By José Ramos and Jeanne Hoffman
Pacifica Means Peace is a project dedicated to envisioning a future of peaceful coexistence between the USA, China, and all the other countries in the Pacific Rim. The project uses a participatory futures approach to explore the futures we collectively wish to avoid and those we aspire to create.
The stakes in fostering a peaceful future between these two great powers couldn’t be higher. Cooperation between the USA and China would advance global efforts in science, trade, and addressing shared challenges like climate change, creating pathways for mutual growth and shared prosperity. Conversely, ongoing conflict—whether in the form of trade wars, cultural disconnects, or real war—would be deeply damaging, halting progress and amplifying global instability with no real victors.
To begin breaking down the rigid narratives that tend to default to conflict, Pacifica Means Peace engages participants in envisioning alternative futures through a series of structured workshops.
Platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and various digital news outlets often shape public narratives, which frequently default to images of conflict. Within echo chambers and filter bubbles, messages are amplified, reinforcing a bounded rationality that frames decision-making in narrow, confrontational ways. Moving beyond these divisive narratives requires a shift toward a commons perspective—one that reduces the risk of conflict and imagines pathways to peace. This approach demands a forensic understanding of how historical choices, worldviews, and ideologies have shaped today’s realities, allowing us to unpack and reframe the roots of conflict. Since our visions of the future significantly influence our actions, cultivating inclusive, alternative narratives based on collective aspirations for peace becomes essential. Such a vision, shared by all, can provide a transformative path forward.
Our First Engagement
Our first engagement began by identifying “used futures”—pre-existing, often unchallenged assumptions that dominate our thinking about international relations and frame the relationship as inevitably competitive or hostile.
The workshop was a modest, two-hour online session, open to all, and attended by about ten participants.
Our approach was straightforward, rooted in a futures studies methodology. We began by examining the “used future” of the issue and then posed the question, “What’s impossible today that, if it were possible, would change everything—or at least shift things significantly?” Though we initially aimed to cover more ground, this focus proved to be fruitful.
Exploring the “used future” was crucial in shaping the project’s direction. Participants consistently questioned the traditional international relations and realist perspective, challenging assumptions such as the inevitability of violence as human nature, the notion of a “just war,” and the zero-sum logic in geopolitics where there are only winners and losers. They also scrutinized doctrines like spheres of influence, widely applied during the Cold War by figures such as Kissinger, and the idea that nations must choose between military defense or weakness—captured in statements like “if you want peace, prepare for war.” The group further challenged the notion that competition is unavoidable, particularly due to limited resources that allegedly lead to conflict, and the belief that US-China peace is unattainable due to a lack of shared values.
The Grain of Sand (in the Oyster)
Fittingly, we had a participant from an Institute in Australia connected to the very perspectives that were being critiqued in the workshop. He quite candidly said that it felt like the fundamental approach and perspective that he and his colleagues take in their work was being prematurely discarded in this workshop. He questioned the analytic value of the idea of the “used future”, as he felt that many of the comments were very broad sweeping value judgments. It was one of those special moments of agonism – where there were fundamental disagreements and perspective
We left the workshop in a somewhat uncertain headspace. On one hand, we both come from a critical future studies tradition that is very aware that the perspectives and worldviews that operate in the world are complicit in the problems we experience, especially the Hobbesian inspired view that takes a very dim view of human nature. But we also sensed that there was an element of truth to what the participant with the IR background was saying.
Session 2 – Hacking History
The idea of using an alternative history approach emerged because we were looking for a way for people to engage with the specificities of a conflict situation, while at the same time bringing their ideals for peace to transform that conflict situation. In a sense it was a mix of realism and idealism, an acknowledgement that they conflict situation is complex and requires a level of detailed understanding, but at the same time the desire to bring our ideals and values in transforming it.
We wanted to reflect on how path dependence—where past decisions lock nations into rigid trajectories—shapes current geopolitical dynamics. Yet, history was not bound to unfold in any particular way; alternative choices at pivotal moments could have led to vastly different outcomes. By “hacking” the past—exploring what might have been under alternative scenarios—we can challenge the assumption that current geopolitical realities are inevitable. This approach opens up possibilities for reimagining paths forward, reminding us that while history influences the present, it does not determine the future.
The idea of alternative history made sense because there were already well established histories for particular conflict situations. The histories of the opium war, The Korea conflict, and the lack of dialogue during the cold war have been well established. Participants could read and learn about the conflict situations. There was to some degree a tacit knowledge of the conflict situations, as the people who came brought with them pre-existing knowledge.
At the same time participants were invited to imagine how that conflict situation could have been handled differently. They were invited to create alternative histories that would in the end create an alternative present and alternative future. Participants got to experience the idea of historical contingency, that a number of factors came together in the past to create a particular outcome. However it was not preordained or fated, and a different set of actions could have produced alternative outcomes.
