Metaphors are the way we understand the world. “The business has taken off lately.” “We’re struggling to keep a lid on things.” Often we use them without even realising that they are metaphors, so completely mixing up the concept and the physical reality. It’s natural that we do so given an infinitely complex world. We need ways of simplifying it. We should be careful however in which metaphors we choose to describe ourselves and the world around us.
Spatial metaphors — “She considers it beneath her.” “I’m going to pass this along.” “She’s made it to the top.” — are what constructs society’s shape. Would it make a difference if we rearranged them? What if the top was disempowered and the bottom was rich and gilded. Would it change the way we felt about where we stood? If we weren’t capable of using these spatial metaphors to describe one’s relationship to society would we still employ hierarchies to coordinate organisations?
Emotions aren’t physical forces that occur in direct proportion to something that happens. They arise because the real world is mediated by metaphors that create them. We’re most attached to the metaphors that compose our identities. The constructs like “hero” and “warrior” or “dirt” and “nothing”. The terms we label ourselves with are rarely literally true. They are images employed to convey a feeling and idea that shares a truth with the thing we’re describing. So motivation is generally fuelled by the application of one of these labels rather than the actual benefits. It’s the idea of being “clean and fit” that has more draw than the rational advantage of longer lifespan or reduced health risks.
Our relationships and politics are built on this method of understand the world. Immigration in particular is often described using natural metaphors — migrants appear in “floods” or “waves”. In politics we’re seeking to claim something for our own identities through the system, so we find most inspiring the leaders that provide us with images of strength. Our arguments for our beliefs are often backwards rationalisations for what makes us or our political team feel morally righteous rather than a consideration of the other party. For example whether a riot is justified political action or mindless violence depends on whether you have to admit fault in your actions as a causal effect.
“Reach into every home in Britain” was a metaphor I heard in a speech by David Cameron about terrorism. It’s a very powerful image of an arm snaking unperturbed into your private space. The natural reaction to this is to want to fortify one’s ego and regain that strength.
So we need to be careful what we imagine. There’s no way we can do without metaphor as our means of processing. It’s healthy and right that we use them. But we should be aware of the process of turning reality into imagery and the feelings that result. It’s important to always keep in mind that the map is not the territory and the metaphor image is just imaginative reality.
