Article
Dr. Franjo Tuđman Defense and Security University, Zagreb, Croatia
Abstract
This paper explores several characteristic approaches to anticipating the future across cultures and historical periods, from ancient divination to contemporary Strategic Foresight. Drawing on Jean Gebser’s theory of consciousness structures and Somporn Sangchai’s taxonomy of futurism, the study maps futuring methods across different ontological frameworks, revealing how each approach reflects distinct assumptions about time, agency, causality, and the human potential to anticipate the future. The paper introduces a typology of four futuring “ways” (precognition, divination, causality, and integral insight), each aligned with a different mode of consciousness and position in Sangchai’s classification. In doing so, it positions Strategic Foresight not as the endpoint of futuring evolution but as one modern expression within a broader lineage of human attempts to engage with uncertainty. The paper argues that advancing foresight requires not only better tools but more developed practitioners, individuals capable of integrating diverse perspectives and navigating complexity with ethical awareness and adaptive intelligence.
Keywords
Strategic foresight, Futures studies, Jean Gebser, Structures of consciousness, Divination
Introduction
From ancient rulers to modern states and organisations, the effort to anticipate the future has always been a strategic necessity. Throughout history, however, such efforts have repeatedly failed to interpret signals and trends accurately. Practitioners have often struggled to integrate complex human aspirations, technological developments, and environmental dynamics, or to transcend the limitations of their own cultural and epistemic assumptions.
Modernity is no exception. The challenge of anticipating the future remains central to guiding purposeful entities, from companies and defence institutions to states and alliances, through volatile and uncertain environments. Strategic Foresight emerged in the West in response to these conditions, developing into a pre-strategic, anticipatory discipline intended to support decision-making under uncertainty.
The human need to make sense of the future reflects a deeper imperative to reduce uncertainty by uncovering underlying patterns and principles. Across cultures, this has led to the development of diverse “models of the world”, ontological frameworks that shape how reality, causality, time, and agency are understood, and thereby influence how futures are imagined and acted upon.
This paper explores how human beings have sought to comprehend, predict, and influence the future through scientific, strategic, and symbolic frameworks. Drawing on Jean Gebser’s structures of consciousness, Somporn Sangchai’s taxonomy of foresight types, and Susanne Cook-Greuter’s Ego Development Theory, it examines both the diversity of futuring methods and the developmental capacities of those who practice them. In doing so, it reframes futuring as an expression of distinct ontological assumptions and structures of consciousness, challenging linear accounts that position Strategic Foresight as the culmination of futures thinking and instead situating it within a broader historical lineage of engaging with uncertainty.
1. Methodology
To explore the diversity of “futuring” across time and cultures, this paper adopts a comparative, typological methodology (see Stapley et al., 2022) grounded in developmental and ontological theory. Two principal frameworks guide the analysis:
1. Jean Gebser’s (1986) theory of consciousness structures, including magic, mythical, mental, and integral stages, conceptualises the evolution of human perception, time awareness, and meaning-making. Each structure implies a distinct mode of relating to the future, from symbolic resonance to strategic modelling.
2. Somporn Sangchai’s (2024/1974) taxonomy of futurism classifies futuring approaches along two key dimensions: the nature of the future (deterministic or systemic) and the characteristics of the future (pessimistic, neutral, or optimistic). These axes yield a matrix for epistemically and affectively situating various foresight methods.
We selected four representative futuring approaches, each aligned with a distinct consciousness structure in Gebser’s model and corresponding to a broader futuring “way”. Each approach was analysed in terms of its purpose, perceived drivers of future events, and degree of human agency:
• The Way of Precognition (magic structure)
• The Way of Divination (mythical structure)
• The Way of Causality (mental structure)
• The Way of Integral Insight (integral structure)
This typological comparison enables reflection on how different societies, traditions, and individuals perceive the future, understand who can know it, and how it can (or cannot) be shaped. In the concluding section, we reflect on the relevance and adaptability of each approach in light of contemporary complexity and uncertainty
2. Theoretical framework
Taxonomy
We deliberately chose the term “futuring” in this work to emphasise the practical, process-oriented nature of engaging with the future. While futurism (see Sangchai, 2024) typically refers to a field of thought, an intellectual tradition, or an artistic/philosophical movement concerned with theorising about the future, futuring centres on the practical act of anticipating, sensing, and shaping what lies ahead.
Whereas futurism often connotes fixed ideologies, discourses, or aesthetic positions, futuring reflects a more pluralistic, situated, and dynamic practice, one commonly embedded in methods such as scenario building, strategic foresight, and participatory inquiry. This distinction aligns with the focus of this paper, which is not concerned with cataloguing futurist schools of thought but rather with examining how different ways of doing futures work reflect distinct structures of consciousness, purposes, and assumptions about causality and agency.
