The premature arrival of the future: clones and genetic engineering 1973

Christina Brandt


In his analysis of the emerging futurology or “future studies” in the 1960s and 1970s, Alexander Schmidt-Gernig has argued that, in contrast to older, more or less teleological approaches of the 19th and 20th century, the characteristics of the new future studies were their empirical, scientific and cybernetic basis. The attempt was not to predict the future with respect to “historical laws” (as it was common in 19th and early 20th century approaches such as utopian attempts or philosophies of history by Comte, Marx, Spencer or Spengler) but to get to “models of the future” by empirically collected and calculated data of the present. However, from this calculating attempt towards the future it was expected that it could help to steer development in a desirable direction.[1] As Schmidt-Gernig shows, the new “future studies” and the new futurology was a transnational phenomenon that became institutionalized already since the early 1960s, but it was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s that a massive wave of organization, think tanks and publications devoted to research on the future became established. During this period (and with a peak in 1970 and 1972), each year 80 to 120 books were published, that were dealing with problems and research on the future.[2]

However, these massive transnational concerns with the future, lead to the almost paradoxical situation that the very basic notion of a “future” was disappearing, since it became integrated into present realities. In this article, I trace these shifts in Modernity by focusing on one element in the discussion about science and technology, namely the public debates about human cloning. My thesis is that 1970s debates about cloning contributed to a broader shift in social categories of temporalities and new ways of perceiving temporal processes. The popular figure of the human clone became a symbol for the advent of the (technological) future and, with that, a symbol for a collapse of a specific kind of historical time. The 1970s discussions about science, technology and society raised the question how one could already prevent or steer future consequences of research in advance, that is,: before they will lead to dangerous facts and before they could turn into new, “irreversible” realities. With the idea that it should be politically important, at the present moment, to try to steer outcomes in a specific direction, that is: in a period in which these future results are still in the process of being made, the concept of an “open horizon” or “open” future became replaced by notions of a projectable future: a future that was regarded as something which can, at least to a certain extent, be “created” (or be controlled with respect to technological risks) already in present days, and that, therefore, was now regarded as something that starts already in the present. With that the “present has suddenly become wider than merely the thin layer that used to separate the past (that is always being rapidly left behind) and the future (towards which societies are always accelerating”[3] as Pedro D. Chagas has emphasized a characteristic element of the early 1970s cultures. The clone – as a popular figure in media, science fiction and public discourses –represented this process of “defuturization” in the 1970s in a twofold sense: First, the clone (as a kind of a-historical figure, with its meanings of a repetition of sameness and as something that is exempt from historical changes) turned into a widespread symbol for this extension of the present and the crumbling of a linear temporal model of progress. On a very basic level, the clone became a post-modern symbol for the breakdown of historicisms in a general sense, where “time” lost its historical quality or its “historical force”. Secondly, some science fiction novels picked up the motif of cloning man and draw dystopian scenarios of future conditions of mankind. In these apocalyptic scenarios, the clone also represents the end of history, but in a slightly different sense: Here, the figure of the clone became a motif for a post-historical situation, since it was used to show that (due to an ecological collapse of the world), the end of history and the end of mankind as we know it was a threatening close-by reality.

[1]Alexander Schmidt-Gernig: „Ansichten einer zukünftigen ‚Weltgesellschaft’. Westliche Zukunftsfoschung der 60er und 70er Jahre als Beispiel einer transnationalen Expertenöffentlichkeit“, in: H. Kaelble, M. Kirsch, A. Schmidt-Gernig (Ed): Transnationale Öffentlichkeiten und Identitäten im 20. Jahrhundert, Frankfurt: Campus, 2002, p. 399.

[2]And these numbers refer only to English publication. See ibid., p. 397.

[3]Proposal of the organizer of the conference : „Around 1973: Historicism, Self-Cause, Popular Culture“, Akademie Schloss Solitude, 2011.

Texto completo:



ADAMS, V., MURPHY M., CLARKE A. Anticipation: Technoscience, life, affect, temporality. Subjectivity. 28 (2009), pp. 246-265.

ANDERS, Günther (1980) Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen, Bd. 2: Über die Zerstörung des Lebens im Zeitalter der dritten industriellen Revolution. München: Beck (3rd edition) 2002 (1980).

BERG, Paul et al. Potential Biohazards of Recombinant DNA Molecules. Science. 185 (1974), p. 303.

BERG, P., BALTIMORE, D., BRENNER, S., ROBLIN, R. O., SINGER, M. F. Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules. Science 188 (1975), 991-994.

BRÖCKLING, Ulrich. Vorbeguen ist besser .... Zur Soziologie der Prävention. Behemoth. A Journal on Civilisation 1 (2008). pp. 38-48.

COHEN, SN et al. Construction of Biologically Functional Bacterial Plasmids In Vitro. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 70 (1973), pp. 3240-3244.

CULLITON, Barbara J. Scientists Dispute Book´s Claim That Human Clone Has Been Born. Science, Vol. 199, 24 March 1978, pp. 1314-1316.

DE CHADAREVIAN, Soraya. Asilomar – ein Moratorium und was daraus geworden ist. Gegenworte. 16 (2005). pp 74-77.

DOERING-MANTEUFFEL, Anselm, LUTZ, Raphael Nach dem Boom. Perspektiven auf die Zeitgeschichte seit 1970. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2009.

FERGUSON, Niall (ed): The shock of the global. The 1970s in perspective. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press, 2010.

