{"title":"农作物模型和政府愿景如何阻止对农业生态未来的想象","authors":"Emma Johansson , Lisette van Beek","doi":"10.1016/j.futures.2025.103701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Against the backdrop of the ecological crisis, food production systems will need to transform to ensure future food security. There are contrasting visions of what this transformation should look like. This paper scrutinizes these competing imaginaries of future agriculture and associated styles of anticipation in Tanzania. We find that both government visions and global crop models anticipate futures in line with agricultural modernization; a food system driven by productivity and efficiency that is associated with adverse socio-ecological challenges. In contrast, an alternative imaginary transpires through the lived experiences and aspirations of small-holder farmers; an agroecological food system characterized by soil health, food quality and solidarity that is more in line with sustainability and justice. This lived future is overwritten by government visions and global crop models, which render the agroecological future unimaginable by abstracting and emptying the future. Our findings highlight that transformative change may not only be hindered by a ‘lack of imagination’, but rather the politics of anticipation through which existing radical visions become foreclosed. We propose diverse ways in which researchers may empower radical imaginaries that already exist among marginalized communities, including what this might mean for the future use of crop models.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48239,"journal":{"name":"Futures","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 103701"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How crop models and government visions foreclose imaginaries of agroecological futures\",\"authors\":\"Emma Johansson , Lisette van Beek\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.futures.2025.103701\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Against the backdrop of the ecological crisis, food production systems will need to transform to ensure future food security. There are contrasting visions of what this transformation should look like. This paper scrutinizes these competing imaginaries of future agriculture and associated styles of anticipation in Tanzania. We find that both government visions and global crop models anticipate futures in line with agricultural modernization; a food system driven by productivity and efficiency that is associated with adverse socio-ecological challenges. In contrast, an alternative imaginary transpires through the lived experiences and aspirations of small-holder farmers; an agroecological food system characterized by soil health, food quality and solidarity that is more in line with sustainability and justice. This lived future is overwritten by government visions and global crop models, which render the agroecological future unimaginable by abstracting and emptying the future. Our findings highlight that transformative change may not only be hindered by a ‘lack of imagination’, but rather the politics of anticipation through which existing radical visions become foreclosed. We propose diverse ways in which researchers may empower radical imaginaries that already exist among marginalized communities, including what this might mean for the future use of crop models.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Futures\",\"volume\":\"174 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103701\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Futures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328725001636\",\"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/S0016328725001636","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
How crop models and government visions foreclose imaginaries of agroecological futures
Against the backdrop of the ecological crisis, food production systems will need to transform to ensure future food security. There are contrasting visions of what this transformation should look like. This paper scrutinizes these competing imaginaries of future agriculture and associated styles of anticipation in Tanzania. We find that both government visions and global crop models anticipate futures in line with agricultural modernization; a food system driven by productivity and efficiency that is associated with adverse socio-ecological challenges. In contrast, an alternative imaginary transpires through the lived experiences and aspirations of small-holder farmers; an agroecological food system characterized by soil health, food quality and solidarity that is more in line with sustainability and justice. This lived future is overwritten by government visions and global crop models, which render the agroecological future unimaginable by abstracting and emptying the future. Our findings highlight that transformative change may not only be hindered by a ‘lack of imagination’, but rather the politics of anticipation through which existing radical visions become foreclosed. We propose diverse ways in which researchers may empower radical imaginaries that already exist among marginalized communities, including what this might mean for the future use of crop models.
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