The power of large technological visions : the promise of hydrogen energy (1970-2010)

(1)

The power of large technological visions : the promise of

hydrogen energy (1970-2010)

Citation for published version (APA):

Dignum, M. (2013). The power of large technological visions : the promise of hydrogen energy (1970-2010). Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. https://doi.org/10.6100/IR759497

DOI:

10.6100/IR759497

Document status and date: Published: 01/01/2013 Document Version:

Publisher’s PDF, also known as Version of Record (includes final page, issue and volume numbers) Please check the document version of this publication:

• A submitted manuscript is the version of the article upon submission and before peer-review. There can be important differences between the submitted version and the official published version of record. People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.

• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.

• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers.

Link to publication

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.

If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

www.tue.nl/taverne

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at:

openaccess@tue.nl

providing details and we will investigate your claim.

(2)

(3)

The Power of

Large Technological Visions

The promise of hydrogen energy

(1970-2010)

Marloes Dignum

(4)

This research has been made possible by:

Advanced Chemical Technologies for Sustainability (ACTS) program of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and Eindhoven University of Technology, School of Innovation Sciences.

ISBN 978-90-8891-682-3

Published by: Uitgeverij BOXPress, ‘s-Hertogenbosch

All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the author.

(5)

The Power of Large Technological Visions

The promise of hydrogen energy (1970-2010)

PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, op gezag van de rector magnificus prof.dr.ir. C.J. van Duijn,

voor een commissie aangewezen door het College voor Promoties, in het openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 10 september 2013 om 16:00 uur

door

Marloes Dignum

geboren te Tilburg

(6)

Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotiecommissie: voorzitter: prof.dr.ir. J.W.M. Bertrand

1e_{promotor: prof.dr.ir. G.P.J. Verbong}

2e_{promotor: prof.dr.ir. H.W. Lintsen}

copromotor: prof.dr. J.W. Schot

leden: prof.dr. J. Grin (UvA)

prof.dr. G.J. Kramer (UL)

prof.dr.ir. H. van Lente (UU)

(7)

(8)

(9)

i

Acknowledgements

The future is an intriguing concept. It is unknown to all of us, yet, covered with expectations. This is the case with technological envisioning as well as in our private lives. The ideas you hold for the future can influence the decisions of today. When I started this research, I was also taken by many expectations. I expected to enter a world of science that would allow me to discover new fields that were not known to me. To broaden my understanding and to unravel insights that had not been known before. These expectations allowed me to take steps into the realm of science, to discover new things step by step, and to craft this thesis one day at the time. However, this journey of science proved much more than that. As with all large endeavors, you cannot anticipate each step. And you may encounter barriers that were unforeseen at the beginning. The long journey that crafting a Ph.D. thesis entails and the unforeseen barriers that arise during this path, result in a close interrelation between your private life and your work. Fortunately, I had great support on both sides.

When I started at Eindhoven University of Technology, I entered a vibrant academic community. There were many (in)formal meetings to discuss work, books, articles, and more. This atmosphere greatly helped me in shaping my academic background. My supervisors were very important in this process. Geert Verbong and Harry Lintsen stimulated me to discover my own research interests and to shape my research in accordance to these interests. I greatly enjoyed our meetings together and the open discussions we had on these occasions. The meetings were inspiring and had an open(minded) atmosphere.

Geert, thank you for your great support. Throughout the entire process you were there with advice, support, and guidance. You always managed to provide several layers of advice including overall scope regarding the direction of the research and more detailed advice. Your advice was very helpful. I also appreciated that you were always able to squeeze in some time for me in your busy schedule.

Harry, you were there from the start and I experienced your participation as very supportive. During our meetings you were always able to take a new angle on the topic. Towards the end of the process, the frequencies of our meetings increased, and you taught me the skill of crafting a manuscript into a book.

The atmosphere in the department was very stimulating. When I started my Ph.D., there were frequent meetings with the ‘reading club’ to discuss papers and new insights. I thank Johan Schot, Rob Raven, Frank Geels, Johanna Ulmanen, Niels Schoorlemmer, and Bram Verhees for having great discussions in this period. In later years, Saurabh took the initiative for arranging these interesting meetings, which resulted in an equal intellectual challenge.

The academic journey also took me outside Eindhoven. Throughout the project I received feedback on intermediary results from Gert Jan Kramer. Thank you for these

(10)

ii

inspiring conversations on hydrogen in a larger perspective. The discussions on expectations that I had with Harro van Lente were also of great importance to my research. The meetings varied from an instantaneous conversation on a conference to more elaborate discussion sessions. Great support also came from John Grin. His enthusiasm for my research always gave me an additional boost to work towards new results.

Throughout the years of my research I also experienced - and greatly needed - the professional support outside the academic environment. I am much indebted to all people who were willing to dedicate their time for an interview. I also felt very welcome at the University of California in Davis and Berkeley University of California for my fieldwork. The Danish Energy Museum provided me with important historical material and the California Fuel Cell Partnership helped me to become increasingly acquainted with the hydrogen and fuel cell field in California. All this support was absolutely essential for establishing this thesis.

Writing a thesis is a lot of hard work, but it is also a lot of fun. Much of this excitement of writing a thesis comes from the interaction with colleagues. Inspiring conversations often happen at semi-informal settings such as a conference dinner or a walk to bus. Some of such contacts also helped me professionally during parts of this research. I would like to thank Richard Hirsh, Sjoerd Bakker, Björn Budde, Siri Hall Arnøy, and many others for their inspiration and support.

A similar mixture between relaxation and intellectual challenge (the balance differs per person) was also present in interactions with my colleagues in Eindhoven. The highlight on the relaxation part might arguably be the meetings with the Lentil Cooking Club. Many thanks to Evelien, Boukje, Sadaf, Yuti, Suyash, Johanna H., Lilianne, and Frans. I also enjoyed the lunches at the department and the conversations at the corridor. Special thanks to: Koen, Arjan, Rudi, Henny, Frank V., Fred, Mila, Erik, Auke, Andreas, Önder, Mieke, Rinnie, and Letty.

Privately, I also experienced great support. I am fortunate enough to be surrounded with lovely friends with whom I can discuss everything and whose doors are always open. I would like to thank: Shirley, Christianne, Martine, Caroline, Carmen, Janny, Annelies, Indra, Ron, Inge, and Frank S. for their everlasting support.

