The explosion of futurisms in the last three decades as transmedial movements that engage in processes of futuring (i.e. imagining and visualizing new futures) can be termed CoFuturisms. CoFuturisms include, for instance, Afro- and Africanfuturisms, Indigenous Futurisms, Aadivasi Futurisms, Chicanafuturism, Latinxfuturisms, Gulf-futurism, Arabfuturism, Sinofuturism, Desifuturism, South Asian Futurism, Dalit Futurism, Asia Futurism, Andean Futurism, Ricepunk, and Silkpunk, among many others. If one is to define CoFuturisms, it would be as follows. CoFuturisms are the assertion of three rights of equality and vision: the right of everyone to exist, the right to imagine one’s own future, and the right to difference. Such assertion is key to self-representation and a marker of separation from other identities which one might share. Self-representation is particularly important for those whose futures have been (and continue to be) colonized in various ways. Colonization may take the form of continued economic dependence resulting from the machinations of global capitalism, or the continual cycle of wars and coups resulting from geopolitical interventions by foreign powers, or, quite simply, cultural colonization that erases and obliterates other forms of thinking and being in the world.

Hence these futurisms are not tied geographically; they belong to the world as ways of being in the world. Generating their own manifestos, these CoFuturisms now resonate around the world, emanating from the cultural and artistic sphere and transforming into social and political phenomena. These futurisms engage in worldbuilding, imagining possible futures as well as rewiring historical knowledge to recognize what has been erased or left out of history. The philosophy of history as a political project has always recognized future histories as a speculative project, but in CoFuturisms futures are already historical. The apocalypses of the future, such as those resulting from planetary ecocide, are not futures to come but futures that have always been here for people living in the reality of the devastation. There are Arabfuturisms in Europe and elsewhere, just as there are Eurofuturisms in the rest of the world because these futurisms are all constitutive of the other. Difference is carving out a space of existence between worlds: to find a space for some identities that constitute us by separating us from others that constitute us, even if we belong to multiple ones.

Beyond these continuing colonizations, as many formerly colonized states and peoples transform into hegemonies and colonizing forces of their own, the explosion of futurisms is only inevitable, and likely to continue, to the point where futurisms will arise wherever human beings seek to mark their own existence. Other CoFuturisms, such as LGBTQIA2S+ Futurisms, Queer futurisms, Xenofuturisms, and Crip-Futurisms, are for that reason just as inevitable as geopolitically or ethnically oriented ones, since they too emerge from the same basic principles: the right to exist, the right to imagine, and the right to difference. CoFuturisms resist unity and are fundamentally unstable. This is necessary if they are to retain their political potential and charge, since no single movement can be a new form of unifying discourse that erases other identities to assert itself. Beyond and within CoFuturisms, which refer to these movements, lie certain fundamental ethical propositions: propositions that are referred to by the philosophical concept of CoFutures. CoFuturisms are simply an instance of these propositions. These ethical propositions termed CoFutures are generative and motile and permanently in a state of unfolding into instances such as various futurisms.

What propositions are these? To some extent, our unruly capitalization gives us away: in the “Co” of CoFutures. The “Co” of CoFutures stands for six different ethical propositions, of which three are most relevant in the discussion of CoFuturisms: complexity, coevalness, and compossibility.

Complexity is the principle of diversity, and it unmasks uniformity as a totalitarian project. This means that any form of thinking or system-building that seeks to unwrap itself into a new form of totality and unity is inherently suspect. Complexity thrives on the proliferation of identities, values, knowledges, languages, ideas, and constantly seeks new forms of becoming. Uniformity is the totalitarianism at the heart of the political project of nation states, as well as the prison of ideas: it seeks to make everyone look, act, speak, believe, eat, and think the same, and be the same in mind, body, and spirit, rather than support the proliferation of identities that we really are as beings in the world. Therefore, the prisons of totality and uniformity always contain within them the seeds of their own dissolution. Looking at CoFuturisms, it is easy to see why the constant proliferation of new movements has become a defining trait of our times: it is because even CoFuturisms suffer from the risks of being monolithic and totalitarian. As movements, they work only as long as there are temporary conditions of coming together to achieve certain political ends, but they are easy to dissolve and dissipate into ever new forms of togetherness, new futurisms, afterwards. True diversity exists in a philosophical and ethical acceptance of the death of things we consider fundamental, including our values and identities themselves.

