Abstract vs. precise language
Charley Reese
March 18, 2001
Alfred Korzybski. Remember that name. Not only is he refutation of all the Polish jokes you've ever heard, but he invented general semantics.
That's the study of language and meaning. He reminded us that language is a code, either spoken or written, that stands for things. The word "dog" stands for the general group of domesticated canines. But the word "dog" is not the animal.
Seems obvious, but lots of intellectuals create verbal concepts and then begin to act as if their concepts were the real thing. "Cold War" is one example. Was there really a war between the United States and the Soviet Union?
Disagreements over particular issues certainly were real. But if there was a "war," why did American and European bankers lend the Soviets so many billions of dollars that the Russians are still saddled with the debt? One does not ordinarily lend money to one's enemy, does one?
Korzybski wrote a lot about levels of abstraction, meaning how close the symbols are to reality. If I say that tree over there, you know exactly which tree I'm talking about. If I say trees, then you don't know, because that level of abstraction includes all trees.
The point to keep in mind is that if we are discussing a particular tree, we can be knowledgeable and effective about solving any problem connected with it. If we are talking about trees in the abstract, then we are wasting our time. We have no particular knowledge, and we have no opportunity to take any actions. You and I, as citizens of the United States, cannot save rain forests in Brazil and the Congo. We can, perhaps, save forests in our own communities.
Far too much of the public dialog in America is conducted in the abstract -- it is meaningless. We should try to keep our language as close to reality as possible. We should remember that people cannot be loved, fed or comforted in the abstract. Neither can the "environment" be preserved in the abstract.
All too often, people who profess to love mankind are carelessly indifferent to individuals. "Mankind," which is an abstract noun, does not exist in reality. What exists are billions of individual human beings.
People who profess to be concerned about the environment quite often contribute to its destruction with their consumption-heavy lifestyle. I had a big laugh once when I read that a particular Hollywood mogul, who professed to be an environmentalist, was building a 50-car garage at his new mansion.
Korzybski's book, Science and Sanity, is probably hard to find. It was published in 1933, but there are a number of excellent books about general semantics written by S.I. Hayakawa, whom most people probably remember as a U.S. senator from California.
Communication is the essence of civilization. It's what allows us to cooperate and to pass on knowledge. Because the means of communication is language, no subject is more important. Much of the disintegration of American culture can be attributed to the corruption of language by politics, ideology, bad public education and advertising. Words are often ruined by their chronic misuse.
One of the great blunders of public education is the fad that encourages children to express themselves without regard for spelling, grammar or punctuation. That's a formula, of course, for producing functional illiterates. Because ignorance is not an option for people who wish to be free, we should all be concerned about language and its meaning. General semantics is a good start.
Reach Charley Reese at creese@orlandosentinel.com
Copyright © 2001, Orlando Sentinel
orlandosentinel.com |
