The future as a common practice and not as a spectacle belongs not only to specialists. “Participating before changes decisions, participating only afterwards decorates them — the future as a common practice and not as a spectacle: Communities that rehearse the future.” The article speaks of young people, families, professionals, representatives and affected communities and a very concrete question: how to take advantage of the possibility of coordinating better resources, knowledge and participation without accepting to present as inevitable a decision that still admits alternatives as inevitable price.
There is something powerful about looking at the collective ability to decide on technology from participation: it forces a huge conversation down to neighborhoods, schools, clubs, cooperatives, businesses and municipalities.
Participating before changes decisions, then only decorates them forces them to a simple idea: in communities that test the future, the extraordinary only applies if its consequences can be understood, discussed and corrected. In communities that test the future, looking from participation helps to test on a human scale, share authority and learn publicly. In “Participating before changes decisions, participating only decorates them afterwards”, a surprising demonstration still does not amount to a reliable service or a fair institution.
Participation before changes decisions, participating only decorates them later
The scene of participation in the collective ability to decide on technology could be this: young people, families and professionals were invited when contract, calendar and tool were already decided.
The diagnosis for communities testing the future is necessary: the consultation gathered opinions without giving any influence.
In “Participating before changes decisions, participating only afterwards decorates them — the future as a common practice and not as a spectacle: Communities that rehearse the future” it is necessary to separate four layers: what we know, what we infer, what we decide and the consequence we impose.
When studying participation, the voice of young people, families, professionals, representatives and affected communities does not come at the same time or contain the same knowledge. In “Participating before changes decisions, participating only afterwards decorates them”, users, maintenance, care and direction provide different knowledge that must be gathered. The analysis needs to gather those views.
When working “Participating Before Changes Decisions, Later only decorates them” in communities that are testing the future, young people and adults can ask a decisive question: “What would have to happen to change your mind?”
In “Participating before changes decisions, participating only decorates them afterwards”, the exception is not noise: it shows if communities that rehearse the future take care of the person when the procedure stops being comfortable. For communities that test the future, participation analysis requires that an out-of-average case be actively listened to and reviewed, not automatically suspected. In communities that test the future, an alternative that requires special contacts or shame is not really accessible.
Practical test: Communities testing the future
To convert “Participating before changes decisions, participating only later decorates them” into a verifiable practice within communities that test the future, the proposal is to open the conversation before choosing, compare options and publicly explain what contributions the plan changed. Before applying it to all neighborhoods, schools, clubs, cooperatives, businesses and municipalities, it is appropriate to declare what result we expect, what harm would force to stop and who can make that decision without waiting for permission from the provider.
In “Participating before changes decisions, participating only afterwards decorates them”, when studying communities that rehearse the future, observation begins with an honest photograph of the present: total time, errors, abandonments, claims and differences between groups.
Measuring participation in collective decision-making on technology requires combining numbers and stories.
A decisive test for “Participating before changes decisions, participating only afterwards decorates them” in communities that are testing the future is to imagine a difficult Tuesday: someone is missing key, a connection falls, an emergency arrives and an unanticipated case appears. It is a question of checking whether the instructions are still understandable and whether it is still possible to prove on a human scale, to share authority and to learn publicly when the perfect conditions disappear.
The alternative must lead to an equivalent outcome. In communities that test the future, think from participation and preserve a way out protects those with the least resources, limits dependency and offers a real comparison on how much value technology brings and how much work it simply displaces.
The public explanation of participation applied to collective capacity to decide on technology can be found in six lines if the decision is ripe: purpose, information used, consequence, duration, responsibility and recourse.
Responsibility: Communities testing the future
In “Participating before changes decisions, participating only decorates them later”, responding requires real authority to pause, review and repair. In the collective capacity to decide on technology, participatory supervision cannot be limited to placing a person at the end of an automatic chain. Respondents in communities that test the future need evidence, time, resources and permission to correct a decision.
For mothers, parents and teachers, accompanying the collective ability to decide technology from participation is not to know more technology than young people.
For schools, clubs and businesses, the lesson of communities that rehearse the future observed from participation is the same: every tool organizes relationships.
The future as a common practice and not as a spectacle: from participation, the future truly impresses when an ordinary person can understand what changes, preserve a way out and participate in the decision.
So that “Participating before changes decisions, participating only later decorates them” in communities that are testing the future does not end in a statement, there are five questions: what problem do we solve?, what evidence would justify continuing?, who is left out?, who can stop it? and how will we repair?
The “WOW” of communities that test the future, seen from participation, is not a huge word or an inaccessible machine. That balance makes the collective ability to decide on technology in collective learning: curiosity without naivety, ambition without obedience and progress with the ability to return, correct and care.
