Future orientation

Young people’s motives, interests and goals concerning the future have been investigated by many researchers. Young people’s future orientations have tradi-tionally been studied by asking young people about their wishes, fears, expecta-tions and images (Lewin 1948; 1965; Green & Wheatley 1992; Nurmi 1989;

Nurmi et al. 1992; Poole & Cooney 1987; Seginer & Schlesinger 1998;

Trommsdorff et al. 1979; Rubin 1998; 2000; Shvets & Ilyina 2002; Sinisalo 1999; Kasurinen 1999; 2000a; 2000b). The origin of the concept of future orien-tation is in psychological research. Future orienorien-tation has been conceptualised in various ways. For example, according to Lewin (1948; 1965), future orientation is one aspect of time perspective, which includes expectations, goals, hopes and fears that are projected into the immediate or distant future. Trommsdorf (1986, 122), on the other hand, has defined future orientation as a complex cognitive-motivational phenomenon, which refers to “anticipation and evaluation of the future self in interaction with one’s environment”. Puttonen (1985, 3, 23, 45) in turn has defined future orientation as a constantly changing, more or less con-scious entity of personal images about the future. This definition concentrates on images and excludes action as part of future orientation.

The theoretical concept of future orientation which is used in this study is part of Nurmi’s (1989; 1991) model of personal future orientation. Nurmi’s whole model of personal future orientation is constructed of three components:

56

schemata, social context and future orientation (Kasurinen 1999, 2). In this study I will focus on the third part of this model. The other two parts of the model, although they are in close interaction with future orientation, will not be given any major consideration here.²⁸

Future orientation is here understood as cognitive-motivational construct, which is divided into three processes. The first process is motivation, which re-fers to individual interests and goals concerning future life. These goals are based on comparisons between general motives, values and the knowledge one has about anticipated life-span development. Second process is planning, which refers to life politics, i.e. how people intend to realise their goals in the future.

The basis for planning is the expected context – and content – of future activities.

The third process is evaluation, in which the person is rating his/her opportuni-ties and chances to realise the goals set and plans made according to his/her pre-sent view of his/her competence and skills (Nurmi 1989, 14; 1991, 2; Kasurinen 1999, 2, 11). Furthermore, in the process of evaluation, the individual is also estimating his/her own performance structure, which includes personal features in relation to the local opportunity structure offered by one’s living place.

This model of future orientation can be reflected through the concept of in-dividualism, since it shows how people as individuals act and make their deci-sions on the basis of the present moment, though the directions of their decideci-sions and action are not realised until well into the future (Vilkko 2005).

Since visions are constructed on the personal level, on the basis of (justified or in some cases unjustified) beliefs and opinions (Päivärinta 1994, 13), visions of the future are personal and private. Thus future orientation consists of person-ality traits, hopes, fear, goals and features of society and the person’s living envi-ronment. Local conditions, i.e. opportunity structures, also have a great influence on the future aspirations of young people. In addition, the role of mass media should not be underestimated, since mass media is an integral part of the every-day life of young people. Media and the entertainment industry have a significant impact on young people’s way of thinking – their values and attitudes (Kasurinen 1999, 5; Shvets & Ilyina 2002, 40; Trommsdorff 1986, 132).

Thus the way young people orient themselves in contemporary society has an effect on their way of planning their life and decision making (Kasurinen 1999, 7). Strategic life planning becomes important in a world with various lifestyle and choice options. Life planning is a means of preparing for the future and for actions required for self-actualisation. Life planning reflects a specific way of organising time and interpreting the past (Giddens 1991, 85). Life planning can be located at the intersection of future orientations, life politics and

individual-28 Schemata in Nurmi’s model (Nurmi 1991, 2; Kasurinen 1999, 2) consist of anticipated life-span development, self-concept and contextual knowledge. This part of Nurmi’s model is not taken up in this study, because focussing on it would lead towards a more psychological view of future orientation. Social context affects individual ideas and plans, and on the societal level it also dictates age-specific standards of life span (Kasurinen 1999, 2, 4). In this study local condi-tions and opportunity structure in the Barents Region are seen as contextual factors affecting future orientation, but these are not treated so specifically according to Nurmi’s theoretical model.

57

ism²⁹. Owing to this, it can be argued that life plans operate on a very individual level; and on the individual level future orientation is often limited to a narrow area and short time perspective. Future orientation is also said to usually consider merely the person’s self, family, education and/or work. Very seldom do people take into consideration such distant ideas as, for instance, global questions or problems, unless those matters are brought up on purpose, e.g., in research ques-tionnaires or interviews (Mannermaa 1993, 40; Kasurinen 1999, 7, 8). It is also worth noting that the primary interests and future orientations of young people usually deal with major developmental tasks and transitions, e.g. from school to work³⁰ (Kasurinen 1999, 7, 17). In this way young people’s future orientations reflect age-related requirements set by society (Nurmi et al. 1992, 25). The close link between interests and transitions may mean that the individual starts to ac-tively plan for the future only when experiencing the transition phase, i.e. when the individual is obligated to make decisions and to think seriously of the future (Kasurinen 1999, 8-9).

However, it can be argued that the individualisation of today stresses a more reflective way of acting than the previous form of age-related requirements, which could be called, “to act when obligated”. Today the fact may be that the individual is expected to act and make decisions individually on the grounds of personal goals, without obligation. The traditions of contemporary society have been reshaped, providing more room and opportunities, but also demands, for individual decision making. Choosing an occupational career, for example, is one of the most important phases in young people’s lives and in contemporary society. That process of transition is supposed to be unique and individualised.

Yet despite all the demands for individual action, we have the education system serving as an efficient factor to influence the course of young people’s lives. In this way future orientation reflects the timetable, norms and unwritten laws that have been set by surrounding society (Kasurinen 1999, 10). Thus decision mak-ing and orientation to the future may not be as free of obligations and societal influence as is usually assumed, especially in the discourse of individualism.

Future orientation and decision making are also influenced by other factors on the societal level, e.g. the spirit of the age or certain states of emergency (Nurmi, et al. 1992, 28). According to Giddens (1994, 57-95; cf. Vilkko 2005, 38-39) all the solutions that may be regarded as individual are based in ever increasing re-spects on information and knowledge from social life and practices. It could thus be more appropriate to speak about “structured individualisation”, where the process of life planning is supposed to be individualised, but on the other hand the process is dependant on social structures and local conditions. In other words, individualisation highlights the fragmentations of transitions, but reminds us of the structural constraints of our society (Kasurinen 1999, 17; Pollock 1997). Social constrains are always present in decision making.

29 In future orientation we can see features of individualisation and vanishing collectivism. For example the urge for self fulfilment and the understanding time as a perspective stretching to-wards the future can be seen as such features (Vilkko 2005, 40).

30 In second place, after aspirations dealing with educational and work in young people’s future orientations, are their future family, marriage, leisure time and material issues. Girls are said to be more interested in family, whereas boys are more interested in material issues (Nurmi 1989, 21).

58

Besides social constraints, there are other factors that have impact on young people’s decision making. On the personal level such factors can be common sense, semi-conscious rationalisation, values, advice and information from ex-perts, pure impulse, the significance of personal goals, impressions of one’s own competences, personal ability to cope with stress or failures (Trommsdorff 1986, 122; Kasurinen 1999, 33) and world views (Helve 1987).

According to previous studies (Rubin 1998, Kasurinen 1999, Soininen 2002) young people typically have a dichotomous understanding of the future. Young people see their own future in a very optimistic way, but at the same time they see the future of the surrounding society as dark and nearly hopeless, with prob-lems on both local and global levels. This kind of notion of the future and orien-tation towards the future set high demands for forming place attachments in contemporary society.