Deconstructing the myths and stories we tell ourselves about the future

By Linna Fredström, Laura Pereira, Simon West, Andrew Merrie and Joost Vervoort

Examples from a small city in the middle of a Swedish forest

‘We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.’ Ursula K Le Guin

Intro and motivation for study

A growing body of research is calling for radical transformation of society to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change and create a more sustainable and just future (Adger et al., 2009; Westley et al., 2011; Kates, Travis and Wilbanks, 2012; Patterson et al., 2017; Fazey, Moug, et al., 2018). Such transformation will disrupt political and economic structures as well as knowledge and value systems, and require fundamentally changing “norms, values, and beliefs; rules and practices, such as laws, procedures, and customs; and the distribution and flow of power, authority, and resources” (Moore et al., 2014).

Many researchers studying such transformations are also acknowledging that their own role must change: rather than simply producing knowledge, they are beginning to actively participate in making knowledge actionable, with the explicit goal of enabling radical change (Cornell et al., 2013; Sala and Torchio, 2019; Fazey et al., 2020). In this new task, the social sciences can offer valuable insights on how to approach the value-laden and political dimensions of using science to bring about change (Wittmayer and Schäpke, 2014; Fazey, Schäpke, et al., 2018; Vervoort and Gupta, 2018; Woroniecki et al., 2019; Miller and Wyborn, 2020; Scoones et al., 2020; West et al., 2020). Critical social theory and critical perspectives in particular are believed to offer tools for sustainability transformation research (Death, 2014; Lövbrand et al., 2015; Stirling, 2015; Blythe et al., 2018). Critical social theory focuses on illuminating and challenging the power dynamics and hidden biases of science and knowledge itself. This focus on reflexive and critical perspectives is now gaining traction within the field of transformation toward sustainability. Conversely, researchers within the field of sustainability are reaching conclusions that point toward the need for critical theory. It’s becoming clear that to enable transformation to a more sustainable and just society we must be willing to challenge not only political and economic systems, but also the value and knowledge systems that brought us to this point in history (Stirling, 2015, 2019; Gottschlich and Bellina, 2017; Fazey et al., 2020).

Scenarios have become a frequently used approach to explore radically different futures and to identify transformative potential in the present (Pereira et al., 2019). As a tool, scenario development is versatile and allows for transdisciplinary exploration, combining scientific, local, practical, and emotional insights (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2015; Merrie et al., 2018; Pereira et al., 2018; Sweeney, 2018; Wangel et al., 2019). Scenario exercises in times of impending climate crisis can be a way to practice imagining the future, and through this practice to see potentialities in the here and now. We need new understandings of the world, new stories: alternatives to both climate catastrophe and naïve never-ending growth narratives. But how do we make space for such visions?

In order to study this, we designed a scenario process that not only imagines possible futures, but also reimagines taken-for-granted ideas about the here and now. We employed insights from critical futures studies for this methodological development. Within the realm of sustainability science, this strand of futures studies has often been overlooked, but with sustainability researchers increasingly looking for more radical, transformative approaches, such a critical lens can unlock new paths forward. Within this broader field of critical futures studies, we settled on causal layered analysis as being both theoretically compelling and well-suited to the empirical work being undertaken. 

Causal layered analysis – seeing how myth influences understanding

Causal layered analysis (CLA) was developed by political scientist Sohail Inayatullah and can be understood as a critical approach for thinking about the future (Inayatullah, 1998). CLA focuses not on predicting what will happen, but rather tries to uncover the layered understanding we have of the future (Inayatullah, 2002). To give an example: when we talk about the risk of overpopulation, CLA asks us to step away from looking at birth rates (which Inayatullah would consider merely the first layer of understanding) and instead consider what system are we imagining (likely a simplified understanding of exponential growth), what worldview are we giving voice to (a colonial one?), and what myth, or deeply held belief about how the world works, is shaping our understanding of the issue (White man’s burden?)? These four layers– litany, system, worldview and myth–are the layers of analysis (Inayatullah, 2004).

The first layer, litany, refers to our “everyday understanding” of an issue – how it is described in the news. At this level, understanding is often over-simplified and disconnected. The second layer is the system – here the causal links between issues and dimensions, social, economic, technological, and ecological are made explicit. The third layer is the worldview – what values and ideologies are part of creating this understanding of an issue. Assumptions that are implicit in the above levels are unveiled. The fourth and final layer is the myth – what deeply held beliefs, grand narratives and archetypes do we use to understand the issue? (Inayatullah, 2004).

The central idea is that what we take for granted, what we consider the well-known ‘truths’ about how the world works, affects how we process new information and what possibilities we see. To use an example from Inayatullah; as long as we see mobility as synonymous with accessibility for cars, we can only imagine policies that enable more car traffic, with more roads and parking. As soon as we reimagine mobility to be about accessibility for humans, using whatever mode of transport, we can suddenly envision a whole new set of policies to increase mobility, including ideas that sound counterintuitive to the original mobility definition: like fewer roads and less parking (Inayatullah, 2004). This illustrates the power held by those who create visions of the future – intentionally or not, we risk upholding the current world order by creating futures where, for example, the climate or technology is different, but where today’s norms, culture and power relations are intact. Visions of the future have the potential of showing us new worlds and ways of being – but future imaginaries, especially once channelled through western dominated discourses and markets, also risk reproducing versions of the status quo over and over again, thus undermining emancipatory potential in futures thinking. Indeed, if we fail to uncover, reflect on, and challenge underlying myths, our scenarios are likely to undermine any possible fundamental transformation. 

