In my personal expereince I encountered semantics everywhere I turned in commitee and full, from the wording of the legislation to how people chose to express themselves when they spoke to the delegates. As was discussed in the semantics unit, politics involves the highest levels of abstraction. I found that even I, who was conciously aware of this fact, did this during discussions. In order to get our points across and have them accepted by everyone else, the flaws in the arguement were avoided by shifting to high abstraction to avert confrontation.
At the moment I am too exhausted from MC to think of specific examples, but I wanted to post this idea as soon as I had it so others could benefit from the discussion. When I regain control of my mind I'm sure I'll have more to say.
(Steve Szumski)
14 comments:
There was this kid in our full (the one that wore the hat and used his hands to talk) that definitely used semantics and presence to make up for his lack of knowledge. He did a fantastic job of distracting the listener from the content of his argument. He constantly moved his hands and walked around. He spoke on such a high level of abstraction that everything he said seemed alright. He used quotes from important people to make it seem like he knew a lot about the subject, but many times he was using the quote out of context (which I would not have noticed if Arka hadn't called him out on it...).
The student had a great impact on the debates and ended up winning an award. When I finally started listening more astutely to the actual messages behind his speech, I realized that he was making a very simple and obvious point.
I also found it interesting that many of the bills were very idealistic. I can't think of any direct examples, but for one thing, people did not consider how much money certain things would really cost.
(Arvind Kalidindi)
Adding on to Arvind's example of the speaker. He made three speeches on drastically different bills; his speeches, however, we almost exactly the same.
His only argument was that the federal government should not be allowed to increase its power. America was founded upon the ideals of the town hall meeting-style government and this ideal extended to the issue of states' rights. Instead of talking about the bill at hand and the technical issues of the bill, he referred his argument to such a high level of abstraction that, while I don't believe that everyone agreed with his pro-states' rights stance, it made the listener feel like going against his point of view was going against America and what it represented.
Perhaps the reason that he won was that everyone was able to establish a warrant with his speech? After all, who doesn't know about the Founding Fathers and federalism? It's certainly a more relateable argument than transparency of funds or the burden of bureaucracy vs. oversight.
It is interesting to hear about the conference from those of you who attended YMC. I hope all of you enjoyed the experience!
Grace, I think you're right in assuming that the speaker you are talking about won because he spoke on such a high level of abstraction, and was thus able to establish a warrant with his speech. Although I wasn't present to hear his speeches, I can imagine what his speech must have been like.
I have a quick question for those of you who went to the conference: do you think that your knowledge of Hayakawa's principles and everything we have learned regarding semantics was helpful to you at the conference? I'm quite curious.
(Janet Lee)
I attended YMC as well. As to Janet's question, I think it would be impossible to give a definitive answer. I'm quite sure that my knowledge of Hayakawa's principles made me better able to comprehend and see through other speaker's tactics. Though it was interesting to see how little information many of the speakers were conveying through their speeches, I'm not sure that it offered an advantage.
This is because no matter the fact that it was clear to me that most speaker's points were at a high level of abstraction, others were oblivious. As Arvind mentioned, the kid in his full that conveyed no information won the gavel. (the award for best delegate) So despite the fact that I knew that some speeches weren't as strong as they appeared at first glance, this was of little help in actual debate. To bring attention to the fact that speaker's are speaking vaguely is of little interest to others.(Perhaps they're used to it because of the high levels of abstraction that politicians use)
Just as there was the eloquent but uninformed delegate in Arvind's full session, there were many delegates who despite having intelligent, well-researched arguments, failed to make an impact. Model Congress further reaffirmed, at least to me, that for many, it is not what is argued, but how it is presented.
(Molly Dunbar)
I feel a little out of place commenting on something that I was not present for, but...
It sounds like, even though you guys are completely aware of the techniques that we have discussed regarding LiTaA, they didn't really affect how you went about doing things, except that you had vocabulary (for example, "high levels of abstraction"-- beside us, I'm not sure that there are a lot of other high school students who would understand what that means) that you could use to describe what you and others were doing.
I find that very interesting... was knowledge of semantics helpful, in practical terms? It sounds like it was not very useful, considering that teenagers have very short attention spans and care very little about the details, but enjoy hearing a good speech a whole lot more.
I'm curious, though-- would this be the case in the Congress of the United States? I doubt it. Most likely senators and representatives are held more accountable for what they say and they are most likely more willing to listen to long, boring, detailled speeches. Then again, I guess that's what filibustering is all about...
Thoughts?
Emily T.