FIRESTONE, Shulamith. The Dialectic of Sex. The Case for Feminist Revolution. New York: Morrow, 1970.

FERREIRA, Maria Aline Salgueiro Seabra. I am the Other. Literary Negotiations of Human Cloning. Westport: Praeger, 2005.

FREEDMAN, Nancy. Joshua Niemandssohn. München: Heyne, 1976 (1973).

FREYTAG, Nils: Eine Bombe in Taschenbuchformat? Die ‘Grenzen des Wachstums’ und die öffentliche Resonanz. Zeithistorische Forschungen/Contemporary History 3 (2006), Online-Ausgabe, 3 (2006) H. 3, URL:

GOTTWEIS, Herbert. Governing molecules: the discursive politics of genetic engineering in Europe and the United States. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1998.

HALDANE, J.B.S. Biological Possibilities in the Next Ten Thousand Years. In: WOLSTENHOLME, Gordon (eds). Man and his Future. A Ciba Foundation Volume. London: J. &A Churchill, 1963, pp.337-361..

HOWE, Nicholas. Further thoughts on Clone. American Speech 58, 1 (1983), 61-68.

HÜNEMÖRDER, Kai F. Die Frühgeschichte der globalen Umweltkrise und die Formierung der deutschen Umweltpolitik (1950-1973). Stuttgart 2004.

JARAUSCH, Konrad (ed). Das Ende der Zuversicht? Die siebziger Jahre als Geschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.

KOSELLECK, Reinhart. Futures Past. On the Semantics of Historical Times. Translated and with an Introduction by Keith Tribe, New York: Columbia University Press, 2004 (Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1979).

KOSELLECK, Reinhart. Neuzeit: Remarks on the Semantics of Modern Concepts of Movement. In: Koselleck, R. Futures Past, On the Semantics of Historical Times. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004a, pp. 222- 254.

KOSELLECK, Reinhart. “Spaces of Experience” and “Horizon of Expectation”. Two Historical Categories, in: Koselleck R. Futures Past, On the Semantics of Historical Times, New York: Columbia University Press, 2004b, pp. 255-275.

KOSELLECK, Reinhart. Historia Magistra Vitae. Über die Auflösung des Topos im Horizont neuzeitlich bewegter Geschichte. In: BRAUN, Hermann, RIEDEL, Manfred, KOHLHAMMER, Stuttgart (eds). Natur und Geschichte. 1967, pp. 196-219.

KUPPER, Patrick. Die “1970er Diagnose“. Grundsätzliche Überlegungen zu einem Wendepunkt der Umweltgeschichte. In: Archiv für Sozialgeschichte 43 (2003), 325-348.

LEDERBERG, Joshua. Experimental Genetics and Human Evolution. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. A Journal of Science and Public Affairs. 22, No. 8 (Oct.) 1966, pp. 4-11..

LUHMANN, Niklas. Weltzeit und Systemgeschichte (1975), in: LUHMANN, N. Aufsätze zur Theorie der Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft 2005, pp.128-166.

LUHMANN, Niklas. The Future Cannot Begin: Temporal Structures in Modern Society. Social Research, 43, 1 (1976), 130–152.

MEADOWS, Donella H. et al: The limits to growth. A report for the Club of Rome´s project on the predicament of mankind. London: Earth Island Publ., 1972.

MITCHISON, Naomi. Solution Three (1975). Afterword by Susan M. Squier. New York: The Feminist Press at the City University of New York, 1995.

MULLER, Herman J.The Guidance of Human Evolution. In: Sol Tax (ed). Evolution after Darwin, Vol.II: The Evolution of Man, Mind, Culture and Society. Chicago 1960, p. 423-462.

NOWOTNY Helga. Eigenzeit. Entstehung und Strukturierung eines Zeitgefühls. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp 1989.

RORVIK, David M. Nach seinem Ebenbild. Der Genetik-Mensch: Fortpflanzung durch Zellkern-Transplantation. Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1981 (In his Image. The Cloning of a Man, New York: J.B. Lipincott Comp., 1978).

SCHMIDT-Gernig, Alexander. Ansichten einer zukünftigen ‚Weltgesellschaft. Westliche Zukunftsfoschung der 60er und 70er Jahre als Beispiel einer transnationalen Expertenöffentlichkeit. In: KAELBLE, H., KIRSCH, M., SCHMIDT-GERNIG, A.(ed): Transnationale Öffentlichkeiten und Identitäten im 20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt: Campus, 2002, pp. 393-421.

SQUIER, Susan. Babies in Bottles. Twentieth-Century Visions of Reproductive Technology. New Brunswick: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1994.

TAYLOR, Gordon Rattray. The Biological Time-Bomb. London: Thames& Hudson, 1968.

TOFFLER, Alvin. Der Zukunftsschock. Bern u.a.:Scherz Verlag, 1970 (Future Shock, New York: Random House, 1970.

WILHELM, Kate. Where Late the Sweet Birds Sang. Harper&Row, 1976.

WEBBER, Herbert J. New Horticultural and Agricultural Terms. Science. 18 (1903), pp.501-503.

WRIGHT, Susan. Molecular Politics. Developing American and British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering. 1972-1982, Chicago 1994.



Qualis (CAPES): B1 (Quadriênio 2013-2016)



 JURN: Get the research you need, free

Directory of Open Access Journals

Associação de revistas acadêmicas latinoamericanas de humanidades e ciências sociais