We employed CLA to identify myths in our case study discussions about the future affected by climate change. 

Case study – developing scenarios that challenge deeply held beliefs about ‘how the world works’

The study was conducted as a master’s thesis project, at the request of the municipality Ljungby kommun in southern Sweden. It was set up as part of their climate adaptation policy work, with the general idea to create a product that could guide policy discussions and decisions. In short, the argument underpinning the case study was that in order to lower greenhouse gas emissions and keep global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius in accordance with the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2021) we need to transform major aspects of how we structure society. This transformation can only happen if we can reflect on and “step out” of our current worldviews and imagine new ways of thinking about society, nature, progress and much else. We, therefore, designed a process that would 1) identify and 2) disrupt current ways of understanding the world. Steps necessary to enable the creativity and novel thinking needed to achieve sustainability transformations.

We combined CLA with the Manoa method, a scenario approach that enables creative and unexpected thinking about alternative futures (Curry and Schultz, 2009; Schultz, 2010). Both methods have been used in futures studies focused on sustainability issues before, (Heinonen et al., 2017; Falardeau, Raudsepp-Hearne and Bennett, 2019; Hamann et al., 2020; Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2020) but to our knowledge they had never been combined to create this complementarity of an imagination-led approach and critical reflection.

The study employed a collaborative design, enabling a reflexive dialogue between researchers and local actors about the future. Central to this was a series of workshops held in December 2020. Representatives from politics, local businesses, and civil society, but also a class of high school students, were selected and invited. Figure 1 gives an overview of the interactions with participants, including a workshop schedule. The workshop discussions were recorded and transcribed to enable a thorough analysis of the discussions. The analysis itself followed De Simone’s (De Simone, 2015) guiding article on conducting CLA. It was an iterative process, where we defined and redefined themes as we unveiled new layers of understanding. To give an example: in the first round of thematic coding, we identified a theme “the local and the global” but when trying to uncover the worldview underpinning these specific discussions, it was clear that two different myths were at play – one framing Ljungby as part of the prosperous West, and another conceptualizing it as the rural periphery, a ‘loser’ in an increasingly urban world. 

Based on the analysis, we developed three future scenarios that “reimagined” these myths and presented them back to the local community. The scenarios brought up all identified themes in one way or another, and through the stories we tried to point at the contradictions or gaps in the myths about ‘how the world works.’ The reactions to these alternative framings offered insights into how scenario exercises can help open up more imaginative space, but also demonstrated that many participants remain influenced and even constrained by existing underlying myths in their ability to think creatively about the future.

Figure 1 – Interactions with project participants

Using storytelling to enhance the effects of scenarios

The content and process are vital to scenario planning, but if results are not presented in an engaging and approachable way, the value of the project can remain hidden and not reach its full expression. This is especially the case if a given scenario project aspires to policy relevance or to contribute to a wider issue of importance in society (Burnam-Fink, 2015). Conversely, studies that try to make results accessible and immersive, for example through artistic collaboration, have potential to increase their impact (Spencer and Salvatico, 2015; Rhisiart, Störmer and Daheim, 2017; Vervoort and Gupta, 2018). Storytelling has also been suggested to enhance the political dimension of research results, as it can help disrupt dominant narratives and show alternative ways of understanding (Milojević and Izgarjan, 2014; Erwin, 2021).

With this in mind, we looked for ways of making the project accessible and engaging for Ljungby. Historically, the area is known for its rich oral storytelling tradition (UNESCO, no date) and we let this guide the scenarios, creating short stories to be shared with the community during the annual storytelling festival. The local organization, Kronoberg Storytelling network, safeguards this heritage and were collaborators on this study (‘Berättarnätet Kronoberg’, no date). The storytellers were not only helpful in translating concepts to story elements, they also responded to suggestions and information as “non-experts”, helping to identify what details or causal links were difficult to understand.

We created three scenarios. The first scenario imagines climate refugees from Bangladesh being given asylum in Ljungby in 2035, leading to conflict. The turning point is a meeting between native storytellers and refugees, where through stories the groups find common ground. The changing climate resembles parts of “old Bangladesh”, so through memories and stories new ecosystem management and agricultural practices can emerge. The second scenario is designed as a dating profile in a ‘generic capitalist utopia’, assuming the EU has closed its borders and that transformation happened “top down”, wiping out both local identities and human-nature relations. The story reflects the combination of a lack of enthusiasm yet a sense of inevitability many of the project participants expressed when talking about a highly technologically focused and technocratically governed world. The third scenario depicts a forest fire in 2033. The scenario presents two versions of the same fire, showing the effects of two different approaches, one where the municipality waits for nationally coordinated action and one where they lead the change. It is constructed to show the cost of not acting and also bring abstract concepts like “extreme weather events” closer to home. 

Figure 2 – Presentation of scenarios at the local storytelling festival August 2021, photographer Carina Fredström (left) and Lina Midholm (right)

Findings

Myths at play and reactions from participants

“There is plenty of information, but we somehow need common stories about the future, and that is a point of this workshop as well, to get people involved in this, somehow to want to be part of a new world. One which we cannot yet imagine.” (Participant I, workshop 2).