Coevalness is the state of things being in the same time, which is perhaps only a principle of respect that challenges the spatialization and weaponization of time. Coevalness means the rejection of a value system that has long colonized the world, whereby some cultures, some people, some nations, some technologies, some religions, some gender, some species, some ways of living and being are futuristic and progressive as compared to others. Such a value system automatically privileges some over others: for instance, one religion (or lack of one) is more progressive because of its espousal of some values while another is backward because it believes in something else, or one part of the world is more advanced and futuristic than another because it has greater technological or financial resources, etc. This value system is the lifeblood of colonialism, which forces the same understanding of teleological progress to the whole world and is backed by international financial instruments, as well as military and political muscle. Coevalness does not force us to suspend our understanding of what is more efficacious or useful, or what one might simply prefer over another. It rather demythologizes time to make us recognize that everything is in the same time, rather than in different times, and values do not stem from things being in different times. It also makes us recognize that what we consider values might just be a function of the resources or the privileges we have.

Compossibility, the third co, is the principle of balance. As a term, it refers to two things being together possible. Many futures are possible, but not all futures are together possible. Some futures, say, ethnically and culturally homogenous, supremacist, and bloodline or purity-oriented futures, are just as possible as futures that aim for diversity, multiplicity, and heterogeneity. Without making a value judgment on which future is preferable, compossibility simply asks us first to recognize that both these futures are equally possible. However, these futures are not possible together since they tend to cancel each other out due to their varying demands on the future. If one is to maintain complexity and coevalness, then compossibility makes it happen by directing us to futures that are together possible. Compossible futures are where different kinds of being and becoming can thrive, where diversity is not merely skin-deep but truly open to infinite kinds of proliferation and combinations, ever evolving more layers of possibilities.

CoFuturisms, as an instance of these propositions, are in the world to proliferate rather than to contain futures. Thus, instead of thinking of CoFuturisms themselves as some sort of coming together of various futurisms, which risks turning CoFuturisms into a monolithic concept and designation, the ”Co” disrupts this coming together except as a temporary state of political affiliation, achieving certain ends and moving on to becoming something else.

Take for instance, Arabfuturism, which is a central theme of this exhibition. In his “Towards a possible manifesto; proposing Arabfuturism(s) (Conversation A),” Scotland based artist-poet Sulaïman Majali conceives of Arabfuturisms in the plural and gestures toward CoFuturistic visions rather than outlining a monolithic futurism movement. Framing Arabfuturisms as a proposition and the manifesto itself as a possibility, Majali refrains from defining the principles and guidelines of an aesthetic or political project. Indeed, in a reinterpretation of the manifesto published in 2015, an extended note explicitly delinks Majali’s conception of Arabfuturisms from its connotations of “movement” and defines futurism as a mode of “anticipating a future,” “a defiant cultural break, a projection forward into what is, beyond ongoing eurocentric, hegemonic narratives.” Rooted in counter-cultural challenges to hegemonic definitions of identity, belonging, and futurity, Arabfuturisms call for an examination and activation of alternate possibilities latent in the present to envision and create diverse futures.

In their invitation to explore different pathways to possible presents, Arabfuturisms’ propositions encapsulate CoFuturistic concerns with complexity, coevalness, and compossibility. One way in which Arabfuturisms aim at complexity is through the sustained critique of reductive and homogenized definitions of identity and belonging. Such critique addresses all forms of othering that seek to suppress the complexity and movement of diverse, entangled, and proliferating identities—or in Majali’s words, “the emergence of an autonomous hybrid sedimentation of identities” (151). Written in a polyvocal and patchy style as an ongoing conversation, the manifesto resists closures, definitions, and completion also in its form. With its emphasis on complexity and breaking down established boundaries, Arabfuturisms are more concerned with proliferating forms of becoming than with defining an ethnofuturist vision.