Here, futuring is used as an umbrella term for practices that engage with possible futures (Cornish, 2004). In short, futuring is chosen to foreground practice over theory, process over doctrine, and experiential engagement over abstract speculation.
Jean Gebser’s Structures of Consciousness
In The Ever-Present Origin, Jean Gebser proposed that cultural and psychological developments can be understood through five distinct, non-hierarchical “structures” or “mutations” of consciousness: the archaic, magic, mythical, mental, and integral stages (Gebser, 1986). Gebser further posited that each of these structures corresponds to a progressively greater level of dimensionality, beginning with zero degrees of freedom in the archaic stage and expanding to four degrees of freedom in the integral stage. Since the archaic stage corresponds to the preverbal stages, we omitted it from our study.
Models and approaches to futuring reflect a society’s dominant worldview and structure of consciousness. To analyse how different ways of anticipating the future emerge from different ways of perceiving reality, we adopt Jean Gebser’s structures of consciousness as a theoretical framework. Gebser’s model traces the historical evolution of human consciousness through successive stages, including the Magical, Mythical, Mental, and Integral stages, each associated with distinct ways of experiencing time, agency, and self. Applied to futuring, these stages provide insight into the motivations, assumptions, and tools communities use to identify and influence the factors they believe shape the future.
Somporn Sangchai’s Taxonomy
To enhance understanding of anticipatory practices, we introduce Somporn Sangchai’s early, comprehensive taxonomy of futurism, which remains remarkably relevant today. Initially published in 1974 and republished in the Journal of Futures Studies (2024), Sangchai’s work outlines a typology and structure for futures thinking that offers both conceptual clarity and methodological grounding for the study of futuring traditions.
Sangchai identifies several key dimensions of futurism that can inform and complement our analysis, drawing on Jean Gebser’s structures of consciousness. Most notably, his classification system includes two principal analytical axes: (1) the nature of the future (determinative and systemic), and (2) the characteristic of the future (pessimistic, neutral or optimistic). These dimensions are presented in a typology (Figure 2 in Sangchai, 2024) that helps frame futurism not as a monolithic field, but as a spectrum of orientations toward time, agency, and desirability.
Sangchai also introduced a temporal taxonomy that resembles the contemporary “futures cone” model. He distinguishes between immediate, probable, possible, and distant futures, based on their relative time horizons and levels of abstraction. This framework adds historical depth to the idea that the future can be navigated in layers, depending on distance, uncertainty, and the methods used.
Ancient oracular methods align with a determinative–pessimistic quadrant, viewing the future as fixed and beyond human control, whereas modern foresight methods, such as scenario planning, reflect a pragmatic–optimistic stance, treating the future as open and actionable through informed choice.
Sangchai also positions planning and futurism on a continuum, with planning focused on near-term action and futurism on longer-term exploration. In this view, effective anticipatory practice combines foresight with pragmatic engagement in present conditions.
3. Comparison of the “futuring” methods
Building on the typological methodology outlined earlier, this chapter presents a comparative analysis of four distinct futuring approaches, each grounded in a different structure of consciousness as described by Jean Gebser (1986). This comparison is not merely theoretical; it reflects fundamental assumptions about time, agency, and the nature of the future. In particular, whether the future is fixed, emergent, or co-created.
The purpose of this chapter is to explore how different futuring modes, practices for anticipating or engaging with the future, reflect varying epistemological and ontological assumptions. Rather than treating these as competing truth claims, we examine them as expressions of different structures of consciousness, each with its own logic, worldview, and implications for human agency.
To guide this comparison, we selected four futuring methods that span a spectrum of assumptions about determinism, uncertainty, and possibility:
• The Way of Precognition: Assumes a deterministic future that exists independently of human will and can only be perceived or revealed.
• The Way of Divination assumes that each moment carries a unique qualitative imprint that can be read to assess the appropriateness of action.
• The Way of Causality frames the future as emergent from present actions and trends, allowing for influence but not absolute control.
• The Way of Integral Insight: Views time and causality as multidirectional and participatory, where the future is co-created through conscious presence and integration.
These methods were analysed across three interpretive dimensions: their purpose, their perceived drivers of future events, and the extent of perceived human agency. By applying Gebser’s matrix of consciousness structures as a comparative lens, we aim to reveal how differing ways of “doing” futures work encode specific ways of knowing, being, and acting concerning the future.