We conducted a scenario process that sought to actively illuminate and challenge underlying assumptions and myths about how the world works. The most interesting outcome was perhaps how participants and the local community reacted to these “reimagined futures”. Both in survey responses from workshop participants and after the presentation at the storytelling festival, many expressed that the scenarios had made them reconsider their own assumptions about the future, climate change or what the community could evolve into. One participant wrote “even if I’m used to thinking outside the box these scenarios open up thought directions and ideas that I don’t usually have” (participant Q). The responses also suggested that the scenarios “hit close to home” and that the story format helped in making the results more accessible and immersive. One said “It’s striking to read in these rather dystopian texts words such as Marsjö and Markaryd. It strikes a chord. That this is us and it’s happening here” (participant B). This, we argue, speaks to the value of using the storytelling medium, where insights from a scenario process are amplified by an emotional reaction. This reaction also counters the idea that future visions must be hopeful to be constructive or inspire action (Morris et al., 2020). Dystopian narratives of the future can, especially if presented in a nuanced and relatable way, offer space for reflection and, just as well as positive visions, increase our imaginative capacity. This is in line with other new research that suggests hope, fear and doubt all can be constructive emotions when seeking to enable climate action (Marlon et al., 2019). As another participant wrote 

“[The scenarios] actually feel largely “unrealistic”, but this in turn highlights the idea that even the most unrealistic things can happen. Who would have thought that a pandemic could cripple the whole world? Who would have thought that Sweden would have to ask for international help to put out forest fires? The unexpected happens – together we can face it!” (Participant P)

However, many participants were skeptical of these alternative scenarios and referred to the same myths the scenarios had set out to challenge. A central myth which reverberates through the workshops is that of the rational, self-interested human, the homo economicus. It is presented in statements as: “We won’t want to do it ourselves, we’re too comfortable and lazy for it” (participant J, workshop 2) and “people work that way, what you don’t know you are naturally afraid of” (participant L, workshop 3), and “We are not as developed as we think, as humans, I mean you think about yourself” (participant O, workshop 3). Using the logic of CLA, when we assume humans are naturally and irreparably self-interested and incurious, we are limited to solutions that account for this. 

The simplified understanding of human society as made up of self-interested individuals has been suggested to hinder climate action, as it strips society of political aspects (Lövbrand et al., 2015) and frames democracy as merely the aggregated preferences of individuals, rather than a process of deliberation, conflict and emergent social behavior (Blühdorn, 2020). Because if that assumption is true, the only room for improvement in the political system is to make for more efficient processes of collecting information about individual preferences, which is in fact exactly what participants suggest in the workshops, where most suggestions for how the political process can be improved revolve around making it quicker and easier “You send out a text quickly and easily” (participant L, workshop 3) and “there should be other, shorter, more efficient political processes” (participant N, workshop 3). 

In the reimagined scenarios, we deliberately challenged this notion, describing a future governance structure characterized by a virtuous cycle of trust and deliberative approaches. Inspired by Blühdorn’s suggestion that democracy could be about “collective reason and reasoning” rather than “articulation and aggregation of individualistic interests, emotions, and fears” (2020:51) the scenario frames political engagement like an organism, that if given the right nourishment and time can grow and become more inclusive and attentive to multiple perspectives. This framing of political engagement also incorporates a feminist critique, and instead of seeing politics as merely conflicts of interests, it emphasizes care as a potential democratic dimension (Gottschlich and Bellina, 2017). When imagining democracy this way, the challenge is no longer to find quick, effective ways to govern rational, self-interested people, but rather to create engaging, attentive platforms for political discussions that foster political engagement (Griggs, Norval and Wagenaar, 2014). In re-imagining it this way, new opportunities for action emerge and the future opens up. However, this scenario was met with the type of skepticism we expected, with one participant calling it “fragmented and difficult to govern” (participant J), reflecting again the worldview that political processes need to be efficient and designed for self-interested individuals rather than complex communities. 

Contradicting myths

One argument for using CLA is that when we unveil the layers of our understanding of an issue, we create some distance to our own understanding, and can often see the contradictions or flaws in our reasoning. One example of this is the ‘western prosperity’ worldview some participants express in workshops, describing Sweden, Europe and ‘the west’ as civilized and modern, in contrast to “less developed” parts of the world, clearly expressed in the comment “We don’t want to live like in Africa” (participant G, workshop 2). Multiple times in discussions, this worldview collides with the notion of climate change. It is captured in this comment “[we need to] share our level of technology, which we still have in the West, if we can use it to help these countries that have not come so far to develop in a different way than what we have done. Without destroying the environment along the way” (participant H, workshop 2). In the very same argument, this participant admits that ‘the western’ development trajectory has been unsustainable, but still argues future development should be led by ‘the west’. Climate change can here be understood as a disruption of well-established truths: international trade is good, rational individuals being free to decide for themselves is good, children can solve tomorrow’s problems, growth can be green. Climate change seems incompatible with these deeply held beliefs, as western prosperity is possible only at the expense of other people and ecosystems (Lessenich, 2019). There are moments in the workshops where participants reflect on this collision of myths, in statements like “The reason it gets warmer is… Consumerism” (participant F, workshop 2) and “I’ve found myself [during the workshop] thinking that maybe we should have higher taxes and fees, and that’s totally the opposite of what I normally think” (participant H, workshop 2). It is in these moments, where participants distance themselves from their assumptions, that imagination can be widened, and transformations become possible. 

