Summary: terminology question

Thu May 16 20:40:24 UTC 2013

(Hello Ellen, please relay to Jack Morava),

Jack, your question kept me dilettantely intrigued ;-) . But I still don't see the answer. One of the closest is "do-agooder", which is roughly equivalent, for example, to Spanish "angelito" as someone who appears to do good but does evil. In fact, many other words can be ironized this way ("yeah, the saint, the Good Samaritan"), so, this is not the way to go.

A key issue, both in these candidates and in others ("instigator") is that the conflict-causing intention is socially noticed, recognized, so this person's intention to solve the conflict is preempted. The result may be socially seen as pathetic, not even hypocritical. So, a way to look at the problem is, simply, in terms of Goffmanian face: Why would someone damage his/her own face (causing conflict) in order to then gain face (by "having a role" in solving the conflict)?  So, the conflict (again, not just problem) must be created surreptitiously so that the relevance of his/her attempting to solve the conflict is legitimate. I'm thinking of, well, a sociopath, someone who, for example, stirs up shit between the two members of a couple in order to then make them break up and "solve" their unhapiness. Or a phsycological abuser, who makes his/her partner believe s/he is inferior, thus creating a power conflict, in order to gain face by always giving her/him the "solution". Anyway, face, and specially hiding one's intentions about its management, is somewhere around there, I believe. Otherwise, legitimation of the protagonist's attempting to solve the conflict is at stake.

Thanks for reading ;-) .

-celso
Celso Alvarez Cáccamo
lxalvarz at udc.es
=============

A 2013/05/14, às 20:02, Ellen Contini-Morava escreveu:

> Here is Jack's compilation of the responses to his question.  It was fun!
> Ellen
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	compilation
> Date: 	Tue, 14 May 2013 13:55:32 -0400 (EDT)
> From: 	Jack Morava <jack at chow.mat.jhu.edu>
> To: 	Ellen L. Contini-Morava <contini at virginia.edu>
> 
> 
> ``Your paper fills a badly needed gap in the literature'': attempt at a summary
> 
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 
> Many thanks for your responses to my query:
> 
>   I'm looking for a word, in any language, that describes
>   a person who foments conflict so as to have a role in
>   resolving it. Busybody and polarizer are in the right
>   approximate semantic range but don't seem to capture
>   the essence.
> 
> (and thanks to Ellen for help and constant good counsel). I have tried to compile
> the replies below roughly by topic, and have edited or rearranged
> many for concision; I apologize for omissions and misunderstandings.
> My occasional comments are
> 
>> 
>> behind arrows.
>> 
> 
>    ========================================
> 
>> The two following responses seem to me like bookends, boundaries of
>> the psychological phenomenon I was hoping to pin down: the first
>> hightlights its preadolescent nature, and the second demonstrates
>> how pathological it might become.
>> 
>> David Paulson's message suggest to me that what I'm asking about
>> is some kind of <firebug>.
> 
> From: Michael Silverstein <mslv at uchicago.edu>
> 
> This is a case of an ``instigator''; one has read about CIA or FBI operatives in
> such a role.  A UCLA colleague, Candy (M. H.) Goodwin, has written a lovely
> monograph on ``he said...she said'' fomenting among pre-adolescent girl groups
> where C tells A that B has said awful things about A -- and vice-versa -- and
> then steps in to become ``friend'' (and in control) of both.
> 
>> Marjorie Harness Goodwin, `He-Said-She-Said'..'
>> 
>> http://www.amazon.com/He-Said-She-Said-Social-Organization-Children-Midland/dp/0253206189
>> 
>> cf Ch 11: Instigating
>> 
>> Note that `instigator' here is used as a technical term for a very specific kind of
>> preadolescent activity; its everyday use is much less precise.
> 
>                        * * *
> 
> From: Dave Paulson <dave.paulson at temple.edu>
> 
> A few English-language perspectives from psychologists: see this Wall Street Journal
> article:
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121960882331467103.html?mod=CarJMain_topmiddle [online.wsj.com]
> 
> They describe the problem-creating person as someone with a clinical condition, known as
> Munchausen Syndrome. The article deals specifically with Munchausen in the workplace.
> 
>> DP includes further references to the classical Munchausen syndrome which I've ommitted
>> [ :( ] because they seem to me to have a different pathology (but what do I know?, sorry!).
> 
> Also, I can point to two contextual examples of this situation, where volunteer
> firefighters set buildings on fire in order to be first responders:
> 
> http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35084
> 
> http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-berks/Ex-volunteer-firefighter-Kellen-Klee-set-fire-that-destroyed-Windsor-home-in-2008-police-say/-/121418/18176552/-/1gtosm/-/index.html
> 
>                      * * *
> 
> From: Tony Phillips <tony at math.sunysb.edu>
> 
> There may be a word or an expression for it in criminal law,
> since the phenomenon is endemic in volunteer fire departments.
> 
> 
>     ======= About the interpretation of the question ==============
> 
> 
>> From <richard.senghas at sonoma.edu> Mon May 13 12:43:57 2013
> 
> ... someone who sets up a situation so that a typical (culturally or officially recognized)
> role of mediator/participant (esp. as a supposedly disinterested party) would be called
> for, and this same person would then likely be called upon to fill that role to
> ``resolve'' the situation?
> 
> Celso Alvarez Cáccamo <lxalvarz at UDC.ES>
> 
> But the nuance here is to foment ``conflict'' (and to try to solve it).  If it's only about creating
> and then solving just ``problems'', then the range broadens to all social scientists, philosophers,
> priests, programmers, and some friends.
> 
> Then there are many words for those who only enjoy the first part (Spanish ``envenenador, cizañero''), o
> or the second (``salvapatrias'', though without a previous conflict there wouldn't be anything to be saved),
> but th at's easy. The question posed by Jack Morava is trickier, it's really good.  When we all will
> start flaming each other for our political incorrectness (``You've offended my religion/country/profession/gender/ethnicity !'', then Jack will come and give us the answer. ;-) .
> 
>> Amen, my brother!
> 
> From: Michael H. Agar <magar at UMD.EDU>
> 
> Now that you mention it, there's an Austrian dialect term (Bavarian too I think), gschaftlhuber,
> which if I remember right means someone who comes into a situation and stirs things up so they can
> look important, but in fact all they do is get in the way of it going anywhere. So depends on what
> you mean by ``gaining'' I guess--does seeming important at the expense of what others are trying to
> do count as profiting from the turbulence that a person brought about? And does ``turbulence'' count
> as ``conflict?'' Probably too much of a stretch.
> 
>> My sense is that this type indeed seeks out and battens on turbulence...
> 
>> In fact I started thinking about this in the context of evolutionary biology: infections can
>> cause inflammation, but they don't usually profit from it. Could there be organisms which actually
>> benefit from the inflammation they cause?
>> 
>> The example of a marriage counselor with a sideline as divorce lawyer occurred to me; that seems
>> to capture some of the implicit chutzpah of such life forms...
> 
> 
>       ========== Koch\"offel ================
> 
> 
> From: Michael Silverstein <mslv at uchicago.edu>
> 
