English French German Spain Italian Dutch Russian Portuguese Japanese Korean Arabic Chinese Simplified

10.24.2017

Balancing Individualism & Collectivism through.....Demoscopio [Chapter pp.429-461]


(So proud to share with the rest of the world a dream that comes true.... not only the chapter in this book about Demoscopio, but also the actual implementation of a passionate vision for civic engagement and democratic participation that is co-designed to empower local communities and empower individualism and collectivism for FUTU[R]EVOLUTION & CHANGE!!! Special thanks to Professors J.McIntyre-Mills and Norma Romm!) 

For the emergence of a Demosensual [R]evolutionary Eutopia in the twenty-first century, we ought to transcend the totalitarian, elitist approaches of political, financial, and societal policies and the obsolete social design methods, with innovative democratic practices, that will enable citizens from all walks of life, in participating in meaningful, authentic, demosensual dialogue. This chapter is inspired by the foundation for a locally based, but globally connected capability that transcends the conventional approach of Systems Science and marks the emergence of a new epoch for engaging stakeholders in social design practices. Demoscopio Center of the Science of Dialogic Design, Innovation and Entrepreneurship has been officially approved and adopted by the City Council of the Municipality of Heraklion, which is the capital of the Greek island of Crete, and a historical and culturally sensitive center, since the Minoan era. It is the culmination of 50 years of work of visionary systems thinkers, such as Harold Lasswell, Hasan Ozbekhan, John N. Warfield, and Alexander N. Christakis. Demoscopio is the contemporary reenactment of the Ancient Athenian Agora of the fifth-century B.C, with advanced technological and methodological means. It represents an innovative way to talk the walk, and walk the talk! It is the [r]evolutionary scientific implementation of the complementarity among the “Three Phases of Science” for fostering cooperation, enhancing communication, and activating social networking among citizens, innovators, and entrepreneurs. It offers the opportunity for co-designing resolutions for complex issues, through evolutionary learning and applications of the Science of Dialogic Design. It is the innovation for innovations, entrepreneurial development, democratic eutopia, for thinking globally, [inter]acting locally and making an impact glocally.

You can read a big part of this important work by clicking the link: 

Demosensus: the term has been created and used by Dr. Alexander N. Christakis as an “acronym” for the proposal, “Global Systems Science for Human-centered Policy Making in Complex Environments” GSS H2020-FETPROACT-2014. The proposal was submitted by professor Gerald Midgley, Director of the Center for Systems Research, University of Hull. In this chapter, the word “demosensual” is defined to mean the emergence of a linguistic, and cognitive emotional, consensual domain, by engaging a community of stakeholders in the methodology of Structured Democratic Dialogue (SDD).

Eutopia: is a term proposed by Maria Kakoulaki, (inspired by the terms utopia, dystopia, entopia, protopia), and is defined as the normative visualization of an ideal future state of a social system, which is profoundly different from the present and the extrapolated future, and requires intellectual and emotional qualities of creativity, synthesis, and empathy. Eutopia emerges from the demosensual engagement of stakeholders.

