Towards a sociology of the future: An exploration in cognitive social theory

Abstract

The aim of this article is a sociology of the future. Since the standard sociological practice of extrapolating from everyday semantics of the future and the time-consciousness of modernity is inadequate, an integrated cognitive sociological perspective allied to critical theory is introduced. It makes visible an essential dimension of social life that is either largely taken for granted, misunderstood or ignored by identifying different levels of cognitive structures organising minds, institutions and culture and following their role in societal dynamics. This perspective mediates the sociocultural and naturalistic approaches and introduces the concept of space-time. Centrally, a modal analysis of the key present-past-future sequence is presented, with the focus on the distinct status of the future. It is modally conceptualised, not simply in terms of possibility as is usual, but rather in terms of its modality as a necessary formal generic cultural model that makes the future in the first place conceivable and enables an orientation towards it to be established and maintained. The resulting cognitive sociological account offers a novel theoretical understanding of the future which could facilitate thorough sociological and critical theoretical analyses in the societal space-time field.

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, the word ‘future’ derives from the late-Latin futurus and entered the English language via Old French in the seventeenth century. Whereas a medieval scholar like Bonaventura could still associate the future with God’s foreknowledge, the incorporation of the word into English took place in a European context which was in the grip of the transition to modernity. A crucial element of this consequential development was the abandonment of the constraining ancient finitism in favour of infinity (Dantzig, 2007; Ugaglia, 2018). The moderns not only readily identified with this radically new context-transcendent and forward-looking perspective, but enthusiastically also grasped and actively pursued the opportunities opened up by it. Engagement in revolutionary and constructive economic, political, civil societal and cultural activities proliferated which resulted in the emergence and institutionalisation of the capitalist economy, the constitutional state, civil society separate from the state, the public, law, science, art and so forth. Given the embrace of infinity, these different events and outcomes contributed to the concomitant development of a novel temporal awareness that became the topic of discussion in social theory under the title of ‘the time-consciousness of modernity’ (e.g. Habermas, 1981, 1987; Koselleck, 2004). What fascinated the discussants was the unprecedented modern prioritisation of the future, the deliberate cultivation of an orientation towards it and the search for realisable possibilities.

Considering that the unique time-consciousness of the moderns as well as their typically future-oriented plans, predictions, projects and activities have been the staple of social theorists’ concern with the future, the question arises today: How is the future best conceptualised for social-theoretical purposes? The answer proposed here is that this typical mode of analysis should now be followed by a shift to a deeper conceptual level. Not only the attachment to the meaning of the word future and the related ordinary everyday semantics should be mitigated, but the focus on time-consciousness should simultaneously also be broadened and structurally complemented. In the case of time-consciousness, on the one hand, the tendency is to privilege the future and the orientation towards it. The concern with the semantics of the future, on the other, fixes more specifically on a path stretching out in front of us, a time that is still to come, events and conditions that are yet to occur or become established, occurrences and achievements that can be predicted, ideals to pursue, goals to be set, possibilities that can be realised, and on prospects of success or even happiness.

Crucial to notice, however, is that the basic assumption of action oriented towards an end, ideal or goal underpinning both the concerns with time-consciousness and the semantics of the future not only prevents appreciation of the need for a more adequate understanding of the social-theoretical significance of the future. It simultaneously also blocks recognition of the conceptual innovation that is called for to put this legitimate yet partial assumption in its place and thus to relativise it. Unless this intervention is carried out, the typical conceptual confusions swirling around attempts to get clarity about the future in terms of its semantics and the associated time-consciousness will persist. Most pernicious is the tendency to misrecognise the nature, status and organising role of the indispensable cognitive sociocultural structures due to their pre-emptive reduction to the generative historical-constructive dimension. Effectively focused on the modality of possibility associated with the future, sight is being lost of the vital structurally borne modality of necessity.

The proposal presented here, therefore, is to put this teleological or goal-oriented assumption in its appropriate place. Far from excluding the semantics of the future and time-consciousness, however, the intention is rather to incorporate both in an encompassing social-theoretical framework. The approach adopted for this purpose is a cognitive social-theoretical one that is closely allied to critical theory. The claim advanced, accordingly, is that clarity about the future and its significance for social theory can be achieved by locating it together with its concomitants within the framework of society conceived as a nature- and material-based cognitive field. To be sure, this conception transposes our sociological understanding of the human sociocultural form of life to another level, but without in any way cancelling the legitimacy of the well-entrenched social-theoretical approaches. It opens a perspective on the cognitive dimension of society that fulfils an essential organising function, from the mico-level of the mind and the meso-level of action and interaction, to the macro-level of institutions and cultural models and the meta-level of governing cultural structures or conceptual conditions of society. Of core importance is the relation of these structures to the distinct modal properties of the present, past and especially the future.