3.1. The Way of Precognition
Precognition is commonly defined as the acquisition of knowledge about future events without recourse to inference or conventional sensory processes (Bem, 2011). It is often described as occurring through spontaneous visions or insights rather than formal methods or rational analysis, and is typically associated with individuals such as oracles, seers, or prophets who are believed to access hidden dimensions of reality (Tedlock, 2001; Eliade, 2020).
This mode of futuring assumes that the future already exists and can be revealed rather than shaped, reflecting a deterministic worldview in which human agency is limited (Bell, 2003). What distinguishes precognition is its immediacy: knowledge of the future appears as direct experience rather than interpretation. While often dismissed within modern scientific paradigms, such experiences persist across cultures as ways of engaging with uncertainty beyond strictly rational or empirical frameworks.
3.2. The Way of Divination
At its core, divination is grounded in cosmology. It assumes that intelligible laws and patterns govern the Universe, and that human events are embedded within a larger, structured whole. Traditional cosmologies, especially in Asia and the ancient Mediterranean, are often based on the principle of macro-microcosmic equivalence, the idea that the human and cosmic spheres mirror each other (“as above, so below”). In more developed systems such as Yijing and astrology, cosmology becomes explicit: symbolic configurations or celestial positions are interpreted as expressions of the cosmos’s current state and its influence on human affairs.
This interconnected worldview makes divinatory acts, such as sorting yarrow sticks, dropping coins, or casting a horoscope, more than symbolic gestures. These acts are understood to resonate with the structure of the moment, allowing the practitioner to discern the hidden order behind visible events. In astrology, this is most evident: the positions of celestial bodies correlate with events on Earth, offering insight into prevailing conditions and future potential. The same logic applies to Yijing readings, where the resulting hexagram reveals the archetypal dynamics of the time.
Lisa Raphals (2009, p. 47) defines divination as “a deliberate search for understanding of the hidden significance of events in the future, present, or past.” Notably, she distinguishes this from “prediction,” which implies a future-oriented determinism and often assumes a divine or supernatural source. In contrast, many forms of divination rely on hermeneutic systems, symbolic, interpretive structures that do not necessarily invoke divine beings, but instead draw meaning from structured symbolic correlations between signs and events. The practice typically involves a practitioner (diviner), a method of symbolic mediation, and a subject of enquiry.
As Carl Gustav Jung (1967) notes in his foreword to the I Ching, divination operates not through causal explanation but through synchronicity, the meaningful coincidence of inner and outer states. In this sense, knowledge of the future emerges through symbolic resonance rather than prediction, reflecting a mythical structure of consciousness in which meaning precedes mechanism.
3.2.1 Yijing (The Classic of Changes)
The Classic of Changes (Yijing), better known in the West as the Book of Changes (I Ching), is one of the earliest surviving texts in Chinese literature. Originating during the Western Zhou period (c. 1046–771 BCE), it initially served as a manual for divination. Over time, particularly during the Warring States and early imperial periods, it evolved into a profound cosmological text that included a series of philosophical commentaries known as the “Ten Wings” (shiyi) (Kern, 2010, pp. 2 & 17; see also Redmond & Hon, 2014).
In Chinese thought, anticipation emerges from an understanding of the world as dynamic and in constant flux, requiring adaptive, context-sensitive responses rather than fixed predictions (Hon, 2019). In Chinese thought, anticipation is closely linked to an understanding of the world as constantly in flux. The future is not a distant abstraction but rather “in the air”, forming within the present moment as it unfolds (Simandan, 2018). The Yijing is deeply embedded in a correlative cosmology that perceives all events as interconnected expressions of natural patterns. As such, it became a method for discerning change and guiding decision-making by aligning human actions with the dynamic flows of Heaven and Earth (Dolan, 2020).
Historically, the Yijing has been used in contexts ranging from governance to personal decision-making. It functions as a symbolic system for interpreting the qualitative structure of the present moment and its potential transformation. Its 64 hexagrams represent distinct configurations of change, offering insight into situational dynamics rather than predicting fixed outcomes.
The Yijing also aligns with Jung’s concept of synchronicity, in which meaning emerges through non-causal correspondences between inner and outer states. Rather than predicting fixed outcomes, it reflects the qualitative conditions of the present, making the unfolding future more intelligible through symbolic interpretation.
3.2.2 Astrology
Astrology interprets correlations between celestial patterns and human experience, offering probabilistic guidance rather than deterministic prediction. Its enduring appeal lies in the belief that it offers insights inaccessible through conventional means, even as it borrows features from scientific systems, such as charting, calculation, and interpretation. Astrology has historically functioned as both a cosmological and decision-support system across cultures (Smoller, 1994; Azzolini, 2013; Eamon, 2013). Today, astrology may appear mechanical or formulaic, especially with computer-generated horoscopes, but its conceptual foundations are deeply symbolic and philosophical.