Another contradictory yet recurring myth is the “children are the future” narrative that is present in almost all workshops (with the notable exception of the workshop for high school students). The contradiction emerges in the juxtaposition of the expressed belief in the capacity and promise of young people, together with the lack of suggestions for how to actually allocate more power to youth. Analyzing this using the critical social theory underpinning CLA, this could be seen as an example of “false consciousness” (Delanty, 2020:15). According to the Frankfurt School, “social reality was contradictory and that the seeds of future possibility were contained within the struggles of the present. These ideas […] represent both future potential and false consciousness in that they do not appear to members of society as having a transformative potential, and consequently they take only an ideological form in that they end up affirming the status quo” (Delanty 2020:15) Some participants actually highlight this false consciousness, these contradictions. One says “[people say] “of course we will send the young people forward” but at the same time it should be done in the same way as it has always been done” (participant P, workshop 3) and another “We are going to invest in children and young people, we have that as a goal, but we don’t invest in Kulturskolan or in the kids. So, there’s a lot that’s not right and a lot of things that are weird. It rhymes very poorly, and we need to get our act together” (participant C, workshop 1).

However contradictory, we found that the “children are the future” myth remained dominant even after the final scenarios were presented. After the storytelling festival, a group of politicians and municipality employees discussed the performance and agreed that such an important set of stories should be available to young people and should be performed at local high schools. In this response, they perpetuated the notion that climate change is an issue for young people, rather than acknowledging that these scenarios call upon today’s leaders to act, i.e, the very people having the discussion. The Fridays For Future and similar youth activists groups have actively worked to disrupt and expose this contradicting myth, by calling for action now, and refusing to take on the responsibility themselves. But while their activism is described as hopeful by participants in this project, their political agency is being downplayed in the media, often portraying the movement through “ageist, generalist, criminalizing and hyper-personalized perspectives” (von Zabern and Tulloch, 2021). The message which is clearly political and highly critical is often ignored or treated as childish naivete, while incumbent power is more than happy to use these movements as symbols in their own agenda or narrative (in workshops, multiple participants mention Greta Thunberg as an inspiration, but remain hesitant to the suggestion to give teens the right to vote). Using children as symbols for a message they haven’t been invited to formulate is not new (Sköld and Söderlind, 2018) but just as easily as youth can be framed as political objects, they can be diminished in representations into immature, inexperienced and politically unaware when their behavior doesn’t fit the status quo (Marshall, 2014). 

Conclusion and future research

The aim of the study was two-fold, to 1) identify and 2) disrupt deeply held beliefs that shape participants’ understanding of the world around them. We managed to identify multiple recurring narratives that appear to be rooted in deeply held beliefs, but we consider it unlikely that we managed to change these beliefs through the reimagined scenarios. This comes as no surprise, rarely are individual workshops or projects capable of affecting deep-seated values and stories. The fact that participants reverted to the same narratives is not necessarily a weakness of the study, instead, it might simply show the obduracy of our deeply held beliefs. Even when we are asked to look right at them, we keep using these often-contradictory narratives of ‘how the world works’. One of the arguments we tried to make with this study is exactly this: researchers, politicians and the public alike tend to underestimate the power of our core myths. 

The aim of CLA is to distance ourselves from our understanding of the world and through this see a wider range of possibilities. Creating such distance increases our imaginative capacity – by seeing the contradictions we acknowledge that the world doesn’t have to be exactly like this, that other worlds are possible (Death, 2014). Achieving distance and imaginative space, however, requires not only the right method, but likely also the right group of people. In the workshops, we found that certain participants more often challenged taken-for-granted truths and seemed to acknowledge a wider set of possibilities for the future. This could be an example of what Moore and Milkoreit, (2020) describe as imaginative capacity, a capacity they suggest might not correlate with other capacities. Based on our findings in workshops, we suggest there might even be an inverted relationship between imaginative capacity and other power or privilege, simply because those who are favored by the current system lack incentive to imagine other possibilities. In contrast those who have little to gain from maintaining the status quo are more likely to look for alternative ways to understand the world. 

To develop the approach articulated in this paper, we suggest that future research further makes use of the potential of diversity. We found that it was in the moments of discomfort and disagreement that critical reflection and distancing was possible, which in turn created space for creativity and new ways of understanding, a finding that is well in line with Inayatullah’s own results (2009). By conducting a similar study with a more diverse group, we believe the challenging of deeply held beliefs can have more effect. Possibly, this process of reimagination can begin already in the workshops, as actors with different worldviews will be able to identify and challenge each other when myths collide. If someone from another country or culture had participated, the notion of humans as mainly self-interested might have been challenged earlier, as this myth might be more prominent in Swedish culture, which has been described as more individualistic relative to other countries (Heinö, 2009). Similarly, if we could have included less people with political experience and represented a wider variety of socioeconomic groups, more critical reflections on the current political or economic system might emerge. The key is to bring in actors with conflicting understandings and not shy away from tensions. This resonates with transformation research in general, which increasingly looks to the potential in tension and conflict for transformative processes (Wyborn et al., 2020; Chambers et al., 2022). Another approach might be iteration – unpacking deep assumptions and myths through CLA; creating attempts at radical departures from those assumptions and myths through new scenarios; and then analyzing them again to reveal remaining, deeply held beliefs resistant to change.