The argument is unfolded in three steps.

To open the question of the future, it is necessary first to move from the conventional concept of time to the more adequate concept of space-time. Such a shift is required since time not only invariably occurs in a spatially circumscribed context, but is also perceived as such. Against this background it is possible, secondly, to establish the ontology or nature of time or, rather, of space-time. This step includes considering the present–past–future sequence, with particular emphasis on the specificity of the future, in terms of their distinct modal forms. Respectively, these modalities are nascency for the present, actuality for the past and necessity/possibility for the future – that is, the particular way or mode in which each of the temporal moments bears or impacts on the social actor and social life more generally under given situational conditions. Once the shift to space-time and the modalities of the temporal moments have been determined, the argument thirdly proceeds to a full cognitive conceptualisation of the future in terms of social theory. This task requires the translation of the ontology of space-time into cultural, sociocultural and social terms or, differently, to articulate the present, past and future in terms of their sociocultural embodiment as structures playing distinct yet indispensable roles in the organisation of social life. Here the focus is on the future as a necessary formal cultural structure or cultural model among other formal and substantive cultural models.

Overall, the three-step argumentation results in an outline of the comprehensive social-theoretical framework that accommodates space-time, both the double natural and sociocultural cognitive dimension as well as the historical-constructive or action dimension. In this context, the future in its relevance for society comes into full view.

From the conventional concept of time to space-time

Before embarking on the development of the envisaged analysis, it is first necessary to register the need to transition from the conventional concept of time to that of space-time.

In philosophy, Immanuel Kant (1968) already appreciated that space and time are necessary conditions for our acquisition and development of knowledge about reality. But it was in connection with relativity theory that Hermann Minkowski and Albert Einstein struck on the concept of space-time. Minkowski is the one who realised in 1908 that ‘[f]rom now onwards space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality’ (no date, p. 39). The outcome of this epoch-making insight was his neologism ‘space-time’ or, more fully, ‘the space-time continuum’ which asserts that an event requires three spatial aspects and a time for its proper description. Although first formulated in physics, the space-time concept is relevant to the social sciences too.

In the social-scientific context, the concept of space-time is obviously unavoidable for any serious reflection on the future. This is the case since many standard expressions associated with the future, such as looking forward to, oriented towards, striding towards, going forward or moving on, attest to people’s irredeemably spatial construction of the future. This of course applies equally to the present and past both of which, like the future, are component parts of the Minkowski–Einstein space-time continuum. Our perception and envisaging of time is throughout spatially conditioned. In social theory, therefore, the shift from the conventional concept of time to space-time cannot be sidestepped. Rather than settle for a temporal phenomenon as approachable exclusively in terms of its hermeneutic situation as delineated by its historical, social and cultural context, the space-time concept further demands that the phenomenon’s spatially situated material conditioning and natural embedment be taken into account simultaneously.

In the present article, therefore, the concept of space-time is employed for analytical purposes as well as to draw some important conceptual conclusions. In the first instance, the concept clears the way for an analysis of the spatially situated present–past–future sequence.

The ontology of space-time

To grasp the significance of the future for social life and its characteristic bearing on action and practices, it has to be understood together with the remaining modes of time in conformity with the notion of the space-time. The future has to be located in the present–past–future sequence so as to enable comparison with the past, while doing so from the spatially situated and occupied present. Cues for the proposed analysis can be drawn from Charles Peirce’s (1998, pp. 357–359; Apel, 1970, pp. 198–203, 207–209) pragmatist-inspired modal ontology of time that starts from the practical situation in order to determine the significance of the past and future for human action in the present as well as their respective conceivable impacts on it. ¹ Rather than in objective terms, however, such significance and impact should be understood according to the meaning content of the modes of time (Apel, 1970, p. 198) – that is, cognitive meaning which is in principle accessible to the actor who is situated in the present.

The present

To begin with, it should be recognised that the present is not just a brief or infinitely short moment between the past and future in which the latter transitions to the former, as it is classically and conventionally taken to be. Rather, it forms part and parcel of the spatio-temporal continuum. In terms of this conception, the present is dependent on the spatial relation among the subject, relevant objects and events as well as the medium of their mediation (Apel, 1970, p. 202). Whereas ‘light’ serves as the medium of mediation in Einstein and Minkowski’s physics (Heisenberg, 1989), spatially constrained and cognitively structured communication and sociocultural structures, particularly the accompanying resonance, can substitute for it in the social sciences. This means instead that the present is a variably finite interval determined by the time it takes for the mediated set of relations between the subject and the objects and events to be established via resonance in its spatial setting. The present can no longer be determined independently of the mediated spatial relation involved in its material conditioning. It is an opening and closing temporal space in which are situated for a variably short time the subject, objects and events as well as those in contact with and implicated by them, all materially conditioned. Accordingly, the present in time-space can be regarded as being in the ‘Nascent’ mode (Peirce, 1998, p. 358) of being in the process of coming into being. ² In substantive terms, this modality of the present can be captured by the term nascency.