This study briefly considers Jyotish (Vedic astrology), a widely practised system in South Asia. Like other divinatory traditions, it operates within a symbolic cosmology that links celestial patterns to human experience. Rather than predicting fixed outcomes, Jyotish offers probabilistic guidance by identifying tendencies and timing conditions that may support or constrain action. Its primary function is to interpret the qualitative structure of the present moment, enabling individuals or organisations to navigate among possible futures within a structured but non-deterministic framework.
A key feature of Jyotish is its emphasis on timing. Identifying favourable or unfavourable periods for action enables individuals or organisations to adjust decisions in line with perceived patterns, thereby navigating among possible outcomes within a non-deterministic framework (Williams, 2017).
3.3. The Way of Causality
The third approach is based on the premise that the future is causally related to the present and that “dealing with the future” is “dealing with the present,” because present actions and conditions shape future outcomes. The primary purpose of this approach is to enable an organisation or individual to anticipate uncertainty and ambiguity. It reflects what Max Weber famously described as the disenchantment of the world, a process in which magical and mythic interpretations of reality are replaced by rational calculation, instrumental reasoning, and belief in controllable cause–and–effect relations (Cascardi, 1992). Within this rationalised worldview, complex political, economic, social, and technological interactions are analysed as variables that can generate risk or crisis. This is why national security and defence organisations rely on horizon scanning and foresight to detect emerging threats and proactively manage uncertainty.
The main characteristic of this approach is its non-determinism, which means it is possible to intervene in “vectors” that shape future trends and conditions. We reviewed two directions for “dealing with the future”: (1) The way forward (e.g. Strategic Foresight), and (2) The way backwards (i.e. the dystopian “fixed point”).
3.3.1. Strategic Foresight
In the West, two traditions of future studies can be distinguished. The first was the American school from which Strategic Foresight was derived, and the second was the French school called La prospective. The two traditions share the principle that “humans have the will and capacity to influence the future to favour the desirable” and that “this capacity creates a moral obligation to reflect upon the future and its possible paths” (Godet & Durance, 2011, p. XVI). Also, both traditions are based on identifying and understanding causal relations between the past, present and future. It is about using the power of possible and desirable futures to illuminate present action. However, this causality is conditional. Strategic Foresight practitioners know that complexity introduces uncertainty about the future because people and organisations interact and are influenced by technological developments, society (i.e. the culture), and the environment.
The difference between the two schools is that the French approach integrates more critical actors into shaping the future, such as society, politics, and management. In contrast, because of different roots, the American focuses primarily on technological change and forecasting, methods developed mainly in a military milieu. From that perspective, American-style foresight has a narrower meaning focused on the image of a specific future. Meanwhile, La Prospective can be understood to refer to both the process and its action-oriented outcome.
La Prospective offers a comprehensive and systematic vision of the future by considering multiple variables. In this vision, different actors and variables can play a decisive role in the outcome of any future. Ethics is also a core principle of this approach. As Jantach (1967) pointed out, the essence of choosing the right direction in science and technology should not lie in the possibilities of progress for gaining an advantage in the competitive environment but, above all, in recognising the possibility of influencing the transformation of society and government through directing technological development in the economic, social and political context.
La prospective contemplates the future as the result of free will, “which, in turn, is strongly conditioned by human desires, projects and dreams” (Godet & Durance, 2011, p. XVI), and calls for action to shape it. In considering future studies, Godet (2012) emphasises the priority of the principle of “seeing together” over “out of the box” dominance. Thus, the method combines individual users’ mental maps into a standard mental map. Methods, on the other hand, help reduce collective inconsistencies. Thus, the La Prospective practitioners strongly believe in the relevance of their method.
The primary purpose of Strategic Foresight is to provide insight into the future context for decision-makers and to deepen understanding of the relationships between two or more events and phenomena. We adopt the European Commission’s definition of strategic foresight as the systematic exploration and anticipation of possible futures to inform decision-making and shape desired outcomes through collective intelligence (European Commission, 2022). Typical methods include horizon scanning, trend analysis, and scenario planning.
While Strategic Foresight represents the main modern form of the causal approach to futuring, it does not encompass the entire field of futures studies. Inayatullah and Sweeney (2020) explicitly warn against viewing strategic foresight as a final goal, noting that it often remains focused on optimising actions within existing structures of power, identity, and rationality. Transformative foresight, on the other hand, aims to alter deeper narratives, metaphors, and subjectivities through which futures are envisioned and implemented, moving beyond the “chessboard” of strategy towards purpose, meaning, and self-reflection.
