gendered society, gendered futures research

Futures,Vol. 30, No. 9, pp. 901–911, 1998Pergamon 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0016–3287/98 $19.001 0.00

PII: S0016–3287(98)00092-5

GENDERED SOCIETY, GENDEREDFUTURES RESEARCH

Vuokko Jarva

New fields of research, new approaches and branches of science enrich thescientific world-view and scientific toolbox. Below I employ concepts developedfor a newcomer to the domain of science, feminist and women’s research, inthe field of futures research. The distinction between biological sex and socio-cultural gender is a useful conceptual device. The sociocultural woman’s orman’s role is distinguished from being a biological woman or man. With thehelp of this distinction feminists have shown that, especially in science, thereis a dominant male mode of thinking, which they call ‘the male bias’. The malebias in Western futures research gets its extreme expression in the forecastingapproach. There are, though, early efforts to develop ‘female futures research’from practical work with women’s futures to theoretical and utopian consider-ations. The female approach is but an embryo and should be developed further.To begin is to understand the dilemma. 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. Allrights reserved

Finnish philosopher Ilkka Niiniluoto1 classifies futures research as a planning science. Heconsiders it to be an instrumental science as are, for example, engineering sciences,theory of architecture, agricultural science, economy and social welfare sciences. If thisinstrumentality hypothesis is accepted, then the focus of futures research is in the outsideworld, not in itself or knowledge per se. I do not try to discuss here the truth value ofNiiniluoto’s classification, but accept it as the basis of my study. This is a logical result

Vuokko Jarva, born 1945 into a Karelian refugee family in Finland, is a Doctor of Social Sciences in socialpolicy, social psychology and futures research. As the single mother of a daughter, she has personal experienceof female as well as male roles. She works in practical development projects, the main areas being education,women’s futures, rural development and consumer policy. She was coordinator of the Helsinki group of FinnishFutures Studies association in 1993–1995 and member of the board 1998–, a member of the Finland Committeeof the Club of Rome and WFSF. Her present working place is the Institute for Cooperative Studies, Universityof Helsinki, Finland. (Tel.: 1 358-09-191-7794; fax: 1 358-09-191-7761; email: [email protected]).

901

Gendered society, gendered futures research: V Jarva

of my own point of view: I have been educated in social planning and my point of viewof futures research certainly is instrumental.

Thus the focus of my studies in futures research is not futures research per se, butits value to social planning and decision making on all levels of the social system. Fromthis point of view a critical question concerning futures research is: which kind of societyit reflects and which kind of society it aims to serve. Therefore, before I can study theproblem of gender and genderedness in futures research I must study the concept ofgendered society.

Gendered society—gendered spheres of work

Biologically the human species is divided into two sexes: men and women. Socio-biologi-cal gender-concept has its roots in liberal thinking of the 19th century. A well-knowndeveloper of it was the 19th century English liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill, whostudied the problem of men’s and women’s status in society. It has been developed furtherin psychiatry, anthropology and sociological role theory, but has been employed anddeepened by feminist and women’s research. The concept of gender ties together biologi-cal sex and social role, expected from a human being belonging to each sex. Thus femalechildren are expected to learn the woman’s role and male children to learn the man’s role.

A woman’s role is considered a whole of world view, values, attitudes and behav-iour, which a woman should interpret. Respectively, a man’s role is the same kind ofwhole, which a man should interpret. All known societies show the distinction of theseroles—though in a wide range of variety—and are thus gendered societies. The classicalstudent of the variety of gender roles was Margaret Mead. There are also exceptions tothis role. A woman in a man’s role is known in anthropology as a man hearted womanand the man in a woman’s role is usually called a berdache.

In which way our present societies are gendered implies the study of the focal aspectsof the female role and the male role in our societies. To begin with, it is relevant to ask:what have feminist researchers learned about the character of the female gender and itsplace in society?

The concept of reproduction seems to be a focal concept in this. Reproduction is arelative concept, which is considered as opposite of production. Where production issupposed to establish something new, re-production only re-generates and re-news.