I realize it’s a privilege to being able to thank so many people. Sometimes, it is impossible to thank someone. I would like to raise the memory of my mother, Tineke, and my partner, Maarten. They were of great importance in my life and they helped me to become the person I am today. Their memory also makes me aware to be thankful for having my family around me: my brother Erik and my father Nico. Words cannot express my gratitude to my father. He has been there for me in all phases of life and during all hardship and prospers. Without his support this thesis would not have been written.

(11)

iii

Acronyms:

AB: Assembly Bill

AC Transit: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District APTA: American Public Transport Association AQMD: Air Quality Management District

ARRA: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act BEV: Battery Electric Vehicle

CAFCP: California Fuel Cell Partnership CAFE: Corporate Average Fuel Economy CaH2Net: California Hydrogen Highway Network

CalSTEP: California Secure Transportation Energy Partnership CAN: Clean Air Now

CARB: California Air Resources Board

CEC: California Energy Commission

CFO: Clean Fuels Outlet

CNG: Compressed Natural Gas

CUTE: Clean Urban Transport for Europe DMFC: Direct Methanol Fuel Cell

DOD: U.S. Department of Defense DOE: U.S. Department of Energy

DOT: U.S. Department of Transportation

EERE: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

EV: Electric Vehicle

FC: Fuel Cell

FCHEA: Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association

FCV: Fuel Cell Vehicle

FP: Framework Program

FTA: Federal Transit Administration

GAO: U.S. Governmental Accountability Office

GHG: Greenhouse Gas

HEV: Hybrid Electric Vehicle

HFC: Hydrogen Fuel Cell

HFP: European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform

HIA: Hydrogen Implementing Agreement

HLG: High Level Group

HTAC: Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee HTAP: Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel

(14)

vi

ICE: Internal Combustion Engine

IEA: International Energy Agency

IJHE: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

IPHE : International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy IWG: Interagency Working Group on Hydrogen and Fuel Cells

LEV: Low Emission Vehicle

LTV: Large Technological Vision

MCFC: Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell

NACA: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics NAS: National Academies of Sciences

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NEP: National Energy Policy

NFCRC: National Fuel Cell Research Center

NHA: National Hydrogen Association

NRC: National Research Council

NREL: National Renewable Energy Laboratory

OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturers

PAFC: Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell

PEM: Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell

PHEV: Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle

PNGV: Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles PV: Photovoltaic

RD&D: Research, Development and Deployment

SB: Senate Bill

SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District SPFC: Solid Polymer Fuel Cell

STA: State Transit Assistance

TAO: Technology Advancement Office TLEV: Transitional Low Emission Vehicles ULEV: Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle

USABC: United States Battery Consortium

WE-NET: World Energy Network

WHTC: World Hydrogen Technology Conventions WW2: Second World War

ZBUS: Zero Emission Bus

ZEBA: Zero Emission Bay Area hydrogen fuel cell bus demonstration program

(15)

(16)

(17)

9

1. Introduction

Hydrogen has inspired many visions of a sustainable energy system. Hydrogen is highly reactive with oxygen, and when this reaction occurs it creates water and energy, two essential ingredients of contemporary society. Daimler’s advertisement depicted on the previous page displays this intriguing reaction. Only pure water is exhausted from the tailpipe of this car. This image suggests that driving a hydrogen car is actually beneficial to the environment, possibly even more beneficial than not driving at all since it waters the surroundings.

When looking at hydrogen energy visions, the benefits of hydrogen seem not only to be limited to the environment. In 2002, the American Economist Jeremy Rifkin published the bestselling book The hydrogen economy; The creation of the worldwide

energy web and the redistribution of power on Earth. This book described hydrogen as

an inexhaustible fuel and its use would supposedly result in greater equality and increased democratization all over the world. The book presented the hydrogen economy as panacea for solving contemporary problems, and to create a new, and better, world order (Rifkin, 2003). A 2005 Californian government report announced:

“Hydrogen can greatly reduce our dependence on petroleum, provide numerous environmental and public health benefits, and create economic opportunities including new jobs in California.” (CaH2Net, 2005 p.9). In the 2003 State of the Union,

President George W. Bush announced a U.S. $1.2 billion investment in hydrogen technology. Bush envisioned that “the first car driven by a child born today could be

powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free” (Bush, 2003). Many of these large visions

position hydrogen as panacea for contemporary problems. The scope of some of these visions is so grand that they reach utopian heights.

The promises associated with hydrogen are huge, whereas the actual application in society is still limited to demonstration projects. For over four decades hydrogen development has thrived on expectations instead of actual accomplishments. The large difference between promise and reality raises questions regarding the development of hydrogen and the high expectations allocated to hydrogen fuel. Is hydrogen indeed a promising energy carrier that can solve the world's energy problem? On the other hand, failure to reach the vision within the articulated time span does not have to make the vision redundant.

Large visions accompany many novel technologies (Winner, 2004). Usually, the scope of the initial visions does not come about. Even when the technology becomes widely adopted, the societal consequences differ from initial anticipations. Along this reasoning, some scholars conclude that there seems to be no correlation between the

(18)

10 vastness of a vision and the scale of the realized ambitions (Berkhout et al., 2004; Brown, 2003). Winner (2004) approaches this phenomenon almost bantering:

“[T]he arrival of any new technology that has significant power and practical potential always brings with it a wave of visionary enthusiasm that anticipates the rise of a utopian social order. Surely the coming of this machine, this new device, this technical novelty will revitalize democracy. Surely its properties will foster greater equality and widespread prosperity throughout the land. Surely it will distribute the power more broadly and empower citizens to act for themselves. Surely it will cause us to cultivate new and better selves, becoming larger and more magnanimous people than we have been before. And surely it will connect individuals and groups in ways that will produce greater social harmony and a relaxation of human conflict. From the coming of the steam locomotive, to the introduction of the telegraph, telephone, motion pictures, centrally generated electrical power, automobile, radio, television, nuclear power, guided missile, and the computer (to name just a few), this has been the recurring theme: celebrate! The moment of redemption is at hand.” (Winner,

2004 p.34).

After these observations it would be fairly straightforward to conclude that large visions are merely hot air, or even deceptive. Although tempting, such a conclusion would be rash. Reasoning along these lines does not acknowledge the (genuine) beliefs of people articulating such grand visions and expectations, nor does it acknowledge the guiding properties of this perception. Regardless of whether the vision is (completely) realized, visions can influence developments by providing a point of orientation. Expectations are not solely representations of a situation that still has to happen; the articulation of expectations also influences developments. By its existence, and the acceptance by actors, visions impact development. Visions are fundamental in mobilizing resources, creating incentives, formulating goals, and in allocating roles (Brown, 2003; Van Lente, 1993; Michael, 2000; Jasanoff and Kim, 2009). This property of visions is called performativity; it indicates that visions can do things (Van Lente, 1993).

At the same time, visions should not be seen as blueprints for the future, their shaping capabilities are more subtle. These large visions encompass many domains, and only encounter the limitation of human imagination. Many of these large visions focus on technology and envision a specific technology to be society-changing. The most famous work in this genre is arguably Francis Bacon’s utopian work New Atlantis (1624). Ever since the founding of this work, technological envisioning has been part of our society (e.g. Achterhuis, 1998). The scope of these technological visions differs. Some of these large visions focus on the developments of a technological field while other technological visions are even more generic and depict

(19)

11 a whole new society based on the potential of the new technology. As Winner illustrates, these large technological visions often emerge with promising technologies. Due to the large scope of these visions, they inherently do not come about as originally stated. The large-scale nature of these visions, combined with limited results, raises questions regarding the performative nature of these types of visions (Van Lente, 1995; Brown, 2003). This thesis focuses on this issue by analyzing the impact of Large Technological Visions.

A Large Technological Vision (LTV) is a specific type of vision. LTVs centralize (a specific) technology and attribute great transformative power to that technology including large (positive) societal consequences once a novel promising technology is widely adopted and has reached a prominent position. LTVs portray massive societal change and incorporate utopian thought. This thesis will provide more insight in the nature of LTVs by focusing on the performativity of these visions. It raises questions such as: do such large visions shape development, and, if so, to which extent? What are the underlying principles behind the long-term acceptance? And what are the principles underlying such possible dynamics? The first step towards addressing these questions is to specify the framing of LTVs. Based on an analysis of scientific literature, combined with empirical research, the first research question is answered:

 What are the characteristics of LTVs?

The framing of a vision is a first step for its performativity. The other main research question specifically addresses the performativity of LTVs. By answering the question:

 How does the performativity of LTVs become enacted?

The performativity of visions will be analyzed by answering two sub-questions. The first sub-question is derived from the observation that in order for an LTV to have performative influence, the vision needs to become shared and used for guiding action. These two aspects of performativity are addressed in two questions. The first sub-question is: How do LTVs become shared? The second sub-sub-question is: How do LTVs

guide?

These questions form the focus of this thesis and will be answered by an empirical analysis of the vision of the hydrogen economy. This thesis takes a longitudinal perspective, in which the separate case studies analyze periods ranging from 15-40 years. This period covers two periods of high hydrogen enthusiasm; the 1970s and in the early 2000s. Attention is paid to the circumstances in which a vision is framed and becomes shared. This also includes the relation of the vision with the expectations of other promising technologies that can facilitate the realization of a hydrogen economy.

(20)

12 The hydrogen economy concept is seen as shorthand for the hydrogen energy vision. In periods of time this shorthand was widely shared and became an emblem for the hydrogen LTV. This thesis uses this shorthand interchangeably with concepts such as hydrogen energy or the hydrogen vision. With these different framings it is important to note that the focus is on LTVs. In order for LTVs to be able to exert their performative influence, they need to become widely shared among different actor groups. The potential collective benefits of the hydrogen vision call for the inclusion of the policy domain to facilitate the change towards a better and often more sustainable society.

Separate case studies focus on the framing and the origin of LTVs, the adoption process of the vision, and the guiding aspects of the vision in policy programs and local practices. The case study on the framing of the vision analyses the emergence of the hydrogen vision and the context in which this occurred. It emphasizes the role of the academic community since this community was important in the creation and establishment of the hydrogen vision. The focus for analyzing the performativity of LTVs is on the USA and the State of California based on their leading positions in the field of hydrogen technology and the public commitment to the hydrogen energy vision by policymakers on the highest level.

(21)

13

2. Conceptual Framework

The importance of visions and expectations is acknowledged in fields such as Science, Technology and Society, Innovation Studies, Policy Studies, and Economics. There are also several bodies of literature that specifically focus on visions. The sociology of expectations, the Leitbild perspective, and utopian studies all centralize the role of visions, each with a different focus and origin. Although the origin of these bodies of literature differs, they share the inclusion of the performative nature of visions (Van Lente, 1993; Brown et al., 2000; Brown, 2003; Achterhuis, 1998). Visions are not solely representations of a situation that still has to happen; the articulation of expectations also influences developments. By its existence, and acceptance by actors, visions impact development. In this sense, expectations act (Van Lente, 1993).

The conceptual framework is built upon those three vision theories. Utopian studies are included because of the grand scope of utopian visions. This is an interesting point of departure because of the grandness embedded in LTVs. Section 2.1 provides a brief description of the vision theories and includes the views of the sociology of expectations and the Leitbild perspective with regard to LTVs and utopias. The vision characteristics of each of these bodies of literature form an essential part of the conceptual framework. Section 2.2 defines, based on insights of the vision theories that are outlined in section 2.1, a set of vision characteristics and performativity characteristics specifically for LTVs. The vision characteristics are considered essential in framing LTVs. The characteristics of performativity are used to assess the impact of LTVs in the empirical chapters. Section 2.3 presents the research design and outlines the different case studies. This section also positions the different cases in relation to the conceptual framework consisting of the framing of the vision, the sharing of the vision, and the guiding properties of the LTV. Section 2.4 provides an overview of the approach. Section 2.5 outlines the contribution of this thesis to science.

2.1 Vision theories

Visions and expectations form an essential part of the innovation process (Van Lente, 1993; Späth and Rohracher, 2010 [1]; Geels and Smit, 2000). This section outlines the bodies of literature that focus on the dynamics of visions and expectations. Special attention is paid to the incorporation of LTVs in these bodies of literature.

(22)

14 Subsection 2.1.1 focuses on the sociology of expectations. This body of literature analyzes the dynamics, use, and functions of visions and expectations. There is also attention for the acceptance and abandonment of visions and expectations over time in so-called hype-disappointment cycles. This body of literature explicitly outlines the mechanisms through which visions and expectations exert influence on development.

Subsection 2.1.2 focuses on the Leitbild perspective. The Leitbild perspective focuses on collective envisioning and approaches this process as a deliberate means to shape development. This perspective narrows visions down based on achievability (Dierkes et al., 1996; Dierkes et al., 1992).

Although the sociology of expectations and the Leitbild perspective acknowledge the importance of large visions, each of these bodies of literature pay limited attention to large visions. When visions become increasingly large, they are considered to be diffuse (Van Lente, 1993) or unachievable (Dierkes et al., 1996). While, large visions that incorporate utopian thought may certainly be diffuse and unachievable, they may also exert a performative influence through their existence and acceptance. Utopian thought is excluded in the sociology of expectations and the Leitbild perspective. Subsection 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 also address the specific objections of each of the bodies of literature against utopianism. These objections conceal the performative impact of large visions that is acknowledged by these bodies of literature. Specific inclusion of utopian thought can help in this analysis.

Subsection 2.1.3 focuses on the field of utopian studies. Utopian studies form an interdisciplinary field with close linkages to political theory. Recent developments in this field focus on the desirability to include utopian thought as inspiration for societal development. Utopian studies mainly have a theoretical origin. The views embedded in utopian studies include clues regarding the possible performative nature of LTV and helps to create a rich framework for the analyses of LTV.

2.1.1 Sociology of expectations

The sociology of expectationsis a body of literature, focusing on the dynamics, use,

and functions of expectations. This body of literature is part of the field of Science, Technology, and Society. The sociology of expectations distinguishes between three nested levels (micro, meso, macro) of expectations (Van Lente, 1993; Van Lente and Rip, 1998). These are often defined as the level of the artefact, the technological field, and wider societal beliefs. On the micro level, expectations are technology specific and often related to a concrete project. The sociology of expectations extensively studied the dynamics on this level (e.g. Konrad, 2006 [1]; Lente and Rip, 1998). These studies focus on aspects such as raising expectations (promising), acting upon expectations, creating protected space, converting expectations into requirements, and the abandonment of the accepted expectations. These aspects are studied in relation to

(23)

set-15 backs and changing situations. This dynamics on the micro level is put into context of meso level visions and expectations that are associated to a technological field. At the meso level, visions and expectations are less specific and center on functions that technology may fulfill. Expectations on this level concern the general direction of a field and the opportunities offered by the field. The macro level focuses on visions and expectations including technology as a whole, or societal trends (Van Lente, 1993). Van Lente (1993) introduces the concept of ideograph for explaining this level. Ideographs refer to a high order of abstraction and represent a “collective commitment

to a particular but equivocal and ill-defined normative goal” (Van Lente, 1993 p.151

referencing McGee, 1980 p.15). The macro level is defined as a cultural space which is used by other activities and proposals to refer to in order to gain legitimacy (Van Lente, 1993). This level includes more generic visions and expectations and forms a baseline for political discussions and collective conviction (Van Lente, 1993).

Whereas the sociology of expectations draws upon rich empirical analyses, there are limited studies focusing on the macro level of societal beliefs (some exceptions are: Van Lente and Rip, 1998; Ruef and Markard, 2010). This underrepresentation might be linked to the generic nature of this level and the identification of this level as being ‘diffuse’ (Van Lente, 1993). This level is the main focus of this thesis. The inclusion of utopian studies provides a fruitful addition for studying such large technological visions. Utopias and utopian thought have not entered the sociology of expectations because of their unattainable nature (Van Lente, 2005). This thesis hypothesizes that utopias can inspire and utopian thought can impact developments by their inclusion in LTVs. The remainder of this subsection will outline some of the main principles of the sociology of expectation. The integration with utopian studies will be outlined in section 2.2.

The sociology of expectations distinguishes between public and private expectations. Private expectations are individual expectations that are not articulated and cannot be studied based on this property (Konrad, 2006 [1], Berkhout, 2006). Consequently, the sociology of expectations studies public expectations. In order for these public expectations to become accepted by actors, these need to resonate with private expectations (Berkhout, 2006). Collective expectations are articulated with the purpose of becoming (increasingly) shared. Collective expectations can be formulated by one person, one actor group, or by several actors. The functions of visions expand beyond the actor(group) that formulated the expectation. The support of the expectations can grow within the actor group and can also include other actor groups that were not involved prior. This expansion increases the influence of the expectation.

The performative nature of expectations is a central issue in this body of literature. Visions and expectations comprise a future state progressing from the current state. To reach this state, visions and expectations embed requirements regarding actions that

(24)

16 need to be taken in order to fulfill the expectation (Van Lente, 1993). Once the expectation becomes accepted, actors act accordingly, influencing development. Due to this performative nature, actors can also articulate visions strategically (Konrad et

al., 2012). The framing of visions and expectations embed interests and goals.

Therefore, expectations are not innocent phrases, but social constructs (Konrad, 2006 [1]), influencing decision making.

Through the articulation of expectations, future prospects regarding new technologies are raised and communicated. Expectations are temporal and spatial, this means that they are bounded in time and that they can be different for the actor groups and constituencies involved (Brown, 2003). Expectations provide interlinkages between actor groups and different levels. Expectations ‘travel’ between different domains and are modified in this process. Konrad (2006) [2] identified three forms of interlocality of expectations; expectations move between actors, across levels, and over time. While the expectations in these different domains can differ, they can also resonate. When expectations at the micro level resonate with the macro level these expectations fall in fertile soil (Van Lente, 2006).

Expectations also form the coordination between different actors and groups (Borup

et al., 2006). Expectations guide, motivate, and align actors. They provide structure,

create legitimation, serve as a common reference point, coordinate actions, reduce risk and uncertainty, legitimate the mobilization of resources, and urge for action (Van Lente, 1993; Konrad et al., 2012; Borup et al., 2006). Expectations also exert social pressure (Konrad, 2006 [1]). When expectations are widely shared, legitimation becomes almost redundant (Borup et al., 2006). This dynamics also includes ambivalence. On the one hand expectations open up possibility space and on the other hand it functions restrictively (creating a focused search and eclipsing alternatives) (Konrad, 2006 [1]).

The acceptance of expectations by other actors facilitates the allocation of resources to develop the technology further in the direction of the expectation. When this mechanism is strong and stable enough, expectations can potentially lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. This process can be more elaborately explained using the promise requirement cycle (Van Lente, 1993). External factors can influence, or even create, the perceived opportunities leading towards the formulation of promises (or expectations). When the promises are taken up by others these promises and expectations can influence agenda-building. Once the promise is included in agendas, and the decision is made to act in accordance with the prerequisites articulated in the promise, those promises convert into requirements. These requirements have to be met using protected space (e.g. money and opportunity) (Van Lente, 1993). As long as expectations are accepted, this dynamics continues to function, expectations are considered to be true, the protective space is maintained, and actors act in accordance with the requirements.

(25)

17 The cycle of converting promises into requirements can be repeated. In this process subsequent promises and requirements become superimposed, leading to a promise-requirement spiral (Van Lente and Rip, 1998). Through this principle, a hype with unrealistic expectations can be created. When such overly optimistic expectations are accepted, disappointment, and loss of protected space, becomes inevitable. In the disappointment phase the expectations that were accepted prior become abandoned.

This hype-disappointment cycle (see figure 2.1) was first identified by Gartner

Consultancy1. The cycle is often used as a representation of expectation dynamics of

promising emerging technologies (Geels et al., 2007; Bakker, 2010). The disappointment and the failure to live up to the (overheated) expectations is harmful for the proponents directly involved, leading towards damaged reputation (Van Lente, 1993) and weakened trust relations between consumers, government, policy, and industry as well as less stable market conditions, inhibiting the required investment (Brown, 2003). Not all actors suffer equally from the disappointment. Promise champions, actors who have committed to the technology (often with their name and reputation) are severely affected (Van Lente and Rip, 1998), while venture capitalists escape unharmed (Bakker and Budde, 2012). Some relevant actors are even glad when the hype is over and spotlight diverts (Konrad, 2010). After a hype a stable growth pattern may occur (as depicted in figure 2.1), a technology may also become completely abandoned (Ruef and Markard, 2010), or a new hype cycle may emerge after some time has passed (Konrad, 2006 [1]; Verbong et al., 2007).

Figure 2.1: Hype-disappointment cycle in phases (Gartner, 2007).

1_{In its original function at Gartner consultancy, the hype cycle was used to characterize the pattern of}

technological development (Fenn, 2006). It formed a ‘maturity indicator’, representing the normal phases through which a promising technology develops. The more mature a technology is, the more it was shifted to the right hand site of the graph. Gartner consultancy compared the maturity of different technologies by mapping these technologies on the representation of the hype cycle that is depicted in figure 2.1.

(26)

18 The consequences of a hype are real, and the creation of a hype through overheated expectations is not a morally neutral activity (Brown, 2003). Brown approaches a hype as a catch-22: “On the one hand, we accept that expectations are constitutive and

performative and that hype plays a fundamentally important role in organising our future present/s. On the other hand, hype is a source of ‘overshoot’, ultimately damaging credibilities and reputations” (Brown, 2003 p.17). This reasoning illustrates

the volatile and ambivalent nature of this hype-disappointment pattern. This capricious pattern resulted in views to mitigate the peaks and troughs to establish a stable growth pattern (Bakker, 2011). However, the occurrence of a hype is not necessarily disadvantageous, during the disappointment phase protected space can be maintained (Reuf and Markard, 2010; Konrad et al., 2012). This is increasingly likely when the hype phase co-occurred with network building and institutionalization (Bakker and Budde, 2012; Konrad et al., 2012). This process of increased network formation can continue during the disappointment phase, mitigating the detrimental effects (Konrad

et al., 2012).

2.1.2 The Leitbild perspective

The Leitbild perspective approaches the envisioning process as a democratic and participatory process. This contrasts utopias that prescribe a better world in a top-down manner. The joint formulation of a Leitbild aligns actors by compromising and/or interpretive flexibility. The Leitbild perspective approaches envisioning as a deliberate process to shape development. Ideally, a Leitbild should not be constant over time, it should be a dynamic future world image, adapted when the Leitbild becomes outdated based on new insights and/or research results.

The German concept of Leitbild is often translated as ‘guiding vision’. The Leitbild perspective focuses on collectively formulated visions that create congruence between different actors, or knowledge cultures. These different actors should (to a certain extent) have a shared view about the desirability (Dierkes et al., 1996). The vision can provide direction both individually and collectively by synchronizing perception and evaluation mechanisms between actors (Dierkes et al., 1996). It also provides a foundation for the creation of a new discourse (Dierkes et al., 1996), visions align actors, shape development and serve as a medium for communication (Dierkes et al., 1996). To conserve the influence of the Leitbild over time, a Leitbild may be transformed or updated by collective action. The Leitbild perspective poses feasibility as an important aspect. A Leitbild should be rooted in the everyday world and all actors must agree that it is in principle achievable (Dierkes et al., 1996). If the achievability and tangibility of a vision is lost, a vision will turn into an ideal and degenerate into chimera (Dierkes et al., 1996).

(27)

19 Mambrey and Tepper (2000) identify two functions of a Leitbild: the vision function and the guiding function. Mambrey and Tepper refer to the vision function as a cognitive actuation that creates insight, evokes creativity and triggers actions for new developments (2000). This process happens on an individual level. The second function is the guiding function of the Leitbild. This function focuses on a vision as a collective projection. This function is seen as “a synchronization of collective

assessments and adjustments” (2000 p.37).

Dierkes et al., acknowledge the guiding properties of large technological visions (Dierkes et al., 1992). However, the focus on achievability and tangibility easily results in case studies with a focus on a concrete technological artefact. Case studies in Dierkes et al. (1996) include the diesel engine, the typewriter, and mobile phones. References to visions beyond a single technological field are set aside as conjectures whereas a Leitbild should be feasible in the foreseeable future (Dierkes et al., 1996). Despite a reference to the influence of large visions, especially in the early phases of technological development (Dierkes et al., 1996), the general perception within Leitbild moves away from such grand ideas.

The criticism on utopias from the Leitbild perspective can be summarized as twofold. The first point of criticism is the supposedly authoritarian characteristics of utopias based upon its formulation by one visionary. The Leitbild perspective explicitly excludes utopianism based on the magnification of the personal factor in decision making (Dierkes et al., 1996; Grin, 2000). The second point of criticism concerns feasibility. Leitbild perspective emphasized that the vision needs to be feasible, this would set a vision aside from a chimera.

Grin and Grunwald (2000) elaborate on the exclusion of utopianism and share the authoritarian objection raised by Dierkes et al., (1996). A utopia is generally formulated by one person (or a one-sided viewpoint) while at the same time it is aimed to change the foundations of society. It has a prescriptive nature without a process of alignment prior to its formulation (Grin and Grunwald, 2000). While this authoritarian nature is criticized, Grin acknowledged the good intentions of utopias: “the fact is that

most utopias originate from deep and legitimate concern about the world as it is, and an equally deep and legitimate desire for a radically better world” (Grin 2000, p.10).