Narrative foresight further extends this transformation by focusing on the stories and myths that shape perceptions of possible, probable, and preferred futures. As Milojević and Inayatullah (2015) argue, futures are produced not only through trends and drivers but also through narratives that define what societies consider imaginable and desirable. From this perspective, strategic foresight corresponds primarily to a mental–causal mode of futuring, while transformative and narrative approaches resonate more strongly with postconventional and integral modes of consciousness.
3.3.2. Dystopian approach
Historical crises such as the rise of totalitarian regimes illustrate how weak signals can escalate into systemic collapse when ignored (Thompson, 1940). In the aftermath of World War II, a new international order emerged, demonstrating that the future could be shaped by eliminating destructive conflict. The postwar transformation of Germany and Japan, from militaristic regimes to economically advanced democracies, demonstrates how futures once dominated by realist paradigms can shift toward liberal and constructivist frameworks when war is no longer seen as a legitimate option.
Today, climate change has become one of the most imminent and destabilising challenges facing humanity. As with earlier crises, the goal is not only to predict outcomes but to shape the future in a way that avoids catastrophe. This is where the method of backcasting becomes relevant: it begins with a vision of a desired, or undesired, future. It works backwards to identify the actions needed in the present to reach or avoid it.
The philosopher Jean-Pierre Dupuy frames this logic through the concept of a dystopian “fixed point”, a catastrophic future (such as nuclear war or ecological collapse) that, while possibly far off, acts as a gravitational attractor if current trajectories remain unaltered (Dupuy, 2000; 2004). This form of “enlightened doomsaying” does not paralyse action; instead, it invites us to accept catastrophe as a virtual certainty in order to interrupt it.
Avoiding such futures, Dupuy argues, requires a new understanding of time, what he calls the “time of the project”. This temporal model bridges past and future by emphasising how present action, driven by retrospective insight, can reshape the causal chain. Paradoxically, we must first accept the catastrophe as fate, project ourselves into it, and then act retroactively to prevent the conditions that would allow it to occur.
3.4. The Way of Integral Insight
While Gebser’s framework primarily addresses collective consciousness, that is, how cultures and societies relate to time and meaning, we also needed a framework for understanding individual meaning-making and how it influences approaches to futuring. For this purpose, we adopt Susanne Cook-Greuter’s (2000; 2013) Ego Development Theory (EDT), which offers a comprehensive model of individual psychological growth through distinct developmental stages. It accounts for the cognitive, emotional, and ethical capacities that underpin individuals’ perceptions of themselves, their relationships, and their role in shaping the future.
Cook-Greuter’s model describes a progression through nine stages of ego development, grouped under four overarching categories: Preconventional, Conventional, Postconventional, and Unitive. These stages represent increasingly complex and integrated levels of meaning-making. Progress through the stages is not guaranteed and does not depend on education or experience alone (horizontal development), but rather on vertical development, a transformation of consciousness that expands an individual’s perspective, systemic awareness, and ethical orientation.
Ego development, as framed by Cook-Greuter, helps to clarify the “who” behind futuring, the characteristics, motivations, and cognitive-emotional capacities of those engaging in strategic foresight. Traditional foresight methods often reflect Conventional-level thinking, particularly the Conscientious/Achiever stage, where individuals view reality through a linear, objective, and goal-oriented lens. At this stage, problems are defined in terms of discrete variables with fixed boundaries, and causality is understood as linear.
However, as complexity and uncertainty increase, such views become insufficient. At Postconventional stages, such as the Individualist and Strategist, individuals begin to abandon strictly rational and linear approaches in favour of holistic, systems-aware thinking. The Strategist, for instance, can integrate traditional scientific reasoning with a more profound awareness of social dynamics, paradox, and emergence. Individuals at these levels are better able to connect rational and non-rational knowledge and craft creative responses to wicked problems. They recognise that the self is not separate from the system but is both an actor and an observer, deeply embedded in and shaped by the contexts they engage in.
At the highest level, the Unitive, or “Ironist,” stage, individuals perceive the present as a confluence of the past and the future. They cultivate openness and embodied wisdom, seeing the future not as a fixed horizon to conquer, but as an unfolding potential already present within. As Cook-Greuter (2019, p. 106) describes, these individuals feel embedded in nature and perceive birth, death, joy, and suffering as natural patterns in the flux of time. Their orientation is not driven by competition or gain but by service to the whole system.
This perspective aligns with what we term the Way of Integral Insight, a mode of futuring that moves beyond prediction or modelling to a deep understanding of patterns, assumptions, and interdependencies. This perspective also resonates with Jiddu Krishnamurti’s (1983) notion of holistic awareness. This approach transcends technical foresight methods by incorporating reflective, intuitive, and systems-informed perspectives. It aims not merely to generate new scenarios but to illuminate the underlying structures of meaning, identity, and purpose that shape them.
