{"id":961,"date":"2026-02-08T15:48:35","date_gmt":"2026-02-08T15:48:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/airis.org\/?p=961"},"modified":"2026-02-08T16:16:43","modified_gmt":"2026-02-08T16:16:43","slug":"the-image-of-the-future-why-social-imagination-shapes-what-we-build","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/airis.org\/es\/the-image-of-the-future-why-social-imagination-shapes-what-we-build\/","title":{"rendered":"The Image of the Future: Why Social Imagination Shapes What We Build"},"content":{"rendered":"
There is a difference between being realistic and letting risk run the whole conversation. Right now, many future narratives blur that line.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We talk\u2014often correctly\u2014about what could go wrong: AI disruption, climate instability, institutional fragility, job displacement. The risks are real, and ignoring them would be irresponsible. And yet, when risk becomes the only frame, something subtle happens. The future starts to feel smaller. We get better at diagnosis, but weaker at direction. We can list threats in detail, but we struggle to name what we want to build.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For me, the effect is quiet but noticeable. Even as someone naturally optimistic, risk-only narratives can drain energy. They narrow agency. They make bold action feel less imaginable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That\u2019s why, during a foresight training I\u2019m currently taking, I found myself rereading Fred Polak. His book The Image of the Future<\/em> offers a sharp lens for this moment: societies don\u2019t only struggle because of external shocks\u2014they also weaken when their shared images of the future lose vitality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What Polak meant by \u201cimages of the future\u201d<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Polak\u2019s core idea is simple. The futures a society holds in its mind shape what it can do in the present.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When those images are alive\u2014credible and motivating\u2014they mobilise long-term behaviour. For example: investment, innovation, cooperation, and institutional redesign. When those images fade, something deeper than optimism disappears. Orientation fades too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Importantly, this is not about \u201cpositive thinking.\u201d Polak is not asking us to cover hard realities with cheerful slogans. Instead, he points to a structural dynamic: images of the future are practical forces<\/strong>. They shape what a culture treats as realistic. They also shape what it funds, regulates, postpones, or accepts as inevitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How images become behaviour<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Polak\u2019s deeper point goes one step further. Images don\u2019t stay in the realm of ideas. Over time, they influence behaviour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A shared future-image shapes expectations. It also shapes what people consider \u201cworth it.\u201d As a result, it affects how much effort they are willing to invest. In that sense, future-images can reinforce themselves. If decline is the default, time horizons shrink. Renewal gets underfunded. Stagnation then becomes more likely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By contrast, when a society can hold a compelling and credible future, it tends to build capability. It attracts talent. It also takes smarter risks and strengthens institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Of course, a culture can be accurate about risk and still become trapped by it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When dystopian narratives dominate\u2014algorithmic control, climate collapse, social fragmentation\u2014risk becomes the whole story. Once that happens, the emotional climate changes. Decisions become more defensive. Time horizons get shorter. People focus on optimising the current system rather than redesigning it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Eventually, the future starts to feel like something that happens to<\/em> us, not something we can shape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is where Polak becomes especially useful. He helps name the pattern. The collective image loses vitality. Collective agency then drops with it. And because decisions follow imagination, shrinking the imagined future shrinks the range of action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The paradox: maximum capability, minimum imagination<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Here is the paradox. We have unprecedented technological capacity. Yet we also face a striking poverty of future imagination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
AI, biotechnology, and climate transition are reshaping the conditions of human life at extraordinary speed. Meanwhile, public narratives often swing between two extremes. Either catastrophe is inevitable, or technology will magically save us. In different ways, both positions can become forms of abdication. One ends in fatalism. The other ends in wishful thinking. Neither builds capability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That\u2019s why, as complexity rises, we need futures that are not only preferable. They must also be plausible. In other words, they must support serious decisions\u2014not just emotions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What this means for governance: future-images shape what gets funded<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Polak wasn\u2019t analysing corporate boards as such. He was analysing societies. Even so, in governance terms his point is highly practical. The future an institution carries shapes its priorities. It also shapes time horizons. Finally, it shapes what gets legitimised as \u201cresponsible\u201d decision-making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In practice, future-images shape:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
what boards treat as strategic vs. peripheral,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
what risks get prioritised (and which opportunities get dismissed as unrealistic),<\/li>\n\n\n\n
where capital goes (resilience vs. extraction),<\/li>\n\n\n\n
what time horizons are considered legitimate,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
and what trade-offs are treated as unavoidable.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Put simply, a board can have excellent metrics and still drift. That happens when its implicit image of the future is broken. The organisation may look rational on paper. Yet it can lose the inner capacity to move.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A practical tool: the Future Image Audit (30\u201345 minutes)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
So the practical question is clear: how do we rebuild imagination without slipping into na\u00efve optimism?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Here is a simple audit you can run with a team\u2014or in a board setting:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1) Name the default image (10 minutes)<\/strong> First, ask: \u201cWhen we talk about the future, what storyline dominates?\u201d Then write it in one sentence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2) Identify what it causes (10 minutes)<\/strong> Next, ask: \u201cWhat does this image make us do?\u201d For example: postpone investment, increase control, avoid experimentation, underinvest in learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3) Create two alternatives (10 minutes)<\/strong> Then draft:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
one\u00a0hard-but-plausible<\/strong>\u00a0future. Keep each as 3\u20135 bullet points.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
4) Translate into decisions (10\u201315 minutes)<\/strong> Finally, for the preferable-but-plausible future, choose:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
one investment to make,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
one governance move (oversight, KPI, incentives, policy), and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
one capability to build (skills, partnerships, data, ethics).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
At that point, imagination becomes strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Returning to Polak<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
In the end, if Polak is right\u2014and it becomes harder to dismiss him the more our world accelerates\u2014then the key question shifts. It is not only what technologies are arriving. It is also what images of the future we keep reinforcing as they do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because a shared image of the future is not decoration. It is an organising force. It shapes what we dare to fund. It also shapes what we postpone and what we label \u201crealistic.\u201d Finally, it shapes what we quietly accept as inevitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So the real risk today may not be external collapse. It may be an internal one: the slow starvation of social imagination. The response is not optimism. Instead, it is something more demanding: the deliberate construction of futures that are credible, shareable, and actionable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And if we invest according to what we carry in our heads, then reclaiming our capacity to imagine is not a luxury. It is a responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Key takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Societies rise or fall with the vitality of their shared images of the future.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Risk-only narratives don\u2019t just inform; they can quietly reduce agency and ambition.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
Future-images shape what institutions treat as realistic, urgent, and worth funding.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/airis.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/quote-the-rise-and-fall-of-images-of-the-future-precedes-or-accompanies-the-rise-and-fall-fred-polak-73-64-60-1.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n