Content uploaded by Ziauddin Sardar
All content in this area was uploaded by Ziauddin Sardar on Oct 02, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Three Tomorrows of Postnormal Times
Ziauddin Sardar, John A. Sweeney*
Centre for Postnormal Policy and Futures Studies, East-West University, Chicago, IL, USA
Received 29 June 2015
Received in revised form 11September 2015
Accepted 15 October 2015
Available online 4 November 2015
Menagerie of postnormal potentialities
The Three Tomorrows of Postnormal Times is a new method for foresight and futures
researchers and practitioners. Designed and developed to explore the complexity, chaos,
and contradictions of postnormal times and what might come next, the three tomorrows
method uses a multi-layered approach to situate and analyze trends, emerging issues, and
imaginings of the future(s), including complex, horizonspeciﬁc forecasts. In this paper, we
provide a theoretical overview of the key concepts underlying our approach, including the
three forms of ignorance and uncertainty as well as the Menagerie of postnormal
potentialities, which we developed as a mechanism for challenging deeply held
convictions, illuminating entrenched contradictions, and enlivening novel considerations.
ã2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
‘Everything changes and nothing stands still’. So said Heraclitus, as reported by Plato in Cratylus(402a), over two millennia
ago (Sedley, 2003). But nowadays everything is changing at an accelerating pace on a variety of scales: social, political,
cultural, technological, including geologic, as the emergence of the notion of the Anthropocene (Crutzen & Stoermer, 2000)
or the more radical concept of the Technopocene (Berthon & Donnellan, 2011;[331_TD$DIFF] Sweeney, 2014) suggests. On a smaller, yet
interrelated, scale, the very idea of what is the human body and what it means to be human is changing in ways seemingly
beyond our control and capacity to comprehend the implications for what might lie ahead. As Enriquez and Gullans argue in
Evolving Ourselves, we are intentionally and unintentionally changing the very conditions of possibility for evolution. While
we have always adapted our being-in-the-world through artefacts, tools, and prosthetics, the compounded effects of ourall-
too-modern lives have ushered in an era of ‘unnatural selection’and ‘non-random mutation’(Enriquez & Gullans, 2015).
Globally, rates of obesity in humans nearly doubled from 1980 to 2014 (World Health Organization, 2015). In the U.S. alone,
the rate of autism rose by 119 percent from 2001 to 2010 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015).
Moreover, the changes we are facing todayare not incremental and isolated but occur simultaneously and are connected
and interconnected. Often when these changes come together they create a sense of crisis, as noted by the UN Secretary
General, Ban Ki-moon. ‘The world’, he declared at the UN General Assembly in 2014, was ‘living in an era of unprecedented
level of crises’(Borger, 2014). The world faced a daunting list of crises –which ought to be read chaotic behavior –in 2014:
Ebola, ISIS, Central African Republic, Gaza, Iraq, Myanmar, South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, ﬁnancial instability within the EU,
and the deteriorating relationship between Russia and the West, in addition to the long-standing, and decidedly
unaddressed, problems of climate change. What does it all mean?
Our thinking has been greatly aided and strengthened by the many critical comments and insights of Jordi Serra del Pino, Scott Jordan, Wendy Schultz,
Jim Dator, Merryl Wyn Davies and Ted Fuller. We are grateful to the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) for supporting this research
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org (J.A. Sweeney).
0016-3287/ã2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Futures 75 (2016) 1–13
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures
All of the above adds up to a snap shot of our lives in postnormal times (Sardar, 2010, 2015). In light of such far-reaching,
rapid, and simultaneous changes –a major characteristic of postnormal times (hereafter PNT) –an important new question
arises for futurists and foresight researchers and practitioners: are existing methods able to cope with futures that are
intrinsically complex, chaotic, contradictory, uncertain, and rapidly collapsing in and upon themselves? Traditionally,
Futures Studies deals with plurality of alternative futures by differentiating between plausible, probable, possible, and
preferable futures (Henchey,1978, p. 26). But what is probable in a world where uncertainty and chaos is the norm? What is
plausible in futures dominated by contradictions? Are our conventional methods, such as forecasting, scenarios, and
modeling ﬁt for purpose in PNT? Do scenarios about future(s) take note of changing change? Do existing scenario modeling
methods adequately allow for the requisite pluralism and polylogues, including amongst humans, non- and, un-humans,
needed to confront PNT? How do we produce viable policies to navigate PNT? Or, to put it another way, do our stories about
the future(s) tell us something meaningful that can generate policies and strategiesto cope with complexity, uncertaintyand
This paper provides a theoretical overview of the concepts comprising a novel method (The Three Tomorrows of
Postnormal Times) we have developed to address the above queries. In this work, we outline what we believe is a pressing
need for our methodological framework and how our approach ﬁts into the ﬁeld of Futures Studies. As this research builds off
established and related concepts, we believe bothcasual and expert readers will beneﬁt from reviewing the core readings of
PNT theory (Sardar, 2010, 2015). Ultimately, this paper represents the ﬁrst in a series of research articles that will feature case
studies showing the applicability of our method.
2. From [332_TD$DIFF]dialogues to polylogues
‘When all is uncertain, nothing is predictable’, writes Gardner in Future Babble (Gardner, 2012, p. 139). Many, if not most,
predictions invariably turn out to be wrong, as Scientiﬁc Americanrecently found out when it performed a review of its past
pronouncements about the future (von Reibnitz, 1988). In fact, Gardner argues, expert predictions and forecasts, despite the
cautious probabilities, the kind we use in Delphi, add to our problems because they do ‘away with complexity,
incomprehension and uncertainty’(Gardner, 2012). As a means to remedy this problem, scenario planning is often used. But,
as Glenn and Gordon argue, ‘scenario is probably the most abused term in futures research. What usually passes for a
scenario today is a discussion about a range of future possibilities with data and analysis [ ...].Itislike confusing the text of
a play's newspaper review with the text of the play written by the playwright’(Glenn,[333_TD$DIFF] Gordon, & Millennium Project, 2009,
p. 2). Scenarios can never take into account, however carefully they are generated, many, if not most, of the changes that may
occur between now and one's designated time horizon—we believe this very much applies to scenarios emphasizing
plausibility as well.
Plausibility has always been a contentious term within Futures Studies, if only because one of the primary aims of
foresight is to call into question the normative and logical lenses with which we perceive what might lie ahead. It is
interesting to note that the root of the term plausible is the Latin plausibilis:‘worthy of applause’. In short, plausibility is as
much about acceptability as it is about logical coherence, which is to say that it has much more to do with the present than it
does with the future—a point well and directly addressed by Dator’s Second Law of the Future: ‘any useful idea about the
future should appear to be ridiculous’(Dator, Sweeney, & Yee, 2015).
This is not to say that current futures methods are in any way irrelevant but simply to point out their inherent
limitations—particularly in relation to PNT. If Futures Studies is ﬁrst and foremost about analyzing imaginings of futures,
then perceptual plausibility is certainly something to be considered when modeling scenarios, but it need not be the onlyand
most important metric. After all, the goal of any scenario planningexercise is to generate actions for the futureby disturbing
the present, but we do not believe that futures methods are keeping up with the forces and drivers that are actually
disturbing the present and moving us toward Unthought Futures. An analysis of the increasingly popular Three Horizons
method helps to contextualize our point.
