The basic assumption of S.I. Hayakawa’s book, “Language in Thought and Action,” is that cooperation through the use of language is the fundamental mechanism of human survival, that when cooperation does not result, there is something wrong with the speaker, the listener, or both.
To introduce his point, he tells a semantic parable about two small communities, each hard hit by depression resulting in about 100 unemployed heads-of-families who cannot afford the necessities of food, clothing, and housing. Each community realizes that it cannot let its citizens starve, so each decides to give its unemployed heads-of-families a monthly relief check of $50.
The first community, however, is concerned that the check does not demoralize the recipients; they should not feel they are getting something for nothing. Obtaining the assistance, therefore, is made as difficult as possible, so humiliating and disagreeable that there is no temptation for anyone to go through the process unless it is absolutely necessary. The moral disapproval of the community is so strong the recipients try to get off relief as soon as possible to regain their self-respect. The result is suicide, personal quarrels, unhappy homes, maladjustment of children, and crime. The community is divided into the haves and the have-nots.
The second community provides the same relief, but the check is called “insurance.” The work the unemployed has done is regarded as a form of premium paid to the community against a time of misfortune. The $50 is an insurance claim, a social insurance check. Hailed for its social pioneering scheme, the community is put on the map, so to speak. The unemployed are presented their first checks at a big celebration, and the recipients and their families feel a certain pride since the community is behind them, and they can face their hard times with some courage.
The attempts to cope with the unemployed by the two communities are widely discussed and debated. Social workers condemn the people of the first community in not realizing that what they call “relief” is simply payment for just claims which the unemployed have on a community in a complex interdependent industrial society. They have a right to the insurance. Advertising men applaud the second community for their good promotional work: If you call relief “insurance” you can actually get people to like it. Of course, they don't have any right to the money. It’s still relief, no matter what you call it. It’s all right to kid the public along to reduce discontent, but we don’t have to kid ourselves. Relief by any other name is still relief.
Are the words used by the two communities really important? Most people don’t think they are; what is important, they say, are the “ideas” they stand for. But what is an idea, asks Hayakawa, if not a verbalization of a cerebral itch?
Quiz? 1) Are the social workers and the ad men only arguing about different names for the same thing? 2) How have the unconscious attitudes of the two groups toward words affected their conclusions? 3) How can we go about choosing the right words to express our ideas? 4) Are the words we use the result of the thoughts we have, or are the thoughts we have determined by the words that we have been taught? 5) Would that which we call a rose by any other name smell as sweet?
Bill Reynolds
