More A-town and B-ville

I read the A-town B-ville parable a few times, and have several thoughts on it. Some of them overlap with Chloe, Emily, and Bryce's posts. One of Emily's points was that it was ironic that A-town didn't want to destroy the moral character of their town, but they ended up doing this anyway. Elaborating on this, I thought that it was ironic that while A-town's plan made people look down on the welfare recipients, B-ville's plan made people jokingly envy the policyholders that received insurance "for having been 'up there with the big shots'".

The way the insurance was presented in B-ville (the ceremony) made a big difference in the way it was accepted. As Hayakawa emphasizes in another section of the book, people like socializing. It is inevitable that they would like something presented at a social ceremony better than something mailed to them discreetly.

After reading the parable, I concluded, as Chloe touched upon in her second point, that it wasn't what was done about the unemployment that mattered, but how it was done. It doesn't matter what word the leaders used to describe the $500 the families were receiving, but the connotations the word had, as Bryce mentioned in his post. They could have used either the word "insurance" or the word "welfare", or any other word describing $500. The people didn't know what either of the words meant beforehand (as shown by "...the idea [of insurance] was entirely new to his fellow commissioners." on page 79 and the fact that the A-town leaders had to choose whether to use the term "dole" or the term "welfare".) It was the feelings that the leaders chose to associate with the words "welfare" and "insurance" that made the people act as they did. When the term "insurance" was given a positive connotation, the recipients and their neighbors accepted it happily. When the term "welfare" was given a negative connotation, the recipients were ostracized from the community. It could have been the other way around, and the word with the positive feeling associated with it would have still had a good response, just as the word with the negative feelings associated with it would have had a detrimental response.

Essentially, it didn't matter what the leaders did for the unemployed families, but how it was done, and it didn't matter which words they used to describe what they did, but what feelings were attached to those words.

-Audrey

Misinterpretation of Presymbolic Communication

Emily, and no doubt many other people, have already recognized the flexibility of language as a theme of the text. We all know, and have probably all experienced the fact that language can be misinterpreted and cause conflicts between people. However, I thought it was interesting how Hayakawa pointed out that presymbolic language can also be misinterpreted. On page sixty-two, he gives three examples of this.

Hayakawa states that the educated are more ignorant of the presymbolic uses of language. I partially agree with this—the educated are ignorant of some presymbolic uses, while the uneducated are ignorant of others. It doesn’t matter whether a person is educated or not. It all depends on their point of view. Just as different symbolic languages (English, German, French, etc.) are understood by different people around the world, so are different types of presymbolic communication. Using the first example Hayakawa gives, the “chatter at parties and receptions” that the person is listening to may seem trivial to him, but it makes perfect sense to the guests engaging in it. (In fact, it probably is trivial, but the triviality of social conversations is already being discussed.) The person then goes on to interpret the “chatter” according to his own point of view, and makes a false generalization about the people at the party. It has nothing to do with how much he is educated.

Does anybody else have opinions on this?

-Audrey

The Link Between Actions and Words

The cliche that "actions speak louder than words," tends to undermine the power of language. Actions are quite effective, no doubt, and draw people's attention far more than words alone, but actions are only the result of a speaker's vocal expressions. That is, the words used in one's speech are responsible for evoking actions from others. Without the verbal command, no actions would ensue.


Hitler's articulate speeches roused his supporters to action, resulting in World War II. As Hayakawa states in the preface of Language on page xii, "...if the majority of our fellow citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue." Words, therefore, are the arbiters of action within a society.

-Chloe Martianou

Analysis of Noises for Noise's Sake

On page fifty-seven of Language, Hayakawa states that talking gives people "a pleasant sense of being alive." I agree with this entirely, but will rephrase it to: "Socializing gives people the sense of fitting in with everyone else."

At parties, people socialize not only so they aren't perceived as rude, but also because they don't want to be a social outcast. They want to be accepted and heard by others. Social networking sites, such as MySpace and Facebook, are very popular nowadays because it provides people with the chance of communicating and befriending others. On special occasions, such as holidays and birthdays, friends and family are invited to celebrate the occasion together.

Every individual, whether reticent or outgoing, needs to socialize to a certain degree.

-Chloe Martianou

Response to A-Town B-Ville Parable

Nice, points, Chloe. I took another look at this parable and noticed some irony which I'd like to point out:

- A-Town's officials decided to use the term "welfare" as a euphemism for "dole", but the citizens still had a derogatory connotation with the word.
- A-Town tried an approach that would not "destroy the moral character" of its people, yet those on welfare suffered from feelings of inferiority
-B-Ville was less of a businesslike community, yet the terms they used in their government aid system had a businesslike sound to them: "insurance", "citizen policyholders", and "claim adjusters"
(emily donahue)

A-Town and B-Ville Parable

I found the A-Town and B-Ville parable to be very interesting. At the end of this short story, Hayakawa leaves the reader to evaluate its lesson.

I made two conclusions after reading the parable:

1) The story is primarily about the significance of word choices within a society, and how the community reacts to such choices. A-Town's word choice, "welfare," was derogatory and denounced the unemployed. This, in turn, utterly humiliated the unemployed in that community, and led them down the path of suicide, a clash between classes, and unhappy lives. B-Ville, however, substituted "welfare" for "insurance" in order to avoid any acrimony amongst the people. The mere word "insurance" provided this community with the impression that the unemployed had already done their part for B-Ville, and deserved to be compensated. Word choices should therefore be selected wisely within a community, lest other issues arise and cause more trouble.

2) The community itself and its approach to an issue play a role in affecting how different social classes view each other. A-Town was a more industrious community because it was comprised mainly of business people. The moment I read that A-Town's leaders were "substantial and sound-thinking business people," I inferred that A-Town was more of a capitalist community. When recession struck A-Town, the leaders dealt with the indigent in the most limited way possible, with the welfare, but on the condition that the unemployed were exposed to the public through newspapers. B-Ville, on the other hand, was an isolated, small-town community. This forced the people to be closer, and help the needy when recession hit the community. The difference between both communities was their view on how to deal with the unemployed. A-Town's method for dealing with the indigent was brutal, demoralizing, and tainted from the beginning. B-Town used a more humane and encouraging method that kept the community together.

Does anybody else have other conclusions for this parable?

-Chloe Martianou

A Unifying Theme

I don't know about you, but I'm about halfway through the reading of Language in Thought And Action. I thought it would be a good idea to brainstorm some unifying themes of the text to use as guidelines for reading. These can be used to aproach the text from different perspectives or as "pathways" for analysis of its concepts. Hope these help, and that you would expand upon them!
Themes:
- Language as the seperation btw. man and animals
- Language = a social tool
- The versatility and flexibility of words & phrases
- Language as a way of uniting people
- Language as a means of seperating people (different tongues, accents, ways of speaking, etc.)
(emily donahue)