As regards the past and future, the subject situated in its nascent present, materially conditioned together with its set of relations, provides the vantage point from which these modes of time must be understood. From this perspective, it is possible to clarify not only what significance is ascribable to the past and the future, but in particular also what bearing their respective cognitive meanings conceivably have on the structuring of the subject’s constructive activities as well as the consequences.

The past

Before turning to the future, the central concern of this article, let us smooth the path by first considering the past. The past affects conduct like something existing insofar as it encompasses what has been and thus all our knowledge. This accounts for why the past is available to us as memory. In addition to knowledge, however, it covers also everything that is still to be discovered by research about events lying beyond memory. As the repository of every ‘fait accompli’, the past works causally upon us like an ‘existent object’ and thus represents the ‘Existential Mode of Time’ or ‘Actuality’ (Peirce, 1998, p. 357). However, there is much more to the past than only this.

The past also preserves acts, arrangements and objects from which meaning can be derived as well as events instructively signifying failures and dead ends (Adorno, 1970, p. 392; Apel, 1970, p. 208; Habermas, 1997). ³ But above all, the past also contributed historically and indirectly evolutionarily a range of intelligible structures, ⁴ such as ideas or concepts, which became stabilised in immanent cultural structures and the stratum of transcendent conceptual conditions of society. It is in particular in the latter meta-cultural structures that these ideas and concepts are continuously being kept cognitively available for use in social life – what I have proposed to call ‘the cognitive order’ of the human sociocultural form of life. ⁵ In Peirce’s understanding, significantly, ideas or concepts in accordance with which we feel we ought to conduct ourselves are not confined to the past, but rather ‘really refer() to the Future’ (1998, p. 359).

This transcendent stratum is composed of three conceptual or cognitive domains covering vital dimensions of social reality – the objective, the socio-moral and the subjective-ethical domains which, respectively, harbour such concepts as truth, justice and truthfulness. ⁶ Crucial to note in the present context, of course, is that the objective domain contains also space and time, or space-time, as indispensable conceptual conditions of our form of life. Important to stress further is that these intelligible structures that have emerged from the past are characterised by a distinctive mode of operation compared to that of the past. As formal categories, they impact on action, practices and, more generally, on social life like ‘principles’, instead of like the ‘existents’ associated with the past. It is in this sense that the conceptual conditions of society can be regarded as ‘either Necessary or Possible, which are of the same mode’ (Peirce, 1998, p. 358). The implication of this modality is that the transcendent concepts and principles in the form of formal categories operate logically and normatively in a constraining manner, on the one hand, and in an enabling manner, on the other, depending on the contingencies of the situation. Logically, they operate by providing a cognitive domain, putting things into place and imposing order on them; and normatively, by regulating and therefore guaranteeing the evaluation of action and its outcomes, thereby signifying new openings. While the constraining aspect of these formal categories representing the conceptual conditions of society corresponds to their modality of necessity, the enabling or opening-up aspect correlates with their modality of possibility.

According to linguistics, lexical structures such as truth, justice, truthfulness, to which space and time can be added, are ‘form-specific’ and ‘non-relational…conceptually autonomous entities’ that have a ‘cognitive’ rather than a ‘linguistic’ function (Evans, 2006, p. 530). Their cognitive nature justifies referring to them collectively as the cognitive order of society. It is composed of cognitive structures that, on the one hand, structure the mind so that the latter can represent it to itself by way of intentional projection, but, on the other, operate below the level of consciousness by enabling perception, imagination, thought, conceptualisation, orientation, expression, interaction and action (Jackendoff, 2007).

The future

Now, it is in this context that the future looms large. The future, to be sure, is not one of those top-level transcendent intelligible structures. It does not belong to the cognitive order. Rather, it is a closely related formal generic category at an immediately lower level which depends for its structuring power and force on those intelligible structures. Above the future, structuring it, are such transcendent-level concepts as space-time as well as others, including truth, justice, truthfulness and many more, which become relevant depending on the material situation of orientation and action. Whatever shaping force the future as a formal generic category possesses, then, can be traced back to these top-level ‘lexical conceptual structures’ (Jackendoff, 1997, p. 117) or the cognitive order.

