Short history of Utopia BiteSize Science eBook

Utopias reveal the essentials of perfect society. This short history offers easy entrance to classic works like Plato’s The Perfect State and Utopia by Thomas More. It also uncovers lesser known, wonderful books about nirvana’s, cities and islands. Short History of Utopia is an open invitation to have new thoughts on current and future societies. Should our food production be organized differently? What do we learn from imperfect cities? What is good and bad about machines? If you have always wanted to travel to utopian worlds, just read this book first.

The book is present at the exhibition Ja Natuurlijk! in The Hague. There you will find an amazing solid, wooden copy, ready-to-continue-to-read, providing the utopian exit from the Plants Liberation Forest. The Plants Liberation Forest questions whether human beings are capable of moral growth in relation to nature and society.

All details of how to obtain Short History of Utopia can be found at Collca’s BiteSize Science Series: http://collca.com/shu

If you are interested in what bothered me most after writing the book, please read Utopia is a superficial society

This message i received through email, from Renske Koornstra. She allowed me to publish it. Thanks Renske! It’s a great, critical analysis of what’s happening on a daily basis in many organizations. Pretty dystopian?

——– Text by Renske Koornstra ——–
Reading Ellie’s essay on Utopia’s, it struck me how I am in the middle of an interesting sociological experiment. So, considering Ellie’s 5 essentials on Utopia, I would like to add a nr 6: Language as vehicle of thought and perception.
Introducing systems of classifications, expressed by (structures of) language, institutionally implied on people, can give them a forced perspective of thinking and communication. ( Managers love to express this goal as in Dutch: “Alle neuzen dezelfde kant op”- All noses pointed in the same direction.)

Ellie mentions 5 Utopian essentials in her book ‘Short History of Utopia’.
1. Paradisean collection (the good things in life)
2. collective organization (how to handle chaos, organization as the tool to happiness))
3. organization revisited (critical analysis of how organization (food, work, household, etc.) could be improved or reorganized)
4. technology controlled (people have control over machines, preferably not the other way round)
5. individuality and the protection of freedom

I tried to combine the ideas that Ellie brings up in her essay to my daily life situation and the Utopic situation I am working at:
For the health care organization I work for, I am in the expert team for implementing ICF into our organization. (ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, WHO 2002) The classification has a standardised language, with a fixed meaning, that can be represented by a
code. (Convenient in communication with colleagues that speak foreign languages. Codes are international.) This gives a standardised meaning to every aspect of functioning. Important to 1. make health professionals communicate in the same language, 2. to share scientific data, and to 3.
organize information about health, functioning and participation. The aim is to make clear how a person can participate in desired tasks and participate in the community. (instead of the ‘old school’ idea, of being ‘handicapped’, and ‘not being able’ to participate, etc.) ICF is used worldwide in health care professional organizations. In the Netherlands more and more organizations introduce it.
Reading Ellie’s essay on Utopia’s, it struck me how I am in the middle of an interesting sociological experiment. The fixed language is introduced to the health care professionals of different origin. (occupational therapists, medical en para-medical workers, nurses, teachers, trainers, psychologists, etc. ) All have their own professional language that does not match with the ICF-language. So everyone has to learn the new language in the new structure. Of course this is not met with enthusiasm. People want to stay in their own comfortable language. So resistance and ‘rebellion’ are present. I understand now that this is an attempt to protect freedom. The rebellion is not only a result of denying the uncomfortable change but also the need to keep the own rich language, instead of converting to the poor Newspeak of ICF and ‘losing language’, and consequently losing the ability to think in the old structures. Of course there is fear to adapt the new perspective and as a result loose what is familiar, suppose the loss will be forever? We do not want to lose our roots
of the professional identity (the strong collective). Can we keep them both? Make ICF complementary to the own professional language as a mode to communicate with a larger group (for instance worldwide)? How large should a group of people be in this Utopia? Will the communication be mixed with other groups of professionals (holistic mix)?

So, considering Ellie’s 5 essentials on Utopia, I would like to add a nr 6.
6. Language as vehicle of thought and perception.
If language can be controlled, the thoughts of people can be put in a, by authorities desired, perspective. Limited language (like in Orwell’s 1984 ‘Newspeak’) limits the differentiation of thoughts. In ideology censured literature and journalism (see nr. 5) limits freedom of thoughts and speech. It limits the ability for people to share their thoughts and ideas and to develop new ideas. Introducing systems of classifications, expressed by (structures of) language, institutionally implied on people, can give them a forced
perspective of thinking and communication. ( Managers love to express this goal as in Dutch: “Alle neuzen dezelfde kant op”- All noses pointed in the same direction.)
The possibility of keeping more than one language, enlarges the possibility to keep a rich environment for thoughts, communication with various groups of others, sharing idea’s with thinkers in a different perspective, and consequently the development of new ideas. The managers goal for ‘all noses
pointing in the same direction’ is a contra productive strategy for development.

Renske Koornstra.

2 gedachten over “Short history of Utopia BiteSize Science eBook”

Reactie toevoegen

Pingback: Met Andrzej Stasiuk op zoek naar Europa en een niet-consumentistisch wij | ellie smolenaars / SOCIAL RESEARCH & JOURNALISM
ellie smolenaars schreef:

21/03/2013 om 14:42

This message i received through email, from Renske Koornstra. She allowed me to publish it. Thanks Renske! It’s a great, critical analysis of what’s happening on a daily basis in many organizations. Pretty dystopian?

——– Text by Renske Koornstra ——–
Reading Ellie’s essay on Utopia’s, it struck me how I am in the middle of an interesting sociological experiment. So, considering Ellie’s 5 essentials on Utopia, I would like to add a nr 6: Language as vehicle of thought and perception.
Introducing systems of classifications, expressed by (structures of) language, institutionally implied on people, can give them a forced perspective of thinking and communication. ( Managers love to express this goal as in Dutch: “Alle neuzen dezelfde kant op”- All noses pointed in the same direction.)

Ellie mentions 5 Utopian essentials in her book ‘Short History of Utopia’.
1. Paradisean collection (the good things in life)
2. collective organization (how to handle chaos, organization as the tool to happiness))
3. organization revisited (critical analysis of how organization (food, work, household, etc.) could be improved or reorganized)
4. technology controlled (people have control over machines, preferably not the other way round)
5. individuality and the protection of freedom

I tried to combine the ideas that Ellie brings up in her essay to my daily life situation and the Utopic situation I am working at:
For the health care organization I work for, I am in the expert team for implementing ICF into our organization. (ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, WHO 2002) The classification has a standardised language, with a fixed meaning, that can be represented by a
code. (Convenient in communication with colleagues that speak foreign languages. Codes are international.) This gives a standardised meaning to every aspect of functioning. Important to 1. make health professionals communicate in the same language, 2. to share scientific data, and to 3.
organize information about health, functioning and participation. The aim is to make clear how a person can participate in desired tasks and participate in the community. (instead of the ‘old school’ idea, of being ‘handicapped’, and ‘not being able’ to participate, etc.) ICF is used worldwide in health care professional organizations. In the Netherlands more and more organizations introduce it.
Reading Ellie’s essay on Utopia’s, it struck me how I am in the middle of an interesting sociological experiment. The fixed language is introduced to the health care professionals of different origin. (occupational therapists, medical en para-medical workers, nurses, teachers, trainers, psychologists, etc. ) All have their own professional language that does not match with the ICF-language. So everyone has to learn the new language in the new structure. Of course this is not met with enthusiasm. People want to stay in their own comfortable language. So resistance and ‘rebellion’ are present. I understand now that this is an attempt to protect freedom. The rebellion is not only a result of denying the uncomfortable change but also the need to keep the own rich language, instead of converting to the poor Newspeak of ICF and ‘losing language’, and consequently losing the ability to think in the old structures. Of course there is fear to adapt the new perspective and as a result loose what is familiar, suppose the loss will be forever? We do not want to lose our roots
of the professional identity (the strong collective). Can we keep them both? Make ICF complementary to the own professional language as a mode to communicate with a larger group (for instance worldwide)? How large should a group of people be in this Utopia? Will the communication be mixed with other groups of professionals (holistic mix)?

So, considering Ellie’s 5 essentials on Utopia, I would like to add a nr 6.
6. Language as vehicle of thought and perception.
If language can be controlled, the thoughts of people can be put in a, by authorities desired, perspective. Limited language (like in Orwell’s 1984 ‘Newspeak’) limits the differentiation of thoughts. In ideology censured literature and journalism (see nr. 5) limits freedom of thoughts and speech. It limits the ability for people to share their thoughts and ideas and to develop new ideas. Introducing systems of classifications, expressed by (structures of) language, institutionally implied on people, can give them a forced
perspective of thinking and communication. ( Managers love to express this goal as in Dutch: “Alle neuzen dezelfde kant op”- All noses pointed in the same direction.)
The possibility of keeping more than one language, enlarges the possibility to keep a rich environment for thoughts, communication with various groups of others, sharing idea’s with thinkers in a different perspective, and consequently the development of new ideas. The managers goal for ‘all noses
pointing in the same direction’ is a contra productive strategy for development.

Renske Koornstra.