Imagine, predict or perform? Reclaiming the future in sociology beyond scientism and catastrophism

IF 1.4 3区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Andrea M. Maccarini
{"title":"Imagine, predict or perform? Reclaiming the future in sociology beyond scientism and catastrophism","authors":"Andrea M. Maccarini","doi":"10.1111/jtsb.12402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this article I examine and criticize some mainstream views of the future within scholarly debates, mainly in social science. The goal is to review the strategies sociology is following to include the future as a theme of its own reflections. Such strategies also reveal relevant aspects of the society in which they are developed. The main argument revolves around some tensions concerning the relationship of contemporary societies to their future. The key points can be summarized as follows: in contemporary complex societies, where change is believed to be the only constant, social science seems to have abandoned the future as a theme of its reflections, while at the same time prediction and forecast are increasingly necessary. Future studies are, therefore, mainly an enterprise for managers and engineers, taking place in either government or corporate environments and far from the academy. Why is this happening? And is it necessarily so? What does sociology know about \"the future(s)? Could prediction still be the form of the argument sociology can make about the future? And if this cannot be, then what exactly is its possible contribution – if any? Are these embarrassing questions a reflection of the way things really are, or of a wrong attitude sociology has taken to future studies? The main thesis is that insofar as sociology still occupies the field of future studies, it is undergoing a process of hybridization, which leads to mix its representational and performative function in a new way, and that can possibly escape confusion with old and new forms of utopian thinking. Such a thesis is illustrated introducing one particular analytic tool deployed in social scientific oriented future studies, namely scenarios, and comparing its inherent logic with that of the morphogenetic approach to sociological research. I attempt to examine the rationale of such a tool, and how it can serve the purpose of sociological analysis, constituting some kind of reflexive morphogenesis of sociological theory of the future</p>","PeriodicalId":47646,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour","volume":"54 3","pages":"319-335"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jtsb.12402","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jtsb.12402","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article I examine and criticize some mainstream views of the future within scholarly debates, mainly in social science. The goal is to review the strategies sociology is following to include the future as a theme of its own reflections. Such strategies also reveal relevant aspects of the society in which they are developed. The main argument revolves around some tensions concerning the relationship of contemporary societies to their future. The key points can be summarized as follows: in contemporary complex societies, where change is believed to be the only constant, social science seems to have abandoned the future as a theme of its reflections, while at the same time prediction and forecast are increasingly necessary. Future studies are, therefore, mainly an enterprise for managers and engineers, taking place in either government or corporate environments and far from the academy. Why is this happening? And is it necessarily so? What does sociology know about "the future(s)? Could prediction still be the form of the argument sociology can make about the future? And if this cannot be, then what exactly is its possible contribution – if any? Are these embarrassing questions a reflection of the way things really are, or of a wrong attitude sociology has taken to future studies? The main thesis is that insofar as sociology still occupies the field of future studies, it is undergoing a process of hybridization, which leads to mix its representational and performative function in a new way, and that can possibly escape confusion with old and new forms of utopian thinking. Such a thesis is illustrated introducing one particular analytic tool deployed in social scientific oriented future studies, namely scenarios, and comparing its inherent logic with that of the morphogenetic approach to sociological research. I attempt to examine the rationale of such a tool, and how it can serve the purpose of sociological analysis, constituting some kind of reflexive morphogenesis of sociological theory of the future

想象、预测还是表演?超越科学主义和灾难主义,在社会学中重塑未来
在这篇文章中,我研究并批评了学术辩论中对未来的一些主流观点,主要是在社会科学领域。其目的是回顾社会学将未来作为自身思考主题的策略。这些策略也揭示了其所处社会的相关方面。主要论点围绕当代社会与其未来关系的一些紧张关系展开。要点可归纳如下:在当代复杂的社会中,变化被认为是唯一不变的,社会科学似乎放弃了将未来作为其思考的主题,但同时预测和预报又越来越有必要。因此,未来研究主要是管理人员和工程师的事业,在政府或企业环境中进行,远离了学术界。为什么会出现这种情况?是否必然如此?社会学对 "未来 "了解多少?社会学是否还能以预测的形式来论证未来?如果不能,那么社会学可能做出的贡献(如果有的话)究竟是什么?这些令人尴尬的问题是反映了事情的真实情况,还是反映了社会学对未来研究采取了错误的态度?本文的主要论点是,就社会学仍然占据未来研究领域而言,它正在经历一个混杂化的过程,这导致它以一种新的方式混合了其表征和表演功能,并有可能摆脱与新旧乌托邦思想形式的混淆。我将介绍社会科学未来研究中的一种特殊分析工具--情景,并将其内在逻辑与社会学研究中的形态发生学方法进行比较。我试图研究这种工具的原理,以及它如何服务于社会学分析的目的,构成未来社会学理论的某种反思性形态生成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour publishes original theoretical and methodological articles that examine the links between social structures and human agency embedded in behavioural practices. The Journal is truly unique in focusing first and foremost on social behaviour, over and above any disciplinary or local framing of such behaviour. In so doing, it embraces a range of theoretical orientations and, by requiring authors to write for a wide audience, the Journal is distinctively interdisciplinary and accessible to readers world-wide in the fields of psychology, sociology and philosophy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信