This study showed how in a scenario workshop, even when participants are urged to think radically and creatively, people are constrained by myths about ‘how the world works’. Many participants said they preferred the first and third scenario but saw the ‘generic capitalist utopia’ as the most realistic, showing that the ideas about the rational, self-interested human are deeply rooted. Perhaps this is what some have called the ‘imaginary crisis’ (Mulgan, 2020) where we have surrendered to a story about ourselves that we admit is disappointing, and where “we are caught in a trap of small visions” (Pollock, 2017). However difficult it might be to change this, we found that applying CLA helped us create stories that explicitly challenged the myths participants expressed. And the more we are able to see the contradictions and flaws in our perception of the world, the more we will be able to imagine alternatives. Recognizing that we indeed see the world through a lens of deeply seated myths might sound frightening, as it forces us to acknowledge new levels of uncertainty. But it also allows us to see that what we thought was eternal and natural is in fact possible to change, which in turn permits space to envision something better (Scoones and Stirling, 2020). So, by building capacity to think creatively and critically, we can more freely imagine, and when needed, reimagine the future we want.

Bibliography

Adger, W.N. et al. (2009) ‘Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change?’, Climatic Change, 93(3–4), pp. 335–354. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z.

‘Berättarnätet Kronoberg’ (no date) Sagobygden. Available at: https://sagobygden.se/sv/berattarnatet-kronoberg/ (Accessed: 18 May 2021).

Blühdorn, I. (2020) ‘The legitimation crisis of democracy: emancipatory politics, the environmental state and the glass ceiling to socio-ecological transformation’, Environmental Politics, 29(1), pp. 38–57. doi:10.1080/09644016.2019.1681867.

Blythe, J. et al. (2018) ‘The Dark Side of Transformation: Latent Risks in Contemporary Sustainability Discourse’, Antipode, 50(5), pp. 1206–1223. doi:10.1111/anti.12405.

Burnam-Fink, M. (2015) ‘Creating narrative scenarios: Science fiction prototyping at Emerge’, Futures, 70, pp. 48–55. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.12.005.

Chambers, J.M. et al. (2022) ‘Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations’, Global Environmental Change, 72, p. 102422. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422.

Cornell, S. et al. (2013) ‘Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change’, Environmental Science & Policy, 28, pp. 60–70. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008.

Curry, A. and Schultz, W. (2009) ‘Roads Less Travelled: Different Methods, Different Futures’, undefined [Preprint]. Available at: /paper/Roads-Less-Travelled%3A-Different-Methods%2C-Different-Curry-Schultz/fc73132a09cb7be8051427c7dd1db74aa8fb6607 (Accessed: 17 May 2021).

De Simone, S. (2015) ‘Causal Layered Analysis: A “cookbook” approach’, CLA 2.0: Transformative research in theory and practice, pp. 484–495.

Death, C. (ed.) (2014) Critical environmental politics. London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group (Interventions).

Delanty, G. (2020) Critical Theory and Social Transformation: Crises of the Present and Future Possibilities. 1st edn. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2020.: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429297045.

Erwin, K. (2021) ‘Storytelling as a political act: towards a politics of complexity and counter-hegemonic narratives’, Critical African Studies, 13(3), pp. 237–252. doi:10.1080/21681392.2020.1850304.

Falardeau, M., Raudsepp-Hearne, C. and Bennett, E.M. (2019) ‘A novel approach for co-producing positive scenarios that explore agency: case study from the Canadian Arctic’, Sustainability Science, 14(1), pp. 205–220. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0620-z.

Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., et al. (2018) ‘Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research’, Energy Research & Social Science, 40, pp. 54–70. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.026.

Fazey, I., Moug, P., et al. (2018) ‘Transformation in a changing climate: a research agenda’, Climate and Development, 10(3), pp. 197–217. doi:10.1080/17565529.2017.1301864.

Fazey, I. et al. (2020) ‘Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there’, Energy Research & Social Science, 70, p. 101724. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724.

Gottschlich, D. and Bellina, L. (2017) ‘Environmental justice and care: critical emancipatory contributions to sustainability discourse’, Agriculture and Human Values, 34(4), pp. 941–953. doi:10.1007/s10460-016-9761-9.

Griggs, S., Norval, A.J. and Wagenaar, H. (2014) Practices of Freedom: Decentred Governance, Conflict and Democratic Participation. Cambridge University Press.

Hamann, M. et al. (2020) ‘Scenarios of Good Anthropocenes in southern Africa’, Futures, 118, p. 102526. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2020.102526.

Heinö, A.J. (2009) ‘Democracy between collectivism and individualism. De-nationalisation and individualisation in Swedish national identity’, International Review of Sociology, 19(2), pp. 297–314. doi:10.1080/03906700902833619.

Heinonen, S. et al. (2017) ‘Testing transformative energy scenarios through causal layered analysis gaming’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 124, pp. 101–113. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.011.

Inayatullah, S. (1998) ‘Causal layered analysis’, Futures, 30(8), pp. 815–829. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00086-X.

Inayatullah, S. (2002) ‘Reductionism or layered complexity? The futures of futures studies’, Futures, 34(3–4), pp. 295–302. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(01)00045-3.

