Why then according to my intuition should one be

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: d makes metaphors a powerful rhetoric device used in political propaganda in order to influence the public opinion. Lakoff (199216) in his widely circulated, Internet-published paper analyses the system of metaphors used to justify the First War in the Gulf. He identifies a series of metaphors, two of which are most strongly juxtaposed, i.e. WAR IS POLITICS and WAR IS A VIOLENT CRIME. Lakoff claims that the Clausewitzian definition of war as politics pursued by other means has a metaphorical basis and justifies it in the following way: Clausewitz’s metaphor is commonly seen as literally true. We are now in a position to see exactly what makes it metaphorical. First, it uses Stateas-Person metaphor. Second, it turns qualitative effects of human beings into quantifiable costs and gains, thus seeing political action as economics. Third, it sees rationality as profit-making. Fourth, it sees war in terms of only one dimension of war, that of political expediency, which is in turn conceptualized as business.17 16 This paper has been first distributed via electronic mail starting on December 31, 1990. Then it was delivered to an audience at the University of California at Berkeley. Finally it was published in Pütz (1992). 17 This paper is an html document without page numbers, so I am unable to give any more exact reference than the year already quoted. The concept of ‘war’ in the humanities 103 I disagree with labelling WAR IS POLITICS metaphor, as I see both ‘war’ and ‘diplomacy’ as parts of conducting politics, not as separate domains. Simultaneously, the definition of metaphor Lakoff also seemed to adhere to, at least in 1980, sees it as a mapping from one discrete domain to another and not between parts of the same domain. Still, even I admit that there exists a metaphor POLITICS IS WAR, as evidenced in ‘attacks on the leader’ and ‘battles between party fractions’. Why, then, according to my intuition, should one be possible, but not the other? The difference primarily lies, I believe, in constructing ‘politics’ mostly in terms of performative speech acts: statements, declarations, international agreements. So that if we accept the well-evidenced metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR (posited by Lakoff – Johnson as early as 1980), and if we conceive of politics mostly as conducted through argumentation, then, by extension, politics can be seen as war, but only through the mediation of ARGUMENT IS WAR. As mentioned in Section 3 of this chapter, Lenin reformulated the Clausewitzian definition into “politics is a way to conduct war by other means”, neither of which is for me metaphorical. Lenin’s formula may be an ironical play on a well-known cliché, but not every implementation of rhetoric must necessarily result from conceptual metaphor. Also the major point that Lakoff makes, i.e. that war as politics hides the immoral aspect of war, does not have to result from its metaphoricity. Any fossilised expression may have this effect. I admit, however, that it may be the case that I have internalised the Clausewitzian metaphor so thoroughly that I cannot see its metaphoricity. Yet, I can see through it, and the immorality of killing others is not lost on me. A way out of this conundrum may b...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online