120 Chapter 4 meta-perspective, seeking to understand and open up the assumptions behind various engagements with the future and its concepts of transformation. Mapping Muiderman et al.’s four approaches onto Feola’s framework offers some key insights for understanding and contextualizing the results in this article, as well as for understanding different approaches to the future more generally. It shows that those working from the perspective of approach 1 overlap to some degree with both approaches 2 and 3. Elements of these approaches are mobilized by approach 1-dominated foresight – in case of approach 2, because of an increasing appreciation of complexity and uncertainty; and in case of approach 3, because of an increasing appreciation for the political nature of deliberate change. In the end, however, approach 1 is based on assumptions about a consensus reality and prediction. This means that neither the full consequences of ‘emergent’ nor ‘deliberate’ drivers of transformation are adopted, even if language and tools from approaches 2 or 3 are used. Emergence, accepted fully, would imply deep, irreducible uncertainty (approach 2); while deliberate change, accepted fully, would imply that many actors are attempting to shape the future, and that futures are plural and political (approach 3). Both perspectives ultimately contradict consensus and prediction. This helps us understand why approach 1-dominated hybrids cannot fully engage with what is needed for the anticipatory governance of sustainability transformations – and taking the meta-perspective of approach 4 can help make these hidden assumptions visible. 4.5.3. Consequences for anticipatory governance for food systems transformations The dominance of approach 1 in terms of actions in the present has several important consequences for governing food systems. In general, scholars point to the radical shifts that are needed to deal with the many interconnected sets of food system pressures such as climate change (Maye and Duncan, 2017) in reflexive, democratic and radically transformative food system governance arrangements (Duncan, 2015; Termeer et al., 2015; Pereira and Drimie, 2016; Ingram and Zurek, 2018). Radical food systems change can happen through innovation in more grassroots and alternative movements (e.g. agroecology, vertical farming, etc.) as well within more conventional systems (Maye and Duncan, 2017; Herrero et al., 2020; Dinesh et al., 2021). However, it is considered key to shift perceptions and meaning in order to overcome path dependency and bring about structural change (Termeer et al., 2015). Furthermore, sustainability transformations of food systems require alternative visions in politicized policy processes (Duncan and Claeys, 2018).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw