World Futures

In the 1950s and 1960s a vast number of Anglo-American institutions and strategic planners began turning more aggressively to the question of the future. This new field was called futurology. But as recognizable as the future might have been conceptually to the new discipline, to frame the period in...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Critical inquiry 2016-03, Vol.42 (3), p.473-546
1. Verfasser: Williams, R. John
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 546
container_issue 3
container_start_page 473
container_title Critical inquiry
container_volume 42
creator Williams, R. John
description In the 1950s and 1960s a vast number of Anglo-American institutions and strategic planners began turning more aggressively to the question of the future. This new field was called futurology. But as recognizable as the future might have been conceptually to the new discipline, to frame the period in these terms may actually conceal the most transformative quality of the discipline's discursive practice. Here, Williams, wants to argue, rather, that people can more productively refer to this period as having initiated a new mode of ostensibly secular prophecy in which the primary objective was not to foresee the future but rather to schematize, in narrative form, a plurality of possible futures. This new form of projecting forward posited the capitalizable, systematic immediacy of multiple, plausible worlds, all of which had to be understood as equally potential and, at least from our current perspective, nonexclusive. It is a development visible, for example, in a distinct terminological transition toward futurological plurality and its correlates.
doi_str_mv 10.1086/685603
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_jstor_primary_26547620</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26547620</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26547620</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c335t-cacb74e3992e87d1cbab5e1eaefa5ba0f9376f8302a3e1cfac97c95bc2c8b67b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNz81KxDAUhuEgCtY63oEgKOKmmpM0f0sZHBUG3CguQ5ImOmU0NWkX3r2Rim5dnc3D-XgROgJ8CVjyKy4Zx3QHVcCoaoRkchdVGCvagFR8Hx3k3GMMIDGv0OI5pm13sprGKfl8iPaC2Wa_-Lk1elrdPC7vmvXD7f3yet04StnYOOOsaD1VingpOnDWWObBGx8MswYHRQUPkmJiqAcXjFPCKWYdcdJyYWmNTue_Q4ofk8-j7uOU3sukBqEIiLYtCTU6n5VLMefkgx7S5s2kTw1Yf6fqObXAixlO7nXjzEscSkv--zkzPXSh0LN_0MKOZ9bnMabfXcJZKzjB9AtYSWiq</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1792174460</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>World Futures</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>ARTbibliographies Modern</source><creator>Williams, R. John</creator><creatorcontrib>Williams, R. John</creatorcontrib><description>In the 1950s and 1960s a vast number of Anglo-American institutions and strategic planners began turning more aggressively to the question of the future. This new field was called futurology. But as recognizable as the future might have been conceptually to the new discipline, to frame the period in these terms may actually conceal the most transformative quality of the discipline's discursive practice. Here, Williams, wants to argue, rather, that people can more productively refer to this period as having initiated a new mode of ostensibly secular prophecy in which the primary objective was not to foresee the future but rather to schematize, in narrative form, a plurality of possible futures. This new form of projecting forward posited the capitalizable, systematic immediacy of multiple, plausible worlds, all of which had to be understood as equally potential and, at least from our current perspective, nonexclusive. It is a development visible, for example, in a distinct terminological transition toward futurological plurality and its correlates.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0093-1896</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1539-7858</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1086/685603</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CRINDL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: The University of Chicago Press</publisher><subject>Future ; Philosophy</subject><ispartof>Critical inquiry, 2016-03, Vol.42 (3), p.473-546</ispartof><rights>2016 by The University of Chicago</rights><rights>2016 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright University of Chicago, acting through its Press Spring 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c335t-cacb74e3992e87d1cbab5e1eaefa5ba0f9376f8302a3e1cfac97c95bc2c8b67b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c335t-cacb74e3992e87d1cbab5e1eaefa5ba0f9376f8302a3e1cfac97c95bc2c8b67b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26547620$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26547620$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,30972,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Williams, R. John</creatorcontrib><title>World Futures</title><title>Critical inquiry</title><description>In the 1950s and 1960s a vast number of Anglo-American institutions and strategic planners began turning more aggressively to the question of the future. This new field was called futurology. But as recognizable as the future might have been conceptually to the new discipline, to frame the period in these terms may actually conceal the most transformative quality of the discipline's discursive practice. Here, Williams, wants to argue, rather, that people can more productively refer to this period as having initiated a new mode of ostensibly secular prophecy in which the primary objective was not to foresee the future but rather to schematize, in narrative form, a plurality of possible futures. This new form of projecting forward posited the capitalizable, systematic immediacy of multiple, plausible worlds, all of which had to be understood as equally potential and, at least from our current perspective, nonexclusive. It is a development visible, for example, in a distinct terminological transition toward futurological plurality and its correlates.</description><subject>Future</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><issn>0093-1896</issn><issn>1539-7858</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QI</sourceid><recordid>eNqNz81KxDAUhuEgCtY63oEgKOKmmpM0f0sZHBUG3CguQ5ImOmU0NWkX3r2Rim5dnc3D-XgROgJ8CVjyKy4Zx3QHVcCoaoRkchdVGCvagFR8Hx3k3GMMIDGv0OI5pm13sprGKfl8iPaC2Wa_-Lk1elrdPC7vmvXD7f3yet04StnYOOOsaD1VingpOnDWWObBGx8MswYHRQUPkmJiqAcXjFPCKWYdcdJyYWmNTue_Q4ofk8-j7uOU3sukBqEIiLYtCTU6n5VLMefkgx7S5s2kTw1Yf6fqObXAixlO7nXjzEscSkv--zkzPXSh0LN_0MKOZ9bnMabfXcJZKzjB9AtYSWiq</recordid><startdate>20160301</startdate><enddate>20160301</enddate><creator>Williams, R. John</creator><general>The University of Chicago Press</general><general>University of Chicago Press</general><general>University of Chicago, acting through its Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QI</scope><scope>~I4</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160301</creationdate><title>World Futures</title><author>Williams, R. John</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c335t-cacb74e3992e87d1cbab5e1eaefa5ba0f9376f8302a3e1cfac97c95bc2c8b67b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Future</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Williams, R. John</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ARTbibliographies Modern</collection><collection>ARTbibliographies Modern (ABM) for DFG</collection><jtitle>Critical inquiry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Williams, R. John</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>World Futures</atitle><jtitle>Critical inquiry</jtitle><date>2016-03-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>473</spage><epage>546</epage><pages>473-546</pages><issn>0093-1896</issn><eissn>1539-7858</eissn><coden>CRINDL</coden><abstract>In the 1950s and 1960s a vast number of Anglo-American institutions and strategic planners began turning more aggressively to the question of the future. This new field was called futurology. But as recognizable as the future might have been conceptually to the new discipline, to frame the period in these terms may actually conceal the most transformative quality of the discipline's discursive practice. Here, Williams, wants to argue, rather, that people can more productively refer to this period as having initiated a new mode of ostensibly secular prophecy in which the primary objective was not to foresee the future but rather to schematize, in narrative form, a plurality of possible futures. This new form of projecting forward posited the capitalizable, systematic immediacy of multiple, plausible worlds, all of which had to be understood as equally potential and, at least from our current perspective, nonexclusive. It is a development visible, for example, in a distinct terminological transition toward futurological plurality and its correlates.</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>The University of Chicago Press</pub><doi>10.1086/685603</doi><tpages>74</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0093-1896
ispartof Critical inquiry, 2016-03, Vol.42 (3), p.473-546
issn 0093-1896
1539-7858
language eng
recordid cdi_jstor_primary_26547620
source Jstor Complete Legacy; ARTbibliographies Modern
subjects Future
Philosophy
title World Futures
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T04%3A27%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=World%20Futures&rft.jtitle=Critical%20inquiry&rft.au=Williams,%20R.%20John&rft.date=2016-03-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=473&rft.epage=546&rft.pages=473-546&rft.issn=0093-1896&rft.eissn=1539-7858&rft.coden=CRINDL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1086/685603&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E26547620%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1792174460&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26547620&rfr_iscdi=true