Grin also acknowledged the impact of utopias on societal development (Grin, 2000). However, based on the objections of utopias, Grin argued that utopias should be avoided and replaced by formulating shared and non-utopian visions (Grin, 2000).

Several principles are proposed to overcome the drawbacks of being guided by utopias. Grin argued that instead of formulating generic visions, “it may be better to

focus on the construction of contextual visions” (Grin, 2000 p.20). Grin continued by

clarifying the idea of contextual visions by elaborating on geographical visions and socio-cognitive visions. Geographical visions enable the inclusion of regional

(28)

20 circumstances in the vision, making the vision especially attractive for a specific region. Different geographical visions can exist simultaneously covering the same topic, fine-tuned to regional circumstances. In the socio-cognitive framing of visions, the visions are adapted to meet the desires of a specific group of people. Due to this socio-cognitive fine-tuning, the acceptance of the vision within this subgroup is likely to increase. This creates a plurality in future visions (Grin, 2000). One of the functions of a Leitbild is to function as a medium to establish structural interconnections between different societal subsystems that function largely autonomous (Mambrey and Tepper, 2000). After a process of critically judging, re-shaping, and decontextualizing visions, it will lead to a fusion of visions which represents a wider range of normative considerations (Grin and Grunwald, 2000).

These are constructive contributions that can incorporate utopian thought within the Leitbild concept. The Leitbild would form a more democratic and participatory approach, creating congruence between prior selected actors. However, the drawback of authoritarianism is hard to avoid fully. The acceptance of the Leitbild beyond the selected members involved in the envisioning process is subject to similar criticism of authoritarianism. Additionally, the argument of Leitbild against utopianism is normative in focus. It presumes that the individual formulation of utopias is inferior in effect and effectiveness compared to a participatory process. This surpasses the influence of utopias as guiding principles and presupposes that all visioning processes which guide technological and social development are possible to arrange. To summarize, according to the Leitbild perspective, one should not use (authoritarian) utopias as guiding principles since there is a better alternative.

The criticism of feasibility is a somewhat intangible argument. Leitbild perspective emphasized that the vision needs to be feasible, this would set a vision aside from a chimera. Two notes should be made regarding the feasibility requirement. Firstly, feasibility is a fluid concept. Technological visions and expectations have requirements locked within them; they only have the potential to become a reality if investments are made (Van Lente, 1993). When large and long-term investments are allocated, the likelihood of realizing the vision can be increased. Secondly, I would like to add that (even from the Leitbild perspective) the focal point should be on the

perception of feasibility. If people genuinely believe a vision is feasible even though in

reality it is not, such vision can still serve as a guiding principle when people act upon its realization. One can even argue that visions, which may be (just) out of reach, can still inspire people to act in accordance with the vision and facilitate actions in the direction of the desired end state even though achievement of the end state may not be considered feasible. These visions may be unattainable in principle, or may just not be attainable within the specified time span. Such a vision could lead from the principle;

‘it is worth striving for’. The guiding properties of a vision relate more to the

(29)

21 this perspective, the upper limit of large visions as used by the Leitbild perspective appears artificial, excluding utopias and other visions with a large scope.

The Leitbild perspective became important for Vision Assessment and Transition Management (TM). Both approaches broaden the Leitbild perspective. Vision Assessment adopted the Leitbild perspective in relation to the development of sociotechnical systems by positioning visions in a broader context, incorporating insights from technology studies, policy studies, epistemology and ethics (Decker et

al., 2000; Quist, 2007). In accordance with the Leitbild perspective, Vision

Assessment uses visions as a tool to guide contemporary actions.

TM also draws upon the Leitbild perspective(Loorbach, 2007; Grin et al., 2010).

TM is a governance approach aimed to actively shape societal transformation in a desired direction over a long period of time (Rotmans, et al., 2001; Grin et al., 2010). TM uses large visions, and the process of envisioning, as important principles to guide near-term action. This approach focuses specifically on large and long-term visions. Recent insights within TM call for utopian characteristics to be incorporated within transition visions (Sondeijker, 2009). This call was combined with the caution that realism is also important within a vision. The exploration of conditions under which a sustainable system can be created prevents visions of becoming “too utopian and too

all-embracing” (Sondeijker, 2009 p.162). There is a tension between utopian

inspiration and feasibility. The utopian characteristics are included to expand imaginative thinking, at the same time there is concern to which extent utopian characteristics can be included without losing realism.

2.1.3 Utopian studies: utopianism and utopian thought

The field of utopian studies is a multidisciplinary field with roots in fields such as political philosophy, political theory, philosophy of technology, architecture, economics, literature, and environmental science. Utopian studies assess the influence and desirability of using utopias as steering principles.

The question of desirability closely relates to the definition of utopias. Some definitions are based on the classic utopias and only include holistic visions. Holistic visions are all-embracing, describing a new and idealistic society without contemporary problems in great detail. These scholars generally oppose the use of utopias as guiding principles. They criticize the unfeasible nature of utopias (Popper, 1962) and argue that dystopian consequences will inherently follow once the utopia is pursued (Popper 1948; Achterhuis, 1998). This point is often strengthened by references to totalitarian states such as China and the Soviet Union which are built on utopian principles.

(30)

22 Other scholars hold an opposing viewpoint. They see totalitarian states as extreme manifestations and argue that the powerful guiding capabilities of utopias may be used for the better. In this reasoning the focus lies on utopias as a vision for a different and better society (Van den Berg, 2003). This strand proceeds from the observation that some specific characteristics of utopias are also present in less holistic visions. They identify such utopian inspiration as ‘utopian thought’ and state that this thought influences society.

The viewpoint that criticized utopias has led mainstream thinking. The examples of totalitarian regimes and explicit resistance to utopianism from prominent scholars have resulted in the abandonment of utopias. Recently, increased environmental concern led to a revival of utopias. Starting from the 1980s, there appears to be a renewed interest in utopian theory within the scientific community (Kumar, 1991; De Geus, 1996; Achterhuis 1998; Goodwin and Taylor, 2009; Hedrén and Linnér, 2009). For example,

Goodwin and Taylor departed from the observation that by the end of the 20th_century,

there was increased optimism regarding the feasibility of achieving a new society based on an ecological balance between mankind and environment. They articulated the hope that this optimism would lead to the formulation of new utopias that would

transform political practice2_{(Goodwin and Taylor, 2009). To provide an overview of}

the field of utopian studies, and to distinguish between the characteristics of utopias and the principles of utopian thought, this section will subsequently pay attention to both viewpoints.