This close relation between the conceptual conditions of society and the formal generic category of the future accounts for why the future, like space-time, is modally a matter of either necessity or possibility, depending on whether the situational demand is for form-giving structuration or for enabling support for action by opening possibilities. Of first importance to the cognitive social theory presented in this article is the future in its necessary mode – that is, the mode of structuring and organising lower-level structures from above. This emphasis is significant since this conception of the future as modally necessary counters the tendency associated with sociological approaches depending on the ordinary semantic of the future and the time-consciousness of modernity to overlook or ignore such cognitive structures by effectively reducing them to the action dimension. Below, the attention will nevertheless be turned also to the future’s possibility mode which becomes relevant when the contrary dynamic of action asserts itself in the situation. For the moment, however, our interest is in the future in its form-giving necessary mode.

Like the conceptual conditions of society, the future also impacts formal-categorially on action, practices and social life. The future in its necessary mode, in other words, takes the form of a formal generic category. But rather than operating like a principle, as a formal category it does so like a law or norm which is itself dependent on a principle or principles. The future acts on us ‘through the idea of it, that is, as a law acts’ (Peirce, 1998, p. 158). Analogous to a law, the future formally isolates a domain, lays down its parameters and shapes whatever falls in that domain. It follows, therefore, that it is not sufficient to think of the future, as is the case conventionally, as being partly already determined and as partly contingent or undecided and thus in this respect amenable to our control (Apel, 1970, p. 207). Beyond this understanding lies the conception according to which the future equates to a law or a set of formal structures or, sociologically expressed, an indispensable, unavoidable or necessary form-giving cultural model that is vital to orienting action and the organisation of social life.

It has to be acknowledged still further, however, that the future, by operating like a formal cultural model, can also slip from necessity into the mode of possibility when the situation so requires. As such, it enables the material horizon of lower-level ideals and related projects, goal determinations and, ultimately, historical constructive action. On the one hand, then, the future takes formal effect in the mode of necessity through a selective complex of transcendent principles, depending on the situation. But on the other, its operation in the mode of possibility enables immanent anticipatory orientation complexes consisting of inspiring ideals and concrete goals which immediately direct and lead activities at the historical-constructive level. In turn, these ideal-cum-goal orientation complexes are themselves also dependent on a variety of other cultural structures. These are more concrete lower-level cultural structures or cultural models that bestow symbolic meaning on the activities and recursively structure and regulate them in a way that accords with the direct demands of the given situation.

The indicative circumscription of the future in the context of the modal characterisation of the temporal moments of the space-time continuum offered above leads directly to a clarification of how the future can be conceptualised comprehensively for the purposes of cognitive social theory.

Conceptualising the future in terms of cognitive social theory

Society as a naturally and materially based cognitive field

The foregoing contains several indications of what a cognitive social-theoretical conceptualisation of the future would entail. The task in this section is to make it plain by translating the modal ontology of space-time into social, sociocultural and cultural terms. Or differently, the task is to articulate the present, past and future in terms of their naturally and materially situated sociocultural embodiment as structures playing distinct yet indispensable roles in the organisation of social life. While the focus is on the future as a cultural structure or cultural model among other such models, the exercise outlines the comprehensive social-theoretical framework that accommodates the details of the network of space-time relations in which the future is located. ⁷

Clarity on these relations, it should be emphasised, is essential for understanding what it is that makes it possible for members of society to conceive of the future, to orient themselves towards the future, to form an idea of the future in meaningful relation to social reality, to arrive at an interpretation of the future in respect of a particular cross-section of concrete social reality, to form an idea and image of a related ideal that could direct and guide action and, finally, to select a specific goal for actual future-oriented pursuit in seeking to approximate that ideal.

Now, to imagine this comprehensive network, let us picture society at large as consisting not just of the actors, their interrelations, the social and cultural institutions and culture more broadly, as is usual for sociologists, but as simultaneously including also a both supporting and super-imposed cognitive dimension (see Figure 1 below). ⁸ This dimension spans all the mentioned components, from the micro- and meso- to the macro- and meta-levels, in the course of lending each of them their appropriate cognitive structuring. In respect of the future, the cultural and meta-cultural cognitive structures are of special importance. This is the case, since the concept of space-time is a meta-cultural structure, while the future is a cultural structure in the form of a formal generic cultural model structured by the former. In turn, this formal generic model itself gives form to a yet lower-level set of semantic-pragmatic cultural models with a bearing on the future in dependence on the situation. Yet, the cognitive structures at play are by no means confined solely to the social and cultural components.

Figure 1.

The future: A cognitive sociological framework.