Searching for new forms of representation “beyond the logic of the state,” Arabfuturisms are as critical of Eurocentric and colonial discourses and Orientalist stereotypes around Arabness as they are of Arab nationalist discourses, which welcome certain identities while suppressing others (151). Moving beyond the logic of the state requires a thorough questioning and dismantling of nationalist discourses through the critical re-examination of history. Such discourses often mobilize restrictive conceptions of origins and teleological conceptions of time to claim the superiority/futurity of a group while relegating others to an insurmountable state of belatedness, backwardness, or lack. Arabfuturisms reject such hierarchical and essentialized divisions between peoples and highlight instead their coevalness. The futures are many; they are everywhere; and they are for everyone to envision and build, even if hegemonic value systems adhere to a hierarchical organization of futurity. The principle of coevalness does not accept such hierarchical divisions at face value and calls instead for an acknowledgement of the histories of dispossession and oppression that underlie power inequalities. This is why the re-examination of history and the unearthing of neglected histories are central features of many Arabfuturist works which imagine the future by rewriting the past. These works often demonstrate how hegemonic claims to the future are founded upon violent and dismissed histories of colonialism, imperialism, and racism. Arabfuturisms underscore the necessity of envisioning futures in conversation with these histories to produce new conceptions of futurity.

As an artist based in Europe, Majali’s Arabfuturist imaginary may have been inspired primarily by the experiences of discrimination faced by diasporic Arab communities in Europe. He writes, “There is something happening in Europe,” and adds “It is a citadel of illusion that has collapsed” (153). Yet, such citadels and their accompanying colonial and nationalist ideologies are not unique to Europe, and they are being challenged across the Middle East and globally by CoFuturisms. Particularly in the past decade, there has been a considerable growth in the number of authors, artists, and filmmakers who employ speculative and futuristic storytelling not only in Arabic speaking countries but also in Turkey and Iran, and their diasporas. Although the discussions around Arabfuturisms have so far focused predominantly on the work of visual artists in the diaspora, Arabfuturisms find expression also in the literature and music produced in the Middle Eastern and North African contexts. Arabic literary criticism often situates texts with Arabfuturist concerns within genre discussions on science fiction, utopia, and dystopia. Yet, many Arabfuturist texts cross genre and media boundaries; they merge classical and modern genres, colloquial and formal registers of language, and combine oral, visual, and performative modes of storytelling with writing. Arabfuturisms are CoFuturistic both in this transmediality and in the sense that their concerns extend beyond Arab identity and Europe toward a more global outlook. In seeking “collaborative genealogies” (153) that can establish solidarities with decolonization and social justice struggles elsewhere, Arabfuturisms invite us to envision different forms of becoming possible together.

References
Chattopadhyay, Bodhisattva. 2021. “Manifestos of Futurisms”. Foundation vol.50(2), no.139. 8-23.

Chattopadhyay, Bodhisattva. 2022. “Speculative Futures of Global South Infrastructures.” In  Urban Infrastructuring: Reconfigurations,  Transformations and Sustainability in the Global South. Ed. Deljana Iossifova et al. SpringerNature: Sustainable Development Goals Series. 297-208.

Chattopadhyay, Bodhisattva. 2020. “The Pandemic That Was Always Here, and Afterward: from Futures to CoFutures.” Science Fiction Studies 47.3. 338-340

Majali, Sulaïman. 2015. ‘Towards a Possible Manifesto; Proposing Arabfuturism(s) (Conversation A)’. In Cost of Freedom: A Collective Enquiry. Ed. Clément Renaud. No publisher. 151-3. http://costoffreedom.cc (accessed 01 December 2023). [The reinterpretation is available on  https://futuresofcolour.tumblr.com/post/161897827578/towards-arabfuturisms-manifesto-words-artwork]

Tabur, Merve. 2021. Ends of Language in the Anthropocene: Narrating Environmental Destruction in Turkish, Arabic, and Arab-Anglophone Speculative Fiction. Pennsylvania State University, PhD Dissertation.

Tabur, M. 2024. “Settling the Desert, Unsettling the Mirage: Urban Ecologies of Arab and Gulf Futurisms in Ahmed Naji’s Using Life.” Utopian studies, 35(1): 187-208. https://doi.org/10.5325/utopianstudies.35.1.0187

photo: Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay, ‘CoFutures Motif 3: It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank’. Ħal Tarxien, 2018

Dialogues is a place for being vocal. Here, authors and artists get together in conversations, interviews, essays and experimental forms of writing. We aim to create a space of exchange, where the published results are often the most visible manifestations of relations, friendships and collaborations built around Sumac Space. SUBSCRIBE NOW TO STAY CURRENT.

The post CoFutures—Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay and Merve Tabur appeared first on Sumac Space.