The future as a perception of time and context

Time is subjective, and so is the future it creates. The way we perceive time and its context defines or constrains how we approach the idea of the future. 

Different people and cultures perceive time diversely. It could be linear or circular; it could be open or closed; it could relate to destiny, fate, and faith or altered by individuals. These perceptions of time open up many questions when thinking about the future. If time is linear, does it has a beginning and an end? If it's circular, is it worth speculating about it? Although some pose an interesting philosophical discussion, we will focus mostly on how people perceive time worldwide.

The study of perceiving time

Chronemics is a field of study specialising in exploring how these different perceptions and uses affect culture and intercultural communication. In today's globalised and connected world, time expectations across cultures are very complex. As individuals, we need to be aware of the subtle, and mostly hidden, differences in perception and interpretation of the world around us. 

Introduced by American scholar and anthropologist Edward T. Hall, there are two ways of culturally perceiving time: monochronic and polychronic cultures also referred to as M-time or P-time cultures. Chronemics provide a handy distinction between M-time and P-time cultures, explaining many cross-cultural expectations, miscommunications, and frustrations that affect our images of the future.

Monochronic orientations typically emphasise a linear perception of time; prefer doing one thing at a time; establish clear beginnings and endings, as well as processes, procedures, tasks, goals, objectives and measurable outcomes. Time is segmented and precise, can be arranged and scheduled, and it is a commodity; it can be traded and valued.

Polychrohnic orientations typically emphasise a holistic and synchronous perception of time; prefer doing multiple things at a time; have dynamic schedules, and respond to diverse inputs and people simultaneously. Time is flexible, open, and sets the context for something to happen, so it is less valued than the relationships it triggers.

In Hall's research and work, culture is an extension of man concerning time and context. In sociology, culture is commonly defined as the untold set of norms, behaviours and rules that bond and connect a social group. 

Time in relationship with cultural context

Hall also introduced two concepts that culturally classify context: high-context and low-context cultures. It represents a continuum of how explicit the messages exchanged in a specific culture are and how important context is in communication and interpretation of given messages.

High-context cultures are more observant of connotation and other aspects of communication not directly spoken. In contrast, low-context cultures are more observant of denotation, communicating more directly and explicitly. The contextual communication level helps define other culture characteristics like diversity, language, tradition, collectivism or individualism, as depicted below. 

Monochronic orientations fit well with low-context, individualistic and task-oriented cultures like Germany, the United States or most Scandinavian countries, and polychronic orientations work well with high-context, collectivistic and relationship-oriented cultures like China, Latin American, Southern European and Arab cultures. 

Regarding time, no culture is entirely monochronic or polychronic, but each model serves a function that relies on its purpose. In terms of global business, most time is monochronic as it has to be scheduled, arranged, and measured. However, it might be polychronic in aspects of tradition, although both might happen simultaneously in the same country and experienced by the same individuals indistinctly.

These globalised differentiations of using time concerning cultural context are referred to as variably monochronic cultures; an in-between group influenced by different external and internal context appreciations.

Time, context, and culture affecting the futures

As individuals, we belong to a culture with a set of attributes that silently define how we perceive time, relevance and importance, and how it affects our expectations and frustrations about the future and the present and the past.

With its many diverse perceptions of time and context, different cultures create these proprietary boundaries, processes, and expectations that allow individuals to imagine, envision, and think differently about the future. It helps to prioritise the same topics differently, and it helps create an array of plurality in alternative futures.

But, as cultural globalisation expands, so does our imaginary of possible futures, increasing plurality and diversity by integrating different cultural appreciations of time and context into a new global imaginary.