Three categories of reproduction are classified. Human reproduction consists of giv-ing birth, nursing and educating a new child. Reproduction of labour-force means theraising of members of labour-force and the maintenance of it. The third category of repro-duction is societal and structural reproduction, in which societies and their structures aremaintained and renewed. All the reproductive activities are supposed to happen outsidethe actual production. In this sense, for example, the activities of administration are notconsidered production.

When feminists study reproduction, the emphasis is on human and social repro-duction, because the core of the female role is, in our societies, predominantly in theseareas. The basic unit of human, as well as social, reproduction is the family home.

It is useful to begin the gendered nature of societies from there, discussing the ques-tion of the private, the home. Patricia Thompson2 from New York has developed a femin-ist theory of home economics. She divides society into two spheres, following the oldGreek division to:

902


- oikos, the home and the close surroundings. In modern language it is usually calledthe private. This sphere she names as hestian, according to the Greek goddess ofhome and hearth, and- polis, the society and its institutions. In modern language, usually called the public.This sphere Thompson names as hermean, according to the Greek god of commerce,traffic and communication.

Without the hestian sphere, the maintenance and continuity of life would be impossible,that is why it is in her theory the centre of the society, its core. From this point of view,the hermean sphere has only an assisting function.

This is an opposing view to the dominant view in economy, politics and science.As feminist researchers have shown, the hestian sphere hardly exists either in economy,politics or science. They have argued about it on a gender basis. Because the hestiansphere has been subjugated to serve the hermean for the last 5000 years or so and womenhave been imposed to take their gender-role there, the male businessmen, politicians,economists and scientists have considered it as not worth mentioning. This phenomenonfeminist and women’s researchers call the invisibility of the female sphere of the society.

As a parallel, for example, the American economist John Kenneth Galbraith3 hasshown that the colonial economy has been invisible in the economic theory for centuries.He uses similar arguments as women’s researchers: because the subjugated position of thecolonies has been considered as self evident, there has been no need to make it visible.

Maybe the best known female critic of the male biased economic theory, HazelHenderson4 describes economy as a cake, the upper half of which she calls GNP-monet-ised economy and the lower half, on which the upper rests, non-monetised productiveeconomy. The lower non-monetised half is divided into the spheres of social cooperativecounter-economy and nature’s layer. The social cooperative economy, which in Hender-son’s categorisation covers about one quarter of the whole cake, is a wider concept thanThompson’s hestian sphere. The hestian sphere though falls inside it.

Thompson states that the hermean sphere is aggressively dominating the hestiansphere, there is a conflict between these two spheres in our societies, which at themoment is solved so that the hermean sphere violently dominates the hestian one. Inwomen’s research this is considered to fall together with the men’s dominance over thewomen. The intermediating process of subjugation and exploitation of women is thehermean dominance over the hestian sphere.

In development economics a parallel relationship is shown to exist between thewealthy North and the poor South (e.g. Andre Gunder Frank, Gunnar Myrdal).

Another interesting parallel is the theory of the 19th century German social philos-opher Ferdinand Tonnies.5,6 He described two kinds of societies Gemeinschaft andGesellschaft. The terms are usually translated in English as ‘community’ and ‘society’,which is in some measure misleading. Though the community has a characteristic, whichis basic for Gemeinschaft, it is organic. The society is artificial like the Gesellschaft.

In a way Gemeinschaft is an extended family-household, hestian sphere, where allthe members are to participate organically in common effort to survive and flourish.Gesellschaft, on the contrary, is a playground of competing and fighting hunter-warriors. Itis comparable to the Thompsonian hermean sphere. Because of the internal contradictorycharacter of the Gesellschaft, artificial rules, power and reconciliation mechanisms areneeded. In Tonnies’ theory, the Gesellschaft tends to subjugate and dominate over the

903


Gemeinschaft, like the hermean sphere in Thompson’s theory does over the hestiansphere.

Tonnies, though, belongs to those male biased masters who considers women to belike children or slaves and that is why they are naturally subjugated to men even in theGemeinschaft. This means, on one hand, that there is a hierarchic structure and on theother hand, that women are enslaved. In Thompson’s theory, sex and gender are dis-tinguished so, that even if the imprisonment of women in the hestian sphere is a fact inour societies—and in fact the men then in hermean—there is no natural or otherwiselegitimate reason to this division of roles.

