Pragmatic Utopias

  • Roberto PoliEmail author
Part of the Anticipation Science book series (ANTISC, volume 4)


Four different aspects of the anticipation, agency, and complexity conundrum are analyzed: best practices, evidence-based policies, innovation and value creation, and pragmatic utopias. These four aspects are arranged according to their level of simplicity and contentiousness, from the simple and less contentious to the complex and highly contentious, and are related to decision-making. Although the connection is overly explicit for best practices, evidence-based policies, and innovation and value creation, it may appear less straightforward for utopias. This chapter frames utopia as the internal driver of innovation, as the sense-making process internal to decision-making that is able to keep it open.


Best practice Evidence-based politics Innovation Value creation Utopia Complexity 


  1. Bloch, E. 1995. The principle of hope. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Derbyshire, J. 2017. The siren call of probability: Dangers associated with using probability for consideration of the future. Futures 88: 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fuller, T., and P. Moran. 2000. Moving beyond metaphor: Towards a methodology for grounding complexity in small business and entrepreneurship research. Emergence: A Journal of Complexity Issues in Organizations and Management 2 (1): 50–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ———. 2001. Small enterprises as complex adaptive systems: A methodological question? Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 13 (1): 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fuller, T., P. Moran, and P. Argyle. 2004. Entrepreneurial foresight; a case study in reflexivity, experiments, sensitivity and reorganisation. In Managing the future: Foresight in the knowledge economy, Oxford, ed. H. Tsoukas and J. Shepherd, 171–178. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Fuller, T., Welter, F., and Warren, L. 2006. The contribution of emergence to entrepreneurship theory: A review. Retrieved from Brussels.Google Scholar
  7. Furlanetto, A., and R. Poli. 2018. ARM – anticipatory risk management. In Handbook of anticipation, ed. R. Poli. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Levitas, R. 2014. Utopia as method. The imaginary reconstitution of society. New York: Palmgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  9. Mannheim, K. 1979. Ideology and utopia. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  10. Poli, R. 2006. Value Wholes. In Mysli o jezyku, nauce i wartosciach, ed. W. Strawinski, M. Grygianiec, and A. Brozek, 371–385. Warszawa: Wiedza powszechna.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2009. A glimpse into the sphere of ideal being: The ontological status of values. In Values and ontology: Problems and perspectives, ed. B. Centi and W. Huemer, 155–170. Heusenstamm: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2010a. Spheres of being and the network of ontological dependences. Polish Journal of Philosophy 4 (2): 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2010b. The structure of motivation. A first introduction. In Causality and motivation, ed. R. Poli, 7–22. Heusenstamm: Ontos Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2011. Ontological categories, latents and the irrational. In Ontological Categories, ed. J. Cumpa and E. Tegtmeier, 153–163. Heusenhamm: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2013a. Les signaux faibles, une propension sociale spontanée. Cahiers de la sécurité, 28–32.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2013b. A note on the difference between complicated and complex social systems. Cadmus 2 (1): 142–147.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2016. Belief systems and the modeling relation. Foundations of Science 21: 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2017. Introduction to anticipation studies. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ———. 2018. A note on the classification of future-based methods. European Journal of Futures Research 6: 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Popper, K.R. 1945. The open society and its enemies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  21. Rayner, S. 2012. Uncomfortable knowledge: The social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Economy and Society 41 (1): 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosa, H. 2013. Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saltelli, A., and S. Funtowicz. 2014. When all models are wrong: More stringent quality criteria are needed for models used at the science-policy interface. Issues in Science and Technology winter: 79–85.Google Scholar
  24. Saltelli, A., and M. Giampietro. 2017. What is wrong with evidence-based policy, and how can it be improved? Futures 91: 62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tuomi, I. 2002. Networks of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2013. Next-generation foresight in anticipatory organizations. Paper presented at the European Forum on Forward-Looking Activities (EFFLA). European Commission.Google Scholar
  27. Vieira, F. 2010. The concept of utopia. In The Cambridge companion to utopian literature, ed. G. Clayes, 3–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. von Hayek, F. 1944. The road to serfdom. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  29. Wright, E.O. 2010. Envisioning real utopias. London/New York: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Social ResearchUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations