In defense of Bessie: distortion or a serendipitous application?

CONSIDER wind, water, and fire. We can assign a multiplicity of uses to any one of these. We can use air for inflating rubber rafts, spraying paint, cooling and heating buildings, or for jackhammering tough concrete into small pieces. Humans have also found multiple uses for the tools that they have invented. We can use the screwdriver to tighten or loosen screws.

We can also find various serendipitous functions for our screwdriver, which we might use to--

* pry lids from paint cans

* chop ice or break apart frozen fish fillets

* stir paint thinner, turpentine, or linseed oil 

* hold open the "butterfly" on the carburetors of older vehicles

* prop open a door

* scrape off residue accumulating on battery terminals

* arc an electric circuit

* impale a mouse (as my late mother once artfully demonstrated)

* use as a dart in target practice

* spread peanut butter on a cracker

* scratch a hard-to-reach spot on the shoulder blade 

* serve as a skewer for shish-ka-bobs

Sometimes a different and unexpected need inspires a new design and, in some cases, a different tool. The Vise-Grip, for example, has a parallel but somewhat different function from that of pliers. The crescent wrench, pipe wrench, and socket wrenches all diverged from a similar design, but have more specific uses or applications.

Similarly, theoretical constructs or scientific metaphors such as Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Kurt Lewin's Life Space Model, J. S. Bois' Semantic Transactor, and yes, even the revered Structural Differential of Alfred Korzybski, have all been adapted, altered, added to, oversimplified, truncated, or made to function in ways that the brainchild's parent never intended. Must we characterize these serendipitous or alternative uses as distortions, misrepresentations, trivializations, or heresies?

At an Institute of General Semantics Summer Seminar-Workshop at Alverno College in 1991, I was saddened as I heard one of my folk heroes (Alan Walker Read) metaphorically taking to task another one of my heroes (S. I. Hayakawa), suggesting that in his forthcoming encyclopedia article on the development of general semantics, he did not intend to mention S. I. Hayakawa's contributions, citing Hayakawa's unacceptable "distortions" as the reason for this omission. Personally, I found this disturbing because thousands of individuals, including myself, would have perhaps never been introduced to the deeper formulations of Korzybski's works had it not been for an earlier exposure to S. I. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action, a work primarily intended for use as an English composition text (with an application of selected general semantics formulations to writing assignments) rather than as an introduction to general semantics. Incidentally, Hayakawa once told Roy Fox in an interview, "I did more for Korzybski's work than any other writer," citing his book's longevity as well as its coveted position on the Book-of-the-Month Club as substantiation for his claim. (Cited in Kodish, pp.65-66)

During the past 60 years, ETC, the quarterly journal founded by Hayakawa, has provided a continuous forum and clearinghouse for adjustments, augmentations, emendations--and yes, occasionally oversimplifications and distortions of general semantics. As Ralph Waldo Emerson has suggested, "To be great is to be misunderstood." When looking at the whole picture, balancing the distortions (real or imagined) that Hayakawa is alleged to have fostered, with his service in behalf of the perpetuation of general semantics, Hayakawa seems more sinned against than sinning.

A lightning rod that attracted much criticism is Hayakawa's legendary Abstraction Ladder (Hayakawa, pp.152-155) featuring Bessie the Cow, a diagram some have characterized as a trivialization or distortion of Korzybski's Structural Differential. Specific complaints about the abstraction ladder include the following:

* It fails to explain the relationship of the higher order abstractions and the event.

* It fails to show the difference between the event and the object levels.

* It fails to show the difference between human consciousness of abstracting and the corresponding lack of consciousness in animals.

* It reifies the levels of abstracting.

* It fails to connect the notion of abstracting to mapping.

* It ignores or oversimplifies multi-ordinality or self-reflexiveness.

* It fails to connect abstracting with the mapping process.

* It focuses excessively on the "leaving out characteristics" aspect of abstracting while forgetting to "leave in" some similarity to the represented territory.

* It creates a false two-valued dichotomy praising lower order abstractions and denigrating higher order abstractions.

* It oversimplifies the intensional-extensional distinction.

* It equates maps exclusively with words and territory with experience.

* It fails to explain abstracting as a physiological-neurological process occurring on non-verbal levels.

* It ignores the time lapse occurring between the event, perception, and verbal orders of abstraction.

If the abstraction ladder were intended as an exposition of the structural differential, then these criticisms would be justified.

It would be a mistake for students to use Bessie as the Cliffs Notes, Spark Notes, Hymarx, Monarch Outline, or Masterplots shortcut to Korzybski's thought. The most faithful abstract or digest will, by definition and function, leave out considerable detail. Cliff Hillegass, founder of Cliffs Notes, cautioned students not to deprive themselves of reading and studying the real thing. This caution should also apply to Korzybski's formulations; reading any popularization regardless of how faithful the representation--Berman, DeVito, Lee, Weinberg, etc.--cannot substitute for systematically digesting the contents of Science and Sanity. But this does not mean that other "tools" are necessarily bad or useless.

Over the years I have learned to regard a derived popularization as an independent work of art appreciated for its own sake, rather than a substitute for the work that inspired its appearance. My master's thesis focused upon the works of Joseph Conrad. Several of his works, including Lord Jim, Heart of Darkness, and The Secret Agent, were turned into movies. As I watched these Hollywood productions, I realized that although they somewhat captured the flavor and essence of Conrad, they were not Conrad, and should be appreciated as separate works of art. Nevertheless, even these "distortions" have led many to appreciate Conrad, perhaps inspiring them to read the novel in its original form.

In a similar vein, I observed that Miklos Rozsa's background music for the Hitchcock thriller Spellbound was so derivative that it almost seemed like a plagiarism of Howard Hanson's Romantic Symphony. Nevertheless, the music for Spellbound is different and unique enough to warrant its own place of honor. I believe I appreciate Hanson's symphonic works far more because of Rozsa, and Rozsa's orchestral works far more because of Hanson. The same holds true for Korzybski's and Hayakawa's diagrams.

Steve Stockdale, in an open letter to a group of students at Alverno College, resolves the dissonance between these two structures with the following explanation:

   Korzybski emphasized the scientific, physiological, and neurological
   bases for his explications of the abstracting process(es). Hayakawa
   focused on the linguistic and semantic/meaning implications of our
   evaluation processes. His Ladder should not be considered so much as
   his version of the Structural Differential, as much as his own
   diagram of how we abstract, through language, classifications,
   types, categories, etc., which result in what can be considered as
   different levels of abstractions. Whereas Korzybski's model
   represents an ongoing process, Hayakawa's diagram--in my
   opinion--does not reflect a process but instead captures the
   linguistic output of that process. Korzybski deals with
   abstracting--Hayakawa deals with abstractions.

Having taught English composition for over 37 years, I have appreciated Hayakawa's pedagogical tool as an aid to help the student internalize the structure of the standard deductive expository paragraph, requiring descending levels of specificity.

Thesis (Generalization)

* More Abstract

* Less Specific

Examples

* Specific Supporting Details

* More Concrete

* More Specific

Thesis

* I had a frustrating morning

Examples

* I woke up with stopped-up sinuses and an earache.

* The Harrison County sheriff stopped me for speeding on my way to work.

* My driver's license had expired two days ago.

Hayakawa's ladder diagram enables the students to envision coordinate and subordinate relationships in the formal outline:

I. Beverage

A. Juice

1. Tomato Juice

2. Orange Juice

3. Apple Juice

4. Grape Juice

B. Coffee

1. Black

2. With Cream

3. With Sugar

4. With Cream and Sugar

Hayakawa's ladder enables students to see how inferences and generalizations build on observations:

Inference

Mary appears psychologically disturbed.

Generalization

Mary behaves in a rebellious antisocial manner.

* Observation: She put glue in the cat's nose.

* Observation: She poured salt into the sugar bowl.

* Observation: She flushed the goldfish down the toilet.

In the 1953 movie, The Tall Texan, the hero Ben Trask (Lloyd Bridges) convinced heroine Laura Thompson (Marie Windsor) to become his partner in a mining operation. To extract gold, they used a rocker-box, a contraption with a series of progressively smaller sieves that separated the coarse from the fine particulate matter. This image suggests another model students can use to develop their essays with more specificity. Using a professional model essay, The Murderous Species, by Elaine Morgan, I illustrate to the students how to use a "rocker box" version of Hayakawa's model to sift out details.

In her essay, Elaine Morgan takes issue with sociologists (Anthony Storr, in particular) who contend that mankind is the most ruthless and bloodthirsty of all life forms. Using inductive observation, she assembles a series of exampies rebutting this popular, but erroneous notion:

   Suppose we try to define this allegation a little more closely. Is a
   man more bloodthirsty than a shark? Or a piranha? Obviously not: so
   the claim probably refers only to mammals. Is he fiercer than a
   wolverine? Is he more murderous than a rat? No, he's not. Perhaps
   the comparison had better be confined to primates. Speaking frankly,
   then, which would you be more chary of annoying, a man or a gorilla?
   (p.9)

Morgan follows up this catalogue of examples with an extremely detailed description, inspiring a term I frequently use on student essays: "I want to see more woolly-monkey details."

   Or, if we withdraw the gorilla because he's bigger, compare the
   aggressiveness of a man with that of some of the smaller
   primates--for instance, the charming and cuddly-looking woolly
   monkey of South America, who, if he takes offense, will hurtle from
   a treetop onto your shoulders, get a stranglehold on your throat
   with his prehensile tail, and claw at your face and eyes while
   hammering his sharp canine teeth repeatedly into the top of your
   skull. How exactly has man become more maniacally aggressive than
   all of these? (p.9)

Using the gold sieve model, we can separate the coarse, more general elements from the finer, more detailed particles, differentiating the generalizations from the more specific details.

Generalization:

Contrary to Storr's contention, mankind does not appear to behave more cruelly than other forms of life.

Examples:

Not as cruel as:

* Shark

* Wolverine 

* Piranha 

* Gorilla

(Woolly Monkey) Details:

* hurtles from a treetop onto your shoulders

* gets a stranglehold on your throat with its prehensile tail

* claws at your face and eyes while hammering its sharp canine teeth repeatedly into the top of your skull.

As an English professor, Hayakawa no doubt felt the frustration of reading thinly developed expository paragraphs in his students' essays. From the complexities of Korzybski's structural differential, Hayakawa fashioned a new pedagogical tool to help students develop their scanty expository paragraphs. They learned to use the gleanings of their abstracting to provide concrete supporting details.

Personally, I would not use Bessie the Cow as Cliffs Notes to Science and Sanity. Yet, Bessie does enhance a certain aspect of my students' understanding. Using my screwdriver as a skewer for shish-ka-bobs doesn't preclude me from using it to tighten screws. Perhaps we could allow our time-binding colleagues a little more slack with regard to their metaphorical eclecticism. We humans have invented many useful tools, and many of these, like wind, water, and fire, have their own special uses.

REFERENCES

Hayakawa, S. I. Language in Thought and Action, Fourth Edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978.

Klingbeil, Jose. "Typical Errors About General Semantics." European Society for General Semantics. http://www.esgs.org/uk/sd.htm.

Kodish, Bruce I. "Book Comments: Getting Off Hayakawa's Ladder" in General Semantics Bulletin 57: pp.65-76.

Morgan, Elaine. "The Murderous Species" in Patterns of Exposition 7. Edited by Randall E. Decker. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1980, pp.8-12.

Stockdale, Steve. "Korzybski's Structural Differential and Hayakawa's Abstraction Ladder." The Dallas-Fort Worth Center for General Semantics, http://thisisnotthat.com/sampler/abs_mod.html.

Dr. David Maas is a Professor of English at Wiley College in Marshall, Texas, and is the author of many ETC articles. He currently serves as VP/Education, ISGS.