In line with the concept of space-time as covering also nature, the cognitive structures at issue include, besides the social and cultural, also those natural structures that are biologically given with the human organic endowment. They include ‘coordination operations’ (Piaget, 1983) such as attention, perception, memory and thought as well as ‘elementary social forms’ (Kaufmann & Clément, 2007) which humans share with the primates, such as group membership, alliance formation, play, competition, rivalry, dominance, subordination, conflict, reconciliation, agreement and cooperation. These structures are manifest in the brain-mind, ⁹ show up in personality and group structures and generally underpin the remaining components of society. Were an actor bereft of these basic cognitive resources, there would be no prospect whatsoever of consciously or unconsciously drawing on the concept of space-time and, hence, of conceiving and orienting towards the future.

To obtain an adequate image of society as a naturally and materially based cognitive field (see Figure 1 below), both the outcomes of natural-social co-evolution and of sociocultural evolution – that is, both the human brain-mind and its entailments and the socially and culturally extended mind together with its entailments – would therefore have to be taken into account.

A multi-dimensional future

As regards the future, the first striking thing from a cognitive perspective is that it is by no means the one-dimensional matter that conventional thought leads one to accept. In this respect, dependence on both the ordinary everyday semantics of the future and the privileged sociological theme of the time-consciousness of modernity must be avoided. Neither this semantics nor this time-consciousness is without relevance, of course, but the future has to be conceptualised in a more penetrating sociological manner. The future is multi-dimensional – a characteristic that is apparent from its presence at a variety of structural levels, stretching as it does from the micro- via the meso- to the macro-level of society, to which the meta-level should furthermore be added too.

For the future to be conceivable at all, to begin with, it requires calling on and mobilising the governing, structuring and regulative force of the meta-level concept or formal logical-normative category of space-time. In order to be so activated and mobilised, however, the cognitive capacity of an actor, whether individual or collective, provided by the potential harboured by the human organic endowment, must be available at the micro-level. In the encultured and socialised case of the human form of life, however, the cognitive capacity or mind is always already shaped by culture and language. In this case, structures below the meta-level are at play – that is, more specifically, at both the macro- and meso-levels. These levels are represented by variable cultural structures, in sociological terms respectively formal generic cultural models and semantic-pragmatic or meaning-giving and action-directing cultural models. The multi-dimensionality of the future thus becomes apparent (see Figure 1 above). ¹⁰

Being enabled and rendered conceivable by the conceptual conditions of space-time, the future is first of all a formal generic cultural model. By its very nature, it makes possible and structures a variety of lower-level structures. Among these is a spectrum of meaning-giving and action-directing cultural models which, in turn, allow different competing and even conflicting interpretative possibilities of the future. But the organising efficacy of the future as a formal generic cultural model also shows in the minds of individual members of society. It is as such a powerful formal generic cultural model that it represents what can be qualified as the future.

In distinction to the future, secondly, the spectrum of socially meaning-giving and action-directing cognitive structures is culturally codified at the next lower level of semantic-pragmatic cultural models. Here we therefore have a range of qualified senses of the future – that is, the future of this or that. Random examples of these models include such currently relevant ones as the future of the planet, the future of ecology, the future of biodiversity, the future of space travel, the future of racism, the future of capitalism, the future of liberalism, the future of my career and so forth. Needless to say, compiling a complete list of semantic-pragmatic cultural models would be a thankless task since the availability of such cultural structures in contemporary society is virtually inexhaustible. But they are of course restricted in that they make sense only in corresponding concrete situations, which makes them perfectly identifiable.

Furthermore, it is crucial to note that the enabling and structuring effect of the future as formal generic model on the semantic-pragmatic types is not immediate and direct. Rather, it is mediated by the interplay between the future and one or more formal generic cultural models that are potentially relevant to situational imperatives and demands. At its own level, the future is but one formal generic cultural model among a large number of other such models. It is through one or more of these neighbouring models that its structuring force gets mediated to the lower semantic-pragmatic level. Included among the other formal generic cultural models are such currently relevant ones as, for example, nature, ecology, science and technology, society, economy, polity, the individual and so forth. As an example of such mediation, let us take the new generic cultural model of nature which had arisen due to significant developments during the past 50 years or so as well as novel situations and responses to them. Further parallel examples of the mediation of the future with other formal generic cultural models, for example, economy or polity, are of course readily to be found. Be that as it may, in and through the mediation of the generic cultural models of the future and nature, driven by societal developments and the responses of those affected, a combined structuring force is generated that shapes a corresponding semantic-pragmatic model which answers to the situational concern of a significant proportion of society members – say, the model of the future of the planet (see Figure 1 above). Depending on the situation and the selective interpretative demands that those affected make on this semantic-pragmatic model, a range of different interpretations and their carrier groups emerge in society. As is to be expected, accordingly, conflicting interpretations and mutual contestations over what the future of the planet means and what action it demands of us are for some time already observable.

