Design Anthropology and Ontological Future Making

Transformative Action for the Emergence of Shared Futures

Journal Article (2025)
Author(s)

Gijs van Leeuwen (TU Delft - Codesigning Social Change)

Abhigyan Singh (TU Delft - Codesigning Social Change, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions (AMS))

Bregje F. van Eekelen (TU Delft - Society, Culture and Critique)

David Keyson (TU Delft - Codesigning Social Change)

Research Group
Codesigning Social Change
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2025.08.004
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2025
Language
English
Research Group
Codesigning Social Change
Issue number
4
Volume number
11
Pages (from-to)
407-432
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

This article presents a novel approach—Ontological Future Making—that prioritizes transformative action. Rather than considering distant possibilities and consequences of futures, this approach engages with the negotiation of futures in the present. It is based on a review of existing work from the field of design anthropology. The article describes three steps of Ontological Future Making: to understand the future orientations of actors involved, engage with the immediate tensions that arise from their negotiation, and transform the ontological conditions that constrain future possibilities. We illustrate the approach with empirical data from a local energy transition project in Amsterdam Southeast. In this empirical account, we describe the future orientations of project partners and local residents and identify tensions related to extractive research and disciplinary differences. We describe the actions taken to address these tensions and describe our collaboration with residents to establish a local energy community. We characterize this initiative as transformative action as it served to enable shared futures for the project. We discuss the implications of these findings, arguing that future making should be more direct, political, and relational.