Inayatullah, S. (2004) The causal layered analysis (CLA) reader: theory and case studies of an integrative and transformative methodology.

Inayatullah, S. (2009) ‘Causal layered analysis: an integrative and transformative theory and method’.

Kates, R.W., Travis, W.R. and Wilbanks, T.J. (2012) ‘Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), pp. 7156–7161. doi:10.1073/pnas.1115521109.

Lessenich, S. (2019) Living well at others’ expense: the hidden costs of Western prosperity. Medford, MA: polity.

Lövbrand, E. et al. (2015) ‘Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene’, Global Environmental Change, 32, pp. 211–218. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.012.

Marlon, J. et al. (2019) ‘How Hope and Doubt Affect Climate Change Mobilization’, Front. Commun. [Preprint]. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2019.00020.

Marshall, D.J. (2014) ‘Save (us from) the children: trauma, Palestinian childhood, and the production of governable subjects’, Children’s Geographies, 12(3), pp. 281–296. doi:10.1080/14733285.2014.922678.

Merrie, A. et al. (2018) ‘Radical ocean futures-scenario development using science fiction prototyping’, Futures, 95, pp. 22–32. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.09.005.

Miller, C.A. and Wyborn, C. (2020) ‘Co-production in global sustainability: Histories and theories’, Environmental Science & Policy, 113, pp. 88–95. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.016.

Milojević, I. and Izgarjan, A. (2014) ‘Creating alternative futures through storytelling: A case study from Serbia’, Futures, 57, pp. 51–61. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2013.12.001.

Moore, M.-L. et al. (2014) ‘Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations’, Ecology and Society, 19(4), p. art54. doi:10.5751/ES-06966-190454.

Moore, M.-L. and Milkoreit, M. (2020) ‘Imagination and transformations to sustainable and just futures’, Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 8(1), p. 081. doi:10.1525/elementa.2020.081.

Morris, B.S. et al. (2020) ‘Optimistic vs. pessimistic endings in climate change appeals’, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), pp. 1–8. doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00574-z.

Mulgan, G. (2020) The Imaginary Crisis (and how we might quicken social and public imagination). Available at: https://demoshelsinki.fi/julkaisut/the-imaginary-crisis-and-how-we-might-quicken-social-and-public-imagination/ (Accessed: 19 May 2021).

Oteros-Rozas, E. et al. (2015) ‘Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: insights and experiences from 23 case studies’, Ecology and Society, 20(4). doi:10.5751/ES-07985-200432.

Patterson, J. et al. (2017) ‘Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24, pp. 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001.

Pereira, L. et al. (2019) ‘Building capacities for transformative change towards sustainability: Imagination in Intergovernmental Science-Policy Scenario Processes’, Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene. Edited by A.R. Kapuscinski, K.A. Locke, and M.-L. Moore, 7, p. 35. doi:10.1525/elementa.374.

Pereira, L.M. et al. (2018) ‘Using futures methods to create transformative spaces: visions of a good Anthropocene in southern Africa’, Ecology and Society, 23(1), p. art19. doi:10.5751/ES-09907-230119.

Pollock, R. (2017) ‘Pragmatic Utopians’, Life itself, October. Available at: https://lifeitself.us/2017/10/20/pragmatic-utopians/ (Accessed: 19 May 2021).

Raudsepp-Hearne, C. et al. (2020) ‘Seeds of good anthropocenes: developing sustainability scenarios for Northern Europe’, Sustainability Science, 15(2), pp. 605–617. doi:10.1007/s11625-019-00714-8.

Rhisiart, M., Störmer, E. and Daheim, C. (2017) ‘From foresight to impact? The 2030 Future of Work scenarios’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 124, pp. 203–213. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.020.

Sala, J.E. and Torchio, G. (2019) ‘Moving towards public policy-ready science: philosophical insights on the social-ecological systems perspective for conservation science’, Ecosystems and People, 15(1), pp. 232–246. doi:10.1080/26395916.2019.1657502.

Schultz, W. (2010) ‘Models and methods in motion: Declining the dogma dance’, Futures, 42(2), pp. 174–176. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.09.011.

Scoones, I. et al. (2020) ‘Transformations to sustainability: combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, pp. 65–75. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.004.

Scoones, I. and Stirling, A. (2020) The Politics of Uncertainty: Challenges of Transformation. 1st edn. Edited by I. Scoones and A. Stirling. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, 2020. | Series: Pathways to sustainability: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003023845.

Sköld, J. and Söderlind, I. (2018) ‘Agentic Subjects and Objects of Political Propaganda: Swedish Media Representations of Children in the Mobilization For Supporting Finland During World War II’, The Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth, 11(1), pp. 27–46. doi:10.1353/hcy.2018.0002.

Spencer, F. and Salvatico, Y. (2015) ‘Creating Stories of Change: Reframing causal layered analysis as narrative transformation’, in CLA 2.0: Transformative research in theory and practice. Tamkang University Press, pp. 78–89.

Stirling, A. (2015) ‘Emancipating transformation: from controlling “the transition” to culturing plural radical progress’, in Scoones, I., Leach, M., and Newell, P. (eds) The politics of green transformations. London: Routledge, pp. 54–67. Available at: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/64945/ (Accessed: 17 May 2021).

Stirling, A. (2019) ‘Engineering and Sustainability: Control and Care in Unfoldings of Modernity’, SSRN Electronic Journal [Preprint]. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3336826.

Sweeney, J. (2018) Playing with Geoengineered Futures: Excogitations on Scenarios, Politics, and Postnormal Potentialities.

UNESCO (no date) UNESCO – Decision of the Intergovernmental Committee: 13.COM 10.C.2. Available at: https://ich.unesco.org/en/decisions (Accessed: 18 May 2021).

UNFCCC (2021) Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. Synthesis report by the secretariat | UNFCCC. Glasgow Climate Change Conference-2021. Available at: https://unfccc.int/documents/268571 (Accessed: 19 May 2021).

Vervoort, J. and Gupta, A. (2018) ‘Anticipating climate futures in a 1.5 °C era: the link between foresight and governance’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, pp. 104–111. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.004.

Wangel, J. et al. (2019) ‘Vitiden : Transforming a policy-orienting scenario to a practice-oriented energy fiction’, Futures: The journal of policy, planning and futures studies, 112. Available at: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-257688 (Accessed: 17 May 2021).

West, S. et al. (2020) ‘A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations’, Ecosystems and People, 16(1), pp. 304–325. doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417.

Westley, F. et al. (2011) ‘Tipping Toward Sustainability: Emerging Pathways of Transformation’, AMBIO, 40(7), pp. 762–780. doi:10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9.

Wittmayer, J.M. and Schäpke, N. (2014) ‘Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions’, Sustainability Science, 9(4), pp. 483–496. doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4.

Woroniecki, S. et al. (2019) ‘The framing of power in climate change adaptation research’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 10(6). doi:10.1002/wcc.617.

Wyborn, C. et al. (2020) ‘Imagining transformative biodiversity futures’, Nature Sustainability, 3(9), pp. 670–672. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0587-5.

von Zabern, L. and Tulloch, C.D. (2021) ‘Rebel with a cause: the framing of climate change and intergenerational justice in the German press treatment of the Fridays for Future protests’, Media, Culture & Society, 43(1), pp. 23–47. doi:10.1177/0163443720960923.

Scenarios

The three scenarios were written in Swedish and presented through oral storytelling, and certain elements of this aren’t captured in this translated version.

Pictures by Linna Fredström

Scenario A

We gather at twilight, even with a light drizzle falling. My smart, water-repellent pants make the moss feel soft, not cold and wet. Dusk falls quickly in November, but solar-powered lanterns in the canopy give off a dim light, enough to illuminate the clearing without disturbing other creatures in the forest. Friya sits on my lap, Frej is here with a group of friends, but waves at us when he thinks the others aren’t looking. I chuckle. Nothing is more embarrassing than mom when you are 14.

When I was 14, everything was so different. I had hardly heard of Bangladesh. Well, I had seen the people, the hoard of people crowded in train compartments and refugee camps after the first major floods. But they were nameless to me, “climate migrants”.  In 2036, I was 25 and pregnant with Frej. That year Brussels announced two million people would be granted asylum in Sweden. Terrified and eight months pregnant I joined the protests in the town center. “Our home, our choice”. But it was too late, 30,000 people came by bus, libraries, schools and hospitals were offered as temporary accommodation. The welfare system collapsed, I gave birth to Frej in a hospital ward with four roommates, curious eyes watching me writhe. Those wore the worst years. Broken chains of supply leaving grocery store shelves empty for weeks, broken English our only way to communicate. The old billboard by the interstate, E4, was left up as some sort of twisted joke “Ljungby municipality – 35 000 inhabitants by 2035”, I remained resentful, suspicious toward the newcomers. Hate crimes soared in central Ljungby, the Bengal people sought refuge in the surrounding villages and even forests. Those desperate times called for extreme measures. State of emergency was declared, experts were called in, but experts soon gave up, no one was held accountable.

Back now in the present, in the clearing in the woods, Aaranyak takes the floor, and even if we can’t see him from where we are sitting, his voice softly reverberates through my earpiece. Aaranyak is named after Bangla’s word for forest. It’s a common name in Friya’s generation, the children who are the first to live in Ljungby’s new age of storytelling. Aaranyak speaks:

“We gathered at this place 11 years ago. We started a conversation that one night in June. Tonight it continues.”

After that, he hands over the mic. Every storytelling session starts like this. I wasn’t there, 11 years ago, but I know the story. It was at its worst, the municipal politicians had given up, the global market was in a deep crisis and the food supply was under threat. I remember how I tried to grow potatoes in our garden. How the delicate leaves shrivelled in the heat…

That same summer, on a hot June night, the Storytelling Network Kronoberg had gathered in the nature reserve Målaskogberg, just outside of the village Ryssby. During these times, the small network met regularly, to document and reflect on those years of crisis. That very night, A group of Bengali refugees had also sought out Målaskogberg, in search of wild strawberries and a place to rest. And that night, a conversation between the groups began. That conversation continues, longed after the long-awaited meeting. It started with stories, about what was lost and what had been, both here and in the places left behind. From stories, memories came back. And from memories came knowledge. Because those hot summer nights, unfamiliarly hot for Ljungby, too hot for our houses and my shriveled-up potato plants, echoed the climate of old Bangladesh. We had seen the refugees as invaders, but in reality, they were our salvation.

