Culture as Field Theory: The Dynamics of Our Collective Future

Imagine, culture is not a solid structure, but a network of deliberations and decisions, a vast, intangible space in which human experiences, beliefs, values, stories, and practices constantly interact and reconfigure themselves.

This network is characterized by high interdependence: all its elements – from individual values to complex practices – are dependent on and influence each other, so that a change in one place affects the entire system. This approach is linked to the ideas of field theory, as developed by Kurt Lewin, for instance, by examining behavior and phenomena within a comprehensive, dynamic context. While Lewin often referred to psychological and social fields, we extend the concept here to culture as an intangible field, arising from collective deliberations and interactions and constantly reforming. This network is the manifestation of our collective human striving for self-determination – the deep necessity to find answers to the fundamental questions of life from within ourselves, since no "external description" has been provided to us.

We refer to cultural intelligence as "artificial" because it possesses an intangible status. It resides in the neural networks of individuals and their interactions, yet lacks an evolutionarily positioned "body-thing" in the biological sense. It is the oldest intelligence of humans, which has enabled us as a species to solve complex problems and orient ourselves in the world. Its intelligence lies in its problem-solving competence under given conditions and within limited time. This often leads today to so-called time collisions, which arise from the different speeds between technological innovation and the unavoidable, often lengthy deliberation processes. In these "time collisions," we try to normatively weigh what is reasonable – a continuous process of collective Deliberation, which at times raises the call for a "good ruler" as an apparent shortcut. It is the network that enables us as a society to make reasoned decisions, manifesting in emergent practices.

Cultural Strategic Foresight is in this context the "Doing Future" – the conscious exploration, understanding, and co-shaping of this cultural network to decipher its logic, anticipate its dynamics, and influence its future manifestations. This "Doing Future" promotes the resilience and sovereignty in the sense of a successful culture. It circumvents a temporary stagnation, such as seems inherent in the Enlightenment. Tendencies towards purely instrumental reason can be avoided by establishing the "Doing Future" as a knowledge-practice future thinking and a method of critical thinking, it dampens the imperative of mere action and shields against potential errors.

Long-term thinking is most successful when you start with it in the short term.

The Dimensions of the Cultural Network: Scalars, Vectors, Matrices, and Tensors

Within every culture, there exist phenomena that appear in specific sense fields. According to the sense field ontology, there is no overriding sense field of all sense fields. Instead, sense fields are infinitely complex, nested, and intertwined. Each sense field is a specific area within the overall field in which certain meanings and contexts are active. Our goal is to describe these sense fields and interpret the dimensions contained within them. Here, we use the language of field theory to capture the various levels and complexities of these dimensions along our approach in the cycle for Cultural Strategic Foresight:

Scalar: The Single Value in the Network – The "Fact"

A scalar is the smallest, single value or a specific property within a sense field. It is a clearly defined "fact," representing a specific manifestation in the cultural network.

• Example: "5,000 family doctor positions are currently unfilled." This value is an isolated data point providing specific information in a relevant sense field (e.g., "healthcare").

Vector: The Directed Force in the Network – The "Trend"

A vector is a collection of scalars indicating a specific direction, trend, or directed force within a sense field. It describes a movement or development in the cultural network.

• Example: The scalar of the 5,000 unfilled family doctor positions is part of the vector "skill shortage and supply gaps in healthcare". This vector summarizes that it is not just about the specific number of unfilled positions, but also factors such as the aging population, decreasing attractiveness of the family doctor profession for young doctors, and the general strain on the healthcare system, all creating a common direction and force in a sense field.

Matrix: The Static Structure in the Network – The "Relationship Level"

A matrix is a structured arrangement of vectors and scalars representing a snapshot or a specific "relationship level" within a sense field. It shows how different trends and facts are interrelated at a specific time or in a specific area, and which static structures emerge in the cultural network.

• Example: The matrix "future healthcare in Germany" could encompass vectors such as "skill shortage and supply gaps" (with the scalar of the 5,000 unfilled family doctor positions), "digitalization of medicine" (telemedicine, e-prescriptions), and "change in patient expectations" (greater participation, wellness focus). This matrix shows us a complex network of relationships within a specific sense field of healthcare.

Tensor: The Dynamic Connection in the Network – The "Field Theory in Action"

A tensor is the most complex and comprehensive structure. It represents a specific, dynamic sense field or large, interconnected parts of it in its full, dynamic multidimensionality. The tensor is the description of the cultural network itself, as it changes, interacts, and brings forth new cultural phenomena across various dimensions – such as timelines, different social groups, value systems, or global technological developments.

The tensor captures the emergent properties of the cultural network: its ability to adapt, create new meanings, and find solutions for its own existence. It is the dynamic model with which the cultural network organizes itself and generates "problem-solving" (in the form of new cultural practices, norms, or systems).

• Example of a tensor in the context of the cultural network: In the case of healthcare, the tensor "resilience of the health and social system in the Anthropocene" would be a suitable term. This tensor would not only contain the matrix "future healthcare in Germany," but also other, nested sense fields and their matrices like "climate change and its health impacts," "global pandemic preparedness," "technological disruptions" (e.g., AI in diagnostics), "change in the world of work and appreciation of care professions" across different social milieus and time periods. This tensor describes how the entire cultural network processes these interconnected challenges and brings forth new, emergent answers for societal resilience. It is the comprehensive representation of how our culture steers and evolves itself.

Why this Field Theory Analogy?

This linguistic transfer allows us to speak about complex cultural phenomena and their future directions with a precision known from the world of field theories. We can thereby convey more clearly in discourse:

• Where we stand: By locating an issue, a phenomenon or a problem as a scalar, vector, matrix, or tensor, we immediately know which level of abstraction we are considering and which contexts are relevant.

• How we proceed: The analogy provides a structure to systematically resolve unstructured problems or questions – from individual "facts" (scalars) to "trends" (vectors) and "networks of relationships" (matrices) to the holistic "field theory in action" (tensor).

This approach helps to create field descriptions that can ultimately lead to comprehensive field theories – always in the understanding of the cultural virtual space.