Strategies for Relating to the Personal and Societal Future

  • Julia Cook
Part of the Critical Studies in Risk and Uncertainty book series (CRSTRU)


While the previous chapter presented an overview of popular theoretical accounts which have laid claim to the character of the contemporary future horizon, due to their macro-focus, these accounts do not allow for consideration of the relationship between perceptions of the future and individuals or subjectivities. As such, this chapter considers how subjectivities can be theorised in the context of the study that informs this book. After considering a number of competing theoretical accounts, the work of Margaret Archer is chosen for the purposes of this work. Drawing on Archer’s modes of reflexivity, this chapter considers how—and indeed if—outlooks upon the future may be related to specific types of selves.


Future thinking Reflexivity Archer, M Planning Modes of reflexivity 


  1. Adams, M. (2006). Hybridizing habitus and reflexivity. Sociology, 40(3), 511–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, J. (1995). Fin de siècle social theory: Relativism, reduction, and the problem of reason. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. Archer, M. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archer, M. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archer, M. (2007). Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Archer, M. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice, (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action, (R. Johnson, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Crossley, N. (2001). The phenomenological habitus and its construction. Theory and Society, 30(1), 80–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farrugia, D. (2013). The reflexive subject: Towards a theory of reflexivity as practical intelligibility. Current Sociology, 61(3), 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foucault, M. (1978) The history of sexuality: An introduction, (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  13. Giddens, A. (1991). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Giddens, A. (1994). Living in a post-traditional society. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernisation: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order (pp. 56–109). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hahn, A. (1998). Narrative identity and auricular confession as biography-generators. In A. I. Baumgarten, J. Assmann, & G. G. Stroumsa (Eds.), Self, soul, and the body in religious experience (pp. 27–52). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  16. Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (2003). The second shift. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  17. Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. King, A. (2000). Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: A ‘practical’ critique of the habitus. Sociological Theory, 18(3), 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kotre, J. (1984). Outliving the self: How we live on in future generations. New York: Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  20. Lash, S., & Urry, J. (1994). Economies of signs and space. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Google Scholar
  21. Luhmann, N. (2013). Theory of society: Volume II, (R. Barrett, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Norgaard, K. M. (2011). Living in denial: Climate change, emotions, and every-day life. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wacquant, L. (1989). Towards a reflexive sociology: A workshop with Pierre Bourdieu. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 26–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations