在持续不断的现在与颠覆性的未来之间:确定全球环境设想方案的意识形态基础

IF 3 3区 管理学 Q1 ECONOMICS Futures Pub Date : 2024-08-24 DOI:10.1016/j.futures.2024.103460
{"title":"在持续不断的现在与颠覆性的未来之间:确定全球环境设想方案的意识形态基础","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Despite the great relevance of global environmental scenarios for the study of environmental change and sustainability transitions, they have rarely been the object of analysis for scholars of the social sciences. In this article, we analyze the ideological assumptions of 993 global environmental scenarios contained in 243 academic works. By developing a new categorization of environmental scenarios, we investigate the economic and governance organization reflected in the scenarios, as well as the portrayed human-nature relationships. We find that global environmental scenarios developed and used by the scientific community largely reproduce rather than break with dominant power structures in the economic, governance and cultural domain. The majority of scenarios reflects an anthropocentric worldview and assumes that the logic of global capitalism and of the Westphalian state-based governance system will not change radically during the 21st century. The implicit solution of sustainability problems dominating these scenarios is a combination of continuous economic growth, rapid technological progress and an international (environmental) agreement. ‘Alternative scenarios’ are scarce, often only problematize one dimension of the social structure of world society and frequently lack explicit drivers of change or pathways to desirable futures. To increase the diversity of scenarios, future research should focus on refining and quantifying existing post-capitalist, post-state-centric and/or ecocentric scenarios, and on developing a range of scenarios whose storyline systematically problematize or even break with current power structures.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48239,"journal":{"name":"Futures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001423/pdfft?md5=e9444f90a7f77fe06266401264971827&pid=1-s2.0-S0016328724001423-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Between continuous presents and disruptive futures: Identifying the ideological backbones of global environmental scenarios\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103460\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Despite the great relevance of global environmental scenarios for the study of environmental change and sustainability transitions, they have rarely been the object of analysis for scholars of the social sciences. In this article, we analyze the ideological assumptions of 993 global environmental scenarios contained in 243 academic works. By developing a new categorization of environmental scenarios, we investigate the economic and governance organization reflected in the scenarios, as well as the portrayed human-nature relationships. We find that global environmental scenarios developed and used by the scientific community largely reproduce rather than break with dominant power structures in the economic, governance and cultural domain. The majority of scenarios reflects an anthropocentric worldview and assumes that the logic of global capitalism and of the Westphalian state-based governance system will not change radically during the 21st century. The implicit solution of sustainability problems dominating these scenarios is a combination of continuous economic growth, rapid technological progress and an international (environmental) agreement. ‘Alternative scenarios’ are scarce, often only problematize one dimension of the social structure of world society and frequently lack explicit drivers of change or pathways to desirable futures. To increase the diversity of scenarios, future research should focus on refining and quantifying existing post-capitalist, post-state-centric and/or ecocentric scenarios, and on developing a range of scenarios whose storyline systematically problematize or even break with current power structures.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Futures\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001423/pdfft?md5=e9444f90a7f77fe06266401264971827&pid=1-s2.0-S0016328724001423-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Futures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001423\",\"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/S0016328724001423","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

尽管全球环境设想方案与环境变化和可持续性转型研究密切相关,但社会科学学者却很少将其作为分析对象。在本文中,我们分析了 243 部学术著作中包含的 993 个全球环境情景的意识形态假设。通过对环境情景进行新的分类,我们研究了情景中所反映的经济和治理组织,以及所描绘的人与自然的关系。我们发现,科学界开发和使用的全球环境设想方案在很大程度上再现了经济、治理和文化领域的主流权力结构,而不是与之决裂。大多数情景方案反映了以人类为中心的世界观,并假定全球资本主义和威斯特伐利亚国家治理体系的逻辑在 21 世纪不会发生根本变化。在这些方案中,可持续性问题的隐含解决方案是持续经济增长、快速技术进步和国际(环境)协议的结合。替代性方案 "很少,往往只是对世界社会结构的一个方面提出问题,而且往往缺乏明确的变革动力或通向理想未来的途径。为了增加情景方案的多样性,未来的研究应侧重于完善和量化现有的后资本主义、后国家中心主义和/或生态中心主义情景方案,并开发一系列情景方案,其故事情节系统地提出问题,甚至打破当前的权力结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Between continuous presents and disruptive futures: Identifying the ideological backbones of global environmental scenarios

Despite the great relevance of global environmental scenarios for the study of environmental change and sustainability transitions, they have rarely been the object of analysis for scholars of the social sciences. In this article, we analyze the ideological assumptions of 993 global environmental scenarios contained in 243 academic works. By developing a new categorization of environmental scenarios, we investigate the economic and governance organization reflected in the scenarios, as well as the portrayed human-nature relationships. We find that global environmental scenarios developed and used by the scientific community largely reproduce rather than break with dominant power structures in the economic, governance and cultural domain. The majority of scenarios reflects an anthropocentric worldview and assumes that the logic of global capitalism and of the Westphalian state-based governance system will not change radically during the 21st century. The implicit solution of sustainability problems dominating these scenarios is a combination of continuous economic growth, rapid technological progress and an international (environmental) agreement. ‘Alternative scenarios’ are scarce, often only problematize one dimension of the social structure of world society and frequently lack explicit drivers of change or pathways to desirable futures. To increase the diversity of scenarios, future research should focus on refining and quantifying existing post-capitalist, post-state-centric and/or ecocentric scenarios, and on developing a range of scenarios whose storyline systematically problematize or even break with current power structures.

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
期刊最新文献
The politics of transdisciplinary research on societal transitions Narratives, expectations, and policy criteria for a democratic and socially engaging energy transition Exploring urban novel ecosystems: Understandings, insights and recommendations for future research and practice Future cities' theories for sustainable future: A systematic literature review Planetary scale climatic change through bioengineering the microbial world. A technofix imaginary
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1