If the future is first a macro-level formal generic cultural model and, secondly, a meso-level spectrum of semantic-pragmatic cultural models, then at the micro-level it is thirdly in the mind. A trace of the future is found in the multi-modular brain, while the modules are in turn socio-culturally organised beyond their natural substrate by the cognitively fluid mind. On the one hand, the physics, biology and psychology modules provide the natural foothold, respectively, for space-time, function-lifespan and position-duration structures. The latter three function as domain-specific cognitive mechanisms on which the mind can hang a sense of the future. On the other hand, the sociocultural components furnish the necessary means, such as ideas, concepts, principles and forms of interaction, discourse and action, whereby the incipient nature-based sense of the future can be articulated in all its diversity in relation to concrete situations and experiences as well as to anticipations, plans, projects and future actions.

Not only should the four-dimensional – that is, meta, macro, meso and micro – nature of the future now be transparent, but the account simultaneously also opens the opportunity to pursue the question of the future in some finer detail.

Situated and culturally structured orientation to the future

The next step in the present undertaking to explicate the future in terms of cognitive social theory is to take the much-used phrase, ‘orientation towards the future’, as starting point for a somewhat more in-depth exploration. For this purpose, the multi-dimensional understanding of the future presented above recommends itself as potentially helpful.

Important to keep in mind throughout is that the formation of a situated and culturally structured orientation to the future involves a dialectically unfolding process. It is generated and borne by the tension-laden interrelation of three moments, namely: an actor, whether individual or collective, seeking to orient him-, her- or itself while engaging in constructive activity; second, a conditioning situation in which the actor frames and embodies the demands associated with those conditions; and, finally, the role culture plays by variably structuring the ongoing process in a feedback loop. While culture’s structuring power depends on being activated from below by the actor in accordance with the demands of the situation, both the actor’s attempt to find an appropriate mode of orientation and the framing and articulation of the situational demands cry out for cultural structuration.

Now, an orientation towards the future takes off at the micro-level from a nascent feeling and an accompanying vague image that are triggered by a contingency like a shock, surprise or sudden insight induced by a more or less significant change in the situational conditions related to some development, incident or event. For this initial move to blossom into the beginnings of an orientation to the future, however, it needs some conceptual or principled consolidation. Such support can be obtained by having recourse to the meta-level space-time conceptual condition. This takes the form of a first, typically unconscious, orientation towards the meta-level and drawing from space-time to render the future conceivable. In the absence of such a transcending reach the actor would simply have no concept of the future that could give form to its vague feeling and image of the future.

Effectively, then, the activation of the structuring power of space-time delivers the full-blown formal generic cultural model of the future – what can therefore be referred to as the future. Here the maturing orientation shifts from its tentative opening projection towards this generic model and, consequently, blossoms into an orientation towards the future. Depending on the particular situational interest of the actor, however, the model of the future is immediately accompanied by another corresponding generic cultural model, say, the model of nature – to retain the example chosen earlier – selected from a palette of other possible options. The interrelation of these two formal generic models, the future and nature – that is, their mediation in view of the demands of the situation embodied by the orienting actor – brings about a transition to the next phase in the formation and consolidation of the actor’s orientation to the future.

This new phase of the process is shaped by the tension between the actor’s drive to find an appropriate orientation to the future and the outcome of the mediation of the two formal generic cultural models of the future and nature. What resulted from this mediation is the activation of the corresponding semantic-pragmatic cultural model of the future which, in turn, answered to the actor’s articulation of the situational demands. The precise moment of tension here is marked, therefore, by the actor’s orientation-in-formation and the relevant semantic-pragmatic cultural model. It is in the resolution of this tension that maturation or consolidation occurs, so that the actor is now in possession of its orientation towards the future. The actor has the future vaguely in mind, it is rendered conceivable by the transcendent category of space-time and formally secured by the generic cultural model of the future and, finally, the symbolically packaged and pragmatically directing cultural model of the future of the planet – to keep to the example introduced earlier – enables the actor to transition to engagement and action.

Although the actor is at this point solidly oriented towards the future, its potential engagement to give effect to that orientation is not devoid of further implications for its orientation. In terms of the encompassing cognitive sociological framework, a shift now takes place from the structural to the historical constructive dimension.

Acting upon an attained orientation through an ideal and goal

The actor is now poised to engage in action. Its opening anticipation of the future as well as its initial framing of the situational conditions and demands are behind it. And having gained the necessary formal cultural backing, the actor is now also oriented towards the semantic-pragmatic cultural model of the future of the planet in harmony with its own initially felt and imagined concern.

