Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies,

    Posted 11-05-2009 20:27
    I am asking who is the 'their' in "---their members can."  Do you mean 'the' members can?
    Seems to me "the members can" but, to paraphrase Grace about Oakland, "There
    is no their there."
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <nickols@att.net>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 7:44 AM
    Subject: Re: Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies,
    Organisations


    > Corporations can't vote.  Churches can't vote.  Their members can.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Fred Nickols
    > Managing Partner
    > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > nickols@att.net
    > www.nickols.us
    >
    > "Assistance at A Distance"


  • 2.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies,

    Posted 11-06-2009 09:59
    This reminds me of the charge that all academics want to do is argue over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Isn't it obvious that our language allows for helpful shortcuts (I hesitate to even call what we are discussing a metaphor) so that when we say that our organization voted to support Obama it is not true anthropomorphizing but rather "organization" is a shortcut for "organization's members" and that "our" is a shortcut for the actual name of the organization to which we belong and not a true possessive? There is no real social science implication here, though there are linguistics implications. Let's talk about something a little more meaningful.

    Best,
    Bill

    William P. Ferris, Ph.D.

    Professor of Management

    <st1:place><st1:placetype>School</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename>Business</st1:placename></st1:place>

    <st1:place><st1:placename>Western</st1:placename> <st1:placename>New England</st1:placename> <st1:placetype>College</st1:placetype></st1:place>

    <st1:street><st1:address>1215 Wilbraham Road</st1:address></st1:street>

    <st1:place><st1:city>Springfield</st1:city>, <st1:state>MA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode>01119</st1:postalcode></st1:place>

     

    Tel: 413-782-1629

    Fax: 413-796-2068

     

     



    Jack Ring wrote:
    I am asking who is the 'their' in "---their members can."  Do you mean 'the' members can?
    Seems to me "the members can" but, to paraphrase Grace about Oakland, "There
    is no their there."
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <nickols@att.net>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 7:44 AM
    Subject: Re: Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies,
    Organisations


    > Corporations can't vote.  Churches can't vote.  Their members can.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Fred Nickols
    > Managing Partner
    > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > nickols@att.net
    > www.nickols.us
    >
    > "Assistance at A Distance"


  • 3.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies,

    Posted 11-06-2009 12:49
    Bill,
    Given the frame you espouse there may never be "something more meaningful" but let's give it a try. Suggest something more meaningful.
    Onward,
    Jack Ring
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 7:58 AM
    Subject: Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies,

    This reminds me of the charge that all academics want to do is argue over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Isn't it obvious that our language allows for helpful shortcuts (I hesitate to even call what we are discussing a metaphor) so that when we say that our organization voted to support Obama it is not true anthropomorphizing but rather "organization" is a shortcut for "organization's members" and that "our" is a shortcut for the actual name of the organization to which we belong and not a true possessive? There is no real social science implication here, though there are linguistics implications. Let's talk about something a little more meaningful.

    Best,
    Bill

    William P. Ferris, Ph.D.

    Professor of Management

    <st1:place><st1:placetype>School</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename>Business</st1:placename></st1:place>

    <st1:place><st1:placename>Western</st1:placename> <st1:placename>New England</st1:placename> <st1:placetype>College</st1:placetype></st1:place>

    <st1:street><st1:address>1215 Wilbraham Road</st1:address></st1:street>

    <st1:place><st1:city>Springfield</st1:city>, <st1:state>MA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode>01119</st1:postalcode></st1:place>

    Tel: 413-782-1629

    Fax: 413-796-2068



    Jack Ring wrote:
    I am asking who is the 'their' in "---their members can."  Do you mean 'the' members can?
    Seems to me "the members can" but, to paraphrase Grace about Oakland, "There
    is no their there."
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <nickols@att.net>
    To: <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 7:44 AM
    Subject: Re: Re: Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies,
    Organisations


    > Corporations can't vote.  Churches can't vote.  Their members can.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Fred Nickols
    > Managing Partner
    > Distance Consulting, LLC
    > nickols@att.net
    > www.nickols.us
    >
    > "Assistance at A Distance"


  • 4.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies,

    Posted 11-06-2009 13:47
    -------------- Original message ----------------------
    From: Bill Ferris <bferris@wnec.edu>
    >
    > This reminds me of the charge that all academics want to do is argue
    > over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Isn't it obvious that
    > our language allows for helpful shortcuts (I hesitate to even call what
    > we are discussing a metaphor) so that when we say that our organization
    > voted to support Obama it is not true anthropomorphizing but rather
    > "organization" is a shortcut for "organization's members" and that "our"
    > is a shortcut for the actual name of the organization to which we belong
    > and not a true possessive? There is no real social science implication
    > here, though there are linguistics implications. Let's talk about
    > something a little more meaningful

    Um, er, I don't think so. To say that "our organization voted to support Obama" would have to rest on a fact base of all organizational members doing so to make that statement valid.

    As for no social science implications, what about a hypothetical statement like this: "XYZ Corporation is firmly opposed to any national healthcare plan." Does that include all XYZ employees or does it refer only to the folks who run the show or is there some sentient entity out there bearing the name XYZ Corporation?

    Propaganda is a social science issue and what you seem to dismiss as "linguistics" is at the root of much propaganda - in organizations and by organizations.

    So I don't agree with your assertion nor do I think this discussion is so meaningless as to warrant a search for something "more meaningful."



    --
    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    Managing Partner
    Distance Consulting, LLC
    nickols@att.net
    www.nickols.us

    "Assistance at A Distance"


  • 5.  Anthropomorphising Groups, Societies,

    Posted 11-06-2009 14:11
    Hi Fred

    I'm afraid you are missing the point by arguing my statement "our organization voted to support Obama" is too vague. I agree that it's vague, but if I add "by a vote of 112-34," or "unanimously," I have answered that objection. The issue we have been discussing is anthropomorphizing, not detail. As to linguistics, I was speaking of the formal discipline of linguistics. In what linguists call the "deep structure" of our language, the word "membership" or "members" following "organization" is left out or deleted, but no one has a problem supplying that word without saying it. So to say this "deletion" of "members" in the sentence creates anthropomorphizing is not true if we consider the way that (that)[deleted] word is normally used.

    Best,
    Bill

    William P. Ferris, Ph.D.

    Professor of Management

    <st1:place><st1:placetype>School</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename>Business</st1:placename></st1:place>

    <st1:place><st1:placename>Western</st1:placename> <st1:placename>New England</st1:placename> <st1:placetype>College</st1:placetype></st1:place>

    <st1:street><st1:address>1215 Wilbraham Road</st1:address></st1:street>

    <st1:place><st1:city>Springfield</st1:city>, <st1:state>MA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode>01119</st1:postalcode></st1:place>

     

    Tel: 413-782-1629

    Fax: 413-796-2068

     

     



    nickols@att.net wrote:
    110620091847.11117.4AF46F26000EDDE300002B6D22218683269B0A02D29B9B0EBF9C0401050C0702@att.net" type="cite"> 
    -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Bill Ferris <bferris@wnec.edu>   
    This reminds me of the charge that all academics want to do is argue  over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Isn't it obvious that  our language allows for helpful shortcuts (I hesitate to even call what  we are discussing a metaphor) so that when we say that our organization  voted to support Obama it is not true anthropomorphizing but rather  "organization" is a shortcut for "organization's members" and that "our"  is a shortcut for the actual name of the organization to which we belong  and not a true possessive? There is no real social science implication  here, though there are linguistics implications. Let's talk about  something a little more meaningful     
      Um, er, I don't think so.  To say that "our organization voted to support Obama" would have to rest on a fact base of all organizational members doing so to make that statement valid.  As for no social science implications, what about a hypothetical statement like this:  "XYZ Corporation is firmly opposed to any national healthcare plan."  Does that include all XYZ employees or does it refer only to the folks who run the show or is there some sentient entity out there bearing the name XYZ Corporation?  Propaganda is a social science issue and what you seem to dismiss as "linguistics" is at the root of much propaganda - in organizations and by organizations.  So I don't agree with your assertion nor do I think this discussion is so meaningless as to warrant a search for something "more meaningful."    -- Regards,  Fred Nickols Managing Partner Distance Consulting, LLC nickols@att.net www.nickols.us  "Assistance at A Distance"