Off the Map

General semantics, a field founded by Alfred Korzybski in 1933 with the publication of his book Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, had long been led by two organizations.

The first was the Institute of General Semantics, out of which Alfred Korzybski taught a number of students.  The second was what became known as the International Society for General Semantics.  Offhand, I don’t recall the exact foundational information for this society, though it survived until the early 2000s when it merged with the Institute of General Semantics. Now, apart from the influence of the New York Society for General Semantics and a handful of other organizations in countries outside the United States, general semantics is largely led by the Institute of General Semantics.

In recent days I’ve been thinking about what it’s like for general semantics to be led by an institute as opposed to a society.  The word “institute” suggests “a place for learning,” and the Institute of General Semantics’s rudiments back up that interpretation of the word.  The word “society” suggests “a group of people of a particular interest,” and the International Society for General Semantics’s rudiments backed up that interpretation of the word with its multi-national membership base of people interested in general semantics.

However, these days the Institute of General Semantics’s role as “a place for learning general semantics” has faded, or perhaps better said, is on hold.  The frequency of retreats and seminars on general semantics have diminished since the 1940s-1970s.  I recall going on a week-long seminar at Alverno College that was incredibly satisfying and stimulating, yet that was in 2005, the last seminar of its kind that I know of that was not tied in with a symposium or conference.  Nowadays a number of social and logistical factors make it very hard to coordinate a seminar in general semantics: travel costs being a major factor, but also simply interest.  Despite its incredible influence on major fields and thinkers, general semantics is a hard sell in a culture nowadays that darts from subject to subject by clicking for free, a culture that has a tough time maintaining attention on one subject long enough to absorb it more than superficially.

For this reason, a website is an important method for reaching culture these days.  However, it becomes hard to take the online, offline, and into classes for greater learning.  Frankly, an “institute” is not for the informational darters we now have.  Considering the rise of online social media and its overwhelming popularlity, a “society” seems more in tune with the current culture.  In fact, it may be that a “society” is what drives an “institute,” as opposed to an “institute” driving a “society.”

Think about it this way.  First you have a group of impassioned people interested in a particular subject.  From this group, ideas start to develop, one of which might be, “Hey, we should set up a school to teach this subject.”  So you have a society first, an institute second.

Think about it also this way: It is people who drive a particular field.  The word “institute” does not bring to mind “people” as effectively as the word “society” does.  A society is composed of people.  An institute is composed of bricks.  An institute is more a building or a location than a person or people.  Surely, people teach at institutes, but they are an afterthought when the word “institute” comes to mind.

So in the interest in popularizing general semantics, one step I’m wondering about is whether we in general semantics should roll back the leadership of the Institute of General Semantics and shift back into the leadership of the International Society for General Semantics.  To that point, note that ETC: A Review of General Semantics, the journal that is still published quarterly, was the product of the Society as opposed to the Institute.

And also to that point, by leading with a society as opposed to an institute, we disclaim that we are impassioned people of a particular attractive interest, that we aren’t impenetrable bricks beyond which is taught a mysterious subject.  We’re porous, accessible, and want to be with others of that interest.  And sure we’ll teach general semantics to you, possibly inviting you to an institute for a lesson, but perhaps we’ll just socialize, and in so socializing build something else apart from an institute like another related subject, or a totally new subject, etc.  Our passion is our strength, and in looking to other fields, other influential Societies, their passions are on the table as well.  Leading as a society would give general semantics persuasive power, power that would enable it to endure into the future.

So I wonder.

See also: institute, society