taCity

I was sent this paper by a colleague this morning and not only does it make for some extremely depressing reading if you work in (and value the merits of) public higher education, but it also made me extremely agitated by the use of the term ‘future proofing’. In the paper, the term is associated with KPMG, the management consultancy firm and their use of it to excuse the marketisation of universities, but the term is used throughout the corporate world and beyond.

On the surface, the concept seems innocuous, even beneficial perhaps. Who wouldn’t want to prepare for the future, to ensure that products, processes, and systems remain relevant and effective in the face of rapid technological and societal changes? However, given my extreme cynicism of anything corporate (not to mention by affinity with Mark Fisher’s texts), a closer examination reveals that the term ‘future-proofing’ is not only problematic in its application, but it is also laden with the ideological iniquity of capitalist realism.

As the paper suggests, in corporate discourse, ‘future-proofing’ is frequently touted as a strategic imperative by large scale corporations, particular those engaged in that most vague and deliberately oblique profession; management consultancy.

Companies, like KPMG, claim to future-proof their operations – or the public institutions they’re gutting, by investing in cutting-edge technologies, adopting flexible business models, and anticipating trends in the ‘market’ (even if those institutions do not, or should not be beholden to them). This ostensibly ‘proactive’ approach is framed as a way to safeguard against obsolescence and inefficiencies, thus securing long-term profitability and competitiveness. *Spits on the floor*

But all this does is create a rhetoric that entrenches existing neoliberal and overtly capitalist modes of production into the institution – whether they want it or not. By emphasizing technological solutions, market-driven strategies, and a general adoption of auditing cultures, companies reinforce and expand the financialised status quo, privileging profit over broader societal, public and/or cultural considerations. This nefarious approach implicitly endorses a vision of the future in which that most treasured (but egregiously-defined and nebulous) growth is paramount, defenestrating alternative paradigms that prioritize sustainability, equity, social well-being, or in the case of higher education, student welfare.

Moreover (and this is where Fisher’s ideas come to the fore), the emphasis on future-proofing can create a self-fulfilling capitalist prophecy (hence the rather spurious reference to the Edge of Tomorrow film above). By investing heavily in certain technologies or auditing and financialised business practices, companies can lock-in particular paths of development, making it harder to deviate from these trajectories in the future. This can stifle social innovation and reduce the flexibility needed to adapt to unforeseen challenges (such as covid, which universities adapted to extremely well), ultimately undermining the very resilience that future-proofing purports to achieve. More ideologically though, ‘future proofing’ embodies a desire for capitalist certainty and control, a belief that we can anticipate and mitigate the unknown via a mastery of the mechanisms of the market.

But as is bone-achingly obvious, this only reaffirms the neoliberal mindset, rooted in the distinctly Imperialist ideas of rationality, progress, and a mastery over nature and the unknown. Such as mindset is increasingly at odds with contemporary understandings what the university should be; an institution that deliberate seeks to deviate from the status quo, engage in critical thinking and produce new knowledges that form the basis of a more just, sustainable and equitable world. The future that capitalist’s want is more of the same, but the future that they have created by destroying the planet ecologically and socially is inherently unpredictable. Climate catastrophe, political division, viral outbreaks, digital innovations; capitalism has created a very unstable world, despite their yearnings for predictability. Attempts to future-proof against this uncertainty are not only futile but also – it would seem – highly counterproductive, leading to rigid systems that are less capable of adapting to both the changes that we need, and the changes that we don’t.

Future-proofing as a corporate practice also raises ethical questions about intergenerational justice and responsibility. As a father to two gen Alpha children, it is of my humble opinion that focusing on safeguarding current interests and investments, we neglect the needs and very real aspirations of future generations at our, or perhaps more accurately, their peril.

Mark Fisher’s vital work on the ‘slow cancellation of the future’ (to which I would add Scott Schwartz’s mesmeric concept of ‘nekronology’) tells us that the very idea of ‘the future’ has been colonised by capitalism. The ugly term (and even uglier practices that it entails) future proofing is a classic example of this. It is classic word play by neoliberal ideologues looking to create a future in which they are king. So the next time you hear someone use the term, ask them what kind of future are they looking to proof? It is simply just an expanded version of the present then I would argue that the only thing we need ‘proofing’ from, is them.