The different stages that we used for the process included:
- Familiarisation
- Mutation
- Exploration
- Significance
Familiarisation was the stage within which people got to understand the conflict situation; mutation was the process by which the group changed what happened in that historical moment; exploration was how that change in history led to a different present and different future; finally significance is what this all means for the present moment and the present situation, eg what did we learn that we can take away that is useful?
The three groups went through the process in a fairly straightforward way. Sometimes a particular step would take longer and a group might get stuck. But ultimately all three groups were able to work through the various steps.
There was a palpable sense of excitement that came out of the exercise. While we cannot speak for the participants experience, our observations were that we felt a sense of power and agency in being able to untangle the conflict situation and reconfigure it. Relating back to the idea of historical contingency, there was a sense that the trajectory of societies are not predetermine or fated, but rather more intelligent and wiser choices will get us to better futures. In that sense there was a feeling that it is possible to intervene, and change the course of a conflict situation for the better.
However the other learning is that those intervention points are very specific.
For example the learning in the Korea conflict group showed that the division of Korea into two parts set in motion a conflict dynamic that was almost impossible to reverse. The point of intervention in this conflict was well before Korea was divided. A different structure of governance for Korea needed to be created, and the moment of intervention was a particular window in time to avoid this. That of course doesn’t mean that change can’t happen after this moment, but it does evoke the idea of path dependence, it becomes harder to change.
Path dependence is the idea that as a particular dynamic emerges within a conflict situation, the more those actors play within the parameters of that path, the more difficult it will be to change paths. Path dependence is an idea in social and natural sciences relating to how social and ecological systems follow particular developmental trajectories. Galtung discussed this dynamic through the idea of a “meta-conflict”, a conflict that has taken on a life of its own, what are the different actors have created mutually exclusive narratives of victimhood.
Even though a sense of power emerged from using our historical imagination and connecting with the idea that useful interventions can be made, there was nonetheless the “so what” question as well. These were historical circumstances that have already played out and they can’t be changed. They led us to the present moment and this is the moment we’re in.
This is where we want to begin in the next experiment and process, by taking the learning from this session into a new session, where instead of packing a historical moment, we can look at present day dilemmas and begin to look for intervention points that are critical now, in which we would potentially create positive or negative path dependencies depending on how events played out.
But before we get into this there are some deeper reflections
Borders, lines, delineations
One of our reflections is that geography, culture and ideology conspire together to create overly rigid delineations between countries. Countries imagine other countries in contradistinction to themselves. Somewhat reminiscent of the idea of schismogenesis put forward by Graeber and Wengrow in “The Dawn of Everything”, countries define themselves as against the Other. As well, the geographic separation of countries is distinctly different than how individuals or groups interact. Individuals and groups can intermingle within a geography, while countries follow strict geographic boundaries, that don’t allow them to interact within those boundaries. There’s a totality to borders.
Thus the US China dynamic of anti-capitalist and anti-communist ideology in the 1940’s onwards prevented them from engaging with one another. Their ideologies pitted one vs the other, and geography conspired to maintain an all-encompassing reality for each. One can never understand their neighbour if they don’t visit or talk from time to time. Geography and culture can conspire to create a path dependence of dissociation with the Other.
Culture and worldview is not something that can easily be changed, as they build up from collective and shared experiences over long periods. Particular narratives and stories about who we are and who they are become prevalent and can take on a life of their own. These identities or fantasies about the other and about ourselves can prevent one country from engaging with another country, or can limit the range of options and possibilities that people within each see as possible.
We also reflect however on a deeper phenomenon that undercuts and transcends the limitations of both geography and culture worldview: countries share in a number of commons, those things that are needed for our mutual survival and well-being.
Peace is foremost at the top of this list, but as well are mutual and coordinated efforts to address climate change, and there are a number of other important commons, public health, and economic. Drawing on the work of Elinor Ostrom and now now hundreds of scholars who have applied thinking on the commons to a wide variety of areas, where commons exist, there’s a need for collaborative governance. Collaborative governance means that those groups that share in a commons, that depend on a commons for survival and well-being, need to enter into efforts to govern it for the well-being of all parties involved.
Which brings us to some quite fundamental questions, which are not being asked in the polarising discourses that are common in the media.
- What types of collaborative governance are needed between the United States and China and other nations?
- What are the shared commons that the US and China are implicated in together?
- What kinds of interventions might be wise or useful in steering relations toward better ends, drawing from these principles?
Trip hazards
We use the metaphor of trip hazards to think about unwanted events that send us down a negative path dependence. These are events that have the potential to flare up conflict, create polarisation in oppositional dynamics, and prevent countries from addressing mutually shared commons.
Path dependence relates closely to the “used future” because of how certain historical decisions and entrenched worldviews have “locked in” specific geopolitical dynamics. This concept recognises that once a particular direction is taken, it becomes increasingly challenging to reverse or change course due to the cumulative effect of previous decisions. In addition, particular worldviews and ideologies can limit our vision of the possibilities for action, dialogue and engagement that we might have in a geopolitical conflict, and can even harden in a conflict situation of another country is seen as “the enemy”, further locking in a path dependence.
