The roundtable ‘Political Imaginaries of Sustainability’ examines whether these imaginaries act as obstacles or opportunities for sustainability transitions

Image: A digital poster for the roundtable discussion ‘Political Imaginaries of Sustainability’ 

In an era of escalating climate crises, democratic backsliding, and economic uncertainty, the power of political imagination has never been more crucial. The roundtable ‘Political Imaginaries of Sustainability’, held on 24 January 2025 and sponsored by the Sustainable Consumption Institute (SCI) and the School of Social Sciences, brought together scholars from political theory, sociology, art, media, and cultural studies—both within and beyond the fields of environmental sustainability and political theory—to examine how visions of the future determine changes.

The roundtable was especially relevant, addressing a troubling paradox. While progressive movements warn of impending climate catastrophe and democratic erosion, the far right has been far more effective in mobilising positive visions of the future—as seen in Trump’s second inaugural address, which promised a “new golden age.” Whether realistic or not, such narratives evoke prosperity and renewal, in stark contrast to the crisis-laden calls to action from environmental and progressive movements.

Chaired by Carl Death (Politics, UoM), the roundtable centred around the question how can movements for sustainability, justice, and democracy construct visions of the future that are not only urgent but also hopeful and compelling?

Ecotopias, Collective Care, and the Utopia of Frugality

Visions of utopia challenge singular, dominant narratives of the future—particularly elite, technocratic solutions that ignore the root causes of crises. Figures like Elon Musk promote salvation through technology-driven escapes, such as colonizing Mars, rather than addressing the systemic issues driving ecological and social collapse.

Heather Alberro (SEED, UoM) examines alternatives to dominant, top-down visions of the future, focusing on the emergence of green utopias, or ecotopias. These visions arise from social movements (e.g., Extinction Rebellion, #NoDAPL), Indigenous communities, and grassroots initiatives. They present futures in pluralistic rather than monolithic terms, offering critiques of the socio-ecological destruction of Western capitalism. Alberro argues that we should amplify a pluriverse of ecotopian visions—ones that advocate for more livable futures not only for humans but also for non-human life, including animals and plants. These inclusive and intersectional imaginaries already exist, from Indigenous-led ecological justice movements to the global youth climate movement. Ecotopias also materialize in ambitious rewilding efforts, such as those seen in Scotland. These visions combat defeatist narratives that suggest nothing can be done to improve the future.

Dan Welch (SCI and Sociology, UoM) shared the outcomes of research they have been volunteering for, which explores how people imagine the future through projects like the Mass Observation Project in the UK and similar studies by Audun Kjus at the Norwegian Ethnological Research Institute. The findings reveal that, in both countries, future imaginaries are dominated by crisis and collapse, shaped by fears of ecological disaster, resource scarcity, political instability, war, and social breakdown. However, when hopeful visions do emerge, they often revolve around frugality. This ‘Utopia of Frugality’ —whether imposed by necessity or embraced voluntarily—resonates with deglobalisation narratives, which depict a liberation from mass consumption and industrial alienation. Crucially, these futures tend to be imagined as post-collapse scenarios rather than deliberate societal transformations. The real challenge is not just envisioning what a sustainable future looks like, but rather the process of transition to get there.

Dan Silver (Politics, UoM) shared the plans for an upcoming research project that examines imaginaries of collective memory, hope, and care in cities across the UK, Greece, and the U.S. Silver argues that sustainable futures require a transformation of everyday life, particularly through new relations of care. Feminist scholars and activists have long emphasised the role of care in social transformation. Care is not only fundamental to individual well-being but also underpins social connections, institutions, and infrastructures. By reimagining care, we can reshape society itself. Silver suggests that the commons offer an alternative model for organising collective care—one that prioritises participation and solidarity. When structured through the logics of the commons, new ecologies of care can emerge, fostering more hopeful, inclusive, and nurturing futures for both people and the planet.

Theatre and Cultural Counter-Practices

The discussion on political imaginaries inevitably extends to the methods of creating them. Beyond theoretical discourse, the roundtable highlighted practice-based approaches that actively intervene in social and political realities such as theatre – as an embodied, sensorial and emotional method of engaging with the research question.

Cecilie Sachs Olsen (Professor of Urban and Regional Research | OsloMet University, Norway) argues that theatre, as a practical method, offers a hopeful approach to imagining the future. It provides a framework that allows us to examine possible futures from both an external and internal perspective simultaneously. While theater is a representation of reality, it also encourages self-reflection. Historically, imagination has been central to art, creating an expectation that art should offer solutions. However, Sachs Olsen emphasises that the role of art is not to solve problems but to expand our understanding of them. Many dominant narratives offer a scripted and narrow interpretation of crises—defining hope in limited terms and prescribing pre-determined responses. Importantly, theatre helps us embrace uncertainty. The word ‘scenario’ itself originates from theatre, historically signifying a performance that remains open, adaptive, and responsive—a quality that is crucial when facing an unpredictable future.

