Short Abstract

Responding to the “crisis of imagination” in science and society, STS calls for studying and developing “alternative futures.” Yet, what constitutes an alternative when, why, and for whom requires unpacking. This panel explores what forms of “alternativity” STS mobilizes to which ends.

Description

Researchers in STS and beyond have diagnosed contemporary society as experiencing a “crisis of imagination”: the inability to conceive of plausible non-hegemonic futures firmly grounded in social arrangements and thickly embedded in webs of ideas. Roots of this crisis have been analyzed, including the role of incumbent actors in shaping imagination, the assumption that technology and market-based solutions will suffice for addressing social and environmental challenges, and utopian/dystopian speculations that distract from transformations emerging in the present.

STS researchers have argued that to address societal challenges, the crisis of imagination deserves attention. Calls for “alternative futures” (including this year’s EASST theme) reflect this argument. They propose shifting from a singular universal future to a plurality of alternative futures, often associated with sustainability, justice, and degrowth. To develop alternative futures, STS turns to communities assumed to think otherwise, including artists, indigenous people, and activists. However, what constitutes an alternative and why is rarely unpacked.

“Alternative futures” require unpacking for four reasons. First, they are often linked to a nostalgic longing for a romanticized past, which may keep imagination tethered to old social arrangements. Second, some “alternative futures” may endanger democracy, such as white supremacist fantasies of the alt-right, tech-billionaires’ visions of life on Mars or high seas, and transhumanist conceptions of future bodies. Third, researchers seeking to “open up” futures in participatory processes should consider who may legitimately participate. Fourth, a theoretical foundation of “alternative futures” may sharpen STS analysis and engagement.

We invite contributors to address questions, such as: What constitutes “alternatives” empirically and theoretically? What are purposes of considering alternatives? Under what conditions do they emerge, and which effects do they generate? Who participates in envisioning alternative futures – when, why, and how? What alternative futures have been developed, uncovered, and critiqued in STS? We are interested in what forms of “alternativity” STS mobilizes and to which ends.

This Combined Format Open Panel has 1 pending contribution proposal.
Propose contribution