I, too, feel like I do not completely understand every aspect of the Story of A-town and B-ville. Having read the story a few times over, the message I understood from the parable was that the way a concept is worded can have a great impact upon the reactions to (or the effects of) that concept. However, as Mary brought up, Hayakawa and many of us have acknowledged the distinction between symbols and things symbolized. Then, I must admit that I am thoroughly confused with my own thought process: how could the way a concept is worded have an impact upon the reactions to that concept if the words used (the symbol) are separate from the concept itself (the thing symbolized)?
Now I realize that I merely contradicted myself in the paragraph above. Perhaps the message I took from the story is not exactly what the writer is trying to get at? Has anyone else taken a similar message from the story? If not, I seriously apologize for puzzling everyone, but if so, is there anyone who could help me through my confusion? I welcome any comments or clarifications. Thanks :)
(Janet Lee)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with Janet that there are two contradictory ideas here. One: By giving the same concept a different name, you can affect how people will perceive it. Two: The symbol is not the thing symbolized. So by giving it a different name you would not change what it is.
I'm confusing myself as i type so try to follow as I unravel my thoughts.
Perhaps it is not the fact that A-town and B-ville had different names for the money they were giving but the way they treated the people and presented the money. Say both towns called the five hundred dollar checks "welfare". A-town still treated the people they gave welfare to as lower class citizens and B-town still treated their recipients as winners of a prize. Would the outcomes not still be the same even if the same word was used in both towns?
So the Advertising Executive and the social worker should not be arguing over the word used but the way they treated the unemployed people.
Agreements or disagreements? i would be glad for some other interpretations
Sorry, the comment above was made by Kelley Volosin
I feel that the point of the parable was to show that when you change the name, you change how people feel about it. The Advertising Executive was wrong in saying that what B-ville did was welfare, because it wasn't. Welfare was humiliating, insurance was like a deserved reward. I agree with the Social Worker, who felt that the insurance and welfare really were different.
(Arvind Kalidindi)
Post a Comment