In my MC experience, semantics was not as applicable practically as one might think. Though I am sure in another situation it might be, such as a real Congress, the specifics of the situation and the types of things discussed, coupled with the limited amount of time, puts a damper on arguing semantics. Though I was constantly aware of things such as abstraction and propaganda, it was hard to apply them practically if at all. To facilitate debate, no one really wanted to "argue semantics". I don't think it is necessarily because they do not under stand it, I think it is more the fact that it is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand was passing bills and getting votes, and in order to do that, high levels of abstraction and other semantics pitfalls were purposely applied.
For example, when I was giving my authorship speech for my bill pertaining to missile defense, I referenced countries such as Iran, North Korea, Russia and China as threats. Though partially because of time constraints, I did not divulge specific statistics or situations other than ones that related to missile numbers and capabilities. Instead I threw around terms like "anti-American", "research and development" and "interception technology" which all made me sound like I knew what I was talking about and created the authoritative persona we talked about in class. This got people to believe that I knew what I was talking about and understood the situation much more throughly than them. When someone posed a question that threw me off balance or hurt my argument, I would come up with an arbitrary fact which was immediately accepted because my committee assumed I was correct.
Steve Szumski
I don't think lying in MC is a big deal at all. Especially the kind of lie that Kevin made about his grandfather dying in a car accident. This kind of lie may seem misleading, but it makes very interesting points on the safety problems with seniors driving cars.
This type of anecdotal speech is very affective and memorable and it does not matter in most cases whether it actually happened or not. For example, in my freshman debate class, Kate Coudrey made an amazing speech for gay marriage talking about her lesbian aunt. Now whether she actually had a lesbian aunt or not was irrelevant, but she talked about how her aunts "wife" was able to just walk out of the civil union and take all her stuff since it wasn't binding. The bill passed unanimously because we all felt that Kate's aunt had rights and that such a thing should never happen. Considering that I still remember it to this day, it was a very memorable speech.
Thoughts?
(Arvind Kalidindi)
First, I'd like to point out that an anecdote refers to a true experience that actually happened in the extensional world, not a made-up little tale.
The problem with lies is that it derails communication. Communication, as Hayakawa pointed out, is based on trust. When we willfully violate that trust, we entrap ourselves in a web of lies that hinders communication through language. Hayakawa regards "the giving of false information as profoundly reprehensible." (Hayakawa 23).
Of course, lies can always be justified and rationalized, and some would argue that the ends justify the means. However, I would not regard "lying" as harmless, as eventually lies can catch up with the speaker. They destroy the warrants and ethos of the speaker, and applying an old adage here: If you play with fire, you're going to get burned.
On the other hand, abstraction is a common and almost essential part of Model Congress debate. Because we cannot possibly know every single fact or statistic regarding every bill we face, often it is advantageous to establish a warrant with the audience by referring to some golden American past or "American" values. For example, regarding a bill that intends to improve voting machines, one could bring up America's gloried past as a democracy and how voting serves as the conduit through which the voice of the people is heard. The audience enjoys hearing America described in such positive abstractions, and it creates a "common place" for the speaker and the audience to meet.
Of course, everyone is entitled to his/her personal opinions regarding debate. But on my moral scale, outright lying is never something to be proud of.
(Eric Wei)
Eric reminds us that Hayakawa stated that the "giving of false information" hinders cooperative communication, which is based on TRUST. Why, then, does nothing result from telling lies for the purpose of debate at Model Congress? It seems to me as if giving false info at MC is not a reprehensible deed, and is rather embraced or encouraged by many as a tactic for debate. Is this not so?
Also, Eric, you stated that you think "outright lying is never something to be proud of." Let me ask you the following: can you honestly say that YOU have ever lied at a MC conference? And believe me, I ask this question, not because I wish to challenge you, but simply because I am curious as to whether or not one's moral integrity fluctuates at MC.
(Janet Lee)
"Do the words we utter arise as a result of our thoughts, or are our thoughts determined by the linguistic systems we happen to have been taught?" (Hayakawa - Preface)
We may think that we do not want to lie, but when put in a sticky situation, we may use it as an easy way out, even though it may compromise our morals. Basically, at a certain point in time, we use the kind of language that best fits the current situation. No matter what method of communication I happen to use, all is well if the point of the utterance has been translated to the audience.
Kevin may not have wanted to lie, but at that point, in that sticky situation, he felt inclined to make an impact on the members of his committee. Rather than debating the morality of the lie, we should rather be debating its effectiveness/how long it works unless someone gets busted.
"In short, teachers of semantics will concern themselves, and teach their student to concern themselves, first of all with the truth, the adequacy, and the degree of trustworthiness of statements." (Hayakawa)
This is precisely why students from our class who attended MC felt compelled to pick out semantic-related errors in the speeches and structures of the bill. The theories have been etched into our minds, and I doubt that we'll forget them anytime soon. Yet I can also see how debating these things at such a thing as MC (where time is limited) would become a cumbersome task. Semantic analysis also seems to be present in a tightly knit community of semanticists. We are a very privileged bunch to have this background at our disposal.
And especially concerning a bill: How far would a speaker get if he/she concerned himself/herself with semantic analysis? I guess the bills are evaluated at face value. How do you think the chairs would have responded if those of you who had attended began to cite Hayakawa's text? That would be interesting to witness!
Hayakawa says that language makes progress possible. Kevin's justification for his lie was that somewhere, at some point in time, the case that he described most likely exists/existed. Can we still take indefinite circumstances for granted and claim them to be true/some sort of progress? Or are we merely cheating ourselves? These are just my random thoughts, I don't think that they serve any significant purpose. It seems that I've raised more questions than I have answered, woops!
(Sam Maliha)
Just quickly replying to Janet's question:
I'm sure that I have exaggerated at Model Congresses many times, left certain facts out, and extrapolated, whether intentionally or accidentally. However, I feel that those abstractions and "spin" do not constitute "outright" lying, where one fabricates an entirely false story from nothing. But that is a good point, Janet: I suppose that this argument depends upon where one's definition of "outright lying" is. If I have
"lied", then so be it, but it is not something I'd be proud of or consider a justifiable debate tactic.
Of course, I do not mean to sanctimoniously condemn Kevin for "lying". I'm merely pointing out that lying is a dangerous abuse of trust, and that one should not take pride in using such a tactic. Rationalizations don't quite work when it comes to outright lying: a completely false story that has no basis in reality is more than just an exaggeration.
Essentially, it's one thing to skew the intensional map. It's something else to go and create a new one.
(Eric Wei)
To be honest, though I'm sure we all picked out the semantic errors of each bill when we were looking over them, the errors that *truly* jumped out had to do with the content itself. Not only do we all recognize that semantics is a considerably less interesting point for debate, but we also are aware that a semantics-based argument often sounds weak. Though we, as APE3 students, are well aware of the importance of semantics, in the debate arena, semantics is almost a last resort. No one wants to hear about it, really, and when they do, it seems like a desperate move on your part for bringing it up.
You also have to consider the mindset that you adopt when you're at a Model Congress. When you're casting around for some information before committee starts, within several seconds, someone will invariably say, "Just B.S. it"
It may seem morally questionable to some, but it's sort of the way at debate conferences. Even if you're not there to win, you may still B.S. in order to raise others' opinions of you as a debater. After all, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" (Mark Twain) This may just be rationalization on my part, but despite the authoritative nature of statistics, most people do recognize that they can be twisted to serve contradictory ends.
And responding directly to Sam's inquiries, I'll be blunt. You probably would walk away from that committee empty-handed. One you attack on the semantics front, others see you as having given up on finding a fault with the spirit/execution of the bill which are considered to be much more substantive than language itself.
"Rather than debating the morality of the lie, we should rather be debating its effectiveness/how long it works unless someone gets busted." (Sam Maliha)
This is a very dangerous statement, whether referring to MC, or not. Just thought I'd put that out there...
On another note, a few people have mentioned or implied that semantic analysis is fairly unwelcome at MC. Speeches at MC are about arousing emotion and stimulating the general public to vote for you or your bill, right? Semantics is rather dry and uninteresting, though, therefore unwelcome. Bringing in semantics would draw people back to reality (whatever that is), and reality certainly isn't as interesting as idealism or criticism.
Am I on the right track, or completely off? (I feel kind of lost when it comes to MC...)
Emily T.
I wouldn't necessarily agree that introducing semantics would be introducing reality. Whereas I suppose "lying" (or generalizing or extrapolating) provides the audience with a sense of general and vague reality, semantics provides the audience with a heightened an exaggerated sense of reality. While some would argue that by ignoring semantics, we are living a (semantically) unexamined life, that isn't necessarily true.
Semantics is present no matter what, even in MC. It's just whether or not it is directly referenced during the course of the speech. When someone gives a purely semantical argument, however, the scope of the speech is far too specific. If anyone understands it, the point isn't that effective.
Post a Comment