[Commlist] CFP: Future. A Time of History (Semiotic Journal VERSUS)

*Future. A Time of History*
Edited by Jorge Lozano (Universidad Complutense – Madrid) and Daniele 
Salerno (Universiteit Utrecht)

Founded in 1971 by Umberto Eco, who had been its editor-in-chief until 
his death in February 2016, Versus is one of the first international 
journals of Semiotics, Philosophy and Theory of Language. It is 
currently directed by Patrizia Violi (Università di Bologna. For further 
information see: http://versus.dfc.unibo.it/riv1_en.php).
For the issue number 131 (December 2020), edited by Jorge Lozano 
(Universidad Complutense de Madrid) and Daniele Salerno (Universiteit 
Utrecht), Versus invites contributions on the semiotic and cultural 
construction of the future.

Although Structuralism mainly focused on the synchronic dimension of 
phenomena, temporality is for Semiotics and for the analysis of the 
historical discourse a fundamental theoretical and methodological 
aspect. Indeed, the major social and political changes we are 
experiencing nowadays ask for a reflection on how we imagine and 
construct possible futures. Jurij Lotman defines the future as the space 
of possible states. From this perspective, history and memory are to be 
framed within the fundamental orientation of culture toward future 
experience. Yet, the semiotic construction of the future is a topic so 
far almost unexplored. The issue 131 of Versus, whose publication is 
planned for December 2020, will address this gap by exploring the 
semiotics of future.
Every era and culture have their own specific modalities to imagine the 
future and shape the temporal axis with past and present. 
Future-oriented regimes of historicity between the 18th and the 
beginning of the 20th century were dominated by the idea of progress and 
liberation (not to be forgotten the messianic temporality of some 
religions); in the 21st century the orientation of cultures toward the 
future is dominated by the catastrophe – nowadays particularly linked to 
the climate change –, with a projection on a temporal scale which is not 
only human but even geological (see the debate on the Anthropocene and 
the so-called “deep time”).
The future can take the narrative configuration of the promise or of the 
threat; or it can be represented in a conditional form as series of 
bifurcations in the temporal projection (if A in the present, B in the 
future; but if C in the present then D in the future).

*_ State of the art: making the future present_*
If Semiotics studies how systems of signs permit the presentification of 
absence, the theoretical reflection and the analytical work in the field 
have predominantly been focused on the study of how we make the (absent) 
past present. The linguistic study of the verbal tenses by Emile 
Benveniste, the semiotic analysis of emotions like nostalgia in Greimas, 
the analysis of some model texts like "Sylvie. Souvenirs de Valois" by 
Nerval or "Recherche" by Proust and the debate over the semiotic status 
of the trace epitomize how the construction of the past has been the 
main object of semiotic analysis. Indeed, the very ways we explain and 
conceptualize how signs link something present (the signifier) to 
something absent (the signified) often – or almost exclusively – focus 
on how something present is linked to something absent because belonging 
to the past. However, also the future is absent and need a semiotic work 
in order to be made present, thinkable and actionable through signs. If 
the presentification of the past has been a central topic in Semiotics, 
the presentification of the (still absent) future has been a topic so 
far neglected in the field.

Yet, the very semiotic canon can help us in developing a reflection on 
the future and on the semiotic modalities of its construction.
On one hand, Charles Sanders Peirce’s theory envisions meaning and habit 
not simply as the result of what has been, but also as the ensemble of 
the effects that could, in the future, be produced by a sign. Generally, 
semiosis is the progressive and temporary synthesis between a 
pertinentization of what has been (said or done) and the production of a 
bundle of possibilities regarding what will (probably) be.
On the other hand, the concept of explosion in Lotman locates the future 
within the perspective of the semiotics of culture: how does a culture 
construct and project its own possible futures in particular after an 
“explosive” unexpected change (e.g. a scientific discovery, a political 
change, a surprising event)?

  The relationalist approach is a fundamental aspect for the analysis 
of future in a semiotic perspective. This means that the future cannot 
be investigated by itself but always within the system of temporality. 
Hence, we need to question the future and the semiotic forms it takes 
always within the relationships that it establishes with present and 
past. On one hand, regarding the historical discourse and the 
construction of memory, the past is not only shaped according to the 
political and social needs of the present but also according to the 
image – which can be explicit or implicit in texts – of a future reader 
or audience that a text addresses. On the other hand, imagined futures 
hold a performative force in the present, namely they produce effects. 
In daily life, in media and communication, political discourse and in 
the strategic thinking we use the concepts of anticipation, deterrence, 
prevention (or pre-emption) and risk, which all imply the production of 
possible futures. Processes of anticipation, prevention or protection 
from future possible risks and catastrophes impact on the present, 
producing real effects. This is particularly true in the case of 
forecasts and self-fulfilling prophecies (particularly important in the 
economic discourse), in which a state of things is realized simply by 
envisioning a scenario.
The performativity of imagined futures is particularly relevant when the 
enunciators are subjects holding power (political or economic 
institutions) or knowledge (scientists), but also when collective 
subjects like demonstrators and political activists are involved.

