciplinary synergies”.”
Only a quarter of the people who took part in the survey came from the cultural sector, which gives us some confidence that the answers obtained are not conditioned by a certain professional bias. It is interesting to note in this regard the role of culture on a sliding scale, from which the importance of professional sectors is graded according to different scenarios. The majority of participants identified health, science and agriculture as the most suitable sectors for overcoming an economic and health crisis. At the same time, the state, through public administration, occupies relevant positions, insofar as it has to be the guarantor of universal services and the rebalancer of inequalities.
But when it came to speculating about a post-crisis situation, and thinking about an ideal society emerging from it, education took on greater relevance, as did culture. The contribution of culture, although perhaps irrelevant to physical well-being, was seen as vitally important in that it could make us rethink our ways of relating to others, open up spaces for citizen participation and serve as a promoter of transdisciplinary synergies, as one respondent pointed out: “Curiously, I have been wondering for years about how to continue building from culture, I believe that our alliance with other sectors such as science or industry will be fundamental”.
The crisis as an opportunity: “We have reflected, we are more aware and responsible”.”
In its last third, the questionnaire became an invitation to imagine how this moment of exception will condition our future. We asked whether in a hypothetical 2040 a person who lived through this crisis as a child would believe that the events have had an influence on the society in which he or she lives now. Almost 70% of the participants thought that this crisis will indeed have long-term effects: “This crisis will leave a long trail that will affect everyday life”, says one participant. However, over and above concerns about the possible long-term aftermath of the pandemic, participants were clear that they see climate change-related threats as the most concrete and greatest threat to global society, and that this will affect our social configuration in a more profound way than the effects of the pandemic. However, there was also some hope that the pandemic could be a turning point towards models of ecological and social reconversion, and that this crisis will make us as a society aware of the great challenges we will have to face in the future.
A comprehensive, global and urgent crisis, such as the one that covid is accelerating, cannot be understood without its transformative potential, which starts with each one of us.