The meeting in the forest continues, and Astrid, who coordinates the gardens outside of Kånna describes the conditions for this season’s harvest. Rarely do we experience frost in November, but Astrid doesn’t want to risk the ginger. An elderly couple offers to help her figure out a way to protect the plants, and we move on to the meat ration for the year. Someone argues that nursing homes should have priority, many of the elderly have not fully adjusted to a vegetarian diet. Others protest, you can barely tell the difference between animal and plant-based protein. We go to a vote, and Friya looks enviously at Frej and me as we cast our votes through the mobiles. Voting rights are granted at age 12. The verdict: Meat is to be served at public holidays, Christmas, Diwali, Eid al-Fitr, both students and elderly should have traditional dishes, including animal meat. Friya fusses. She hates meat.

The final speaker tonight is Hasina, Frej’s teacher.

“Bāgha. The tiger. A symbol of my country. A symbol of strength. Which, in the end, became a symbol of anger. And of extinction. But long before that, it was a powerful omen”

Then she tells an old story about the tiger bringing rain in drought. We sit quietly and I hold Friya closer, showing her a picture of a tiger. Bagha. The climate here has changed, and a tiger could have lived in Ljungby.

But of course, there are no tigers left.

Scenario B

My name is Ella, I’m 29 years old and I want to find love.

I am a trained bio-producer and work with bio plantations in southern Sweden. When I was a kid, it was called Ljungby, but it’s really like most places. We have good connections to Copenhagen and good air thanks to the bio plantations. Oh, and if you like nature experiences, we have a Postnord facility, the Postnordic experience, 4000 square meters of tropical forest. I have a season pass there, it’s so great to get a “tonic of wildness”. I think you can never have enough of nature!

I live in an apartment that has just been updated to the newest operating system and staying up-to-date on the latest trends is really important to me.

I am looking for a partner who is fun, ambitious and keeps fit. I want a child, but it’s cool if you don’t want one, I can afford those costs myself if you prefer shared households. I prefer the Solar Foods series over AmazonFood, and I think it’s key we agree on this. I’m really a foodie, so I spend quite a lot of lab-grown vegetables and livestock and all that, which I guess is a bad habit, haha! I love strawberries, so I treat myself to them a few times a year, even though they are so hard to get a hold of!

One thing that might be good to know about me is that I am interested in social issues. I’m not unrealistic, I understand that there’s not enough earth for everyone! And I think we deserve our prosperity, my parents helped build the BECCS facilities in the area, so I know that Sweden made great sacrifices and innovations that we should be proud of. But I have read a lot about the border controls in the Mediterranean and sometimes I think… maybe that’s not right? Perhaps we could have all this well-being and wealth but still share a little too?

Okay, sorry if that was weird, I don’t really think about this kind of thing that often, but sometimes it just feels a little uncomfortable, when I sit alone in the evenings, I can feel a kind of… emptiness as well? But not at an unhealthy level! And if necessary, I take antidepressants and I’m really good at working out and doing my positive mindset exercises, so I’m an energetic and happy person most of the time!

It would just be nice to have someone to talk to

Scenario C

July 5, 2033. Småland is on fire. Spruce and larch forests have after several mild winters and dry summers been ignited by a spark. Flames are spreading from Vittaryd down to Markaryd. Holiday homes on the shore of Bolmen’s swallowed by red and black, residents evacuated in boats. 600 people dead. The rest see family farms, preschools and life savings go up in smoke. We are not prepared.

Or?

July 5, 2033. Småland is on fire. The young mixed forest has, after several mild winters and dry summers, been ignited by a spark. All who can provide their housing to residents of affected areas. The self-driving fleet assists in the evacuation. Marsjö offers refuge. The houses here stand on pillars, footbridges connecting them together, stable enough for both walking and cycling. Below, in marsh-like meadows, two goats stroll. Other than that, the landscape is wild, the homes are built so gently that the marshes can fulfill their important function. Since the wetlands in the municipality were restored, we have been waiting for this very trial. After the drought in 2026-2027, we decided that all water should be taken care of. Water can be used and reused, boiling water from cooking could with thermostats go out into the elements for heating. All water from showers and baths was used for irrigation of green areas. With irrigation already in place, it made sense to grow more of our own food. Kale and carrots, lettuce, beans. We didn’t start with a ready-made plan, but with an idea, to challenge everything we’ve taken for granted. As a consequence, a new road with asphalt has not been laid since 2028. The existing road network is good enough for freight transport and public transport. The roads create polluted water flows and poor infiltration, with this arrangement we are much more resistant to both floods and droughts.

But really, it started with our sharing center. After Covid-19, we realized how much we need each other. The main obstacle to change was coordination. Many people in the municipality had wanted to do things differently for a long time, but we were individuals separated from each other by jobs, travel, children, smartphones. Everyone wanted to do something, but when you did it yourself, it became overwhelming. We started the sharing centre back in 2022. Once the platform was in place, it became so much easier to do all the things we had previously only talked about. Companies, private individuals and municipalities could join forces and finance hydrogen plants, the solar farm on the motorway, the carpool. All with the motto of creating the future together.

Småland is on fire, but the extinguishing work is ongoing.

We’re prepared.

Figure 3 – Performance of scenario 3 – the two storytellers spoke in unison at first, then the stories diverged. The performance ended with one asking the other: “We do all of that, we’re able to turn things around?” and the other answer “I think so. But you should really ask them” as she turns to the audience. 

Photographer: Carina Fredström