Uit: Language in Thought and Action, door S.I. Hayakawa.
Chapter 10
"Dead level abstracting"
Professor Wendell Johnson of the University of Iowa, in his People in
Quandaries (1946), discusses a linguistic phenomenon which he calls
"dead-level abstracting." Some people, it appears, remain more or less
permanently stuck at certain levels of the abstraction ladder, some on the lower
levels, some on the very high levels. There are those, for example, who go in
for "persistent low-level abstracting":
A similar inability to get to higher levels of abstraction characterizes
certain types of mental patients who suffer, as Johnson says, "a general
blocking of the abstracting process." They go on indefinitely, reciting
insignificant facts, never able to pull them together to frame a generalization
that would give a meaning to the facts.
Other speakers remain stuck at higher levels of abstraction,
with little or no contact with lower levels. Such language remains permanently
in the clouds. As Johnson says:
(The writer once heard of a course in esthetics given at a large Middle
Western university in which an entire semester was devoted to Art and Beauty and
the principles underlying them, and during which the professor, even when asked
by students, persistently declined to name specific paintings, symphonies,
sculptures, or objects of beauty to which his principles might apply. "We are
interested," he would say, "in principles, not in particulars.")
There are psychiatric implications to dead-level abstracting
on higher levels, too, because when maps proliferate wildly without any
reference to a territory, the result can only be delusion. But whether at higher
or lower levels, dead-level abstracting is, as Johnson says, always dull:
|
The low-level speaker frustrates you because he leaves you
with no directions as to what to do with the basketful of information he has
given you. The high-level speaker frustrates you because he simply doesn't
tell you what he is talking about. . . . Being thus frustrated, and being
further blocked because the rules of courtesy (or of attendance at class
lectures) require that one remain quietly seated until the speaker has
finished, there is little for one to do but daydream, doodle, or simply fall
asleep. |
It is obvious, then, that interesting speech and interesting writing, as
well as clear thinking and psychological well-being, require the constant
interplay of higher- and lower-level abstractions, and the constant interplay of
the verbal levels with the nonverbal ("object") levels. In science, this
interplay goes on constantly, hypotheses being checked against observations,
predictions against extensional results. (Scientific writing, however, as
exemplified in technical journals, offers some appalling examples of almost
dead-level abstracting-which is the reason so much of it is hard to read.
Nevertheless, the interplay between verbal and nonverbal experimental levels
does continue, or else we would not have science. )
The work of good novelists and poets also represents this
constant interplay between higher and lower levels of abstraction. A
"significant" novelist or poet is one whose message has a high level of
general usefulness in providing insight into life; but he gives his
generalizations an impact and a persuasiveness through his ability to observe
and describe actual social situations and .states of mind. A memorable literary
character, such as Sinclair Lewis' George F.
Babbitt, has descriptive validity (at a low level of abstraction) as the
picture of an individual, as well as a general validity as a picture of a
"typical" American businessman of his time. The great political leader is also
one in whom there is interplay between higher and lower levels of abstraction.
The ward heeler knows polities only at lower levels of abstraction : what
promises or what acts will cause what people to vote as desired; his loyalties
are not to principles (high-level abstractions) but to persons (e.g., political
bosses) and immediate advantages (low-level abstractions ). The so-called
impractical political theorist knows the high-level abstractions ("democracy,"
"civil rights," "social justice") but is not well enough acquainted with facts
at lower levels of abstraction to get himself elected county register of deeds.
But the political leaders to whom states and nations remain permanently grateful
are those who were able, somehow or other, to achieve simultaneously
higher-level aims ("freedom," "national unity," "justice") and
lower-level aims ("better prices for potato farmers," "higher wages for textile
workers," "judicial reform," "soil conservation" ).
The interesting writer, the informative speaker, the accurate
thinker, and the sane individual, operate on all levels of the abstraction
ladder, moving quickly and gracefully and in orderly fashion from higher to
lower, from lower to higher - with minds as lithe and deft and beautiful as
monkeys in a tree.
Naar Hayakawa, contents
, of site home
.
|