Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

SEMANTICS PARABLE [LESSON], or… The Story of A-town and B-ville

Once upon a time… there were two small communities, spiritually as well as geographically situated at a considerable distance from each other.  They had, however, these problems in common:  both were hard hit by a recession, so that in each of the towns there were about one hundred heads of families unemployed…


The city fathers of A-town… were substantial and sound-thinking businessmen.  The unemployed tried hard, as unemployed people usually do, to find jobs; but the situation did not improve.  The city fathers had been brought up to believe that there is always enough work for everyone, if you only look for it hard enough.  Comforting themselves with this doctrine, the city fathers could have shrugged their shoulders and turned their backs on the problem, except for the fact that they were genuinely kindhearted men [or rather they were under social and political pressures to act]… In order to prevent hardship, they felt that they had to provide these [unemployed] people with some means of sustenance [since they had no real, humane, acceptable, paying jobs for them].  Their principles [i.e. their belief systems, doctrines, religions] told them, nevertheless, that if people were given “something for nothing”, it would “demoralize their character”.  Naturally this made the city fathers even more unhappy, because they were faced with the “horrible” choice of (1) letting the unemployed starve [and be homeless], or (2) “destroying their moral character”.


The solution they finally hit upon, after much debate and soul-searching, was this.  They decided to give the unemployed families “relief payments” of XXXX dollars a month.  (They considered using the English term “dole,” but with their characteristic ‘American’ penchant for euphemism, they decided on the less offensive term.)  To make sure that the unemployed would not take their ‘unearned’ payments too much for granted, however, they decided that the “relief” was to be accompanied by a moral lesson; to wit:  the obtaining of the ‘assistance’ would be made so difficult, humiliating, and disagreeable [i.e. punitive] that there would be no temptation for anyone to go through the process unless it was absolutely necessary; the moral disapproval [i.e. hatred] of the community would be turned upon the [unemployed] recipients of the money at all times in such a way that they would try hard to get “off relief” and “regain their self-respect.”  Some even proposed that people on relief be denied the vote, so that the moral lesson would be more deeply impressed upon them.  Others suggested that their names be published at regular intervals in the newspapers.  [Others even suggested the unemployed be regarded as criminals, drug addicts, and forced to give blood and urine samples on a regular basis].  The city fathers had enough faith in the goodness of Human nature to expect that the recipients would be grateful, since they were getting “something for nothing, something which they hadn’t worked for.”


When the plan was put into operation, however, the recipients of the relief checks proved to be an ungrateful, ugly bunch.  They seemed to resent the cross-examinations [i.e. interrogations] and ‘inspections’ at the hands of the “relief investigators,” who, they said, took advantage of a man’s misery [or misfortune] to snoop into every detail of his private life.  In spite of uplifting editorials in A-town Tribune telling them how grateful they ought to be, the recipients of the relief refused to learn any moral lessons, declaring that they were “just as good as anybody else.”  When, for example they permitted themselves the rare luxury of a movie or an evening of bingo, their neighbors looked at them sourly as if to say, “I work hard and pay my taxes just in order to support loafers like you in idleness and pleasure.”  This attitude, which was fairly characteristic of those members of the community who still had jobs, further embittered the relief recipients, so that they showed even less gratitude as time went on and were constantly on the lookout for insults, real or imaginary, from people who might think that they weren’t as good as anybody else.  A number of them took to moping all day long; one or two even committed suicide.  Others, feeling that they had failed to provide, found it hard to look their wives and children in the face [leading to a higher divorce rate].  Children whose parents were “on relief” felt inferior to classmates whose parents were not “public charges” [i.e. Wards of the State].  Some of these children developed inferiority complexes which affected not only their grades at school, but their careers after graduation [not to mention the discrimination which surely held them down].  Finally, several relief recipients felt they could stand their loss of self-respect [which had in fact been imposed upon them by their ‘society’] no longer and decided, after many efforts to gain honest jobs, that they would earn money by their own efforts even if they had to rob.  They did so and were caught and sent to the state penitentiary.  [And some of them, turning their disappointment upon themselves, chose instead to hit the bottle, becoming drunks or druggies.  Some also became addicted to sex, breeding more impoverished children.]


The depression, therefore, hit A-town very hard.  The relief policy had averted starvation, no doubt, but suicide, personal quarrels [i.e. violence], unhappy homes [divorce, domestic abuse], the weakening of social organizations [civil strife], the maladjustment of children [the most innocent victims of all], and, finally, crime, had resulted.  The town was divided in two, the “haves” and the “have-nots,” so that there was class hatred.  People shook their heads sadly and declared that it all went to prove over again what they had known from the beginning, that giving people “something for nothing” inevitably demoralizes their character.  The citizens of A-town gloomily waited [hoped] for prosperity to return, with less and less hope as time went on.


[The inhabitants of A-town had exceedingly negative attitudes toward Humanity, and too much faith in their institutionalized Economic System, which failed because it did not provide a living at all times for every individual in their society.]


The story of the other community, B-ville, was entirely different.  B-ville was a relatively isolated town, too far out of the way to be reached by Rotary Club speakers and other dispensers of conventional wisdom [i.e. organized belief systems, religions].  One of the aldermen, however, who was something of an economist, explained to his fellow aldermen that unemployment, like sickness, accident, fire, tornado, or death, hits unexpectedly [i.e. is not a choice] in modern society [with its International / Global, Corporate State Economy], irrespective of the victim’s merits or deserts.  He went on to say that B’ville’s homes, parks, streets, industries, and everything else B-ville was proud of, had been built in part by the work of these same people who were now unemployed.  He then proposed to apply a principle of ‘insurance’:  if the work these unemployed people had previously done for the community could be regarded as a form of “premiums” paid to the community against a time of misfortune [i.e. illness, economic depression, etc.], payments now made to them to prevent their starvation [and hopefully, homelessness – shelter being another very basic necessity of Human life] could be regarded as “insurance claims.”  He therefore proposed that all men of good repute [who had not become victims of character assassination] who had worked in the community in some line of useful endeavor, whether as machinists, clerks, or bank managers… be regarded as “citizen policyholders,” having “claims” against the city in the case of unemployment for XXXX dollars a month until such time as they might again be employed.  Naturally, he had to talk very slowly and patiently since the idea was entirely new to his fellow aldermen.  But he described his plan as a “straight business proposition,” and finally they were persuaded.  They worked out in detail, to everyone’s satisfaction, the conditions under which citizens should be regarded as policyholders in the city’s social insurance plan, and decided to give checks for XXXX dollars a month to the heads of each of B-ville’s indigent families.


B-ville’s “claim adjusters,” whose duty it was to investigate the claims of the citizen “policyholders,” had a much better time than A-town’s “relief investigators.”  While the latter had been resentfully regarded as snoopers, the former, having no moral lesson to teach [nor political motivations, nor greedy designs on the Treasury] – but simply a business transaction to carry out [with neutrality, equanimity, dispassion, and fairness], treated their ‘clients’ with businesslike courtesy and got the same amount of information as the relief investigators had, with considerably less difficulty.  There were no hard feelings.  It further happened, fortunately, that news of B-ville’s plans reached a liberal newspaper editor in the big city at the other end of the state.  This writer described the plan in a leading feature story headed “B-VILLE LOOKS AHEAD. Adventure in Social Pioneering Launched by Upper Valley Community.”  As a result of this publicity, inquiries about the plan began to come to the city hall even before the first checks were mailed out.  This led, naturally, to a considerable feeling of pride on the part of the aldermen, who, being boosters, felt that this was a wonderful opportunity to put B-ville on the map.


Accordingly, the aldermen decided that instead of simply mailing out the checks as they had originally intended, they would publicly present the first checks at a monster civic ceremony.  They invited the governor of the state, who was glad to come to bolster his none-too-enthusiastic support in that locality… the president of the state university… the senator from their district… and other functionaries.  The decorated the National Guard armory with flags and got out the American Legion Fife and Drum Corps, the Boy Scouts, and other civic organization.  At the big celebration, each family to receive a “social insurance check” was marched up to the platform to receive it, and the governor and the mayor shook hands with each of them as they came trooping up in their best clothes.  Fine speeches were made; there was much cheering and shouting; pictures of the event showing the recipients of the checks shaking hands with the mayor, and the governor patting the heads of the children, were published not only in the local papers but also in several metropolitan picture sections.


Every recipient of these insurance checks had a feeling, therefore, that he had been personally honored, that he lived in a wonderful little town, and that he could face his unemployment with greater courage and assurance since his community was behind him.  The men and women found themselves being kidded in a friendly way by their acquaintances for having been “up there with the big shots”… The children at school found themselves envied for having their pictures in the papers.  All in all, B-ville’s unemployed did not commit suicide, were not haunted by a sense of failure, did not turn to crime, did not manifest personal maladjustments [such as addictions, abuse, violent behavior, divorce, adultery], did not develop class hatred as a result of their XXXX dollars a month…


[However, one can easily see how the politicians might manage to find ways to ruin good things anyway.]
Source: Language in Thought and Action (Fourth Edition), by S. I. Hayakawa
"... Thus we talk of free enterprise, of capitalist society, of the rights of free association, of parliamentary government, as though all of these words stand for the same things they formerly did.  Social institutions are what they do, not necessarily what we say they do.  It is the verb that matters, not the noun.
If this is not understood, we become symbol worshipers.  The categories we once evolved and which were the tools we used in our intercourse with reality become hopelessly blunted.  In these circumstances the social and political realities we are supposed to be grappling with change and reshape themselves independently of the collective impact of our ideas.  As we fumble with outworn categories our political vitality is sucked away and we stumble from one situation to another, without chart, without compass, and with the steering wheel lashed to a course we are no longer following.
This is the real point of danger for a political party and for the leaders and thinkers who inspire it.  For if they are out of touch with reality, the masses are not."
[Unless they've become hopelessly brainwashed, and completely dumbed-down...]
Aneurin Bevan, In Place of Fear

No comments:

Post a Comment