Originally devised to help business clients ‘engage simultaneously with short-term, medium-term, and long-term futures’,
the ﬁrst iteration of Three Horizons aims to ‘wind tunnel’strategy and policy initiatives using successive S-curves to model
change over time (Curry & Hodgson, 2008, p. 4). Moving beyond standard management-oriented approaches, Three Horizons
received a major overhaul through the work of Sharpe and Hodgson (2006, p.6), who reframed the tool to ‘see our current
situation in a variety of ways and help illuminate the choices available’. First, one creates an x-axis using the metric of time
(present to future) and a y-axis using the metric of ‘strategic ﬁt’with a low (bottom) to high (top) spectrum as depicted in Fig. 1.
Next, one plots the three horizons. The ﬁrst horizon articulates the predominant paradigms and ideologies of today,
which, as the method presumes, will decline as one moves forward in time. Then, one charts the third horizon, which is
composed of emerging issues or weak signals –including those most aligned with one’s preferred or feared future –that are
extrapolated using a growth S-curve model. Finally, one maps the second horizon to modelthe challenges and uncertainties
relative to the ﬁrst horizon, and, as it were, challenges facing both horizons. There is no question that this is the most
interesting dimension of the Three Horizons method, especially as this is the only space where truly postnormal conditions
might emerge, at least in theory. Our qualiﬁcation, and contention, centers on the fact that the only true site of conﬂict in this
method occurs in the mid-future, so to speak, which is to say that this approach takes little account of the complex and
accelerating dynamics that continuously usurp our best practices in the here and now. In other words, the Three Horizons
helps us prepare for a future that might have alreadypassed or, perhaps even worse, might inadvertently cause us to presume
2Z. Sardar, J.A. Sweeney / Futures 75 (2016) 1–13
that change unfolds in a predictable, if not cyclical, fashion. To be fair, no tool or method is perfect, but we believe that
something more is needed to help us navigate PNT.
As we, and others, have argued elsewhere, PNT demands that we get away from linearity and focus our attention on the
interconnections amongst complexity, chaos, and contradictions. Moreover, all stories we tell about the future(s) ought to
emphasize their dynamic and mind bogglingly diverse nature, chaotic potential, contradictory possibilities, and invoke
imaginationand creativity (Montuori,2011).This is why we, as well asothers, prefer to speak of ‘globalweirding’(Armour& Roe,
2011) ratherthan ‘global warming,’andFutures Studiesmust do better at not justengaging but embracingthe truly weird, if only
to remain relevant in the wake of the changes tocome (Sweeney, 2014). In light of this phenomenon,Schultz argues that Dator’s
Second Law mustbe expanded as ‘ridiculous’only‘challenges assumptions,’and any truly useful idea aboutthe future(s) should
appear to be ‘transgressive (challenge paradigms) and repellent (challenge values)’(Schultz, 2014).
The scope and scale of global weirding, which we still do not fully comprehend, has led some to pen manifestos in
response to the postnormal challenges of the present and possibilities for what might lie ahead. The founders of
Accelerationism, Williams and Srnicek, argue:
What the left must reconnect to is its roots in the Enlightenment [ ...]tolayclaim to a positive vision of the future,
capable of supplanting our current economic and political systems with ones which enable, rather than suppress, a
generalised human ﬂourishing . . . For it is only once the left takes command of the future, and modernisation once again
becomes synonymous with radical left politics, rather than neoliberalisation, that we can collectively come to grasp our
world such that we might change it (Williams & Srnicek, 2013).
Although The Accelerationist Manifesto cites the concept of future shock, they seem woefully unaware of Futures
Studies—both as an academic discipline and ﬁeld of praxis. While it is perhaps foolish to expect research-drivenanalysis from a
manifesto, Pickard’sGonzo Futurist Manifesto locates itself squarely within the dynamics of PNT and gestures toward the need
for new modes of thought and action (Pickard, 2012). What is interesting about both manifestos is their difference with regards
to scale; while one (accelerationist) focuses on the macro, the other (Gonzo) relishes in ‘a tribe-of-afﬁnity; your personal
community-of-interest’(Pickard, 2012). If anything is evident in PNT, it is that one must not simply choose between grand
political enterprises and echo-chamber cliques. What is needed? Polylogues of various scope and scale (Kristeva, 1977).
Coined in 1977 by Kristeva, who has a book with the same name, polylogues denote ‘multiple logics, speeches, and
existences’(Chen, 2010). As we see it, polylogues require the creation of new physical and mental spaces where diversity,
pluralism, and contending perspectives are present on their own terms but also deeply invested in engaging others in
creating and sharing information and knowledge.
For some, this was the hope of Wikipedia, but the English version has
been deemed a ‘colossal failure’as ‘only a tiny proportion of users now edit articles and the overwhelmingly majority of those
editors are male’(Kleeman, 2015, p. 35). In addition to ﬁnding better and more egalitarian ways to share what and how we
know, we must continuously seek out collaborative and dynamic means to craft and share our stories. As Latour points out,
‘story-telling is not just a property of human language, but one of the many consequences of being thrown in a world that is,
by itself, fully articulated and active. It is easy to see why it will be utterly impossible to tell our common geostory without, all
of us –novelists, generals, engineers, scientists, politicians, activists, and citizens –getting closer and closer within such a
common trading zone’(Latour, 2014, p. 14). Latour’s‘common trading zone’is precisely what we seek in our invocation of
Kristeva’s polylogue, and we believe this notion is sorely lacking in much, if not most, of ongoing discourses on the present
and futures. Establishing such zones through the formation of event or issue-speciﬁc polylogues
will not be an easy task,
especially as this endeavor demands that we rethink deeply held traditions, practices, and customs of knowledge sharing and
Fig. 1. [329_TD$DIFF]The Three Horizons.
We very much recognize the vastcontributions of many over the past decades who have sought to expand discursive feedback loops for foresight-driven
policy and decision-making processes, and we particularly want to call attention to the work of Amara (1972),Linstone (1999), and Functowicz and Ravetz
(1994) in this area, especially the critical notion of forming of an ‘extended peer community.
In May 2014, we held our ﬁrst polylogue at East-West University. We are currently planning another workshop-based polylogue for Fall 2015, and we
plan to experiment further with this concept and develop another research paper featuring case studies.
Z. Sardar, J.A. Sweeney / Futures 75 (2016) 1–13 3
production. As such, any analysis of the present and futures also needs to acknowledge that many things we take for granted,
including a variety of complex systems, are going to (continue to) get weird. It might be true that there is no such thing as an
historical possibility, but, in our estimation, this is very much a future(s) fact.
3. Normalcy, postnormalcy, postnormal creep and burst
The ﬁrst weird fact that we must acknowledge is thatnormalcy and postnormalcy both overlap and exit side by side.Not all
systemsare affected in the same wayand to the same extentby complexity, chaos and contradictions (hereafter3Cs)—‘the forces
that shape and propel postnormal times’(Sardar, 2010, p. 436). Equally, not all systems are inherently postnormal and will
become postnormalin the same way. For example, isolated communities, structures and organizations that are self-sufﬁcient
and not connected to the global economy and international system can and might be more resilient in the wake of climate
change. However, many ‘normal’systems will not continue to operate ‘normally’in PNT—sooner or later, the 3Cs will have a
direct or indirect impact on them.Moreover, there are some systems that are already postnormal, such as science, intelligence,
privacy, and other networked systems looming with postnormal potentiality—such as our cars (Higginbothan, 2015)and
refrigerators (Greenberg,2015). Whenone stops to reﬂect on the changes allaround us, things can certainly feelpostnormal. For
generations born into this milieu, however, postnormal will be normal—the world as they know it and inhabit it.