For example, Cold War ideologies embedded a sense of opposition between the USA and China, reinforcing a path where dissociation and rivalry were the default. By understanding path dependence, we can see how past actions restrict today’s possibilities and create patterns that can be difficult to break, even when alternative futures are desired.
Legacy dynamics emerge from past decisions and experiences that set processes in motion, creating a self-reinforcing trajectory that is difficult to change. Once certain decisions are made, they often lead to structures, norms, and expectations that lock in a particular direction. This is especially relevant in geopolitical relations, where historical decisions—such as alliances, conflicts, or economic agreements—form the basis of a continuing relationships, defining the rules, behaviours, and narratives that follow.
For example, the division of Korea in 1945 didn’t just create a temporary boundary; it established a legacy dynamic of rivalry, deeply entrenching ideological, military, and economic divisions that are challenging to undo even today.
Each subsequent decision, influenced by this division, further reinforced the pathway of antagonism, making alternatives to conflict harder to envision and implement. Similarly, the Cold War shaped US-China relations embedded mutual distrust and competition. As a result, current policies and attitudes are influenced by the Cold War’s legacy, perpetuating a dynamic where cooperation is challenging and conflict feels almost inevitable.
In this sense, path dependence is about momentum: each decision adds layers of reinforcement, making the path harder to diverge from over time. Even if a nation or leader wants to change direction, legacy dynamics create institutional and social pressures to maintain the status quo. This reinforces the importance of recognising how past choices have shaped today’s “default” dynamics, allowing us to identify where interventions might create new possibilities.
Worldview shapes how nations perceive themselves and others, influencing decision-making and fueling certain narratives over others. Social cognitive dissonance arises when new perspectives clash with deeply held beliefs, making it uncomfortable or challenging to accept alternative viewpoints. Worldviews are therefore “accrued”—they are not formed instantly but are a product of layered experiences, passed down and amplified over time. This is why changing worldviews is so difficult: they are embedded in institutions, cultural stories, and even individual identities.
Participants had to engage with cognitive dissonance as they challenged ingrained ideas about inevitable conflict, competition for resources, and fixed national identities. This reflection enables them to recognise the role of worldviews in sustaining conflict and opens space for more collaborative and peace-oriented perspectives.
Bridging the Two Concepts
When legacy dynamics and accrued worldviews intersect, they create a powerful lock-in effect that keeps nations on rigid trajectories. These dynamics make it challenging to step out of established paths, as each action appears to validate the current worldview and reinforce past choices. For example, if one nation enacts a policy of deterrence, it can validate the other nation’s view of them as a threat, which in turn justifies its own deterrence policy. This cycle continues, reinforcing both the legacy dynamics and the worldview.
By understanding these layered, self-reinforcing processes, initiatives like Pacifica Means Peace seek to challenge legacy dynamics and question the inherited worldviews, opening the way for new approaches to international relations that prioritise peace and cooperation over entrenched competition and conflict.
Next steps
With these reflections in mind, the next experiment aims to apply these concepts in an online participatory futures engagement.
We’ll be using the metaphor of trip hazards to identify potential events or dynamics that would lead to pathological path dependencies, eg hardened or locked in trajectories leading us to escalating conflict situations. Instead of looking for historical trip hazards, as we did in the last workshop, this time we’ll be looking for trip hazards that exists today and in the near future.
The three themes where we’ll be looking for trip hazards will be in the areas of:
- Climate
- Security
- And the interface between technology and economy
These three themes will delve into particularities, for example with climate change we may look at the context of Pacific Island nations, and the power struggles between China and the U.S. The intertwining of climate vulnerability and geopolitical competition has led to limited choices for these nations. For security we may examine the threat of a blockade of Taiwan. Both Taiwan and China are locked into a trajectory that has made it difficult to resolve their differences, and any significant deviation from this path would require a dramatic shift in long-standing policies and perceptions. Finally we’ll look at the intersection of technology and economy, as tit-for-tat trade tariffs and technology embargoes are part of an escalation of conflict centred on technological and economic rivalry.
Once we identify the trip hazard in three particular thematic areas, we will then work in groups to “hack” this particular situation, envisioning how we would prefer this particular moment to unfold. After this we will explore what future this hack has led us to, how the trim tabbing of this particular situation has led to an alternative future. We will then look at what the implications are for the present.
The process will follow the same steps that we took in the last workshop:
- Familiarisation
- Mutation
- Exploration
- Significance
We’ll be applying “win-win” principles to these conflict “trip hazards”, for example using ideas related to the need for collaborative governance, the planetary commons, and drawing on the work of Johan Galtung.
Join Us
You’re invited to join us for this upcoming workshop for this next experiment envisioning peace. Register on this link to be part of the workshop.
Futures Lab 