While the feminists discuss the exclusion of the women from the public circle, thereare voices, which also complain of the men’s exclusion from the private circle. Themodern gender equality and equity fighters also raise their voice against the imprisonmentof men in the public circle and the exclusion of the private circle roles from them.

The other line of subjugation is discussed in terms of subjugation of men as well aswomen by the monetised economy and its power structures. Already the parallels I havedrawn show that the problem of gendered society is multifaceted and does not only fiteither in case of men–women relations or master–slaves relations. A problem, whichfeminist research does not cover, is that the division to masters and slaves in reality existsinside the female sex and gender as well as the male ones. The hierarchic demarcationlines go inside the sex as well as between the sexes.

But to study this deeper, it is useful to study history, to ask: how has this all happen-ed?

There seems to be two important lines of demarkation. The first line is: who belongsto the ‘human species’? The other line is: who are considered ‘us’ and who ‘they’?

Both are very visible in the history of colonisation. The arguments of barbarians andpagans hardly belonging to the human species are used, as well as arguments that if theydo belong, at least they are not ‘fully’ human—argumentation for colonisation of womenfollows the same lines. A kind of lower species inside a species. These arguments havebeen employed in case of foreign tribes, people, races as well as the female sex.

These lines are supposed either to be natural, based on biological characteristics, orcultural, based on degrees of civilisation. In most of the cases these two fall together:from ‘us’ biologically different people, ‘they’, aliens, also represent a lower and thus aless valuable culture.

Enslavement as basis of gendered society

To shed more light on the problem of the master–slave-type hierarchic societies, it isfruitful to use the discoveries made by feminist and women’s research in the case ofgendered societies.

In women’s research, it is commonly agreed that the patriarchal-hierarchic male-dominated society-type is a very recent phenomenon. It’s existence is evaluated to emerge5000–10 000 years ago. The earlier gatherer’s societies were either to have been matriar-chal or based on equal companionship between men and women.

There has not been found any consensus about how the male-dominated societiesemerged. The most often mentioned causes are the development of sources of livelihood,the emergence of more advanced technology and the invention of fatherhood.

The advances in earning a livelihood, especially agriculture, are supposed to create

904


surplus-value, which made the human labour-force less important. That is why womenwere no longer as crucial resources as earlier. More advanced technology was a focalfactor in this surplus-value creation: when more provisions were produced with the helpof it, this caused an inflation of human labour force. More labourers could be employedbecause their maintenance was guaranteed. This also meant that a labourer becameexchangeable to others and that if one controlled the technology, one was wealthyenough to gain more labour-force.

Because of this argument, it is supposed that the subjugation of women was parallelto taking slaves. Because a technology-owner was no longer dependent on his women-folk, women’s status declined and they were subjugated into the status of slaves. So thisexplanation gives a general theory of enslavement.

The gender-specific aspects are twofold. On one hand, to get your hands on newtechnology, you had to travel where it had been invented and manufactured and buy orrobe it. It is commonly considered that women usually worked in close surroundings andmen were those who travelled long distances. That is why it was men who could gethold of the new technology and use it. The other gender-specific aspect was the inventionof biological fatherhood, which is supposed to cause the breakdown of matrilineal famil-ies and the establishing of patrilinear families.

These simplified explanations are useful even in analysis of the so-called information-society phenomenon. But it is not the subject of this presentation. The basic idea of theprocess of getting wealthier and technologically more advanced enabling enslavement,seems to be very relevant in the study of present societies as well.

The gendered society, in its part, can be best studied in a situation where the genderroles are already clearly diverged, but the female sphere and the male sphere have anequal importance for the society, a balanced situation.

Women’s inner circle—men’s outer circle

Finnish social anthropologist Matti Sarmela7,8 gives an excellent description about thiskind of situation. He has studied the Finnish agrarian society in the phase of slash-and-burn agriculture.

In the phase of slash-and-burn agriculture, the economical basis of the society wasalready in agriculture. Slash-and-burn techniques presented movable use of arable land.An area of forest was burned down and used for cultivation for a few years, as long asit gave a rich harvest. Then it was left to rest and it was used next time when the foresthad grown again. The settlements were already fairly permanent: the far away lands werecultivated on a camp basis. People usually returned to their semi-permanent settlementsin times when they were not needed in cultivation.

The slash-and-burn agriculture economy already gave a relatively safe basis to every-day survival and even some surplus value to be exchanged with distant people. Thoughit was a mixed economy, where the more ancient ways of livelihood, the new agricultureand the more modern commerce formed an economic whole, men and women had theirseparate, complementary roles.

The division of labour between the sexes was clear. Women took care of the closeeconomy as well as the maintenance of the social community, the hestian functions.Men’s job was to take care of the distant economy, to hunt and fish, trade with distantpeople as well as shelter the community against outside threat, the hermean functions.

905


It is supposed that this division of labour was based on the biological differences. Womenhad to give births and take care of the children, the old and the weak. Because of thecontinuity character of their labour they were not free to move far away from the com-munity. Men’s virtues lay in managing to catch the game, to make a good trade and tobeat the enemy, in single achievements. They had to go where the game or enemy wentand where they could sell their products. As biologically stronger and less stable, thisprofile fitted them well.

Anyway, it seems to have been working well as long as it worked. Sarmela gives asfocal factor causing its yielding to the technological development in agriculture: the horseand tools used with the help of it on the one hand were heavy and fitted better men andon the other hand substituted partly women’s labour-force in agriculture. Other reasonscan be analysed as well, mainly coming from outside the community. Raising wealththrough trade shattered the balance in favour of men’s outer circle. The increasing popu-lation in Northern Europe and the more aggressive male intruders brought models ofwomen’s enslavement. The import of women’s enslavement from the south and west intoFinland is documented in several sources; it was not an intra-societal development.

An interesting parallel to this type of society is given by Riane Eisler9 in her descrip-tion of the Minoan urban partnership society. Her focus is though in the male–femalerelations and not in the earning-the-livelihood balance. Developing Eisler’s theory to thedirection of Henderson’s economic theory could shed new light on the problem of part-nership-society.

The division of work between men and women in this model has been shown tobe the dominant mode over all patriarchal-hierarchic societies. Women’s inner circle isthe sphere of reproduction and the private. Men’s outer circle the sphere of the productionand the public, including commerce with distant people and foreign relations, even war-fare. The peaceful coexistence and complementarity of the gender-spheres has turned tohierarchic enslavement and contradiction.

An interesting phenomenon from the 20th century shows what happens if the societyis developed—at least in some measure into the female sphere direction, the Nordicwelfare state.

The Nordic welfare state—the most female present society

That becoming wealthier does not logically cause society to become more enslaving,more hierarchic and more gendered is illustrated by the example of the Nordic welfarestate. To show how the fight between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, the hestian andthe hermean spheres can result in a less gendered society, one has to study how theNordic welfare state was created and what happened then.

Nordic countries are small countries located in the north-western corner of Europe.They consist of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, often called Scandinavia. Iceland is anisland in the Atlantic Ocean, far in the north-west and Finland is a peninsula towardsthe east. The area has been a part of European history for at least a thousand years. Itslocation far in the north and partly between Western and Eastern Europe has given tothe development of these countries some common characteristics, which deviate fromthe developments elsewhere in Europe. From the point of view of the welfare state themost important factors are:

- they have never been a long time submitted to a rule of countries outside Norden,

906


- they were never really feudalised throughout and the industrial economy reachedthem fairly late, Finland actually only after World War II,- that is why the agrarian democratic non-centralised tradition even now influencesdeeply in their culture and the politics, and- they have never experienced such deep subjugation of women as many other Euro-pean countries.

The establishing of the welfare state took a process of more than a hundred years10. By‘welfare state’ is usually meant a mode of production of so-called welfare. In this sensewelfare means guaranteeing citizens their basic rights, their livelihood, their health care,education and social services. In the welfare state mode the public sector has taken afocal part in delivering these services, which in other modes are taken by family, themarket economy or voluntary organisations.

The basic character of the welfare state is thus, that it has taken over functionsbelonging to the hestian sphere of the society. It has a strong Gemeinschaft character.The relations between the hermean Gesellschaft—dominant even in Nordic countries—and the hestian Gemeinschaft are thus officially stated in laws, organised and reconcili-ated. The welfare state does by no means refer to the whole of the society but to certainfunctions of it.

Because the welfare state structure aims to carry, as least in some measure, theburden of the women’s inner circle, it has a strong emphasis on the female functions ofthe society. One of the basic functions is the liberation of women to work, even in thepublic sphere. This is done on one hand by professionalising women’s duties in healthcare and social services and creating institutions to do this. This has offered lots of jobsfor women. On the other hand institutions and professions are created to enable womento leave home to go to work, like children’s care, public schools and domestic workservices, including care of the old, the sick and the handicapped.

Altogether the welfare state seems to be a means to control and transform the gender-edness and hierarchicity of the society. The gender equality principle is employed so thatthe more ripe the welfare state has become, the more attention has been paid as well tothe liberation of men from the constraint to stay tied in the public sphere. The equalitylaws concern men as well. The general equality, the defences of the weak, is intercon-nected with the equality of sexes.

In this sense the welfare state is more female, takes more duties from the women’ssphere than any other present mode. The majority of the critique against the welfare stateis either an attack against its female characteristics in themselves (the free market econ-omy defenders) or critique of the weaknesses caused mainly by its adoption of character-istics from the patriarchal-hierarchic sphere in the compromising process (new powerstructures for subjugation of citizens).

The development of the welfare state cannot be discussed in terms of ideas. It hasto be discussed in terms of actors and their pursuits. Women’s researchers have shownin many publications the crucial role of women and their organisations in this develop-ment process. The voluntary grassroots groups and organisations of women have had animportant role in this from the very beginning, and they have gained a lot of supportfrom male equality fighters. So it is not exaggeration to say that the welfare state is aresult of a long-range political and ideological fight of the united powers of male and

907


female actors against enslavement in general and the special case of gender basedenslavement in society.

How the welfare state fighters managed to avoid the trap into which both bourgeoisand Marxist equality fighters fell—the lip service of equality of women and the enslave-ment of women in the practical development—is still unstudied.

The welfare state is far from perfect in the case of gender equality and annihilationof enslavement, but it is the best case available, and that is why it is worthy ofdetailed studies.

At the moment the Nordic welfare state shows the same symptoms of being a yieldingsociety mode as the burned-land agriculture showed in its time. The outside intrusion ofnew, male-dominated information technology combined with the pressure of more hier-archic and enslaving male-dominated societies from the south and west seem to threatenthe very roots of this more balanced and less gendered society. The time will show whathappens, but the history of this society mode is interesting from both the point of viewof genderedness and enslavement as characteristics of societies.

The welfare society also gives a case of the weight of world views and ideologiesas well as science in the development of societies. Even the science, on which the welfareconstruction is based, is different from the dominant male bias in science—but it is notpossible to go deeper into this subject here. The lesson to learn is, though, that everybranch of science, consciously or subconsciously, has its embedded values, world viewand thus either serves the maintenance of the present patriarchal-hierarchic male domi-nated society types or serves their development into less enslaving and less genderedsocieties.

The case of futures research is not an exception.

Gendered futures research

the aim is not to prophesy what the actual future will be but rather to rehearse futures accessibleto political choice. Nigel Calder, 1967

The quotation above from the sixties describes very well the character of futures research,even today. One of the few matters of consensus among professional futures researchersis that there is no single, pre-determined future which could be predicted. This is usuallycalled the principle of an open future. The expression ‘futures accessible’ is even morerestrictive than Bertrand de Jouvenel’s11 famous ‘futuribles’, possible futures. Many futuresresearchers swear in the name of futuribles but when one reads their texts, they veryseldom give anything more than ‘futures accessible’ to the decision makers. And evenmore: the vast majority deals with ‘futures desirable’ to the decision makers. Theexpression political choice, gives outspokenly the field of the research: policy—polis, thehermean sphere. Another dimension is that futures research rarely gives anything elsebut ‘futures legitimate’ in terms of both policy and the dominant male world view—veryunderstandable, because most of the research is both financed and evaluated in thedomain of the patriarchal-hierarchic society.

In the West, futures research won its spurs as an extension of organisational, socialand societal planning. The first wave was smoothly integrated with the interests of statesand large organisations so that futures research was welcomed as a tool of creating newvisions for the development of the employers and the power-possessors. In terms of

908


Roman justice it served—and still serves—a preventive function. The second wave offutures research transcended this limited scope and presented more global visions ofthreatening, necessary and possible futures. It is often symbolised by the report to theClub of Rome Limits to Growth12. This global moralism wave of futures research aimedat correcting the wrongs without touching the cause of the wrongs. In terms of Romanjustice it serves the same corrective function as, for example, criminal law or social pol-icy.

The preventive wave of futures research was based on what Bertrand de Jouvenelcalled ‘social physics’. The idea was that causality, then accepted in natural sciences,was applicable to the human world as well. This meant that the future was consideredsomething already existent, which could be forecast or predicted. The only thing peoplecould do was to adjust. The corrective wave questioned this. It seems that the hiddencurriculum of corrective futures research is ‘this will happen if nothing is done, so, pleasedo something.’ This curriculum already accepts the human actor capable of interveningin so-called natural laws. The same curriculum is focal in de Jouvenel’s famous idea offuturibles. This implies that there can be several possible futures and there can be choicesmade between them.

A very interesting case of this development is Jay W. Forrester13–16, whose modellingfollowed the order: industrial dynamics (1961)–urban dynamics (1969)–world dynamics(1971). It was directed to decision makers in business, public planning and internationalplanning. An interesting merge of the preventive and corrective futures research happenedwhen his world dynamics model was taken in corrective use in the Club of Rome Limitsto Growth report.

Swedish sociologist Johan Asplund17 has cross-tabulated futures researchers inrelation to their attitude towards the existing order and their relationship with science(Table 1). In relation to science he uses the terms ‘upplysning’ (U-type) and ‘romantik’(R-type), which I have translated following his comments on science as ‘normal science’(U-type) and ‘scientific revolt’ (R-type).

Asplund does not hold out much hope for intellectually radical approaches in futuresresearch in the long run. There is in his opinion still some space for R-type revolutionariesor explorers, because futures research does not have a solid paradigm, but in the longrun he considers that types 1 and 3 will form a coalition and will between them drivetypes 2 and 4 out of futures research. This conjecture is based on his interpretation ofthe history of science in general.

Asplund’s ‘art of conjecture’ seems very relevant to me, if the latest developmentsin futures studies are not taken into consideration. The fate of interesting new approachesis too often to be swallowed by their fathers, patriarchal-hierarchic society and the male-biased science.

In male futures research, already, the ‘corrective moralism’ paradigm contains lessgendered characteristics than ‘preventive research’. It has important common character-

TABLE 1. ASPLUND’S CLASSIFICATION OF FUTURES RESEARCHERS

U-type (normal science) R-type (scientific revolt)

Defence of the existing order 1 2Attack on the existing order 3 4

909


istics with the ideas of the equality fighters of the Nordic welfare state. How embryonicthis is, though, is illustrated by the latest remarkable report of the council of the Club ofRome by King and Schneider18 where question of women has one page out of 194 as aspecial question without any connection to other problems of the world.

Even further have gone Hazel Henderson, in her critique of the male-biased traditionof economics, Riane Eisler, in her scenario of a society based on companionship,Eleonora Masini, in her emphasis on ethics and co-existence of multiplicity of culturesas well as her practical work with the women’s grassroots WIN-network.

While Henderson and Eisler focus their activities on the critique of the male bias inthe hermean sphere of polis, Masini and others, like Wangari Maathai and VandanaShiva, base their futures work on the private hestian sphere, everyday survival problems,the maintenance of life itself, reproduction.

This shows the scope of the problems of developing less gendered approaches infutures research. The problems and futures views which originate in the hestian spherehave to be studied in the hestian sphere, not outside it like, for example, the welfaretheory based on male-biased science. These problems have to be discussed in termswhich are able to gain support in the hermean sphere, where the money is distributed,the legitimacy and the evaluation of ideas happens and where the policy is chosen. Butthis is not enough: the ideas and means of futures research have to be constructed sothat they are useful in the hestian sphere as well as translated into a language understoodby people who are actors-decision makers there. There are, though, some images of hopein this area.

Some preliminary thoughts of alternative approaches, which I have called ‘femalefutures research’ and ‘non-western female futures studies’, have been given in my twoarticles, printed in English.19–21 The basic character of the new approaches is deeplyrooted in the hestian sphere and I have named my own approach enabling tools designto indicate on one hand its connection with shaping futures images, designing future andon the other hand the instrumental tool character of theories and methods used in com-mon action learning processes.

The critique of mainstream futures research is already in a good process of gettingshaped. The development of counter cultures inside futures research is necessarily thenext step. Ziauddin Sardar gives a good example is his Islamic science approach. NowI am expecting new visions on women’s futures, which are, to my great disappointment,missing even from the less scientific fiction, or that written by women.

Notes and references

1. Niiniluoto, I., Tulevaisuudentutkimus—tiedetta vai taidetta? In Miten tutkimme tulevaisuutta? Acta FuturaFennica nro. 5. Tulevaisuudentutkimuksen seura and Painatuskeskus, Helsinki, 1993.

2. Thompson, P., Bringing Feminism Home, Home Economics and the Hestian Connection. Home Econom-ics Publishing Collective, UPEI, Charlottentown, 1992.

3. Galbraith, J. K., The Age of Uncertainty. British Broadcasting Corporation, London, 1977.4. Henderson, H., Paradigms in Progress, Life Beyond Economics. Adamantine Press, London, 1993.5. Tonnies, F., Community and Society (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft), Trans. ed. Charles P. Loomis. The

Michigan State University Press, Michigan, 1957.6. Tonnies, F., Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Hans Buske Verlag, Leipzig, 1935.7. Sarmela, M., Suomen Perinneatlas. Suomen kansankulttuurin kartasto nr. 2. Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden

seura, Helsinki, 1994.8. Sarmela, M., Naisten kulttuurialueesta kalevalaisessa yhteisossa, Jospa Vainolaa hallitsivatkin naiset. Koti-

seutu nr. 3, 1990.

910


9. Eisler, R., The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future. Harper and Row, San Fransisco, 1987.10. Naisten hyvinvointivaltio (The Women’s Welfare State), eds Anneli Anttonen, Lea Henriksson and Ritva

Natkin. Vastapaino, Tampere, 1994.11. de Jouvenel, B., The Art of Conjecture. Basic Books, New York, 1967.12. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., Behrens, W. W., The Limits to Growth: a Report to The

Club of Rome. Universe Books, New York, 1972.13. Forrester, J., Industrial Dynamics. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, 1961.14. Forrester, J., Principles of Systems: Text and Workbook. Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, 1968.15. Forrester, J., Urban Dynamics. M.I.T., Cambridge, 1969.16. Forrester, J., World Dynamics. Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, 1973.17. Asplund, J., Teorier om framtiden. LiberForlag, Stockholm, 1979.18. King, A. and Schneider, B., The First Global Revolution. A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome.

Simon and Schuster, Sydney, 1991.19. Jarva, V., Creating New Directions for Futures Studies. WFSF Bulletin Vol 21, 4/1995 pp. 1, 7–9.20. Jarva, V., Towards female futures studies, beyond preventive research and corrective moralism to enabling

tools design. In The Knowledge Base of Futures Research, Vol. 3. DDM Media Group, Brisbane, 1996.21. Jarva, V., Developing ‘the female society’ image. Futures, 1996 28 (6/7), 597–599.

911

gendered society, gendered futures research

Documents