With that said, the notion of normalcy itself is somewhat weird, especially in PNT. This normalcy does not conform to
accepted deﬁnitions: standard, common, conventional, usual, regular, and natural. Rather, as Rao points out, it is a decidedly
‘manufactured normalcy’(Rao, 2012). It is ‘manufactured’in the sense, as outlined by Herman and Chomsky in
Manufacturing Consent, that such norms have been developed by powerful international institutions and organizations,
including the media and technology companies, that function by relying on market forces, internal, unquestioned
assumptions, and subtle manipulation to generate ideological and consumer desires and dreams. But more importantly, it is
manufactured by our reactions to and perceptions of change—both past and present. As Rao notes, when people are faced
with new technological experiences they put all their effort in maintaining a ‘familiar sense of a static, continuous present’
(Rao, 2012). Indeed, we change our mental models and behaviors in an attempt to overlook or ignore the changes that are
taking place in front of our eyes. We look back to create stories and metaphors that relate new changes we are experiencing to
something we already know and understand. The smart phone used the phone metaphor to make mobile computing
comprehensible, word processing uses page and document metaphors that have been in use for a millennia, and ‘we
understand Facebook in terms of school year-books’(Rao, 2012). Then we make deliberate choices to de-emphasize the
strangeness of the new. Rao explains this using the example of air travel:
Airline passengers don’tﬂy. They travel in a manufactured normalcy ﬁeld. When you are sitting on a typical modern
jetliner, you are traveling at 500 mph in an aluminium tube that is actually capable of some pretty scary acrobatics.
Including generating brief periods of zero-g. Yet a typical air traveller never experiences anything that one of our
ancestors could not experience on a fast chariot or a boat (Rao, 2012).
As Rao elucidates, the manufactured normalcy ﬁeld (hereafter MNF) is a means of re-orienting our perceptions of what is
and is not normal, and as a ﬁeld that expands and contracts relative to our individual or communal focus, the MNF is shaped
by the forces of ignorance and uncertainty. Fig. 2 provides a rendering of this relationship.
‘Normal’phenomena move toward postnormalcy through the process of postnormal creep (hereafter PNC): when
systems become interconnected and complex, when social media, 24-hour television and other forms of technologies are
used to generate positive feedback, chaos emerges, sometimes rapidly, and things get weird. This concept is captured
Fig. 2. Our modiﬁed futures cone.
4Z. Sardar, J.A. Sweeney / Futures 75 (2016) 1–13
brilliantly in the BBC’s award-winning series, Black Mirror, which deftly imagines the many and varied changes surrounding
new and emerging technologies, and explains the decidedly human interactions and reactions underlying various ‘mutative
media’(Dator et al., 2015). A number of scholars have noted the diffuse ways with which ‘net-based information and
communication tools may serve as powerful accelerating factors of social protest’(Stepanova, 2011, p. 6), of which the
uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, commonly known as the ‘Arab Spring’, and recent protests in Baltimore,
Ferguson and other cities in the U.S. leading tothe emergence of the #blacklivesmatter movement, are clear examples of how
communication technologies can hasten PNC.
Although the forces driving PNC can be powerful, not all embrace the ﬂows of such strong currents. There are some who
cannot see, or rather ignore or refute, the emergence of PNC and cling to manufactured normalcy in face of the weird. They
suffer from Postnormal Lag (hereafter PNL): a perceptual condition of denial. An obvious example is climate change deniers.
In psychology, the concept of abnegation explains how one continues to deny something –in this case one of the greatest
threats facing the world –even in the face of overwhelming evidence. With abnegation as with PNL, one chooses, perhaps
consciously, not to know. Thus, PNL is a disavowal—one that can only be overcome through postnormal burst (hereafter
PNB): when the system goes totally postnormal and there is no place to hide.
Consider the case of how our digital lives constantly keep us at the edge of chaos. Take Twitter, which demands instant
reactions and multiplies your reaction manifold; a thoughtless tweet can instantly take you toward unthought horizons as
Justine Sacco, the PR head of an American publisher, discovered on 20 December 2013. On her way toCape Town, she tweeted
to her rather miniscule 170 followers just before boarding the plane at Heathrow: ‘Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just
kidding. I’m white’(Ronson, 2015, p. 64). Although Sacco saw her tweet as a comment on white privilege, the Twittersphere
overwhelmingly saw it otherwise. By the time she landed in Cape Town, eleven hours later, she was topping the world-wide
‘trending’list. Within 11 days, Sacco was Googled 1.22 million times, and a few days later she was ﬁred. Sacco has yet to ﬁnd
gainful employment or ﬁnd a date (Moses, 2015). As the Sacco example illustrates, PNB can have a range of effects on a
number of scales, including the intensely personal. Another example of PNB is the European refugee crisis, which has been
creeping toward chaos for some time, and the complexityunderlying and contradictions surrounding it are now undeniable.
4. The Three Tomorrows of Postnormal Times framework
Given our age’s weird characteristics, exploring futures within the PNT framework presents us with speciﬁc challenges.
We need to focus on simultaneity and complexity as well as the dynamic nature of PNT. We need an appreciation of
uncertainty as well as of different levels of ignorance—in postnormal times the unknowns cannot be reduced to measurable
risks. We need to take account of empirically observable trends, theoretically understand the mechanisms that produce PNC
and PNB, and incorporate as much imagination and creativity in the whole exercise as possible. The framework we have
developed to understand and navigate PNT, as well as explore futures, is The Three Tomorrows of Postnormal Times
In the 3T framework, we need to consider that the present is dynamic, networked, consists of manufactured normalcyand
systems that are pregnant with the potential to go postnormal: in other words, the present is complex, pluralistic and partly
postnormal –all of which has to be introduced right at the beginning of our exploration of the future. But the present is not
simply the now. The present is ‘extended’because many empirically observed trends are deeply embedded in the now and
will manifest themselves in the coming years. This Extended Present is the ﬁrst tomorrow; as a common term in Futures
Studies, it is what most people mean when they talk about ‘the future’. As we see it, the Extended Present is dominated by
and populated with trends (global, regional, and local) and emerging issues or weak signals that cannot be averted; they
simply expand and extend the present to cover the next ﬁve to ten years, although the temporal particularities are elastic in
relation to the thematic context. In other words, the future represented by the Extended Present has already been largely
colonized (Dator,1975; Sardar, 1993). Here the best we can do is use the lens of PNT to identify systems that may be creeping
toward postnormality, or on the verge of PNB. To suggest that the Extended Present is already colonized smacks of
determinism—something that is anathema to Futures Studies, which is also rather averse to predictions. However, the fact
remains that a variety of trends and phenomenon are embedded in the Extended Present and are foreseeable, although
perfect knowledge of what might be ahead remains impossible.
Consider the rather trivial example of Apple’s iWatch. In the November 2014 issue of T3: The Gadget Magazine, the ﬁnal
letter from the publication’s (now former) Editor, bragged, ‘We predicted the ‘iWatch’in my ﬁrst issue, almost four years
ago...Onalong enough timeline, we all get something right, and now the iWatch is here’(Hill, 2014 ). Hill’s prediction is not
exceptional or right. The trends toward ‘wearable computers’was well established by 2008 (Rhodes, 1997), and as the
corporation that had established the ‘i’line of products that made Apple a ‘$1 Trillion Company’(Yarow, 2014), it was hardly
surprising that Apple would produce an iWatch, especially as the market for wearables is considered by many to be the next
big thing. There was a small problem with Hill's assertion: a European-based ﬁrm registered the name iWatch back in 2008,
which means that Apple’s smartwatch, which appeared on the market in April 2015, was not able to join its line of ‘i’
products. It is simply called the Apple Watch. What is interesting about Hill’s claim, and its relevance for contextualizing the
Our choice of name for this method is not meant to allude to Frank Brennan's Three Tomorrows, which is ﬁction-driven, English-language learning
Z. Sardar, J.A. Sweeney / Futures 75 (2016) 1–13 5
Extended Present, is that he identiﬁed an embedded trend that would take its natural course, but missed, or rather
misidentiﬁed, the details. In the Extended Present, it might be possible to accurately predict or forecastwhat might lie ahead,
especially in areas of technological development, but one must look beyond mere extrapolations to understand the
postnormal dynamics of this horizon.
After the Extended Present comes the familiar future(s), which can and might extend from ten to twenty years but,
regardless of time horizon, seems familiar because it is mediated by images and imaginings of the future(s)—from data-
driven projections to science ﬁction. Trends embedded in the Extended Present along with images from advertising,
corporate visions, popular ‘futurology’and science ﬁction novels, ﬁlms and television shows are extrapolated and projected
to create a picture of the future that is all too familiar. Consider, for example, how many technological developments have
originated, or are about to start, based on the images of science ﬁction ﬁlms: cyborgs from Terminator (1984) and robots from
StarWars (1977) have morphed into Google military robots such as the Atlas, ‘the agile anthropomorphic robot’and Pet Man,
‘the soldier robot’, both in development and to be unleashed in a decade or so (Peckham, 2012). Or, how built environments
and urbanization have come to reﬂect the cityscapes of Blade Runner (1982) and Dark City (1998); and Disneyland itself has
inspired so many cities such as Putra Jaya, Malaysia, and Mecca, Saudi Arabia. Or, how the behavior of the characters in Mad
Max (1979, 2015) is replicated by the fanatical Jihads of the ‘Islamic Caliphate’(Harnden, 2015). Or, the possibility of merging
technology, biology and human physicality depicted in Ex Machina (2015) that heralds the fashion industry’s push to develop
a‘digital skin’: nanotechnology will allow manufacturers to embed functions into the simplest articles of clothing, while a
network of sensors in and on the body, injected or worn,will envelope the body with a second skin (Holmes, 2011). Reﬂect on
how many technologies portrayed in various Star Trek ﬁlms and television shows are already in everyday use and how many
others could follow suite. Indeed, we are embarking on futures that are, at once, highly familiar and, yet, conceal intensely
Inayatullah’s notion of the ‘used future’resonates with the intended scope of the Familiar Future(s), which is meant to
explore and challenge extant imaginings for what might lie beyond the Extended Present (Inayatullah, 2008). By inherently
pluralizing the future(s) through a double reading, the familiar future(s) is simultaneously meant to be both singular and
plural. It is singular in the sense (Future) that it aims to ﬁnd what is familiar amongst a range of complex possibilities and
plural (Futures) in the sense that it engages with alternative, and at times divergent, imaginings.
Beyond the familiar future(s) lies the unthought future(s), a horizon of pure possibility that extends beyond the next 20
years. The unthought future(s) is not unthinkable but rather a horizon where something always remains unthought, which is
to say that it is populated with seemingly inﬁnite alternative futures—each necessitating their own polylogue to begin to
explore the divergent perspectives surrounding them. Although there are seemingly innumerable data sets about these
worlds—from demographic to economic projections—there are few, if any, models that can provide adequate insight into
what might transpire in this tomorrow. Thus, collaborative creativity and ‘ethical imagination[s]’are not simply the best
tools for constructing scenarios in this tomorrow, ‘they are the only tools’(Sardar, 2010, p. 444). Furthermore, the unthought
future(s) is not simply something that is not expected or anticipated; rather, it is something outside the framework of
conventional thought—something that does not allow us to focus on or think about it. On the other hand, the unthought can
also be an opportunity so uncommon that it appears utterly unreachable. As such, the unthought is not just limited to the
unthought future(s); it can and might exist in the Extended Present and Familiar Futures. But, it is only in the unthought
future(s) where full implications are brought to bear and we are forced to confront it head on.
In order to locate our method within the broader ﬁeld of Futures Studies and strategic foresight, we have adapted, or
rather mutated, the well-known futures cone (Candy, 2010 ;[334_TD$DIFF] Hancock & Bezold, 1994;[335_TD$DIFF] Taylor, 1993; Voros, 2003; von Reibnitz,
1988), to show the relational dynamics between each horizon. Fig. 3 shows the perceived relationship between each of the
Fig. 3. Temporal-only 3T rendering.
6Z. Sardar, J.A. Sweeney / Futures 75 (2016) 1–13
three horizons. In this image, the thickness and trajectoryof the lines within each horizon symbolizes perceptual acuity, the
degree to which one has the capacity to see trends emerge, persist, and/or be disrupted; and potentiality, the capacity for
something to move from mere possibility toward actuality.
Although this two-dimensional image suggests separation, the 3Ts are not isolated entities but deeply interconnected
spatial and temporal zones of actual and perceptual phenomena that have a dramatic effect on the here and now. The
familiar future(s) is an integral part of the Extended Present; and both contain a great deal of unthought future(s). It is also
important to emphasize that any event or phenomenon from the furthest horizon has a real potential of having an impact on
the here and now. In PNT, what seems unthought becomes part of tomorrow's everyday life. As such, the exploration of the
future(s) in this framework has to involve and engage with all 3T's simultaneously. Moreover, there are systems and
phenomenon with the potential to go postnormal in all three, which means that we should be able to examine the contextual
components in each tomorrow that may be exhibiting PNC or be on the verge of a PNB. Thus, 3T actually operates more as
represented in Fig. 4.
5. Ignorance, uncertainty,[336_TD$DIFF] and the Menagerie of Postnormal Potentialities
Each tomorrow has a particular type of uncertainty and ignorance attached to it.
When complexity, chaos and
contradictions come together, it should not surprise us that uncertainty is the result. The most basic variety of uncertainty
emerges when the direction of change is known but the magnitude and probability of events and consequences cannot be
estimated. This is the situation we ﬁnd within the Extended Present, where the future is largely colonized and certain trends
are deeply embedded. We have a limited set of possible alternative futures, at least one of which could come to fruition. We
call this surface uncertainty, which can be managed to some degree with adequate knowledge and foresight tools. In the
familiar future(s), we are presented with a broad range of alternatives and a plethora of possible futures. As such, we can say
little about the general direction of change; and even less about the emergence of postnormal phenomenon when
complexity, chaos and contradictions come together. But we do know that many of these futures are simply a projection of
common images and imaginaries of the future. Managing the resultant uncertainty presents us with a complex, not to say,
wicked problem, but we can still grasp it to some extent. We call this shallow uncertainty. Finally, the unthought future(s),
where anything can happen and nothing is known, presents us with Deep Uncertainty. Here, we arenot only unaware of the
direction, dimension and impact of change, but we are also incapable of knowing what is happening to the system because
our worldview or epistemology is totally inadequate. The three varieties of uncertainties are entrenched in an environment
where change is accelerating and new innovations, processes, social and political relations are constantly transforming the
emerging landscape. Fig. 4 captures how we striate the three uncertainties.
Each type of uncertainty is associated with a particular category of ignorance. The simple or plain ignorance (signiﬁed as
) can be deﬁned as the absence of knowledge; it relates to those items or phenomena that we do not comprehend. This is
the ignorance we may encounter in a complex or contradictory situation, which may be overcome by understanding the
We plan to do further research on and analysis of existing typologies of uncertainty and ignorance in a subsequent paper on this topic. At present, we
believe the models presented for both uncertainty and ignorance best suit our methodological approach.
Our thinking has been greatly aided and strengthened by the many critical comments and insights of Jordi Serra del Pino, Scott Jordan, Wendy Schultz,
Jim Dator, Merryl Wyn Davies and Ted Fuller. We are grateful to the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) for supporting this research.
Fig. 4. Spatio-temporal 3T rendering.
Z. Sardar, J.A. Sweeney / Futures 75 (2016) 1–13 7
complex networks involved, or appreciating the simultaneous ‘truths’of actors with contradictory demands (for example, a
government that needs development and a community that wants to preserve its environment, land and heritage). This is
the dominant variety of ignorance in the Extended Present: it can be overcome, and Surface Uncertainty reduced, through
learning, research, appreciating the viewpoints of others, and asking the right questions. The Familiar Futures present us
with a deeper level of ignorance, associated with shallow uncertainty, when we do not even knowwhat questions to ask. But
it also has another dimension: the answers to any pertinent questions, if we could ask them, can only be found over the
horizon. For example, we do not know for sure how genetically modiﬁed food will affect the food chain, or how genetic
engineering will affect the human body, or what impact ‘infectious connectivity’(Sweeney, 2015) will have on the human
mind—the answers can only be found sometime in the future after a generation at least has experienced the impacts and
effects of these developments. We call it Vincible
Ignorance (signiﬁed as i
): it cannot be overcome in the present by
learning as there is nothing to learn, but it creates an awareness of what we do not know and must seek to know in the future.
Associated with Familiar Futures, it generates shallow uncertainty, which could also be transformed into surface uncertainty
in the future. Then, of course, there are Rumsfeld’s‘unknown unknowns’:‘the ones we don’t know we don’t know’(Morris,
2014). It is related tothe Deep Uncertainty of the unthougtht future(s) and is categorized as Invincible Ignorance (signiﬁed as
The unthought lies beyond our imagination; we are unable to think about things that lie outside our imagination which is
determined by and limited to our worldview and frameworks of our assumptions and axioms, and often because we do not
have a language to deal with such thought. Invincible Ignorance is thus ‘the ignorance of our ignorance, the in-built
ignorance of the potential risks of recent developments’that ‘requires radically new ways of thinking’(Sardar, 2010, p. 440).
In other words, Invincible Ignorance cannot be overcome by our conventional tools as it is connected to the unthought parts
of our own worldview; it is the ignorancethat compels us to action with a false sense of conﬁdence in existing paradigms and
modes of knowing, being and doing. We can only grapple with Invincible Ignorance by questioning our axioms, bycritiquing
our basic and long cherished assumptions, and by totally rethinking our worldview. Fig. 5 captures how we situate a unique
uncertainty and ignorance within each horizon.
The three levels of uncertainty and ignorance enable us to begin to understand and chart the degree of actual and
perceptual postnormalcy surrounding a particular issue, system, or horizon. In the Extended Present, we attempt to reduce
Surface Uncertainty by processing the available information to produce hypotheses that could throw some light on what we
are seeing. If available information is not enough, we will have to determine if gathering more data will help or not. If
uncertainty continues to increase, it would be an indication that we are moving toward Vincible Ignorance of Familiar
Futures: we would now have to determine what lines of inquiry could possibly produce appropriate knowledge and the time
horizons involved in acquiring that knowledge. Finally, if the situation has reached a chaotic stage, we know we are dealing
with Deep Uncertainty of Unthought Futures. We now have to consider if it is our paradigm itself that is failing us, which
would indicate the presence of Invincible Ignorance. The most appropriate action now is to work toward an alternative,
However, all three horizons –Extended Present, Familiar Futures and Unthought Futures—include systems and sub-
systems that are either on the verge of PNB or, at the very least, showing signs of PNC. Much of our uncertainty, and hence
ignorance, is associated with the emergence of postnormalcy. So, apart from grasping the uncertainty and ignorance
associated with each horizon, our exploration of futures, and any forecasts, scenarios and visions based on it, must also
grapple with the postnormal potentialities inherent to all three horizons.
We are intentionally re-appropriating the language of Catholic Ethics, speciﬁcally Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, although our deﬁnitions for
both Vincible and Invincible Ignorance differ substantively from their original deployment.
As Sweeney notes, global weirding is ‘aﬁtting moniker for the emerging meshwork of (1) increasing technological advancement, dependence, and
ubiquity, (2) impending ecological catastrophe(s), and (3) the transnational drive and reach of postnormal actants [ . . . ]’(Sweeney, 2014, p. 3).
This visual is intentionally modeled after Functowicz and Ravetz’s Postnormal Science image, and we are indebted to Jordi Serra del Pino for making this
important connection and developing the initial visual for Fig. 6.
Fig. 5. Levels of uncertainties.
8Z. Sardar, J.A. Sweeney / Futures 75 (2016) 1–13
Postnormal phenomena are most evident and most easily seen in the Extended Present. It is like a Black Elephant in the
room, which either no one can see or chooses to ignore. Or, if its presence is recognized, no one is actually able to tackleit. A
Black Elephant, notes Vinay Gupta, ‘is an event which is extremely likely and widely predicted by experts, but people attempt
to pass it off as a Black Swan when it ﬁnally happens. Usually the experts who had predicted the event –from the economic
crisis to pandemic ﬂu—go from being marginalized to being lionized when the problem ﬁnally rears its head’(Gupta, 2009).
In line with Gupta’s concept, Markley argues for using Type II Wild Cards that are ‘high probability and high impact as seen by
experts if present trends continue, but low credibility for non-expert stakeholders . . . ’(Markley, 2011, p. 1079). An obvious
example is atmospheric carbon concentrations, which were recently recorded at 400 parts-per-million—a level which
predates humanity by millennia and foreshadows immense climatic changes (Biello, 2013). While there are many, including
a large majority of Americans, who deny anthropogenic climate change, the scientiﬁc consensus is just that, and one of the
earliest proclamations of the CO
climate problem comes from a report given to President Johnson in 1965 (Keith, 2000;
Royal Society, 2009). As such, Black Elephants are a sort of known unknown, as Rumsfeld puts it, especially as the chasm
between expert and public opinion adds complexity and uncertainty to the issue (Morris, 2014). Normally, events with high
postnormal potential require collective, global action –as was the case in remediating 2014’s Ebola pandemic. Black
Elephants capture the postnormal dynamic of the Extended Present, and they are decidedly contextual and ought to be
situated and/or articulated from more than one perspective, if only to capture the contradictions inherent to their
emergence. Finally, Black Elephants indicate that PNL is present, and perhaps dominant, within a particular system.
Nasim Nicholas Taleb’s popular notion of the ‘Black Swan’captures the essence of the familiar future(s). In contrast to the
Black Elephants of the Extended Present, Black Swans in the Familiar Futures are not perceptible or articulated, even by
experts; they appear as ‘outliers’and come ‘out of the blue,’as Taleb notes, they are ‘very fragile to miscalculation, with a
general severe underestimation mixed with an occasional severe overestimation’(Taleb, 2007, p. 420). Black Swans are
fundamentally unknown unknowns; and, in contrast to Black Elephants, Black Swans can and might be positive, which is to
say that their impact might illuminate previously unimagined opportunities, which is what suits them for the complex
dynamics of the familiar future(s). Indeed, it has been argued that Black Swans are responsible for some of the greatest
societal changes of history. However, they can equally be negative and serve as a signal for emerging PNC or PNB. As such,
dealing with Black Swans requires a higher level of analysis.
Postnormal phenomena are not easy to foresee in the unthought future(s) but, of course, they are there. We represent the
postnormal potentiality of the unthought future(s) with Black Jellyﬁsh; like Black Elephants and Black Swans, Black Jellyﬁsh
are ‘high impact’, but they are ‘normal’phenomena driven toward postnormalcy by positive feedback—or increasing growth
leading toward systemic instability. Why jellyﬁsh? Climate change is having a dramatic effect on the world's water systems.
Increasing oceanic temperatures and acidity levels are creating perfect conditions for jellyﬁsh blooms, which have forced
shut downs at coastal power plants around the world, including nuclear reactors (Gershwin, 2013). Epitomizing the weirding
inherent to Unthought Futures, jellyﬁsh are also known for ‘undermining the world's largest military and fostering political
unrest’(Sweeney, 2013, p. 6). Demonstrating how small things can have a big impact driven by positive feedback, jellyﬁsh
blooms provide us with the ideal representation of postnormalcy in the unthought future(s).
In Rumsfeld’s accounting, Black Jellyﬁsh are unknown knowns—things we think we know and understand but which turn
out to be more complex and uncertain than we expect. In centering our concept on the escalation of jellyﬁsh blooms, we aim
to draw attention to scale: in Unthought Futures we need to examine small things and imagine their impact on larger scales
and upon multiple overlapping systems over time. Black Jellyﬁsh are all about how normal situations and events become
Recently, Frederick Grinnell penned a short editorial for Nature suggesting that Postnormal Science ‘offer[s] a more coherent approach and permits a
more nuanced analysis than the current regulatory framework’for research with human participants (Grinnell, 2015, p. 257).
Fig. 6. [330_TD$DIFF]Ignorance and uncertainty matrix.
Z. Sardar, J.A. Sweeney / Futures 75 (2016) 1–13 9
postnormal; how they mutate through PNC by becoming interconnected, networked, complex and contradictory. In this
sense, Black Jellyﬁsh resonate deeply with Molitor's seminal work on emerging issues analysis, and we envision Black
Jellyﬁsh as decidedly ‘catalytic events’that herald unthought possibilities, although we do not believe that theyall must and
follow the famed S-curve model of change (Molitor,1977), which is useful for charting the impacts of a single event or impact
but does not enhance our ‘radar/sonar [ ...]foridentifying new elements in the territory that have either arisen since the
map was drawn, or which are in motion’(Schultz, 2006, p. 7). As with de Jouvenel’s concept of futuribles,‘there is not time at
which we can enumerate’Black Jellyﬁsh ‘exhaustively’(de Jouvenel, 1967, p. 19).
Collectively, we call Black Elephants, Black Swans, and Black Jellyﬁsh the Menagerie of postnormal potentialities
(hereafter Menagerie), which aims to focus our attention on the postnormal potentiality of the 3Ts—simultaneously. The
Menagerie, however, should not be seen as an assortment or range of purported wild cards. Writing on the critical
importance of introducing disruptive examples within foresight consultations, Barber contends, ‘designing a Wildcard that
expands the client's perspectives will provide an essential framework that will enable many other foresight methods and
tools to be leveraged beneﬁcially’(Barber, 2006, p. 79). While we believe that modeling postnormal potentialities are crucial
to robust, and ultimately useful, foresight, we shy away from using ‘wild card’as this designation situates one squarely
within the conﬁnes of risk management.
If anything is true in PNT, it is that our command-and-control impulses will only
serve to heighten our ignorance and entrench uncertainty, and we cannot manage risk but rather our perceptions of
risks—from ‘inevitable surprises’(Schwartz, 2001) to things that remain unthought. In PNT, the rules of the game have
changed such that all cards have the potentiality to be wild. As such, we must, as Miller contends, become Futures Literate
and enhance ‘the sophistication of our anticipatory systems’by using ‘the future to question, unpack, invent what is going on
and what is doable now’(Miller, 2007, pp. 27–28). As an ensemble aimed at challenging deeply held convictions, illuminating
entrenched contradictions, and enlivening novel considerations, we believe our Menagerie does just that.
6. Working with 3T
The 3T framework has three speciﬁc functions: to aid our exploration of alternative futures, with an emphasis onplurality
and postnormal potentialities; to critique existing projections and extrapolation; and to structure and shape policies that are
speciﬁcally geared to navigating postnormal times. It helps if we frame a set of speciﬁc questions for each horizon:
6.1. Extended Present
What trends are embedded in the Extended Present?
What do we not know? (plain ignorance)
What are the surfaceuncertainties of the Extended Present?
What are the obvious dangers we are ignoring?
Are there elements of Extended Present displaying PNL?
What issues/things are people afraid, embarrassed, and/or uncomfortable to talk about? In other words, what Black
Elephants are staring us in the face?
What polylogues do we need to explore the impacts of potential Black Elephants?
6.2. Familiar Futures
What imaginings of the future and trends are ‘pulling’us toward this horizon?
What do these Familiar Futures reveal to us about what we might need to know–vincible ignorance?
What do we understand to be the shallow uncertainties of these Familiar Futures?
Are there elements of these futures with postnormal potentialities?
What do people think would never happen? In other words, what are the Black Swans?
What polylogues do we need to explore the impacts of potential Black Swans?
6.3. Unthought Futures
What axioms and assumptions are made into projections and forecasts on this horizon?
Can we consider these axioms and assumptions to be valid in the face of Deep Uncertainty and Invincible Ignorance?
What elements of the Unthought Futures contain postnormal potentialities?
What might quickly escalate into something with an extreme impact? In other words, are there any Black Jellyﬁsh showing
signs of PNC?
Are conditions ripe for PNB? What would need to happen to foster PNB?
What polylogues do we need to explore the impacts of potential Black Jellyﬁsh?
10 Z. Sardar, J.A. Sweeney / Futures 75 (2016) 1–13
Shaping policy to cope with PNT requires an appreciation of 3T’s spatio-temporal simultaneity. It also needs some
understanding of the ignorance and uncertainty associated with each horizon as well as an appreciation of the contextual
elements, which could be whole systems or subsystems, with the potential of going postnormal—what we have identiﬁed as
Black Elephants, Black Swans and Black Jellyﬁsh. Any policy that aims to deal with future possibilities must take all this into
account. Collectively, the three varieties of ignorance and uncertainties and the Menagerie [337_TD$DIFF]points toward PNC: the process
through which normal things and events become chaotic and go postnormal.
To examine PNC, decision and policy makers have to study the complexity of a system, examine whether the system is
interconnected, whether it displays obvious contradictions, and identify potential avenues of positive feedback: if these four
factors are present, it is likely that the system will become postnormal. Within many systems, there are institutions and
structures that are already so complex and networked that they can go postnormal anytime, such as ﬁnancial markets and
infectious diseases. In general, PNC develops in three phases. In phase one, the system is complex and interconnected but
functions normally. That however does not mean that it will continue to function as usual. Any small change or perturbation
in the system, that can emerge by ignoring certain level of ignorance or overlooking uncertainty, can rapidly produce
consequences that cannot be controlled and usher postnormalcy. A Black Elephant or a Black Swan could also be present in
the system. In phase two, positive feedback emerges, and possibly a postnormal potentiality has been activated, and the
system begins to show signs of chaos. Phase three is reached when chaos takes over and the system becomes postnormal. We
need different policies to deal with each phase.
What can we do when a system is exhibiting PNC? In phase one, the best option is to simplify the system: complexity
condemns us to limited and uncertain knowledge and the need for simpliﬁcation. In our globalized world, there are no closed
systems; all systems are open and open to interconnection. But even open systems have (unnecessary) interconnections that
can be reduced, which would lead to decrease in its complexity. Here we need to be aware of sensitive dependency: any
intervention such as a badly thought policy, protest, conﬂict, act of gross injustice, degrading effect on the environment, can
accelerate the system toward postnormalcy. Moreover, we also need to identify speciﬁc elements of the system with
postnormal potentiality –what are the Black Elephants in the room that have to be urgently addressed. In our globalized
world, all national governments are complex, interconnected systems, with Black Elephants sitting on the tipping point
toward postnormalcy. The recent attention toward migrant crises in Europe and Asia speak directly to this point. In phase
two, when positive feedback has kicked in, we need to pay attention to attractors enhancing the positive feedback. In any
dynamic system, there will be a number of factors –policies, contradictions, campaigns, protests, conﬂicts, digital media,
new technologies, social change, power shifts –which create and enhance positive feedback and toward which the system
tends to evolve regardless of the initial conditions or rights and wrongs of a particular issue.
To prevent the system from going postnormal, we need to identify, and if possible block, the avenues of positive feedback,
unpack systemic interconnections, and identify the contradictions. There is a legitimate sense of urgency; but this shouldnot
mean an unthought reaction. The emphasis should be on deeper analysis, an integration of plurality and diversity, and on
quality. This requires both simpliﬁcation as well as complexiﬁcation at the same time. We need to ‘complexify’because
complex systems can only be handled by othercomplex systems (Keune, 2012). Moreover, all of this has tobe undertaken in
the context of vincible ignorance and shallow uncertainty. This requires, notes Stirling, ‘a more rigorous approach to
assessing incomplete knowledge, avoiding the temptation to treat every problem as a risk nail, to be reduced by a
probabilistic hammer. Instead, experts should pay more attention to neglected areas of uncertainty as well as deeper
challenge of ambiguity and ignorance’(Stirling, 2010). There is nothing we can really do when the system reaches phase
three except perhaps to continue to resolve the contradictions in the system and try to reduce positive feedback as much as
Shaping postnormal policy (hereafter PNP), that is, policy that enhances our ability to navigate PNT, is not about
management and control; these notions are redundant and even dangerous in PNT. Rather, PNP's aim is to be aware of our
ignorance in its three varieties, to understand the complexity and uncertainties involved, to anticipate postnormal
potentialities, and thus chart a viable, even if unpalatable, way forward. The function of a conventional policy is to guide
decisions to produce pre-deﬁned rational outcomes, and the whole process assumes a linear cause and effect relation
between policy and outcome. PNP, on the other hand, does not offer the luxury of such an assumption, and its main function
is to deal with, and if possible prevent, PNC, to draw attention to the practical complexities that confront us not just with
essential questions but also fundamental challenges, and thus assist us in charting and navigating postnormal futures. While
we believe that there are a few examples of innovative policy initiatives, such as the extension of legal rights to the
Whanganui River (Isaksson, 2014, p. 52) or the proliferation of guardians of future generations, we have yet to see PNP
7. 3T’s place in the futures ﬁeld
While Futures Studies emphasizes alternatives, many methods of futures and foresight seldom incorporate pluralism and
diversity intrinsically in their frameworks, and few, if any, emphasize the dynamic and merging nature of futures
As with many of the other concepts developed in this paper, PNP is worthy of its own article-length inquiry. We certainly plan to do further research in
this area and will produce another paper focusing on this concept with case studies.
Z. Sardar, J.A. Sweeney / Futures 75 (2016) 1–13 11
possibilities, or highlight the ignorance and uncertainties we constantly confront. In response to this need, many
practitioners and researcher have concocted ‘mash-ups’by ‘combining and layering different techniques to enrich outcomes’
(Curry & Schultz, 2009, p. 58). The 3T framework offers just such a multi-layered approach that can serve as a useful tool of
critique and exploring critical futures, or for ‘critical complexiﬁcation’of alternative futures (Keune, 2012, p. 4). 3T can also
serve as an analytical tool for situating and contextualizing trends, emerging issues, and imaginings of the future(s),
including complex, horizon-speciﬁc forecasts, and we believe it can be complimentary to many, if not most, other futures
methods and research, including the Three Horizons approach.
From scenario modeling to visioning and backcasting to cross-matrix analysis, 3T can amplify how ignorance and
uncertainty are analyzed, framed, and/or mapped. We have already seen our Menagerie adopted by a U.K. government
foresight unit, who integrated it into their stakeholder engagement process. We have designed the 3T framework to be both
digestible and pluralistic; as such, it locates the future within the context of simultaneous alternatives that are both distant
and ever present. It emphasizes complexity and draws our attention to ignorance and uncertainty at each step. 3T aims to
consistently focus on the unthought, forcing us to ask associated questions, as well as challenging our assumptions, values,
and basic axioms. And ﬁnally, it attempts to provide a space for us to articulate postnormal potentialities –Black Elephants,
Black Swans and Black Jellyﬁsh –to focus on resistance, both in the sense of the contradictory resistance of a particular
context, not to see the challenges ahead, and the notion of building a resistance to such short-sightedness. Although adapting
to and taking advantage from coming changes is at the heart of foresight, we also believe that a critical aspect of 3Tcenters on
that which we must sustain—and a host of indigenous and native peoples continue to embody this ethos.
In PNT, pushing the boundaries of plausibility requires a new kind of thinking coupled with creativity and imagination,
and we must be able to deal with complexity and incomplete knowledge, link what is compartmentalized, and tackle
interconnections and interdependence. As such, our approach must be both radical and modest to be realisticand ef ﬁcacious.
And creativity and imagination, as Montuori has argued, must move from the individualistic/atomistic view of modernity
toward a more contextual, collaborative, complex approach –breaking with the mythology of genius and inspiration that
informs philosophy, ethics, and action (Montuori, 2011). This is the direction the 3T framework ultimately takes us –toward
Amara, R. C. (1972). Toward a framework for national goals and policy research. Policy Science,3,59–69.
Armour, K. C., & Roe, G. H. (2011). Climate commitment in an uncertain world: climate commitment. Geophysical Research Letters,38(January (1)) .
Barber, M. (2006). Wildcards—signals from a future near you. Journal of Futures Studies,11(August (1)), 75–94.
Berthon, P., & Donnellan, B. (2011). The greening of IT: paradox or promise? The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,20(March (1)), 3–5.
Biello, D. (2013). 400 PPM: Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Reaches Prehistoric Levels. http://blogs.scientiﬁcamerican.com/observations/2013/05/09/
Borger, J. (2014). Ban Ki-moon: ‘World living in an era of unprecedented level of crises’. The Guardian. . Accessed 17.05.15 http://www.theguardian.com/world/
Candy, S. (2010). The futures of everyday life: politics and the design of experiential scenarios. University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Centers for Disease Control, & Prevention (2015). Facts about ASDs, CDC—facts about Autism spectrum disorders. NCBDDD. . Accessed 17.03.15http://www.cdc.
Chen, H. (2010). The concept of the ‘Polylogue’and the question of ‘Intercultural’identity. Intercultural Communication Studies,XIX(3), 54–64.
Crutzen, P. J., & Stoermer, E. F. (2000). The anthropocene. Global Change Newsletter,41,17–18.
Curry, A., & Hodgson, A. (2008). Seeing in multiple horizons: connecting futures to strategy. Journal of Futures Studies,13(August (1)), 1–20.
Curry, A., & Schultz, W. (2009). Roads less travelled: different methods, different futures. Journal of Intercultural Studies,13(May (4)), 35–60.
Dator, J. (1975). De-colonizing the Future. In A. Spekke (Ed.), The next 25 years: challenges and opportunities Bethesda, Maryland: World Future Society.
Dator, J. A., Sweeney, J. A., & Yee, A. M. (2015). Mutative media. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Enriquez, J., & Gullans, S. (2015).Evolving ourselves: how unnatural selection and nonrandom mutation are changing life on earth. New York, New York: Current.
Functowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1994). Uncertainty, complexity, and post-normal science. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,13(12), 1881–1885.
Gardner, D. (2012). Future babble: why pundits are hedgehogs and foxes know best. New York, N.Y: Plume.
Gershwin, L. A. (2013). Stung!: on jellyﬁsh blooms and the future of the ocean. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Glenn, J. C., Gordon, T. J., & Millennium Project (2009). Futures research methodology. Washington, D.C: Millennium Project.
Greenberg, A. (2015). Hackers remotely kill a jeep on the highway—with me in it. WIRED. . Accessed 03.09.15 (online) http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-
Grinnell, F. (2015). Rethink our approach to assessing risk. Nature,522(June (7556)), 257.
Gupta, V. (2009). On Black Elephants http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/ﬂu/on-black-elephants-1450 (27.04.09).
Hancock, T., & Bezold, C. (1994). Possible futures, preferable futures. Healthcare Forum Journal,37(2), 23–29.
Harnden, T. (2015). Mad Max-Style takeover of Ramadi leaves Obama and West ﬂoundering. RealClearPolitics. Chicago Sunday Times.
Henchey, N. (1978). Making sense of futures studies. Alternatives: perspectives on society and environment. Winter.
Higginbothan, S. (2015). Samsung’s smart fridge could be used to steal your Gmail login. Fortune [341_TD$DIFF]http://fortune.com/2015/08/24/samsungs-smart-fridge-
hacked/ Accessed 25.08.15.
Hill, M. (2014). Editor’s Letter, T3: The Gadget Magazine. The Ambury, Bath BA1 1UA: Future Publishing Limited Quay House.
Holmes, K. (2011). ‘Is ‘Digital Skin’The Future Of Fashion? The Creators Project. http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/is-digital-skin-the-future-of-
fashion Accessed 17.05.15.
Inayatullah, S. (2008). Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming. Foresight,10(February (1)), 4–21.
Isaksson, D. (2014). Global disorders—a new global order? Development dialogue, no . 62.
Keith, D. W. (2000). Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment,25, 245–284.
Keune, H. (2012). Critical complexity in environmental health practice: simplify and complexify. Environmental Health,11(1), S19.
Kleeman, J. (2015). The Wikipedia wars: does it matter if our biggest source of knowledge is written by men? NewStatesman.
Kristeva, J. (1977). Polylogue. Paris: Seuil.
Latour, B. (2014). Agency at the time of the anthropocene. New Literary History,45(1), 1–18 .
Linstone, H. A. (1999). Decision making for technology executives: using multiple perspectives to improved performance. Boston: Artech House.
Markley, O. (2011). A new methodology for anticipating STEEP surprises. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,78(July (6)), 1079–1097.
12 Z. Sardar, J.A. Sweeney / Futures 75 (2016) 1–13
Miller, R. (2007). Futures literacy: a hybrid strategic scenario method. Futures,39(May (4)), 341–362.
Molitor, G. T. T. (1977). How to anticipate public-policy changes. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal (summer) .
Montuori, A. (2011). Beyond postnormal times: the future of creativity and the creativity of the future. Futures,43(March (2)), 221–227.
Morris, E. (2014). The unknown known. Participant Media.
Moses, L. (2015). The Justine Sacco redemption tour: too little too late? Digiday.
Peckham, M. (2012). Watch: humanlike DARPA robot climbs and leaps from obstacles with mad skills. Time.
Pickard, J. (2012). A Gonzo futurist manifesto. http://justinpickard.net/gonzo-futurist-manifesto.pdf Accessed 15.03.15.
Rao, V. (2012) ‘Welcometo the Future Nauseous’, ribonfarm: experiments in refactored perception. http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/05/09/welcome-to-
the-future-nauseous/ Accessed 10.04.15.
Rhodes, B. (1997). A brief history of wearable computing. https://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/lizzy/timeline.html Accessed 10.03.15.
Ronson, J. (2015). So you’ve been publicly shamed. Pan Macmillan.
Royal Society (2009). Geoengineering the climate science, governance and uncertainty. London: Royal Society.
Sardar, Z. (1993). Colonizing the future: the ‘other’dimension of futures studies. Futures,25(March (2)), 179–18 7.
Sardar, Z. (2010). Welcome to postnormal times. Futures,42(June (5)), 435–444.
Sardar, Z. (2015). Postnormal times revisitednormal times revisited. Futures,67(March), 26–39.
Schultz, W. L. (2006). The cultural contradictions of managing change: using horizon scanning in an evidence-based policy context. Foresight,8(July (4)), 3–
Schultz, W. L. (2014). Beyond vision and eccentricity—applied crazy (for Post-Normal Times) presented at the Crazy Futures II, Romania.
Schwartz, P. (2001). Inevitable surprises: thinking ahead in a time of turbulence. New York: Gotham Books.
Sedley, D. N. (2003). Plato’s cratylus. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sharpe, B., & Hodgson, T. (2006). Intelligent infrastructure futures technology forward look: towards a cyber-urban ecology. Foresight programme. UK: Ofﬁce
of Science and Technology.
Stepanova, E. (2011). The role of information communication technologies in the ‘Arab Spring’, PONARS Eurasia: new approaches to research and security in
Asia, no. PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo No. 159.
Stirling, A. (2010). Keep it complex it complex. Nature,468(December (7327)), 1029–1031.
Sweeney, J. A. (2013). Signs of postnormal times. East-West Affairs: A Quarterly Journal of North-South Relations in Postnormal Times,1(December (3/4)), 5–12.
Sweeney, J. A. (2014). Command-and-control: alternative futures of geoengineering in an age of global weirding. Futures,57(March), 1–13.
Sweeney, J. A. (2015). Infectious connectivity: affect and the internet in postnormal times. In J. Winter, & R. Ono (Eds.), Futures of the internet Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing.
Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House.
Taylor, C. W. (1993). Alter native world scenarios for a new order of nations. Carlisle Barracks, PA: U. S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute.
Voros, J. (2003). A generic foresight process framework. Foresight,5(June (3)), 10–21.
Williams, A., Srnicek, N. (2013). ‘#ACCELERATE MANIFESTO for an Accelerationist Politics’, critical legal thinking. http://criticallegalthinking.com/2013/05/
14/accelerate-0manifesto-for-an-accelerationist-politics/ Accessed 17.05.15.
World Health Organization (2015). WHO|obesity and overweight. WHO. . Accessed 17.05.15 (online) http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/.
Yarow, J. (2014). How Apple becomes a $1 trillion company. Business Insider.
de Jouvenel, B. (1967). The art of conjecture. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
von Reibnitz, U. (1988). Scenario techniques. Hamburg: McGraw-Hill Book.
Z. Sardar, J.A. Sweeney / Futures 75 (2016) 1–13 13