  As cultural fact, the future exists according to different modalities 
and its efficacy is not simply limited to the realization of a new state 
of things.  The imagined futures that never could have been realized 
have indeed a semiotic existence: those futures that we would have liked 
to realize or could have realized are remembered and “stored” as failed 
actions (or failed narrative programs, in Greimas’s terms). Failed 
futures produce effects and in particular emotional effects like 
disappointment, regret and remorse. Worry and fear for what will happen, 
resignation when we face the impossibility to change the future of 
events, but also anger, aspiration and hope that mark the political 
practices of protest and activism are some of the many emotional 
configurations that emerge in the friction and tension between past, 
present and future in their different modalities of semiotic existence.

*_Topics_*
Proposals can develop a theoretical reflection and/or case analysis. 
This is a non-exhaustive list of topics:
1)    Theoretical aspects. The representation of the past can imply a 
judgment of truth or authenticity regarding the correspondence between 
the representation itself and the “real” past object or event. Yet, the 
representation of the future asks for different modalities and 
categories. In the construction of a plan of reference, the imagined 
future cannot be “true”, “false” or “authentic”; rather it can be 
“plausible”, “probable”, “credible” or “convincing”: how is the future 
constructed and imagined? How does it semiotically “exist”? What are the 
signs of the future in the present?
2)    Genres and discursive practices. Forecasts in science, prophecies 
in religions, predictions in divination, science fiction and dystopias 
in literature and media, the counterfactual narration and history are 
only some discursive genres that imagine possible and failed futures. 
How do these genres and texts work? How can we describe the performative 
power of futures?
3)    Future of the past: historical discourse, conservation, heritage, 
invention of tradition. The future is included in the past in different 
ways. Some texts are designed and stored to be transmitted to future 
generations: looking at itself from the perspective of a future reader, 
the present imagines and transforms itself into the past. The historical 
discourse reads the traces of the past imagined futures. Politics of 
heritage and its conservation, as well as the invention of traditions, 
envision the future and in particular imagine how people will read 
texts, will use and look at monuments and museums and will (re-)perform 
rituals. The past transmits also imagined and never realized futures 
that survive, persist and produce effects in the present. How do the 
past imagined futures survive and persist in the present?
4)    Politics of future: uses, abuses and conflicts. The future and the 
ways we imagine it are fundamental tools for governing the present. For 
example, in the last 20 years we used the concept of prevention, 
anticipation, pre-emption, risk and precaution in different contexts, 
with positive or even dramatic effects (e.g. the idea of “preventive 
war” in the so-called “war on terror”). What are the uses and abuses of 
the future? How do institutions, media and activists use and mobilize 
different visions of the future in the political life of our societies? 
How can we conceptualize the conflicts of/over the future (just like the 
“conflicts of/over memory”)?
5)    Emotions of the future. Regret, aspiration, hope: these are just 
some – collective and individual – emotions that narratively work by 
imagining possible futures (to be realized or whose realization failed). 
What are the passions of the future? How can the passion of the future 
be described? Which roles do the passions of the future have in 
triggering individual and collective actions?

*_Evaluation process_*
Proposals will be evaluated by the two editors of the volume, the 
editor- and vice editors-in-chief. Papers will be submitted to a 
double-blind peer-review process.

*_Deadlines_*
November 30, 2019: abstract between 600 and 700 words, plus a short 
bibliography and a bio;
December 20, 2019: notification of result;
April 15, 2020: paper not exceeding 40,000 characters (footnotes and 
bibliography count toward the word limit);
December 2020: publication of the issue 131.

The proposals are to be sent to the journal _*(redazione.vs /at/ gmail.com) 
<mailto:(redazione.vs /at/ gmail.com)>*_ and to the editors of the special 
issue Jorge Lozano (*(jorgelozano /at/ ccinf.ucm.es) 
<mailto:(jorgelozano /at/ ccinf.ucm.es)>*)  and Daniele Salerno 
(*(daniele.salerno /at/ gmail.com) <mailto:(daniele.salerno /at/ gmail.com)>*).

*_Languages_*
English, French, Italian

*_Style sheets_*
English: http://versus.dfc.unibo.it/VS_guidelines_ENG.pdf
Italian: http://versus.dfc.unibo.it/VS_criteriredazionali.pdf
---------------
The COMMLIST
---------------
This mailing list is a free service offered by Nico Carpentier. Please use it responsibly and wisely.
--
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit http://commlist.org/
--
Before sending a posting request, please always read the guidelines at http://commlist.org/
--
To contact the mailing list manager:
Email: (nico.carpentier /at/ vub.ac.be)
URL: http://nicocarpentier.net
---------------