222 Summary In particular, international organizations (Western knowledge institutions and donor agencies) dominate such processes. Such organizations have much influence on the representation of the future with their funding, knowledge, and technology, but at the same time deny this power by presenting their interference as apolitical and their activities as technical support for policymakers. The chapter thus argues that more plural and critical dialogue is needed in which stakeholders have the agency to shape futures and address power imbalances, particularly in contexts where anticipation relies on Western funding and science. In chapter 4, this analytical framework is then combined with Feola’s (2015) transformation analytical framework to better understand the implications of the dominant approaches for realizing sustainability transformations. In this chapter, I examine with the coauthors the perspectives within a global network of experts in foresight (Foresight4Food) to analyze their perspectives on how anticipatory governance can steer action in the present to transform food systems. The research is based on an online survey, a two-day workshop, and interviews. The study shows that most foresight practitioners in the network use a hybrid approach in their work that integrates fundamentally different conceptions of the future (mainly probable, plausible, and plural). Despite this diversity of conceptualizations, and with it the recognition of more fundamental uncertainty about the future, recommendations for action are formulated in a way that is more based on a planned approach to the future. Much anticipation for transformation thus uses the language of deep uncertainty and deliberative action without fully taking its consequences on board. In other words, foresight practitioners use language that assume an inherently uncertain (and therefore unplanned) future and the need for a more critical participatory process. But they also tend to express their outcomes in technical and strategic terms, in line with prevailing policy discourse, partly because they feel that this is what policymakers want and this is the way to make sure that recommendations land. This points to a missed opportunity because a proactive transformation of future food systems requires an explicit dialogue about the political considerations. The combined framework offers new insights for theory and practice by helping researchers and practitioners to be more reflexive of how assumptions about key human systems such as food system futures shape what is prioritized/marginalized and included/excluded in actions to transform such systems. In the final empirical chapter, chapter 5, I examine what these dominant dynamics mean for the opening or closing of possible futures and contemporary actions to arrive at those futures. To this end, the analytical framework is combined with Stirling’s (2008) notion of opening up and closing down. The integrated analytical framework is then applied to anticipation processes in national and sectoral climate policy (in
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw