Hi it's Allison.
While discussing abstractions, Hayakawa mentioned that "The test of abstractions is whether they are referable to lower levels" (Hayakawa 93). He gave the example that those wishing to discuss civil rights in Wisconsin should know everything there is to know about civil rights from the national statutes to the behavior of police officers.
I found Hayakawa's thoughts on this quite interesting. I mulled it over and thought about what would happen if this was applied to representatives discussing a resolution at the United Nations. If the men and women representing their countries were debating about what plan of action to take in regards to the current issue in Darfur, would that mean that they would need to be informed about every crime against the people being committed to even discuss the issue? Would they need to be well versed on the history of the conflict? Would they need to have been to the places where these horrible things are being done and seen the crimes being committed to draft a plan to put an end to the violence? Is it even likely that one would have access to all of that information? If the delegates don't know all about the conflict, do they even have the jurisdiction to come up with a solution?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I would like to start out by saying that I do not agree with the opinion of the United Nations on this issue. The UN has not declared the situation in Darfur a genocide but has taken some action in sending various peacekeeping forces. I don't think that the delegates would need to be all-knowing on the subject to take make a resolution because it deals with human rights and life. Such a decision should be made as soon as possible. Other decisions that should be "referable to lower levels," as Hayakawa says, like "culinary arts in America" (93) would require much detail. This type of abstraction really depends on the situation in question.
Hey, it's Erin.
I don't think that Hayakawa is saying that the people should be well-versed in every little detail (because wouldn't that be impossible?) but that abstractions should be referrable to lower levels, that it has some kind of context in the extensional world. He says that we should be wary of "higher levels verbal levels of abstraction...never points down abstraction ladder... to extensional world" (ch.8 "chasing oneself in verbal cirlces"). So I don't think it's necessary to know every possible thing, but a good background would help when it comes to making decisions (because they should be based on facts of the issue at hand).
I do have one question: does everything point down the abstraction ladder? Do words that describe intangible things like love or anger or happiness or sadness (etc.)? Or words like freedom, words that can mean widely different things for different people?
I agree with Erin on her point that the test of abstraction is to be able to point to a lower level.
On a separate note, in my opinion, if the delegates were not versed in the information surround the genocide in Darfur, I don't think the should have the authority - but that is irrelevant. They do have the authority, given to them by their people (in democratic institutions), with the hope that they will be well versed. The same thing applies when electing leaders to Congress, etc. They use directive language to assure the voters that they will be good congresspeople and will do this or that. On another note, I disagree with Ian that some decisions should be made without be sure that they are "referable to lower levels." That connection must always exist. However, when such a connection is clearly evident from the start (as it was and is in Darfur), then it is wrong to not take action.
Post a Comment