References


Adorno TW (1966) Negative dialektik. English Edition: Adorno, T.W. 11973. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt. Negative Dialectics (trans: Ashton, E.B.)Google Scholar
Apel K (1981) Charles S from pragmatism to pragmaticism. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, PeirceGoogle Scholar
Arnstein S, Christakis AN (1976) Perspectives on technology assessment. Science and Technology Publishers, Jerusalem, IsraelGoogle Scholar
Bausch K (2000) The practice and ethics of design. Syst Res Behav Sci, 17(1): 23–51Google Scholar
Bausch K (2001) The emerging consensus in social system theory. Plenum, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bausch K, Christakis AN (2003) Technology to liberate rather than imprison consciousness. In: Loye D (ed) The great adventure: toward a fully human theory of evolution, SUNY PressGoogle Scholar
Bausch K, Christakis AN (2015). With reason and vision: structured dialogic design. Emergence PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Christakis AN (1973) A new policy science paradigm. Futures 5(6):543–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christakis A, Warfield NJ (1983) Proposal for the establishment of interactive management of Crete. Submitted to the Ministry of Coordination, Government of GreeceGoogle Scholar
Christakis AN, Warfield JN (1987). NSF DTM, OhioGoogle Scholar
Christakis AN (1987) High technology participative design: the space- based laser, in general systems. In: Dillon JA, Jr (ed) International society for the systems sciences, vol XXX, pp 69–75Google Scholar
Christakis AN (1988) The club of rome revisited in: general systems. In: Reckmeyer WJ (ed) International society for the systems sciences, vol XXXI, pp 35–38, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Christakis AN, Warfield JN, Keever D (1988) Systems design: generic design theory and methodology. In: Decleris M (ed) Systems governance. Publisher Ant N. Sakkoylas, Athens-Komotini, Greece, pp 143–210Google Scholar
Christakis AN (1993) The inevitability of demosophia. In: Tsivacou I (ed) A challenge for systems thinking: the aegean seminar. University of the Aegean Press, Athens, Greece, pp 187–197Google Scholar
Christakis AN, Christakis NA, Conaway D, Feudtner C, Geranmayeh A, Whitehouse RJ (1994) Designing the good review practices, CWAGoogle Scholar
Christakis AN (1996) A people science: the cogniscope system approach. Syst J Trans-disciplinary Syst Sci, 1(1)Google Scholar
Christakis AN, Dye KM (1999) Collaboration through communicative action: resolving the systems dilemma through the cogniscope. Syst J Trans-disciplinary Syst Sci, 4(1)Google Scholar
Christakis AN, Bausch K (2002) Technologue: technology- supported disciplined dialogue. In: Nancy, R (ed) Transformative power of dialogue. Elsevier Publishing CoGoogle Scholar
Christakis AN, Brahms S (2003) Boundary-spanning dialogue for 21st -century agoras. Syst Res Behav Sci 20:371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christakis AN, Harris L (2004) Designing a Transnational Indigenous Leaders Interaction in the Context of Globalization: Wisdom of the People Forum, Systems Research and Behavioral SciencesGoogle Scholar
Christakis AN, Bausch KC (2006) Co-laboratories of democracy: how people harness their collective wisdom to create the future. Information Age PublishingGoogle Scholar
Christakis AN, Bausch K (2006) How people harness their collective wisdom and power to construct the future in co-laboratories of democracy. Information Age Publishing, IncGoogle Scholar
Christakis AN (2014) An epic learning journey: from the club of rome to dialogic design science and demosophia. In: Metcalf G (ed) Social systems and design. Springer Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Christakis A, Nicholas A, Fowler JH (2009) Connected: the surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives—how your friends’ friends’ friends affect everything you feel, think, and do, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Christakis AN (2011) Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans. In: Douglas SM (ed) Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved October 18, 2011, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
Doxiadis CA (1968) Ekistics: An introduction to the science of human settlements. Oxford University Press, London, pp 27–31Google Scholar
Doxiadis CA (1969) The future of human settlements, speech, delivered at the 14th Nobel Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden, September. Wiley, New York (in press)Google Scholar
de Zeeuw G (1996) Second order organizational research, working papers in systems and information sciences, University of Humberside, Hull, EnglandGoogle Scholar
Doxiadis CA (1968) Ekistics: an introduction to the science of human settlements, Hutchinson of LondonGoogle Scholar
Doxiadis CA (1966) Between Dystopia and Utopia. Trinity College Press, Hartford, Conn; Dye KM (1997) Collaborative Design Process Science, Working Papers at MIT, BostonGoogle Scholar
Dye KM, Feudtner C, Post D, Vogt EM (1999) Developing collaborative leadership to reframe the safe use of pharmaceuticals as a national health priority, final report. CWA Ltd., Paoli, PAGoogle Scholar
Dye KM, Conaway DS (1999) Lessons learned from five years of application of the cogniscope approach to the food and drug administration. CWA Ltd. Report, Paoli, PAGoogle Scholar
Ellul J (1964) The technological society. Vintage, New York. J. Wilkinson, trans.Google Scholar
European Parliamentarium, Brussels (2016). (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/visiting/en/parlamentarium)
Flanagan TR (2008) Scripting a collaborative narrative: an approach for spanning boundaries. Desig Manag Rev 19(3):80–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan T, Christakis A (2010) The talking point: creating an environment for exploring complex meaning. Information Age Publishing, CharlotteGoogle Scholar
Flanagan T, Bausch K (2010) A democratic approach to sustainable futures. Emergence PressGoogle Scholar
Flanagan T (2013) Blueprint for a digital observatorium. Worlds Futures Forum, Montreal, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Future Worlds Center Publication (2102) Reinventing Democracy in the Digital Era v.1, Elia Petridou, Eleni Michail, Maria Georgiou, Danae Psilla, Jurrien Stutterheim Yiannis Laouris, Afonso Ferreira, Nicosia, Cyprus. www.reinventdemocracyindigitalera.wikispaces.com
Heidegger M (1977) The question concerning technology (Lovitt W trans). Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Kakoulaki M (2011–2016) Futu[R]evolution blog. www.leregardcretois.blogspot.com
Kakoulaki M (2012) The wine villages of cyprus: from the visionary anticipation to the sustainable development. Cyprus Academy of Public Administration & Nicosia Town Planning DepartmentGoogle Scholar
Kakoulaki M (2015) Dialogue beyond borders documentary based on interviews Israel, Palestine, Cyprus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKwXw6hFpAA
Kuhn T (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions, (2nd edn). University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Institute for 21st Century Agoras. www.globalagoras.org
Lasswell HD (1960) The techniques of decision seminars. Midwest J Polit Sci 4:213–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasswell H (1963) Strategies of inquiry: the rational use of observation in Lasswell HD. Atherton Press, New York. The Future of Political ScienceGoogle Scholar
Lasswell H (1962) The future of political science, p 242Google Scholar
Lasswell HD (1971) A pre-view of the policy sciences. In: Learner D (ed) The human meaning of the social sciences. American Elsevier, New York. 1959Google Scholar
Lyotard JF (1979) La Condition Postmoderne. Editions de Minuit, Paris, p 34Google Scholar
The texts by Heidegger discussed here are, in order, “The Question Concerning Technology,” op. cit.; “The Thing,” and “Building Dwelling Thinking” in Poetry, Language, Thought, A. Hofstadter, trans. (New York: Harper & Row, 1971)Google Scholar
Marx K (1906) Capital modern library, New York, p 13Google Scholar
McIntyre JJ (2003) Participatory democracy: drawing on C. West Churchman’s thinking when making public policy. Syst Res Behav Sci, 20(6): 489–499Google Scholar
Richard MW (1984) Analyzing marx: morality, power and history. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 188–195Google Scholar
Ozbekhan H (1968) The triumph of technology: “can implies ought.” King Resources, Los AngeZes, CaZif., U.S.A. http://redesignresearch.com/docs/Ozbekhan%20%20The%20Triumph%20Of%20Technology%20-%20_Can%20Implies%20Ought_.pdf
Ozbekhan H (1970) The predicament of mankind. quest for structured responses to growing world-wide complexities and uncertainties. http://quergeist.net/Christakis/predicament.pdf
Ozbekhan H (1977) Pertinent excerpts on “Futures Creation” from Part 3; Ozbekhan H Toward A General Theory of Planning, pp 47–155. In Jantsch (ed) (1968) OEDC Report; explained in Christakis AN (1977) A new policy science paradigm, FUTURES, Dec 1973; applied in Ozbekhan, The future of Paris. R Soc Lond Philos Trans Ser A 287:523Google Scholar
Pinch T, Bijker W (1984) The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other, Soc Stud Sci, 14(3)Google Scholar
Turkle S (2005) reclaiming conversation-the power of talk in the digital age. Penguin Press, pp 4–16Google Scholar
Sennet R (1999) The spaces of democracy. Harvard Desig Mag 8:68–72Google Scholar
Schreibman V, Christakis AN (2007) New Agora: new geometry of languaging and new technology of democracy: the structured dialogue process. Int. J. Appl Syst Stud 1(1):2007Google Scholar
Shapiro MA (2002) Facilitating a global conversation through the universal demosophia facility. In: Banathy B, Jenlick P (eds) Dialogue as a means of collective communication. Kluwer Academic/Plenum PublishersGoogle Scholar
Shapiro MA (2013) Report: the boise commonsGoogle Scholar
Shapiro MA (2016) Report: the state of boise’s neighborhood association, results of a survey contacted the boise commonsGoogle Scholar
Warfield JN (1976) Societal systems: planning, policy, and complexity. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Warfield JN (1994) A science of generic design, 2nd edn. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, IAGoogle Scholar
Warfield JN, Cárdenas A Roxana (1994) A handbook of interactive management. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, IAGoogle Scholar
Weber M (1958) The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.. Scribners, New York, pp. 181–82. Parsons T transGoogle Scholar
Weigand K, Flanagan TR, Dye KMC, Jones, PH (2013). Collaborative foresight in long-horizon planning: contrasting dialogic and rational planning traditions in R&D strategy. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. (Accepted article, in revision)Google Scholar

Copyright information
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια: