418 Enabling Policies and Institutions for Sustainable Agricultural and Food Systems
design disciplines, not the sciences – a sentiment echoed by Utopian theorists
Manuel and Manuel (1979, p813) in their observation that architecture, not sci-
ence, provides the most imaginative and authentically Utopian creations of the
age. Another futurist points out that, in the chaotic context of changing value
systems, forecasting is not very useful: ‘All we possess are remnants of previously
demolished value systems ... inconsistent collections of irreconcilable bits and
pieces from the past’ (Michael, 1989, p82). Norgaard (1988, p613) describes this
as the gradual demise of Progress – ‘a great carpet under which old beliefs and new
contradictions were swept for centuries’ – and its likely replacement with the meta-
belief, Sustainability – the ‘clarion of a new age’. Faced with multiple, confusing
and uncertain signals, individuals gravitate towards interpretations compatible
with their personal worldview – a process that forecasts do not capture.
Some futurists have themselves claimed that the prophetic endeavour, or fore-
casting, is inherently untenable when applied to society. Forecasting is meant to
enhance coherence, but this is impossible in a modern society that is internally
fragmented and increasingly incoherent – epistemologically, socially and psycho-
logically (Michael, 1989, p79). For other futurists, a prescriptive or normative
futurism offers an alternative to technocratic extrapolations of the status quo.
Coates and Jarratt (1989), for example, advocate a prescriptive, ideological and
ethical focus, calling for more emphasis on outcomes and less on driving forces.
Others dismiss normative futurology as a ‘rapture of the future’ which, in the case
of social prescription, ‘founders on the axiomatic “we’’’ (Kern, 1987, p216).
Alternative futures
Underlying these criticisms of formal, mechanistic futurism and its traditional
constituency is an association of the prophetic, predictive endeavour with goals of
manipulation and control (e.g. Dublin, 1991). Such observations should serve not
as reasons to disengage from all exploration of future possibilities but rather as
warnings. We distinguish between a controlling futurism and the process of creat-
ing social visions. We need to eschew blueprints by which some groups control
others; rather, we should create means for thinking through the consequences of
current actions and for stimulating a sense of open possibilities, of wonder and of
power to act.
Although a desire for control serves as a powerful motive for peering into the
future, it is not the only alternative: a sense of wonder or of responsibility may also
serve as motives. A sense of wonder permits exploration of alternate possibilities
while retaining a strong sense of humility toward the future – and the conviction
that it will inevitably be more amazing than we can imagine. A sense of responsi-
bility may guide attempts to add the consideration of long-range impacts to present
actions, and it may inspire present activities to be conducted in a manner that
leads to morally defensible future directions. Envisioning the future and emanci-
patory risk assessment should be conducted in such a way as to enrich empower-
ment and a sense of ability to create one’s own life.