While today’s strategic foresight blends perspectives from the Conscientious, Individualist, and Strategist stages, incorporating the Integral mode remains rare and complex, often dismissed as “impractical.” This is because individuals at advanced stages of development tend to be less motivated by institutional interests such as profit, dominance, or efficiency. They are more attuned to systemic wellbeing, long-term sustainability, and human flourishing. These values are exemplified by global initiatives such as the UN’s Brundtland Report, which defined sustainable development as meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987, p. 37). The report’s subtitle Our Common Future, From One Earth to One World, evokes a Unitive worldview.
The challenge, then, is not methodological but ontological: it lies in the depth of perception and meaning-making that different developmental stages bring to the task of futuring. Two practitioners may use the same foresight method. However, their understanding of the future and what should be projected into it can differ dramatically depending on their stage of ego development.
Vertical development, according to Cook-Greuter (2004, pp. 276–277), is cultivated through sustained practices such as self-reflection, mentoring, action inquiry, and dialogic learning. It enables individuals to think more systemically, strategically, and interdependently, expanding their awareness of the causes they influence and the systems they inhabit. This transformation not only deepens their ability to interpret reality but also broadens their scope of ethical responsibility. People at earlier stages often project personal interests into the future; those at more advanced stages project collective or planetary interests.
Consequently, the central insight of combining Gebser’s and Cook-Greuter’s frameworks is this: futuring is not only a methodological endeavour, but also a developmental one. The capacity to imagine, articulate, and act upon complex futures depends on the worldview and developmental stage of those engaged in the process. As global challenges escalate in speed and complexity, fostering postconventional and integral action logics becomes essential for societies to navigate toward more sustainable and inclusive futures (Cook-Greuter, 2004, p. 278).
4. Results
By applying Jean Gebser’s structures of consciousness and Somporn Sangchai’s taxonomy of futurism, this study identified key correspondences between different futuring traditions and their underlying ontological and epistemological orientations. These correspondences reveal distinct assumptions about time, agency, determinism, and the practitioner’s role. The relationships between futuring approaches, their underlying consciousness structures, and their assumptions about agency and causality are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparative typology of futuring approaches aligned with Gebser’s structures of consciousness
| Futuring Way | Consciousness Structure (Gebser) | Purpose of the Methods | Perceived Drivers of Future Events | Perceived Agency against Free Will |
| The Way of Precognition | Magic | To anticipate events through direct intuition or supernatural awareness; typically practised to ensure survival or harmony with nature. | Spirits, forces of nature, or ancestral guidance | Minimal individual agency; future revealed through connection with external forces |
| The Way of Divination | Mythical | To interpret signs, symbols, and stories to understand possible futures, practised for meaning-making and guidance. | Mythic patterns, divine will, or archetypal narratives | Moderate agency through symbolic interpretation; guidance more than control |
| The Way of Causality | Mental | To predict future events based on cause-and-effect logic and empirical analysis, practised for control, planning, and rational decision-making. | Observable trends, data, and rational human actions | High agency – humans shape the future through rational decisions and actions |
| The Way of Integral Insight | Integral | To integrate multiple ways of knowing and embrace complexity, practised to foster holistic understanding and transformative foresight. | Interplay of systems, vision-logic, perspectives, and consciousness evolution | Participatory agency – co-creating the future through conscious engagement |
4.1. Mapping Futuring Approaches to Gebser and Sangchai
The Way of Precognition, rooted in the magical structure of consciousness, reflects a worldview in which time is cyclical or fate-driven, and knowledge of the future is received as an innate gift or through divine contact. This approach aligns closely with Sangchai’s determinative–pessimistic category, as it assumes the future is fixed and largely inescapable. Although often dismissed by modern science, this form of futuring maintains cultural legitimacy in many traditions and remains evident in practices such as prophecy and mediumship.
The Way of Divination, corresponding to the mythical structure, introduces cosmological systems that allow for interpretation and response. Techniques such as astrology and Yijing offer symbolic representations of the cosmic order that inform human action. While the structure of the future remains somewhat predetermined, the practitioner has agency within constraints, able to navigate or mitigate outcomes. This places divinatory methods within Sangchai’s determinative–neutral quadrant: the future may not be fully controllable, but it is interpretable and responsive to human behaviour.