Utopias as deceitful guide

Criticism towards utopias has been around for centuries. “The Republic” written by Plato is the most well-known utopia prior to the establishment of the utopian genre by Thomas More (1516) (Sargisson, 2009). Criticism against utopias coincided with their founding. The Republic was heavily criticized by Aristotle (White, 1976) and More’s work was both criticized and praised. The criticism regarding utopias relates to the infeasibility of reaching a utopia combined with possible destructive consequences when utopias are pursued. This critical view, in which utopias are approached as dangerous and deceitful guiding principles, has been dominant in the last century.

A prominent rejection of utopias came from Popper in 1948. He considered utopias as an overly attractive theory and he approached utopias as dangerous, pernicious, self-defeating, and leading to violence. Popper advised mankind to tackle concrete evils rather than attempting to pursue abstract good (Popper, 1948).

2_{Within utopian studies the linkage between utopias and political theory is stressed. It is seen as symbiotic}

relationship in which politics needs utopias because they provide a sense of direction for a better way of being (Sargisson, 2009). Utopias are also approached as needing politics to become more tangible (Sargisson, 2009).

(31)

23 Achterhuis (1998) wrote a contemporary extensive analytical work on utopias, in which the use of utopias as guiding principle was rejected. From this work, current criticism towards utopianism can be assessed. Based on the classic utopias, Achterhuis identified three characteristics of utopias: one can work towards its realization; it manifests itself in the (entire) society; and it is holistic. According to Achterhuis, all three characteristics need to be present (possibly in a varying degree) in order for a work to classify as a utopia. Achterhuis approaches a utopian work as the product of the distress that exists in contemporary society. A utopian work originates when the distress of contemporary society is perceived as unbearable and a need for change is imminent. And even when the unbearable nature of contemporary society may not have struck the reader yet, the utopia calls for such perception (Achterhuis, 1998). The utopian work answers such distress either implicitly or explicitly (Achterhuis, 1998) and offers an alternative and glorious future (Achterhuis, 1998). This alternative is a new society in which all social evil has been overcome. This new society surpasses partial improvements of contemporary society, but introduces a totally new holistic society in which the compilation of details constructs the intended consequences. This holistic nature prevents cherry picking of desirable elements from a utopia (Achterhuis, 1998). A utopia implies a call for action and the possibility to work toward its realization distinguishes a utopia from a fata morgana (Achterhuis, 1998).

Utopias inspire people and exert influence, but will normally not be updated. The influence of utopias can be maintained because the envisioned future world image is so far out of reach that contemporary considerations and insights do not directly influence it. Based on its holistic characteristics and idealized end state (implying that all progress, struggle, individuality and desire would have vanished, and been converted into happiness) (Achterhuis, 1998), Achterhuis identified a realized utopia as a paradox (1998). Achterhuis (1998) is skeptic concerning those claims and positioned these claims as the syndrome of the realized utopia or dystopia (p.309). He attributed claims of realization to the process of highlighting elements from utopian texts, which are then positioned as key attributes for contemporary society. Consequently the holistic property of utopias is lost. If a utopia were to be realized, this would inherently expose underlying dystopian elements. The position of dystopia as the other side of the utopian medal is made by both a reference to classic utopias and to societies such as twenty-century Soviet Union and China, which were constructed by utopian principles. Development based upon utopian principles inherently implies that control is required to ensure the utopian state. Since a utopian society is holistic, and every detail needs to be checked, a utopia will create power struggles and totalitarian developments. These adverse consequences only describe the situation in which a utopian state has already been reached. In order to create a utopian society the original society needs to be transformed and restructured. This transformation may not occur without a struggle and the pursuit of the ultimate goal of a better society can result in radicalizing and

(32)

24 violence. Achterhuis exemplified this by references to classical utopias and by contemporary developments such as radical social groups (e.g. animal welfare) that uses violence to reach a better and nonviolent society (Achterhuis, 1998).

With regard to technological utopias, Achterhuis (1998) states that ever since Francis Bacon’s utopian work New Atlantis, the expansion of boundaries by technological development has become such an inseparable part of our culture that it will be preserved without utopian inspiration. If the utopian format were to be maintained, this would be accompanied by unintended and discordant consequences (Achterhuis, 1998). Achterhuis acknowledges the utopian influence in twenty century developments, but calls for mitigation of this influence based on the inherent dystopian consequences once development is guided by utopianism. Achterhuis (1998) argued that it is better to find inspiration away from utopianism.

Taking utopian thought along

From the mid-1960s the scholarly interest in the field of utopian studies slowly revived (Moylan and Baccolini, 2009). In 1975, the Society for Utopian Studies became established in North America and in 1980 the Utopian Studies Society was established in Europe (Sargisson, 2009). This dynamics does not mean that contemporary thinking turned in favor of utopianism. When in the 1990s works appeared in which utopias were approached positively, these works included a note that this conception was against contemporary mainstream thinking (De Geus, 1996; Goodwin and Taylor, 2009).

The strand within utopian studies that embraces the utopian inspiration has a broad interpretation of utopias that focuses on the human tendency to pursue the ideal society and a happy life (Van den Berg, 2003). This strand does not include the holistic property of utopias as essential ingredient. Certain aspects of utopias, such as the description of a new society in which contemporary problems have been overcome due to the prevalence of certain values, are also present in less holistic visions. Visions that include aspects of utopias without envisioning every detail of a future society are often said to incorporate utopian thought.

Utopian thought can be seen as a fragment of a fully worked utopia (Hedrén and Linnér, 2009). It contrasts utopias in scope, the level detail, and cohesiveness. It is not necessarily holistic in nature and can be restricted to a specific (problem) area (Hedrén, 2009). To be designated to include utopian thought, it is important that there is adherence to specific values and principles (De Wilde, 2000). In other words, the vision includes a certain morality including an explicit idea regarding good and bad, and right or wrong in relation to the entire society (Hedrén and Linnér 2009).

Four favorable characteristics of utopian thought can be distinguished. Firstly, utopian thought could promote the facilitation of the required changes regarding

(33)

25 institutional and organizational reformation, and new ways of living (Hedrén and Linnér, 2009). Secondly, utopian thought is always to a certain degree subversive, challenging existing (power) relationships, current ways of life, and current thinking patterns (Hedrén and Linnér, 2009). Thirdly, utopias reflect upon the functioning of contemporary society (Hedrén, 2009); they provide the possibility to ponder and imagine life in different settings and offer the possibility to scrutinize the values and principles of life (Hedrén and Linnér, 2009; De Geus, 1996). This reflective function is twofold. On the one hand it is embedded in the utopia itself; on the other hand it stimulates the reader in this reflective process (De Geus, 1996). Fourthly, utopias provide the possibility to grasp and consider the relations between economic, social, and ecological dimensions and their consequences to daily life (Hedrén and Linnér, 2009).

A utopia is both problem defining and problem solving (Achterhuis, 1998). A utopia can also embed social criticism (De Geus, 1996; Goodwin and Taylor, 2009), serve as social commentary (Sargisson, 2009), and create awareness of the existence of the problem (Achterhuis, 1998). These properties are operationalized in utopias by presenting an allegory rather than by reasoned arguments (Goodwin and Taylor, 2009). Utopias can stretch the possibility space and identify search heuristics for solutions to contemporary problems. Or a utopia can provoke “paradigm shifts in consciousness,

permitting us to glimpse new conceptual spaces from whence to approach the world anew” (Sargisson, 2009 p.37-38).

The notion that utopian thought influences society without having fully worked holistic utopias is an important notion to take along. Additionally, it raises the issue regarding the positive and negative consequences of utopian inspiration. LTVs are built on utopian inspiration and articulate utopian thought. Scholars who focus on utopias and utopian thought recognize how widespread this type of vision is. On the one hand these scholars recognize the dangers of utopias, and on the other hand they see favorable characteristics to the existence of utopian thought.

2.2 Vision characteristics and performativity of LTVs

This section defines LTVs by outlining the vision characteristics and the performativity characteristics of LTVs compiled from the three bodies of literature of section 2.1. Subsection 2.2.1 focuses on the vision characteristics of LTVs and subsection 2.2.2 focuses on the performativity of LTVs. Some of the vision characteristics and performativity characteristics are mentioned in several of the vision theories of section 2.1. In those cases the views of the different bodies of literature are included in the explanation. Since this thesis is specifically tuned to LTVs, the

(34)

26 description and content of the functions focuses on this type of visions. Additionally, there are reference points for each of these bodies of literature that are included as important anchoring points. These aspects will be briefly outlined before focusing on the vision characteristics and performativity of visions.

The Leitbild perspective uses visions and envisioning as a tool to shape near-term action. The explicit inclusion of the envisioning phase indicates that the performative nature of expectations can already occur in this phase. This thesis recognizes this performativity of the process of envisioning. The performativity of the envisioning phase is also recognizable in the vision sharing performativity characteristics. At the same time it is important to recognize that the distinction between vision framing, sharing, and guiding is an analytical division that helps to gain understanding in the dynamics and performativity of LTVs.

Another important observation of the Leitbild perspective is the contextualization of visions. The Leitbild departs from generic visions and favors contextual visions that are formulated in a specific geographic or socio-cognitive realm (Grin et al., 2000). In order to increase the scope of these visions a diversity of contextual visions can be decontextualized to represent a wide range of normative considerations (Grin et al., 2000). At the same time, visions surpass these specific contexts and expand to a realm of potential. In this sense, visions travel across spheres, spatial levels, thematic fields, and levels of structuration (Späth and Rohracher [1], 2010). The sociology of expectations also includes the temporal aspect of visions (Konrad, 2006 [2]). It is important to consider that visions represent contextual and temporal conditions while at the same time they have the capacity to surpass these conditions.

From the field of utopian studies it is important to note that that utopias have been attributed positive and negative consequences. An important insight of utopian studies is the possibility for dystopian consequences once a utopia is pursued. Some strands within this field state that drastic, and devastating, consequences are inevitable when utopias or utopian thought is pursued. This insight needs to be taken into account. The possible positive consequences also need to be considered.

Sociology of expectations is an analytical body of literature in which extensive insight has been gained in the characteristics and performativity of visions. The possibility of hype-disappointment dynamics as a consequence of the acceptance of expectations is an important notion to take along. Additionally, some of the vision characteristics and performative properties draw heavily on this body of literature. This thesis assesses whether these performative functions are also present when assessing specifically LTVs.

(35)

27

2.2.1 Vision characteristics

The different vision theories address characteristics that are present in visions. Based on these insights, a set of seven vision characteristics are identified that are typical for LTVs. Table 2.1 outlines these characteristics. These characteristics are important in the framing of an LTV (see section 2.3). This subsection will elaborate on these characteristics and provide insight in and the origin of these characteristics in relation to the different vision theories.

Characteristics LTVs

1. Problem defining and problem solving 2. Reflectivity

3. Long-term focus 4. Possible to pursue

5. Mapping possibility space 6. Communication

7. Interpretive flexibility

Table 2.1: Vision characteristics.

Problem defining and problem solving is one of the characteristics of LTVs. This aspect is predominantly present in utopian studies (Achterhuis, 1998). An important insight is that an LTV can raise awareness for a problem and identify a problem that may not have struck some relevant actors. A vision also provides a solution to this (self-defined) problem. The other bodies of literature also attribute importance to this aspect, although it is not always mentioned as separate characteristic (Berkhout, 2006; Smith et al., 2005).

The second characteristic of LTVs is reflectivity. Visions can be used to endorse or criticize the present (Berkhout, 2006) and to reflect on contemporary society (Grin et

al., 2010; Michael, 2000). This criticism is normative in focus and has a moralized

nature (Berkhout, 2006). It is built upon the perception that core values are threatened in contemporary society. This aspect is often present in utopias. Goodwin and Taylor (2009) formulate this as follows: “social criticism is not the particular prerogative of

utopians, but they conduct it in an idiosyncratic, forceful fashion, by demonstrating rather than by reasoned argument” (p.5). Utopias often have a subversive nature,

challenging existing (power) relationships, current ways of living, and contemporary thinking patterns (Hedrén and Linnér, 2009). They include social criticism by showing an (ideal) alternative or by urging the reader for reflective thought (Goodwin and Taylor, 2009; De Geus, 1996; Achterhuis, 1998). Utopias also provide the possibility to grasp and consider the relations between economic, social, and ecological dimensions and their consequences for daily life (Hedrén and Linnér, 2009). When the