> There is a German and Yiddish word for this kind of person: Kochloeffel/kokhlefl 'stirring spoon'.)
> 
>                * * *
> 
> From: Richard J Senghas <richard.senghas at sonoma.edu>
> 
> Interesting German/Yiddish connection.  My father, who grew up within a German
> speaking community in Ohio, passed on to us, his children, the term pudding
> stick (in English) for a person who caused minor friction/trouble to escalate
> and draw others into the fray (especially parents/authorities).  More general
> than a tattle-tale, though it could be applied in such cases, but the individual
> wasn't then usually part of the ``solution.''
> 
>                 * * *
> 
> Martin Kaminer <martin.kaminer at GMAIL.COM>
> 
> In Yiddish, Kochleffel, literally a cooking spoon, someone who goes around
> stirring things up and then can't help but advise on their resolution.
> 
> Parodied rather wryly here - http://bit.ly/15GHqm2 [bit.ly]
> 
> While edging into the metaphorical I'm also reminded of Sylvester McMonkey
> McBean in the Dr. Seuss story ``The Sneetches''
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sneetches_and_Other_Stories#.22The_Sneetches.22
> 
> 
>               ============== shit-stirrers ======================
> 
> From: Catharine Mason <cmason.nc at gmail.com>
> 
> An "emmerdeur" is someone who "stirs up shit" and causes trouble for other
> people in an effort to make things go her or his way. I would say that the
> person is more active in the troublemaking and conniving than one might
> understand for a "pain in the ass" who is not necessarily aware of being a pain
> in the ass.
> 
>                           * * *
> 
> From: David Boromisza-Habashi <dbh at COLORADO.EDU>
> 
> In Hungarian, szarkever (``someone stirring shit'') carries similar connotations.
> 
> http://magyar-angol-szotar.hu/szarkever%C5%91.html
> Given a contentious social situation, a shit-stirrer attempts maneuver himself or herself into a position
> of control in order to make social gains or at least to claim the moral high ground.
> 
> 
>> cf Ezra Pound: Sestina: Altaforte
>> 
>> ... Loquitur: En Bertrans de Born.
>>   Dante Alighieri put this man in hell for that he was a stirrer-up of strife.
>>   Eccovi!
>>   Judge ye!
>>   Have I dug him up again?
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malebolge ( = Eighth Circle of Hell):
>> 
>> Bolgia Eight: In this trench, the souls of Deceivers who gave false or corrupted
>> advice to others for personal benefit are punished. They are constantly ablaze,
>> appearing as nothing so much as living, speaking tongues of flame.
>> 
>> Bolgia Nine: Sinners who, in life, promoted scandals, schism, and discord are
>> punished here; particularly those who caused schism within the church or within
>> politics. They are forced to walk around the circumference of the circle bearing
>> horrible, disfiguring wounds inflicted on them by a great demon with a sword...
> 
>                             * * *
> 
> From: Tony Phillips <tony at math.sunysb.edu>
> 
> The original Q has 2 parts: stirring up a problem AND taking
> credit for helping solve it. The Bolgiers don't fit part 2.
> Neither does the loeffel-guy. The syndrome must be as old as
> man. Here's Racine on Pyrrhus (in ``Andromaque''):
> 
> [Il] fait couler des pleurs qu'aussitôt il arrête.
> 
>> ? garbled diacritics, working on it
> 
>                             * * *
> 
> From: Michael Silverstein <mslv at uchicago.edu>
> 
> One does wonder now how these types are described in the Yiddish translation of
> Inferno, doesn't one!
> 
> The English nonce creation <do-goader> comes to mind.
> 
>> A hit! A palpable hit!
> 
>      =========== Shorter Suggestions ===================
> 
> From: Andrew Ranicki <A.Ranicki at ed.ac.uk>
> 
>  ``Agent provocateur'' ?
> 
>> 
>> This suggests to me someone with an explicit
>> ulterior motive, rather than a life form that
>> lives off the profits of mediating the conflicts
>> it creates - some kind of arbitrageur?...
>> 
>> Mischief-maker doesn't seem quite right either,
>> because it doesn't seem to imply involvement
>> in resolving the artificially-created conflicts.
> 
>                   * * *
> 
> From: Tim Brookes <brookes at champlain.edu>
> 
> it's like agent provocateur, but the exact
> opposite! How about agent mediateur?
> 
>> ? agent instigateur
> 
>                     * * *
> 
> From: Michael Silverstein <mslv at uchicago.edu>
> 
> Iago
> 
> From: Blake Burr <blakeburr at gmail.com>
> 
> instigator? gadfly?
> 
>                    * * *
> 
> From: Eleanor Wynn <eleanorwynn3 at gmail.com>
> 
> Agitator, provocateur, plant, operative, shill... All more troublemakers than revolutionary agents;
> Goon
> 
> From: Michael H. Agar <magar at UMD.EDU>
> 
> Lawyer?
> 
>                      * * *
> 
> From: Victoria Codella <codellav at GREENMTN.EDU>
> 
> Imperialist gave me a good chuckle...
> 
>> Hegemonist? Discordiator?
> 
>                      * * *
> 
> From: Steve Bialostok <stevebialostok at YAHOO.COM>
> 
> American president (sorry. Two words)
> 
>> ? any politician
> 
>                     * * *
> 
> From: Da Silva, Antonio B <ajbsilva at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU>
> 
> psychologist!
> 
> From: Lars v. Karstedt <lkarstedt at WEB.DE>
> 
> That's what is called a ``Technokrat'': A person who's job it is to solve
> problems that would never have come into existence without him.
> 
>                        * * *
> 
> From: D L <dlas13 at HOTMAIL.COM>
> 
> How about martyr?
> 
>                          * * *
> 
> From: E Moore Quinn <QuinnE at COFC.EDU>
> 
> I think ``missionary'' might suit,
> 
>                       * * *
> 
> From: <nicholas at ostler.net>
> 
> Two other possibilities:
> 
> agent provocateur
> 
> and (to give a more unconscious, and less insidious, example)
> remember the old saw:
> 
> ``Never employ someone who claims to be good in a crisis. They will
> create crises to be good in them.''
> 
>> This is a shiny new old saw to me!