The Way of Causality, associated with the mental structure of consciousness, represents the dominant paradigm of modern science and planning. Here, time is linear, causality is rational and traceable, and foresight is grounded in empirical evidence. Strategic Foresight, as commonly practised in institutional and policy settings, fits within this framework. It emphasises trend analysis, scenario building, and systems modelling, aiming to reduce uncertainty and increase strategic capacity. In Sangchai’s taxonomy, this approach corresponds with the normative–optimistic quadrant, as it assumes the future can be shaped through rational planning and informed decision-making.
Finally, the Way of Integral Insight, emerging from Gebser’s integral consciousness, embraces complexity, emergence, and systems thinking. It reflects a worldview in which the future is co-created through dynamic interactions between systems and conscious agents. This aligns with Sangchai’s systemic–optimistic typology, which emphasises participation, ethical awareness, and adaptive capacity rather than prediction or control. The integral approach transcends binary distinctions between the mystical and the technical, the intuitive and the analytical, and suggests the need for foresight practitioners who can navigate ambiguity with both intellectual and emotional maturity.
4.2. Strategic Foresight in the Planning – Futurism Continuum
Sangchai’s differentiation between planning and futurism further clarifies Strategic Foresight’s positioning. Traditional planning tends to focus on short- to medium-term horizons, relying on defined goals and stable assumptions. Futurism, by contrast, explores long-term, abstract, and often transformative possibilities. Strategic Foresight resides at the intersection: it bridges visionary thinking with actionable insight, combining imaginative exploration with system-informed planning. As such, it incorporates both mental and emerging integral consciousness, offering a practical and reflective methodology.
In addition, Sangchai’s observation of the intuitive-mystical vs scientific-technical divide supports this manuscript’s central claim: that modern Strategic Foresight, while grounded in rational and analytic traditions, represents just one node in a broader, evolutionary spectrum of futuring. Ancient methods such as divination and precognition, though epistemologically distinct, reveal long-standing human efforts to grapple with uncertainty, meaning, and agency.
By incorporating Sangchai’s typology, this study positions Strategic Foresight not as the teleological endpoint of foresight evolution, but as one expression within a pluralistic landscape. This perspective legitimises diverse futuring approaches and suggests that anticipating the future in a complex world demands methodological integration, ontological reflexivity, and practitioner self-awareness.
Conclusion
This paper set out to explore how human beings have anticipated and engaged with the future across historical periods and cultural contexts. By situating futuring practices within broader ontological and developmental frameworks, it deliberately refrains from privileging any single method. Drawing on Jean Gebser’s structures of consciousness and Somporn Sangchai’s taxonomy of futurism, the analysis has shown that ways of anticipating the future are inseparable from underlying assumptions about time, causality, agency, and the nature of reality.
Viewed through this lens, Strategic Foresight does not emerge as the culmination of futuring evolution, but as one historically situated expression of the causal–mental mode of consciousness. Its strength lies in its capacity to analyse trends, model uncertainty, and inform decision-making within complex systems. However, as the comparative typology demonstrates, Strategic Foresight operates within specific epistemic boundaries, assuming linear time, rational agency, and futures that can be shaped through informed intervention. While powerful, these assumptions are neither universal nor sufficient for engaging all dimensions of contemporary uncertainty.
Earlier futuring traditions, such as precognition and divination, reveal alternative relationships to time and agency, emphasising revelation, synchronicity, and cosmological order rather than control. By contrast, emerging postconventional approaches, here described as the Way of Integral Insight, point toward forms of futuring that transcend instrumental rationality. These approaches integrate multiple ways of knowing, foreground reflexivity and ethics, and treat the future as participatory and co-created rather than merely predicted or managed.
From this perspective, and in line with the expansion of consciousness described in Gebser’s framework, the further development of futures studies lies not solely in refining tools and methods, but in cultivating and, perhaps more importantly, recognising practitioners capable of navigating multiple ontologies simultaneously and embodying postconventional attributes. By postconventional attributes, this paper refers to advanced meaning-making capacities identified in ego development research, including meta-awareness of worldviews, tolerance for ambiguity, systemic thinking, and ethically reflexive judgment (Cook-Greuter, 2004). Transformative and narrative approaches to foresight, which focus on shifting worldviews, metaphors, and identities, suggest that the most consequential leverage points for shaping the future lie not only in strategies and policies, but also in the stories societies tell about what is possible, desirable, and inevitable. From this perspective, advancing foresight becomes as much a developmental and ethical challenge as a methodological one.
By situating Strategic Foresight within a broader lineage of futuring practices, this study invites a more pluralistic and reflexive understanding of futures work. Rather than indicating which method is superior, it encourages inquiry into which modes of futuring are appropriate for different contexts, levels of complexity, and stages of individual and collective consciousness. As global challenges become increasingly interconnected and existential, the capacity to integrate the strategic, transformative, and narrative dimensions of futuring may prove essential for cultivating futures that are not only resilient but also meaningful and humane.
References
Azzolini, M. (2013). The Duke and the Stars: Astrology and Politics in Renaissance Milan. Harvard University Press.
Bell, W. (2003). Foundations of futures studies: History, purposes, and knowledge (Vol. 1). Routledge.
Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021524
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Ser. A/42/427). United Nations.
Cascardi, A. J. (1992). The “disenchantment” of the world. In The subject of modernity (pp. 16–71). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597428.002
Cook-Greuter, S. R. (2000). Mature ego development: a gateway to ego transcendence? Journal of Adult Development, 7(4), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009511411421
Cook-Greuter, S. R. (2004). Making the case for a developmental perspective. Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(7), 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850410563902
Cook-Greuter, S.R. (2013). Nine levels of increasing embrace in ego development: a full-spectrum theory of vertical growth and meaning making. Prepublication version. Adapted and expanded from S. Cook-Greuter (1985). A detailed description of the successive stages of ego-development. Revised Dec. 2013.
Cook-Greuter, S.R. (2019). Ego Development: A Full-Spectrum Theory of Vertical Growth and Meaning Making.
Cornish, E. (2004). Futuring: The Exploration of the Future. World Future Society.
Dolan, T.E. (2020). Heaven is High and the Emperor is Far Away: The Hong Kong/China Crisis in the Nation-State System Context. Journal of Futures Studies. 25(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202009_25(1).0006
Dupuy, J.-P. (2000). Philosophical Foundations of a New Concept of Equilibrium in the Social Sciences: Projected Equilibrium. Philosophical Studies, 100, 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018632810498
Dupuy, J.-P. (2004) Pour un catastrophisme éclairé: quand l’impossible est certain. Paris: Seuil.
Eamon, W. (2013). Astrology and society. In B. Dooley (Ed.), A companion to astrology in the Renaissance (pp. 141–191). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004262300_007
Eliade, M. (2020). Shamanism: Archaic techniques of ecstasy. Princeton University Press.
EU EC (2022). Strategic foresight. European Union, European Commission. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/strategic-planning/strategic-foresight_en
Gebser, J. (1986). The ever-present origin. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.
Godet, M. (2012). To Predict or to Build the Future? The Futurist, May-June, 46-49. http://en.laprospective.fr/dyn/anglais/articles/to-predict-or-to-build-the-future.pdf
Godet, M. & Durance, P. (2011). Strategic Foresight for Corporate and Regional Development. UNESCO.
Hon, T.-K. (2019). Chinese Philosophy of Change (Yijing). Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-change/
Inayatullah, S., & Sweeney, J. A. (2020). From strategic to transformative foresight: Using space to transform time. World Futures Review, 13(1), 27-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756720971743
Jantach, E. (1967). Technological Forecasting in Perspective, A framework for technological forecasting, its techniques and organisation. Paris: UNESCO.
Jung, C. G. (1967). Foreword. In H. Wilhelm (Ed.), The I Ching or Book of Changes (C. F. Baynes, Trans.) (pp. xi–xli). Princeton University Press.
Kern, M. (2010). Early Chinese literature, Beginnings through Western Han. In Owen, S. (ed.). The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature, Volume 1: To 1375 (pp. 1–115). Cambridge University Press.
Krishnamurti, J. (1983). What is your future? Retrieved from: https://www.jkrishnamurti.org/content/what-your-future
Milojević, I., & Inayatullah, S. (2015). Narrative foresight. Futures, 73, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.007
Raphals, L. (2009). Divination in the Han Shu Bibliographic Treatise. Early China, 32, 45–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0362502800000079
Redmond, G. & Hon, T.-K. (2014). Teaching the I Ching (Book of Changes). Oxford University Press.
Sangchai, S. (2024). Classic reproduction: Some aspects of futurism. Journal of Futures Studies, 28(4), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202406_28(4).0006
Simandan, D. (2018). Wisdom and Foresight in Chinese Thought: Sensing the Immediate Future. Journal of Futures Studies, 22(3), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.2018.22(3).00A35
Smoller, L. A. (1994). History, Prophecy, and the Stars: The Christian Astrology of Pierre d’Ailly, 1350-1420. Princeton University Press.
Stapley, E., O’Keeffe, S., & Midgley, N. (2022). Developing typologies in qualitative research: The use of ideal-type analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221100633
Tedlock, B. (2001). Divination as a way of knowing: embodiment, visualisation, narrative, and interpretation. Folklore, 112(2), 189–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00155870120082236
Thompson, D. (1940). The Problem Child of Europe. Foreign Affairs, 18(3), 389–412.