With this contribution, I would like to focus on some beautiful words, such as participation, development, dignity, respect, sharing, etc., which unfortunately are subject to semantic erosion, losing meaning due to their frequent use and even coming to occupy central positions within agnotology—that is, the science of the intentional dissemination of ignorance, common sense assumptions, stereotypes, superficiality and prejudice.

These are words that we often use also in what we at Larios call 5.0 laboratories, which aim to enhance, especially among young people, the ability to imagine and construct future scenarios governed by social justice and oriented towards inclusion, quality work, and well-being.

Pursuing these objectives with today’s young people is certainly not easy, as these are complex constructs, not automatic processes resulting from a natural evolution of events; rather, they are the outcome—never definitive—of conflicts, movements, participation, provocations and political decisions.

In doing so, we often refer to the Constitution in the terms used by Piero Calamandrei, who regarded it as a programme entrusted to future generations, above all to our young people.

In stating this, however, I would like to clarify that I do not intend here to address young people, but rather, first and foremost, adults, as this is a particularly difficult task: that of acting, above all, in favour of those who do not wish to be involved or instrumentalised by us adults and who, rightly, consider us responsible for the quality of their present lives.

The concept that seems most capable of connecting the words mentioned above is, in my view, imagination. Although it never explicitly appears in the text of our Constitution, it is discussed by many constitutional scholars in terms of institutionalised political imagination, within an understanding of the Constitution as a small “geography of the future”—that is, a set of words expressing a strong project-oriented and transformative tension.

In this regard, Unger, the well-known Brazilian philosopher, goes even further, arguing that we have every right to imagine alternative institutions and new forms of social organisation capable of addressing today’s challenges, including artificial intelligence, ecological crises, new forms of work, and digital societies.

Unfortunately, in recent years, we have witnessed the spread of what is referred to as a “crisis of imagination”, particularly a crisis of collective imagination, along with significant inequalities in access to imagining the future, to the detriment—unsurprisingly—of those from more marginalised segments of the population.

To address these crises, many constitutional scholars argue that it is necessary to connect imagination with constitutionalism, to engage with futures studies, complexity theories, and possibilist thinking, and, in particular, to embrace the concept of pragmatic imagination—one that should not be treated merely as a noun accompanied by an adjective, but as a set of verbs, actions, and practices.

Fortunately, a substantial body of international literature now exists, suggesting ways to promote it, with the aim of safeguarding the right of everyone to envision high-quality futures.

Returning to the title of this contribution, two scholars come especially to mind, to whom I feel I owe my gratitude:

a) The first is Robert Proctor, who introduced into the social sciences the concept of agnotology—the study of what he defines as the deliberate production of ignorance, particularly useful to those interested in “selling products” of questionable quality and attracting support and consensus. According to Proctor, imagination is needed here to identify and expose those who benefit from that cognitive fog, as he defines it, which is intentionally generated.

b) The second is Roberto Mangabeira Unger, a visionary thinker, “outside the box”, who rejects the idea that social structures are natural and inevitable. For him, designing the future does not mean making predictions but reopening the field of possibilities. Unger also criticises what he calls “institutional fetishism”: the belief that democracy or the market must take a single form, particularly the current one. Speaking of institutional plasticity, he argues that it is not enough to redistribute wealth; it is also necessary to redistribute opportunities for innovation.

Reflecting on Proctor and Unger, I began to imagine what they might say if they were participating in this seminar.

I would introduce them by saying that they are two historians of science who, in my view, share an obsession: understanding why the future and change struggle so much to emerge and develop.

I like to imagine Proctor taking the floor immediately, saying, “Dear Salvatore, the problem is not that people do not want to change. It is that someone has systematically worked to make change unthinkable. Ignorance is not empty, nor abstract—it is a structure built brick by brick.”

At this point, Unger might intervene with words such as: “Exactly. But that structure has a name: it is called false necessitarianism. We are led to believe that existing institutions are necessary and the only possible ones. And this is the most powerful form of conservatism—the one that remains invisible because it stays permanently hidden.”

I would then continue and ask: “And what about inclusion—what would you say about that?”

Proctor would most likely respond that inclusion has become a worn-out word, used by everyone but emptied of precise meaning. He might ask: “But who benefits from this ambiguity? Who prefers it to remain a vague aspiration rather than a clear and concrete project?”

Unger would add that true inclusion requires institutional imagination: “It is not enough to say ‘we want to include everyone’—we must build the concrete structures that make it possible. Yet this, unfortunately, is frightening and is resisted by those who benefit from exclusion.”

“But what kind of imagination are you referring to?” At this point, the two would likely strongly agree in stating that imagination is not fantasy, but rather a political and intellectual tool to resist both Proctor’s cognitive fog and Unger’s institutional conformism.

At this stage, due to time constraints, I would intervene and say:

“Thank you, dear colleagues, but what can we who are participating in this seminar say and do?”

“A great deal!” they would reply. For example:

1. You could openly declare your dissatisfaction with how the future and inclusion continue to be discussed in purely informational and evaluative terms, and primarily in relation to the labour market and social insertion, serving only to comply with legal requirements and market expectations.
2. You could help individuals and their social and natural environments to become more future-oriented, forward-looking and thriving;
3. You could promote the belief that issues of inclusion and future planning can be addressed by fostering curiosity, reflexivity, sharing, activism, and a form of collective resistance rather than individual resilience.
4. You could openly state your desire to “break away from the mainstream”, refusing to hear only about merit, compliance with pre-established rules, growth, and competitiveness without concern for the rights of those who are left behind;
5. Finally, we would like to say to the participants in this seminar that all those who do not consider this list exhaustive and who can envision many other possibilities for action stand with us.

Further information can also be found on the webpage of the La.R.I.O.S. Laboratory at the University of Padua: https://www.larios.fisppa.unipd.it/it-it/?p=4022