Past, Present and Future 159are congruently forged together into a working and sufficiently promising whole,
into a solution, a vision, an expectation.
Such a vision or solution (‘how to achieve goals’, following Anderson and Car-
los, 1976) also represents authority in the above-mentioned sense. It represents
authority if it (i) concerns the relevant whole, (ii) puts something into perspective
and (iii) is recognized as such by a sufficient number of actors.
Defining boundaries is an element that needs separate attention. It is partly
implicit in the definition of problems that follows from agenda-setting. Determin-
ing the boundaries is also closely linked to the question who does and who does
not join in the discussion about the agenda. The same applies to the other ele-
ments. Take authority, for instance; authority is not limitless. Authority always
applies vis-à-vis a more or less defined territory; outside of which apply the remarks:
‘What’s it to you?’, ‘What do you know?’ Boundaries are crucial. They are also
constantly subject to dispute, negotiation and renegotiation. Boundaries mark
inclusion and exclusion. But again, this repeatedly concerns exclusion and/or
inclusion vis-à-vis something. This applies perhaps pre-eminently to the presented
solution, which must be defined as superior in comparison to other trajectories, by
way of a clearly defined boundary.
Agenda-setting, authority, resources, solutions, boundaries – these are all con-
cepts that mutually define each another. Without the other terms, each concept on
its own becomes an isolated and therefore meaningless notion. Collectively, these
concepts refer to an actor-network (or a socio-technical network). Within this
network, agendas, authority, solutions and so on follow naturally from one another.
It is the essence of a network to produce a high degree of congruence.
A typical feature of the period of modernization is the emergence of complex
constellations characterized by a multitude of networks that operate alongside one
another, but which also partly overlap and partly compete with one another. In
other words, there are multiple structures, and therefore variation and selection;
hence, the ordering of a highly heterogeneous world.
Why? I will confine myself to one or two observations. Compared to the tra-
ditional world, agenda-setting became increasingly desacralized in the modern
world. Priests, elders and nobles lost their power and control. People themselves
were increasingly looking for solutions and answers. New forms of authority were
acquired in the process and, again, became institutionalized.
Another example concerns the value of what is tried and true (the Jean Auel
formula). Confronted with the decreasing importance of local authority and with
the emergence of new, at first seemingly imperative parameters such as markets
and technology, many farmers redefined their solutions in their own, often origi-
nal, ways, hence giving rise to a whole gamut of farming styles. Of necessity, they
crossed the boundaries of the tested and true and developed various, contrasting,
sometimes complementary, sometimes competitive solutions, each of which repre-
sented a search.
The preconditions for such a development are also clear, at least in retrospect.
Again, I confine myself to a few considerations. The first concerns the degree of