Florian Malzacher (Visiting Professor for Dramaturgy; Curatorial Practice, Karlsruhe University of Arts and Design) challenged the concept of radical imagination, questioning whether art should be responsible for imagining the future in radically new ways. Instead, he proposes the idea of pragmatic utopias—visions of the future that are slow, incremental, and grounded in present realities. Malzacher uses theatre as a method for collective experimentation, where temporary groups of participants (not necessarily actors) are created within structured social spaces where they develop ideas collaboratively. Theatre brings together fictional and real spaces, allowing participants to both experience and observe a situation simultaneously and to test alternative futures as lived experiences.

Oliver Marchart (Professor of Political Theory | University of Vienna, Austria) discusses the crisis of political imagination as a crisis of democracy. The challenge, Marchart argues, is to explore ways of prefiguring democratic futures beyond traditional political institutions and politics defined by them. Therefore, suggests focusing on “forgotten institutions”—historical or alternative governance models that have been overlooked in mainstream political discourse, such as Greek sortition, the selection of officials by lottery—as well as ‘para-institutions,’ which are experimental structures emerging from artistic and activist practices. One example of the latter is the reinvention of the tribunal as a “mock” tribunal in artistic contexts, along with theatrical occupations and artistic interventions. By examining how artistic practices intersect with the political sphere and expand democratic imaginaries, Marchart suggests that the cultural dimensions of activism can offer solutions and provide a new vision of possibility into imagining of democratic futures.

Political Imaginaries, Democracy, and Transformation

The role of imagination in political and ecological thought must be examined in relation to its influence on democratic practices. Imagination not only helps to envision and enact societal transformation but also poses risks of exclusion.

Amanda Machin (Professor of Political Theory, University of Agder, Norway) suggests examining the imaginary of climate change and the imaginary of democracy within the context of societal transformation. She identifies three key perspectives that can influence how we approach these issues. The skeptical imaginary views climate change as part of the problem rather than the solution; rational democratic imaginary emphasizes the importance of making informed decisions, and the radical democratic imaginary sees climate change as a sociopolitical concern that can mobilise grassroots movements for change. Machin highlights the broader implications of these imaginaries, explaining that they shape both self-conception and collective perception. For instance, the concept of the Anthropocene fosters a hybrid understanding of human and non-human agency in ecological processes. While imagination is an important skill and cultural resource, Machin warns against romanticising alternative imaginaries and expecting them to lead us to a different future.

Paula Diehl (Professor of Political Theory, History of Ideas, and Political Culture at the University of Kiel, Germany) argued that imagination plays a performative role in shaping transformation and stresses the importance of ensuring that democratic practices remain central to these processes. One of Diehl’s research projects examines the governance of nuclear waste disposal, exploring critical questions such as how decisions about nuclear waste should be made and communicated to future generations who will inherit their consequences. In discussing possible scenarios—including making the waste invisible to prevent its discovery, accepting that future societies will inevitably find and confront it, and postponing isolation in the hope that future generations will develop better recycling technologies—Diehl highlights a fundamental democratic dilemma: How can we make democratic decisions on behalf of future generations who are not yet present to participate? Diehl emphasises the need for democratic accountability in long-term policymaking.

Sophia Hatzisavvidou (Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Bath) explored eco-political imaginaries and examines what happens when political intersects with ecological and how societies should respond. Focusing on the net-zero imaginary—which promises that decarbonising energy systems will resolve the climate crisis—Hatzisavvidou critiques its depoliticising effects. The dominance of net zero as a concept leaves little room for alternative perspectives, particularly those of indigenous, traditional, and marginalised communities. Clashes between competing imaginaries often result in the erasure of voices that exist outside mainstream decision-making structures. To address this issue, Hatzisavvidou asks: How can climate action be re-politicised by centring marginalised imaginaries? How might the structure of global climate negotiations, such as COP, be reimagined to allow for more inclusive forms of participation, and how alternatives can be enacted in COP today?

Mat Paterson (SCI and Politics, UoM) argues that imaginaries create the sense of possible other worlds, which can be dystopic or ‘inspiring’. At the current moment, climate dystopic imaginaries are more effective than prefigurative ones. For instance, Thatcher’s imagined transformation of British capitalism and society entailed destruction of union power, but laid the groundwork for the UK’s later success in emissions reduction. Paterson emphasises the importance of asking whose imaginaries dominate, and why, giving examples of imaginaries that serve elite interests, such as those tied to geoengineering, carbon markets and offsets to name a few. To illustrate the contrast between competing climate imaginaries, Paterson compares two visions of urban transport. On one hand is the degrowth imaginary, which promotes the 15-minute city, emphasising walkability and cycling. On the other hand is the tech-booster imaginary, exemplified by Elon Musk’s vision of car-centric, high-tech development. Both are political imaginaries of sustainability, but one aligns with dominant economic interests while the other challenges them.

The discussion further explored how imaginaries shape our understanding of the past. Some draw on nostalgia and the idea of a lost golden era, narratives often mobilised by right-wing politicians who promise a return to former glory. Others, such as Afro-futurism, engage critically with histories of colonialism, slavery, and collective trauma, offering a stark contrast to visions of ecological modernisation, which often seek to leave problematic histories behind. The conversation concluded with what one participant described as a feeling of “productive confusion,” yet it also opened space for multiple visions of the future.

Related