Don’t Use “Trends”; Use “Trend-Systems”

This was part 1 of a small series in thinking about trends. Part 2, where I further develop this with Aristotle’s Four Causes, is here.

What is a trend?

The question seems innocuous: “what is a trend?” I get this because I’m involved in the business of asking people to think about “driving forces”, which itself involves thinking about “trends.” It has been a question that has bugged me, and some of the guides in the area of foresight are none the wiser about what a “trend” really is. After some years of reflection, I’m thinking of the phrase “trend-system” as a way to put it better, as it reflects the systems that trends are enmeshed in.

In “How to Future”, Scott Smith (and Madeline Ashby) say that a “trend” is an “emerging or ongoing pattern of change.” “Emerging” refers to newness or recency, and “ongoing pattern” means that it is still present. And “change” means that it is different from what came before. “Drivers” affect “trends” and therefore are the “driving forces” that are shaping (or could shape) the focus of concern.

That’s a very good definition of what a “trend” is. However, I still feel… uncomfortable with it. I feel the definition is too malleable. At one point, one could even be flippant about it — anything can be a trend.