The challenge facing it at this crucial juncture of moving to the action dimension is to finally fix on a specific interpretation of the semantic-pragmatic model which has the potential of opening a pathway to engagement. From a palette of available options in the current situation, the actor has to decide on one. Climate change is selected as a fitting interpretation rather than biodiversity, a sustainable society, the survival of humanity and so forth. This particular selection obviously places the actor in a field occupied by a variety of other actors who either are oriented towards the same semantic-pragmatic model but adhere to competing interpretations or prioritise other semantic-pragmatic models altogether. Be that as it may, action requires more than just an interpretation to come off the ground. Indeed, it needs an ideal as orientation point for the attempt to move from interpretation to reality. Without an ideal, action would be deprived not only of direction, but also of the regulative guidance it needs as it unfolds in space and time.

In conjunction with its interpretation of the prioritised semantic-pragmatic cultural model, then, the actor projects a related ideal. With a basis in its interpretation of the future of the planet in terms of climate change, the actor envisages the ideal of the reduction of global warming. This projected ideal receives its particular form from both the relevant formal generic models and the prioritised semantic-pragmatic model and, therefore, exhibits a structure corresponding to them. That is, as per the chosen example, the ideal of the reduction of global warming generally reflects the models of the future and nature and, more particularly, it is shaped by the model of the future of the planet interpreted in terms of climate change. It should be obvious, therefore, that there is an intrinsic relation between the ideal and the future in its multilevel structural manifestations. To be more precise, the actor’s projected ideal of the reduction of global warming represents a refracted version of the structurally defined future, indeed, a concentrated and focused pragmatic version of the interpreted future which is capable of inspiring, leading, directing and guiding the action intended to pursue it.

In addition to establishing an ideal, however, the actor further has to select and determine also a suitable goal for action to be taken in pursuit of that ideal. Since no ideal can be realised as such but at best can only be approximated, the specification of some or other concrete goal is imperative. Also in this case, there is a range of possible goals from which a choice could be made. A competing actor who is pursuing the same ideal of reducing global warming could, accordingly, opt for a quite different goal in its endeavour to approximate that ideal. Be that as it may, the selection made by the actor in our focus is determined by its critical frame of mind. Let us say its goal is to study and critically expose the causes and implications of behavioural patterns, not just those of the billionaire class, but more broadly of the wealthy in the European Union – that is, the top 10 per cent who are responsible for global warming-generating gasses equivalent to that produced by 50 per cent of the population from the bottom up (Oxfam International, 2023). Of interest, for example, would be the typical use of private jets, yachts, exclusive cars, SUVs, including hybrid and electric ones, and homes in far off locations considered safe in the event of nuclear or environmental catastrophe. But then there are also new practices, such as for example prioritising exorbitantly priced the so-called ‘luxury water’ obtained from the remotest of sources, including pumped from 3000 feet below Hawaii, extracted from Fijian springs or from melting Norwegian icebergs ( The Guardian, 2019). To give the pursuit of the ideal of reduced global warming an edge, the actor’s goal-oriented action of the study and critique of causal sources as well as the fallout is further strengthened by being coordinated with the recurrent protest mobilisations of the environmental movement.

It is on the action, historical constructive or teleological dimension where ideal-inspired goal-oriented actions and practices take place that the original feelings, imaginings and tentative orientations, the intricate cultural structures and the projected ideal of the future become activated and are brought closer to realisation. At the same time, the diversity of ideal- and goal-oriented actions spearheaded by the variety of involved actors bring society constructively into being. It is at this level for the first time that the conception of modernity’s unique future-oriented time-consciousness and, in particular, the conventional semantics of the future, such as looking forward to, oriented towards, striding towards, going forward or moving on, come into their own. Important to note is that, however much the historical construction of society involves teleological or goal-oriented activities, it indefinitely remains an open-ended process. This is the case, since society is being constituted by a multiplicity of actions, all with their own diverse circumscribed goals that can never become sufficiently aggregated to unequivocally define the process’s end state. Space-time is a continuum and thus the future does not admit of closure.

The openness of the future

From a more comprehensive perspective, the openness of the future hinges on a range of different factors, by no means only on what takes place on the level of the historical construction of society, although its importance can of course not be impugned. Besides the incalculable role of chance occurrences or interventions, the multiplicity of sources of openness is confirmed by a consideration of the double natural-and-sociocultural cognitive dimension. While presupposing latency, these sources are to be found from the micro-level, through the meso- and macro- level, right up to the meta-level.

