关键的乌托邦式共享社会经济路径

IF 3 3区 管理学 Q1 ECONOMICS
C. Brudin Borg , A. Skelton
{"title":"关键的乌托邦式共享社会经济路径","authors":"C. Brudin Borg ,&nbsp;A. Skelton","doi":"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The aim of this study is to investigate the utility of speculative, fictional utopian narratives to be used as a comparative and critical tool to expose taken for granted ideas, discourses and norms in the five shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP1–5) that are used by the IPCC to build future scenarios. To achieve this goal, we first invited citizens to write stories about fictional utopian futures, which they perceived as good for “both people and the planet”. We then compared these utopian stories with the SSPs by (1) a semi-quantitative thematic analysis, and (2) a critical literary analysis. Based on the thematic analysis, we found strong similarities between the utopian futures and SSP1 (“Taking the Green Road”) at a superficial level. Based on the literary analysis, we found that this apparent similarity obscured fundamental differences between the implicit mindsets that was found in SSP1 and the utopian futures; with the former underpinned by collective anthropocentrism and the latter by collective ecocentrism. We conclude that speculative utopias, that are not bound by the requirement of perceived plausibility, can provide a powerful tool to scrutinize and extend science-based future scenarios, such as the SSPs, to consider other aspects, such as different mindsets and norm-breaking solutions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48239,"journal":{"name":"Futures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001204/pdfft?md5=c1d591a31dbeff461d388714997e1c80&pid=1-s2.0-S0016328724001204-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A critical utopian shared socioeconomic pathway\",\"authors\":\"C. Brudin Borg ,&nbsp;A. Skelton\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103437\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The aim of this study is to investigate the utility of speculative, fictional utopian narratives to be used as a comparative and critical tool to expose taken for granted ideas, discourses and norms in the five shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP1–5) that are used by the IPCC to build future scenarios. To achieve this goal, we first invited citizens to write stories about fictional utopian futures, which they perceived as good for “both people and the planet”. We then compared these utopian stories with the SSPs by (1) a semi-quantitative thematic analysis, and (2) a critical literary analysis. Based on the thematic analysis, we found strong similarities between the utopian futures and SSP1 (“Taking the Green Road”) at a superficial level. Based on the literary analysis, we found that this apparent similarity obscured fundamental differences between the implicit mindsets that was found in SSP1 and the utopian futures; with the former underpinned by collective anthropocentrism and the latter by collective ecocentrism. We conclude that speculative utopias, that are not bound by the requirement of perceived plausibility, can provide a powerful tool to scrutinize and extend science-based future scenarios, such as the SSPs, to consider other aspects, such as different mindsets and norm-breaking solutions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Futures\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001204/pdfft?md5=c1d591a31dbeff461d388714997e1c80&pid=1-s2.0-S0016328724001204-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Futures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001204\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Futures","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001204","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是调查推测性、虚构性乌托邦叙事的效用,将其作为一种比较和批判工具,揭露 IPCC 用于构建未来情景的五种共同社会经济路径(SSP1-5)中理所当然的想法、话语和规范。为实现这一目标,我们首先邀请公民撰写他们认为对 "人类和地球 "都有利的虚构乌托邦未来故事。然后,我们通过(1)半定量专题分析和(2)批判性文学分析,将这些乌托邦故事与 SSP 进行比较。根据主题分析,我们发现乌托邦未来与 SSP1("走绿色之路")在表层上有很强的相似性。基于文学分析,我们发现这种表面上的相似性掩盖了 SSP1 和乌托邦未来中隐含的思维方式之间的根本差异;前者以集体人类中心主义为基础,后者以集体生态中心主义为基础。我们的结论是,推测性乌托邦不受感知可信度要求的约束,可以为审查和扩展以科学为基础的未来情景(如 SSPs)提供强有力的工具,以考虑其他方面,如不同的心态和打破常规的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A critical utopian shared socioeconomic pathway

The aim of this study is to investigate the utility of speculative, fictional utopian narratives to be used as a comparative and critical tool to expose taken for granted ideas, discourses and norms in the five shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP1–5) that are used by the IPCC to build future scenarios. To achieve this goal, we first invited citizens to write stories about fictional utopian futures, which they perceived as good for “both people and the planet”. We then compared these utopian stories with the SSPs by (1) a semi-quantitative thematic analysis, and (2) a critical literary analysis. Based on the thematic analysis, we found strong similarities between the utopian futures and SSP1 (“Taking the Green Road”) at a superficial level. Based on the literary analysis, we found that this apparent similarity obscured fundamental differences between the implicit mindsets that was found in SSP1 and the utopian futures; with the former underpinned by collective anthropocentrism and the latter by collective ecocentrism. We conclude that speculative utopias, that are not bound by the requirement of perceived plausibility, can provide a powerful tool to scrutinize and extend science-based future scenarios, such as the SSPs, to consider other aspects, such as different mindsets and norm-breaking solutions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Futures
Futures Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
124
期刊介绍: Futures is an international, refereed, multidisciplinary journal concerned with medium and long-term futures of cultures and societies, science and technology, economics and politics, environment and the planet and individuals and humanity. Covering methods and practices of futures studies, the journal seeks to examine possible and alternative futures of all human endeavours. Futures seeks to promote divergent and pluralistic visions, ideas and opinions about the future. The editors do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the pages of Futures
×
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