Amy Kind is Russell K. Pitzer Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Gould Center at Claremont McKenna College. She also serves as editor of this blog.
A report by Amy Kind
Rewind to one year ago. In October 2023, a group of folks interested in imagination convened for a two-day workshop hosted by the Arthur C. Clarke Center for Human Imagination at UC San Diego. We were brought together by Erik Viirre and Cassi Vieten with the aim of discussing their “Atlas of Imagination," a project that maps various dimensions of imagination and differentiates it from adjacent constructs. Workshop participants represented a variety of different disciplinary perspectives as well as a variety of occupations; in addition to philosophers, psychologists, and scientists, there were also academics who focus on imagination in teaching contexts like engineering, plus a number of practitioners who attend to imagination in their work on topics such as sonification, world-building, veteran affairs, or climate change. Over the course of that workshop, not only was considerable conceptual progress made but, perhaps just as importantly, some deep personal and scholarly connections were forged. And by the end of the two days, WIN – the World Imagination Network – was officially launched.
Now fast forward back to the present. After a series of Zoom meetings over the course of AY23-24, the group came back together in-person last week at the Center for Science and the Imagination (CSI) at Arizona State University for WIN 2. Our hosts, CSI co-directors Ed Finn and Ruth Wylie and their amazing staff, curated a series of events and activities in an effort to facilitate conceptual progress while also allowing for “magic and serendipity.” The workshop opened on Wednesday night with a welcome reception and poster session showcasing innovative projects at ASU related to futures, storytelling, and speculative imagination. Over the next two days, the program featured a variety of session types – panels, large-group discussions, and small-group collaborations – as well as imaginative explorations that included improv exercises and an imagination scavenger hunt. And let’s not forget the impromptu dance party! The event closed with an immersive VR experience at ASU’s Dreamscape Studios where six brave workshop participants successfully diagnosed the medical problems plaguing a tribe of alien dinosaurs and then also successfully completed an Indiana Jones-style quest to recover the lost pearl.
The key conceptual work was accomplished during the four panel sessions and ensuing discussions. The first panel, moderated by Ed Finn, focused on “Defining Imagination.” Panelists included psychologists Cassi Vieten and Brendan Bo O’Connor and global futures scientist Lauren Keeler. Emerging from the panel discussion was a metaphor of imagination as electricity, with a corresponding characterization of imagination as interstitial. Though imagination does seem bounded, those boundaries are fuzzy – both porous and promiscuous. But this raises a crucial question for consideration: what isn’t imagination?
The second panel focused on “Dangers of Imagination,” and included a trio of philosophers: Stephen Asma, Clinton Tolley, and myself. Moderator Ruth Wylie began with the question: Who has the permission to imagine? Though there was wide agreement that everyone should have the permission to imagine, there was also wide agreement that not everyone takes themselves to have this permission. Imagination is prized when we are very young, but the active encouragement to imagine soon turns to active discouragement as we grow. Once we’re adults, our career pathways also seem to dictate whether imagination is encouraged or discouraged. As the conversation developed, and matters concerning the ethics of imagination were discussed, an important caveat emerged: Though it may well be that the permission of imagination should be extended to all, that does not mean that everything goes in imagination. Even if there should not be limits on who gets to imagine, there may indeed be limits on what gets to be imagined.
The panelists addressing “Imagination and AI” included data sonification specialist (and creator of Breathscape) Robert Alexander, writer and artist Fabrice Guerrier (founder of Syllble), creativity expert Ron Beghetto, and artist and engineer Robert Twomey. The conversation addressed a variety of questions ranging from the role for human imagination in the future of generative AI to whether computational systems have imagination. As Robert Alexander noted, if we look at the history, we see AI repeatedly managing feats that people were sure it would never be able to do. Surely no computer could ever beat a chess master … then Kasparov loses to Deep Blue. Surely the fact that Go involves human intuition means that no machines could ever figure it out … then Lee Sedol loses to AlphaGo … But visual art, but poetry … The machines keep managing to do what we never thought they could. Humans seem to have a really deep stake in thinking that machines will never be able to manage whatever it is that really makes us human. And that’s where imagination comes in.