At the most basic micro-level, the human organic endowment provides the latent or potential capacity to feel, imagine and think up innovative ideas and possibilities essential to opening the future generatively and keeping it open. At least partly, this fecund source of future-oriented innovation already draws on the meta-level concepts and principles – that is, the cognitive order – with their defining surplus or excess of non-relational significance. Manifest as indefiniteness or vagueness, this surplus of theirs does not simply serve as the most important repository of societal potential, since it stands formally also for the very infinite openness of space-time and, by implication, of the future. ¹¹

In between the brain-mind on the one hand and the cognitive order on the other, both the meso- and macro-level structures play vital roles in the selection, firming up and mediation of meso-level ‘engaged’ and macro-level ‘counterfactual possibilities’ (Strydom, 2023, pp. 167, 171) that contribute to the openness of the future. Their impact in this respect is particularly telling in their respective contributions to the formation of the ideals inspiring goal-directed actions (see Figure 1 above). It should be noted that what is so significant about ideals in relation to the openness of the future, is that they, like the meta-level structures, harbour a surplus of potential that prevents their meaning and form-giving power from ever being exhausted (Strydom, 2023, pp. 172–173). An ideal that directs and guides the action in pursuit of it is by its very nature and at its own level a vehicle of the infinite openness of the future.

Conclusion

Besides the urgency signalled by the crisis-ridden conditions of our time, this article was specifically motivated to take a step towards a sociology of the future in order to mitigate, at least to some degree, the evident inadequacy of the leading sociological positions in the face of the problem of the future. It was argued that at the base of this inadequacy is the standard sociological practice of extrapolating from the favoured everyday semantics of the future and the time-consciousness of modernity. Several limitations impeding this approach’s efforts to grasp the sociological sense of the future became readily apparent.

Most immediately, this practice proceeds from the assumption of the primacy of action which is accompanied by a neglect or effective reduction of the fragile cognitive structural components enabling the orientation to the future. This entails further that this sociological approach suffers from a theoretical framework that is too narrow to keep all the indispensable dimensions in view. For example, space as the complement of time falls by the wayside. In turn, the reduction of cognitive structures and the exclusion of dimensions predetermine a seriously inadequate one-sided treatment of the future. The consequent lack of sensitivity for central cognitive cultural structures occludes the recognition of the modality of the future, namely either necessity or possibility, depending on situational conditions. Yet, the standard sociological practice nevertheless proceeds to bank on and even exuberantly celebrate the future under the sign of possibility.

To mitigate and overcome the inadequacy of the standard approach to the future, the overall concern of this article was to put forward an integrated cognitive sociological perspective which allowed the proposal of solutions to that inadequacy. This enhanced perspective was designed to be sufficiently comprehensive to encompass as well as mediate the usually separately treated sociocultural and naturalistic approaches. Given that this perspective was here specifically brought to bear on the sociology of time, the need to accommodate these two divergent approaches dictated that a further momentous theoretical step be taken to seal its comprehensiveness – that is, the substitution of the concept of space-time for the conventional concept of time. It is by bringing together the natural and sociocultural dimensions as well as space and time that the presented sociological perspective made available an overall framework for the development of an argument that could give focused attention to the question of the future.

In terms of that framework, society as a comprehensive network consists not just of actors, their interrelations, the social and cultural institutions and culture more broadly, but simultaneously includes also a double undergirding natural and super-imposed sociocultural cognitive dimension. The unique contribution made from this perspective, therefore, amounts to making visible the all-pervasive cognitive dimension at play in the dynamics of social life. On the one hand, the different levels of natural and sociocultural cognitive structures that organise the minds of actors, institutions and culture from below and from above were isolated. And on the other hand, the respective roles and impacts of those structures in the dialectical mediation of the micro-, meso-, macro- and meta-levels of society were followed. Having determined the defining structuring power of the future through modal analysis, it was placed at the centre of this complex set of societal relations. While thus emphasising the modality of necessity, the future’s enabling modality of possibility was nevertheless also given its due.

The overall picture of the future that emerged from the account offered was its multi-dimensionality. Whereas space-time as meta-cultural structure rendered the future conceivable in the first place, the future was shown to be manifest across the whole range of cognitive structures. Altogether five levels were specified. The future, rooted in the brain-mind, in the course of time became stabilised as a formal generic cultural model representing the future, gets symbolically packaged through semantic-pragmatic or meaning-giving and action-directing cultural models, correspondingly finds situation-specific articulation in diverse competing and even conflicting interpretations, and finally gets pragmatically concentrated and focused in ideals that direct and guide future-oriented actions engaged in the attempted realisation of possible corresponding goals.

Overall, then, the outcome of the argument presented in this article is a novel theoretical understanding of the future that could transform the extant sociology of time beyond recognition and make thorough sociological and critical-theoretical analyses in the space-time field possible.