Discourses of the Long-Term Future

Chapter
Part of the Critical Studies in Risk and Uncertainty book series (CRSTRU)

Abstract

This chapter continues to present the results of the empirical study informing this book and in so doing considers how individuals imagine the future of their society. The respondents are found to use discourses—specifically, those of apocalypse, technology and intergenerational continuity or decline—to depict the future. These discourses are, however, not used homogeneously. They are instead interpreted in ways that reflect two opposed accounts of the future, one depicting a narrative of decline ending in an eventual point of crisis, and the other animated by a broad sense of hope. This chapter argues that these competing accounts of the future each constitute a viable social or future imaginary as they are socially shared and provide both factual and normative accounts of the societal future.

Keywords

Future imaginaries Social imaginaries Apocalypse Re-enchantment Intergenerational ethics Care 

References

  1. Arvesen, A., Bright, R. M., & Hertwich, E. G. (2011). Considering only first-order effects? How simplifications lead to technology optimism in climate change mitigation. Energy Policy, 39(11), 7448–7454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachelard, G. (1969). The poetics of space. Boston: Beacon Books.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, J. (1999). After the end: Representations of post-apocalypse. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society (K. Blamey, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Groves, C. (2014). Care, uncertainty and intergenerational ethics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action volume one: Reason and the rationalization of society ( T. A. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Habermas, J. (1987). Theory of communicative action volume two: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (T. A. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans.). New York: Garland Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Hulme, M. (2010). Four meaning of climate change. In S. Skrimshire (Ed.), Future ethics: Climate change and apocalyptic imagination (pp. 37–57). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  12. Jay, M. (2014). The apocalyptic imagination and the inability to mourn. In M. Jay (Ed.), Force fields: Between intellectual history and cultural critique (pp. 84–98). Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Lovelock, J. E., & Rapley, C. G. (2007). Ocean pipes could help the earth heal itself. Nature, 449(7161), 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lyotard, J.F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ojala, M. (2012). Regulating worry, promoting hope: How do children, adolescents, and young adults cope with climate change? International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(4), 537–561.Google Scholar
  16. Passmore, J. (1974). Man’s responsibility for nature: Ecological problems and western traditions. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  17. Renner, K. J. (2012). The appeal of the apocalypse. Literature Interpretation Theory, 23(3), 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rosen, E. K. (2008). Apocalyptic transformation: Apocalypse and the postmodern imagination. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  19. Taylor, C. (2004). Modern social imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Weber, M. (1958). Science as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C Wright Mills (Trans., & Ed.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 129–156). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations