47 Four approaches to anticipatory governance 2 and “colonize” the future (Selin, 2007, p. 197). For example, the framing of “climate emergencies” may legitimize and prioritize the development of socially and politically problematic technological solutions in the present (Bellamy, 2016; Gupta, 2019; see also Macnaghten et al., 2014). Actions in the present: Given its focus on the performative power of future imaginaries, this approach is most interested in interrogating the discursive and political implications and consequences of such imaginaries for present-day choices (Esguerra, 2019). A key concern is the power of expert knowledge and scientific expertise in calling into being, and engaging with, diverse futures. In discussing the role of science in responses to climate change (Hulme, 2010), climate engineering (Low, 2017; Gupta & Möller, 2018) or other domains of sustainability, such an approach to anticipation questions whether expert-driven visioning is merely a technical process that can objectively and neutrally engage with the future (see also Mittelstadt et al., 2015). In this view, claim-making about the future must instead be analyzed as a site of political negotiation and conflict (Gupta, 2011; see also Jansen & Gupta, 2009; Talberg et al., 2018). The key focus is to identify the discursive effects of frames or fabrications of the future as they are generated and advanced through practices of anticipation; and to study how these exert power over the present. A priority is to interrogate and be cognizant of how claim-making about the future can hold the present hostage (Nordmann, 2014). Ultimate aim: In this approach, the ultimate aim of engaging with anticipatory governance and critically interrogating future visions and imaginaries, is to shed light on their performative effects and political implications in the present, including how future imaginaries benefit or exclude certain policy choices, trajectories, sectors, investments, or interests of actors. This approach hence seeks to bring attention back to the present and to the difficult political choices and trade-offs that require redressal now, rather than in an imagined future (Nordmann, 2014). In Figure 2.1 below we map and visualize these four approaches to anticipatory governance. On the horizontal axis, we illustrate the continuum of views on conceptions of the future that we have discussed above. The vertical axis shows the continuum of views on implications for actions in the present. The four boxes capture the key elements of the four approaches, with the conception of/engagement with the future in red text, the actions to be taken in the present in blue, and the ultimate aim in black. As we discuss in the conclusion, this mapping of anticipatory governance approaches also serves as an analytical lens through which to further explore the nature and implications of ongoing practices of anticipatory governance, as they are now underway around the world.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw