The book stays simple enough for a college student to follow it, as I did in 1969 when I first read it at DBJC as part of my Logic class. I believe this is where I learned not to be so close-minded ("socialist one is not socialist two"). ( )

S. I. Hayakawa is a name USAmericans should know. S. I. Hayakawa’s book Language in Action (Harcourt Brace, 1941) is a book USAmericans should honor.

But S. I. Hayakawa1941 and S. I. Hayakawa1968 and S. I. Hayakawa1983 were NOT the same person. (Those numbers should appear as subscripts after the name, but I haven't discovered how to do that on LibraryThing; this is to use the subscript numbering system that Hayakawa himself recommended in Language in Action.) People who watched television news in the late 1960s may remember Hayakawa as the feisty president of San Francisco State University, who confronted the protesters on his campus (the SDS, the Black Panthers, and their peers) and unplugged the speaker system of their van. That Hayakawa retired from academia, became a newspaper columnist and, as a conservative Republican with “anti-Hippie” notoriety, was elected to the US Senate in 1976. Regrettably, he was already suffering some of the early effects of Altzheimer’s disease and became know as “Sleeping Sam” because of his tendency to fall asleep at his Senate desk. Those are the S. I. Hayakawas of 1968 and 1983.

But the S. I. Hayakawa of 1941 was a young assistant professor of English in Illinois whose book was selected for distribution by the Book-of-the-Month Club and became a national best seller. It was originally a textbook in semantics, written to examine the dimensions of language that had become so obvious through their misuses in Germany by Adolf Hitler and his minion Joseph Goebbels. The book was later reissued in several editions under the title Language in Thought and Action. In introductory remarks to one of those editions, Hayakawa explained his initial motivation.

"The original version of this book, Language in Action, published in 1941, was in many respects a response to the dangers of propaganda, especially as exemplified in Adolf Hitler's success in persuading millions to share his maniacal and destructive views. It was the writer's conviction then, as it remains now, that everyone needs to have a habitually critical attitude towards language — his own as well as that of others — both for the sake of his personal well-being and for his adequate functioning as a citizen. Hitler is gone, but if the majority of our fellow-citizens are more susceptible to the slogans of fear and race hatred than to those of peaceful accommodation and mutual respect among human beings, our political liberties remain at the mercy of any eloquent and unscrupulous demagogue."

S. I. Hayakawa (1906-1992) was born and educated in Canada of Japanese lineage. He received his doctorate in English at the University of Wisconsin in 1935 and entered upon his academic career in the United States. He was a proponent of the “general semantics” of Alfred Korzybski, a “non-Aristotelian system” also espoused by such well-known writers as Stuart Chase (The Tyranny of Words), Irving Lee (How to Talk with People), and Wendell Johnson (People in Quandaries). In Language in Action, he popularized the practical aspects of that discipline. If USAmerican schools devoted themselves to critical thinking as they should, his work and that of his colleagues should have reshaped the English/language arts curriculum from elementary schools through colleges and universities. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

With language that would be clear to non-linguists, with clear examples, apt analogies, and smooth transitions, and with practical exercises and provocative questions, Hayakawa’s first book (obviously prepared to be used as a college textbook) made sense of semantics for the “common reader.” The term semantics itself has become a household word—with the unfortunate consequence that it is used simply to dismiss arguments: “Oh, they’re just playing with semantics!” “That’s only a semantic difference!” But, as Hayakawa has so skillfully pointed out, a semantic difference is a real difference, an important difference, a difference that can be (and often is) abused, or that can be examined and dealt with by honest discussants.

For example, Hayakawa talks about two-valued (either/or) and multi-valued orientations:

“The multi-valued orientation shows itself, of course, in almost all intelligent and even moderately intelligent public discussion. The editors of responsible [news]papers . . . may condemn Hitler, but they remind one at the same time of the external causes that produced Hitlerism and of the fascistic tendencies in our own nation.”

Hayakawa, of course, speaks of the need for strong, affective language to stimulate action; say, antagonism to Hitler. However, thoughtful persons, looking beyond the present, will search for historic causes and widespread manifestations of Hitlerism. Or, to translate that passage into contemporary times, the multi-valued orientation shows itself when responsible editors and news commentators condemn Terrorists, but remind us at the same time of external causes that produced Terrorism in the Middle East and of the proponents of jihad in our own culture. But the two-valued orientation prevails now to the extent that such a statement would be labeled as “non-patriotic,” even seditious, or supportive of Al-Qaeda and, hence, worthy of censure, if not outright punishment.

Here are some of Hayakawa’s other concluding statements that we might well reflect upon in our current times:

“All tyrannies, ancient and modern, go on the assumption on the part of the rulers that they know best what is good for the people, who should only have what information they think is advisable. . . . It is no accident that freedom of speech and freedom of the press go hand in hand with democracy and that censorship and suppression always accompany tyranny and dictatorship.”

“The idealistic proponents of universal education believed that people able to read and write would automatically be wiser and more capable of intelligent self-government than illiterates. But we are beginning to learn that mere literacy is not enough. People who think like savages can continue to do so even after learning to read. . . . And, as we have also seen, rapidity and ease of communication often make savagery infectious.”

“Cow1 is not cow2 is not cow3 . . . . ¶ The index number . . . reminds us that this [cow] is DIFFERENT; it reminds us that “cow” does NOT tell us “all about” the event; it reminds us of the CHARACTERISTICS LEFT OUT in the process of abstracting; it prevents us from equating the word with the thing, that is, from confusing the abstraction “cow” with the extensional cow and having a signal reaction.” [The capitalized words were italicized in the original.] Immigrant1 is not immigrant2; welfare mom1 is not welfare mom2; and, no, CEO1 is not necessary CEO2.

If news reporters and commentators these days were edited for such two-valued orientation, and over-abstracting, their “reports” might actually be more accurate. If students in schools were taught to identify these characteristics in their language, their reading might be more thoughtful. Twenty-second commercials and sound bites might be less influential on voting, buying, or believing. Hayakawa1941 deserves translation into the here and now.