Modes of engagement with the future in everyday life

Mandich, Giuliana

doi:10.1177/0961463x19883749

Cited by 34 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(72 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thèvenot underlines how this regime corresponds to what is usually called 'normal action', or the 'normal format of action', such that the specificity of its mode of engagement is easily lost to view (2007: 417). It is from a critique of this mode as a mono-dimensional conceptualization of social agency as intentional action that Thévenot (2006) develops his idea of a variety of regimes of engagement (Mandich, 2019). In the regime of the plan, reality is engaged functionally, through an instrumental capacity.…”

Section: Thévenot's Regimes Of Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Creativity and imagination are pivotal elements in a more nuanced definition of projectivity. Expanding Thévenot's regimes into modes of engagement with the future can thus help to overcome mono-dimensional views of projectivity (Mandich, 2019). Schatkzi's account of social practice is strongly teleological.…”

Section: Projectivity and Teleoaffectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Alkemeyer et al, 2016). Furthermore, how are we to articulate the role of imagined futures and reflexive projectivity (Mandich, 2019), whilst maintaining focus on the specificity of practices in the plural, as in Schatzki's work, rather than on the praxis of individuals?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The field of the future is a very complex one: simultaneously symbolic and material; not yet and in the making; embedded in the present and the past, as well as being forward-oriented. A challenge, therefore, is to disentangle the intertwining of temporal dimensions and the complexity of social practices through which the future is produced (Mandich, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…How can the capacities of reflection and critique traditionally associated with a classical subject be reconceptualized ‘without letting the insight into the societal and historical formation of subjectivity in relation to specific practices be pushed out of focus?’ (Alkemeyer et al, 2016). Furthermore, how are we to articulate the role of imagined futures and reflexive projectivity (Mandich, 2019), whilst maintaining focus on the specificity of practices in the plural, as in Schatzki’s work, rather than on the praxis of individuals?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Futures in Practice: Regimes of Engagement and Teleoaffectivity

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article triangulates Schatzki’s practice theory (2002) and Thévenot’s (2001) ‘regimes of engagement’ with the nascent field of ‘social futures’ or future-oriented cultural sociology (e.g. Coleman and Tutton 2017; Mische 2009). We present a reading of Thévenot’s regimes of engagement that is ontologically compatible with Schatzki’s account of social practices and argue that practices are more or less enmeshed in distinct regimes of engagement. We aver that while people engage reality through distinct regimes of engagement they do so, to follow Schatzki, primarily in the context of social practices. We then articulate this account with Giuliana Mandich’s (2019) work on the different modes of engagement with the future, or forms of reflexive projectivity, that are expressed through Thévenot’s regimes: that of practical anticipation for the regime of the familiar; of probability for the regime of the plan; of possibility for the regime of justification; and of discovery for the regime of exploration. This synthesis enables a practice theoretical account of the different modes through which actors engage with the future that is, we suggest, analytically superior to both Thévenot’s and Schatzki’s tendency towards a mono-dimensional view of agents’ projectivity towards the future. We illustrate the synthesis of practices, regimes of engagement and modes of projectivity chiefly through a study of domestic laundry practice conducted by Southerton and Mylan (2018). We suggest this theoretical development may be productively applied to practice theoretical work informing understanding of issues such as sustainable consumption, mobility and energy use, as well as social change more broadly.

show abstract

Section: Thévenot's Regimes Of Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Projectivity and Teleoaffectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Futures in Practice: Regimes of Engagement and Teleoaffectivity

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Sustainable Urbanism. Green Engagements and Compromised Conventions in the Twenty-First Century

Blok

2022

Handbook of Economics and Sociology of Conventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Between ambitions and actions: how citizens navigate the entrepreneurial process of co-producing sustainable urban food futures

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cities increasingly envision sustainable future food systems. The realization of such futures is often understood from a planning perspective, leaving the role of entrepreneurship out of scope. The city of Almere in the Netherlands provides a telling example. In the neighborhood Almere Oosterwold, residents must use 50% of their plot for urban agriculture. The municipality formulated an ambition that over time, 10% off all food consumed in Almere must be produced in Oosterwold. In this study, we assume the development of urban agriculture in Oosterwold is an entrepreneurial process, i.e. a creative (re)organization that is ongoing and intervenes in daily life. To understand how this entrepreneurial process helps to realize sustainable food futures, this paper explores what futures for urban agriculture residents of Oosterwold prefer and deem possible and how these futures are organized in the present. We use futuring to explore possible and preferable images of the future, and to backcast those images to the present day. Our findings show residents have different perspectives of the future. Furthermore, they are capable in formulating specific actions to obtain the futures they prefer, but have trouble committing to the actions themselves. We argue this is the result of a temporal dissonance, a myopia where residents have trouble looking beyond their own situation. It shows imagined futures must fit with the lived experiences of citizens in order to be realized. We conclude that urban food futures need planning and entrepreneurship to be realized since they are complementary social processes.

show abstract

Modes of engagement with the future in everyday life

Cited by 34 publications

References 48 publications

Futures in Practice: Regimes of Engagement and Teleoaffectivity

Futures in Practice: Regimes of Engagement and Teleoaffectivity

Sustainable Urbanism. Green Engagements and Compromised Conventions in the Twenty-First Century

Between ambitions and actions: how citizens navigate the entrepreneurial process of co-producing sustainable urban food futures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About