From there the conversation ranged over a variety of topics, from the importance of meaning making when we think about the role of imagination in creativity, to the fact that creativity requires difference: When people are being creative, they are always in dialogue with something. As Robert Twomey noted, Midjourney is really just a cliché machine. Though it can facilitate the manifestation of ideas, you need a real dialogic tension in order to achieve real creativity; you need a human user working critically with the system to produce anything of worth.
The final panel discussion, on “Imagination in Schools,” included philosopher Peter Langland-Hassan, USCD professor of engineering Karcher Morris, and artist, futurist and world-builder Robert Sinclair. Addressing the question of whether imagination is a want or a need, Karcher emphasized that it’s a need: We need engineers to be connecting in such a way that they are practicing their imagination. Sinclair highlighted the ways in which social media use by children and teens disrupts the boredom essential for imagination to grow and flourish. In a similar vein, he recommended reducing homework to allow children free reign outside of school to follow their imagination. Langland-Hassan talked about the ways in which fostering imagination—and theoretical perspective-taking in particular—can help to combat entrenched polarization. To that end, he emphasized the value of having students meditate on and articulate moral and political viewpoints they themselves oppose, as part of in-class role-playing games.
But the meeting was not just about the philosophy and science of imagination, it was also about discussing next steps for WIN. During several workshop sessions, participants split into three working groups. The first working group focused on toolkits and curriculum, with the goal of “assembling tools, curricula, and resources to assess and spark the fire of imagination, with the goal of making these tools broadly accessible.” More specifically, the group aims to serve as an imagination “clearinghouse” by (1) collecting and curating already-existing resources both online and in print; (2) compiling university coursework, syllabi, and outcomes related to imagination; and (3) developing imagination units and tool-kits that can be incorporated into creative workflows, syllabi and coursework as exercises, learning outcomes, and modules.
The second working group focused on interactive and community-based activities. In particular, WIN plans to be the parent organization for a nationwide network of worldbuilding clubs hosted at colleges, high schools, and other community organizations. WIN will provide start-up kits to the clubs, which contain ideas for club meetings and activities, and will host an annual meeting for all the clubs. A central annual activity for each club will be the collaborative creation and development of a “world” where a pressing challenge for humanity is faced. WIN will provide a general guiding theme—such as oceans, space, or air—to unite the projects each year. The “worlds” created will be multi-disciplinary and multi-modal, and may involve narratives, artworks, engineering plans, political treatises, and so on. At the annual meeting, each club will present the world it has built over the course of the year. Worlds will be judged by a panel of WIN leadership members and prizes will be awarded in a variety of categories, including “World of the Year.” If you’d be interested in sponsoring a worldbuilding club at your institution, please get in touch with Peter Langland-Hassan: Langland-Hassan@uc.edu.
Finally, the third working group focused on developing an organizational infrastructure for WIN, with plans underway for a website, logos/branding, funding proposals, and governance documents. Over the course of the meeting, a draft mission statement was developed:
Imagination is our greatest superpower
Our network comes together to promote the interdisciplinary study and practice of imagination. We believe in the power of imagination to enhance the essential nature of humanity and to generate new knowledge and solutions. Imagination stands as a form of protest against the perceived confines of reality, a powerful tool for emancipation, and a catalyst for agency and possibility. We look to imagination to enrich and uplift human experience, to navigate the existential challenges facing the world today, and to chart a course for a better future for all.
Throughout the next year, the working groups will be meeting by Zoom to advance their goals, until we all come back together a year from now for WIN 3 at Claremont McKenna College in fall of 2025. As our network continues to grow, we hope to get more Junkyarders involved – so you may well be hearing from us soon!
* * *
Thanks to fellow WIN member Peter Langland-Hassan for feedback on an earlier draft of this post.