In this paper, I describe the rhetorical conventions which allow participants in a planning or policy discussion to distinguish publicly between memories and anticipations and to agree as to what time it is now. The principal contribution of the paper is the conception of an ‘artificial present’ which allows both historical knowledge and forecasts to be brought to bear upon current decisions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArgyrisC, 1980The Inner Contradictions of Rigorous Research (Academic Press, New York)
2.
CorsaroW A, 1981, “Communicative processes in studies of social organization: Sociological approaches to discourse analysis”Text15–63
3.
CottleT J, 1976Perceiving Time: A Psychological Investigation with Men and Women (John Wiley, New York)
4.
CottleT JKlinebergS L, 1974The Present of Things Future: Explorations of Time in Human Experience (Free Press, New York)
5.
DoobL W, 1971Patterning of Time (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT)
6.
FaberK-G, 1978, “The use of history in political debate”History and Theory Beiheft17, pp 36–67
7.
GaleR M, 1968The Language of Time (Routledge and Kegan Paul, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon)
8.
GardinerP, 1955The Nature of Historical Explanation (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
9.
GurvitchG, 1964The Spectrum of Social Time (D Reidel, Dordrecht)
10.
HolznerBMarxJ H, 1979Knowledge Application: The Knowledge System in Society (Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA)
11.
MandelbaumS J, 1977, “The past in service to the future”Journal of Social History11193–204
12.
MandelbaumS J, 1981, “Urban pasts and urban policies” in Social History and Social Policy Eds RothmanDWheelerS, (Academic Press, New York) pp 275–300
