In the book Metaphors We Live By, authors George Lakoff and Mark Johnson address the traditional philosophic view denouncing metaphor's influence on our world and our selves (ix). Using linguistic and sociological evidence, Lakoff and Johnson claim that figurative language performs essential functions beyond those found in poetry, cliché, and elaborate turns of phrase. Metaphor permeates our daily experiences - not only through systems of language, but also in terms of the way we think and act. The key to understanding a metaphor's effect on behavior, relationships, and how we make sense of our environment, can be found in the way humans use metaphorical language. To appreciate the affects of figurative language over even the most mundane details of our daily activity, it is necessary to define the term, "metaphor" and explain its role in defining the thoughts and actions that structure our conceptual system.
According to Lakoff and Johnson, "the essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another" (5). This definition extends to any symbolic type of expressions, like the concept of hate, the spatial direction "up", or the experience of inflation. When our most important life experiences are often too abstract for basic understanding, we attempt to capture the nature of the experience by placing it in a relevant and more easily recognizable context. Three basic types of metaphor are used to, "conceptualize the less clearly delineated in terms of the more clearly delineated"(59). These are: the orientational metaphor, the ontological metaphor, and the structural metaphor.
Orientational metaphor organizes concepts by giving them a spatial orientation. These metaphoric representations are not random; they are based on the structure of our bodies, and how we physically interact in a specific culture or environment. Metaphors like "I'm falling asleep," "he dropped dead," and, "You are under my control" provide a spatial relationship between the human subject and something found in the world. The authors explain that, while directional oppositions (up-down, in-out, front-back, etc.) are physical in nature, they aren't always the same for every culture. For example, while some cultures may see the future as ahead of us, others view it as behind us (14).
Ontological metaphors involve ways of viewing intangible concepts, such as feelings, activities, and ideas as entities. When we identify these experiences as substances, we can "refer to them, categorize them, group them, and quantify them - and, by this means, reason about them" (25). "We need to combat inflation," "We are working toward peace," and "I can't keep up with the pace of modern life" are all ways of referring to an experience that is otherwise indefinable. Most of these ideas are so fundamental to our thought and language, that we don't often identify them as metaphors.
For Lakoff and Johnson, structural metaphors are the most complex of the three types of comparison, requiring us to transfer one basic domain of experience to another basic domain (117). To illustrate this theory, we will examine the structural metaphor "Argument is War." In this example, we reframe the verbal discourse of an argument in terms of the physical conflict of war. An argument evolves when we impose the experience of war onto the experience of conversation. We know from our familiarity with conversations that a relationship between a listener and speaker must exist. Most often, people greet one another, introduce a topic, and take turns talking and listening. This creates a dialogue, whether for the purposes of social or intellectual exchange, which is finished when those involved in the discussion part company. If we impose the characteristics of war (physical conflict and violence) onto the elements of conversation, we get a special type of discussion, known as argument.
In the structure of an argument, participants begin by disagreeing about a subject. Next, they defend their point of view through verbal statements until they reach some sort of conclusion. This could be a truce, a stalemate, or even giving up in frustration. In our culture, arguments are used to attain victory, usually through successful defense and domination of our point of view. The metaphor, "Argument is War," functions not only in the realm of figurative language, but also in our behavior toward the concept of an argument.
As Lakoff and Johnson contend, "we talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them that way - and we act according to the way we conceive things" (5). Although we may not engage in physical battle, many of our actions reflect the structured concept of war. Our behavior is ordered in terms of this metaphor when we use expressions like, "he attacked every weak point in my argument," and "I've never won an argument with him." We conceptualize, view, speak about, and understand arguments in terms of warfare when we attack another's point-of-view to defend our own, plan strategies of argument, and view others as winners or losers of a discussion (4).
Metaphors like these are not created arbitrarily. They "are grounded in our constant interaction with our physical and cultural environments" (119). This means that the kinds of metaphors we establish are a result of how we view the world, and not all perceptions are the same. In selecting the metaphors we live by, either consciously or unconsciously, we are choosing and creating our reality. When we decide to highlight certain aspects of these metaphors and conceal the features we find less consistent, we subtly reveal what is most important in our lives (10).
In the instance of, "Argument is War," a conversation's emotional tension, violence, and strategic victory are emphasized over the equally important conversational traits of growth, understanding, and cooperation. The emphasis given to mental superiority in a metaphor like this suggests a person or society in which value is placed on those with strength, and competitive edge. A political system based on this metaphor might be designed in a way that rewards the most aggressive and persistent citizens, at the expensive of the weak. However, if the conceptual structure of an argument were different, the metaphors that accompanied the idea of arguing would also change.
For example, if a person believed that the purpose of argument was to work in partnership to form new and better opinions on a topic, we might combine the domain of conversation with the domain of teamwork, creating the metaphor "Argument is Cooperation." This metaphor would accentuate the nurturing, collaborative elements associated with the act of arguing, while de-emphasizing violence and opposition. A society or people that embraced these ideas could be structured to support solidarity, collaborative improvement, and constant renovation. Its political organization might be communistic and progressive in nature, its politicians collaborating to provide for each member of the community.
Using these examples, we can see that different metaphors affect behavior and actions in different ways, and that the metaphors we choose - whether consciously or subconsciously - define our conceptual system. This makes language an accurate means of assessment when examining our fundamental cultural values and attitudes. The idea that a variety of cultures can co-exist on conflicting metaphorical constructions rejects, "the possibility of any objective or absolute truth, and a host of related assumptions" (x). Instead, the evidence Lakoff and Johnson provide, celebrates the varieties of complex meaning found in our world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|