Going Forward: Exploring an Ideology
This brief essay was written with an ironic tone.
“Going forward” or “moving forward” is one of those phrases commonly heard around the office—with a ring of vapid inanity to it. It is used in the bureaucracies of both business and government agencies; I have even heard President Barack Obama use it before. Such empty buzzwords are of course fodder for mockery, but does the phrase mean anything at all? Does it carry with it certain assumptions about how the world is or how it ought to function?
In short, there is an ideology behind “going forward.” The phrase immediately conjures to mind the mathematical concept of the vector. Where we are in the present moment is the initial point, and then we move along that vector to “move forward.” The one-dimensional linearity of the concept fades as we realize that vectors are typically defined at some angle from the axes of origin. In a two-dimensional plane, this enables us to move not only forward but also left, right, and even backward! We would be equally free to move at some angle between these cardinal directions. Adding a third dimension enables us further to go up, down, and at many other angles. Not to get too crazy, but superstring theory posits up to eleven dimensions of spacetime although the extra seven are thought to be curled up on themselves. We could even choose to not move at all: Instead of “going forward,” we could “stay steady.” This in itself could be perceived as motion relative to the movement of other objects. And of course where we have motion, we have velocity, and we may also have acceleration.
Of course the managerial types are in all likelihood not considering mathematics or physics when they pronounce that something will be what’s done “going forward.” The analogy would bring to mind the possibility of infinite options. And what scares middle managers more than this uncertainty? The middle manager is constrained to take the direction set from the higher-ups, the workers who implement this direction being another step further removed from the decision. What we are left with is a collective of individuals manically striving against one another to perfect themselves as the ultimate instrument of another’s will: a rank absurdity lower than any Albert Camus contemplated in The Myth of Sisyphus.
Tacit in the phrase “going forward” is an acceptance of the modern idea of progress, one challenged by postmodernism. More practically, a particular instance of “going forward” can be challenged on its own narrow criteria of success or failure. It can then be challenged at broader levels: organizational, societal, and also at the level of the constituent individuals who partake in the project or who stand to lose or gain from its impact. A person can narrowly succeed in “going forward” within the bounds of an organizational directive while still failing massively as a human being; Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) diligently carried out the tasks of the Khmer Rouge when the consequences of those actions on human life were horrendous.
So next you’re asked to start “moving forward,” think about what those imposed notion of “forward” really means.
Matt Wittmann