Xref: utzoo comp.ai:8390 sci.lang:8589 sci.psychology:4097
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!oravax!daryl
From: daryl@oravax.UUCP (Steven Daryl McCullough)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.lang,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Metaphors, Information and War
Summary: Metaphor as a major role in shaping US response to Iraq is mostly bunk.
Keywords: metaphor, analogy
Message-ID: <2015@oravax.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jan 91 20:56:46 GMT
References: <801@keele.keele.ac.uk> <802@keele.keele.ac.uk> <26303@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Organization: ORA Corporation, Ithaca NY
Lines: 89

In article <26303@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, bougie@pine.circa.ufl.edu (BRO) writes:
> 	Lakoff is pointing out that while metaphor is a very useful means
> of simplifying reasoning (analogy) it is also capable of misleading us into
> oversimplifications.  I'm not going to claim that Bush, Baker, Azziz & co. 
> do not and cannot see the schematicity of their metaphors (nor that they do 
> and can!) but public opinion to a large extent seems to be content with
> the "truth" that war=a game, Saddam=Iraq (state=person), or Sadam=dragon &
> US=white knight & Kuwait=damsel in distress. It just *ain't that simple*!!

Lakoff's analysis seems to me to be trite, superficial, and insulting.
It assumes great stupidity on the part of nearly everyone except
himself: of course ordinary people can't handle subtlety. Do you (or
Lakoff) really have evidence that people are unaware of the
complexities of the Persian Gulf situation? If Lakoff is taking the
oversimplification of slogans such as "We can't reward aggression" and
"Saddam Hussein is the equivalent of Hitler" as evidence for
superficiality of thought, I believe he is making an error. It is in
the nature of slogans to be simplistic; on the other side of the fence
on this issue is the equally simplistic slogan "No Blood for Oil!"

In my opinion, the kind of "psychologizing" that Lakoff is engaging in
is the absolute *worst* thing one can do for meaningful political
debate.  Rather than discussing issues of what we want to accomplish
and how best to accomplish it, we are reduced to discussing
psychological quirks and personalities. I think a Freudian analysis is
just as bad, for the same reason. ("Margaret Thatcher sent the military
to Falklands out of penis envy." or "Men like missiles because they are
phallic symbols.")

A few points about the particular metaphors that Lakoff brings up:

(1) War = a game

There are certainly are senses in which this is an apt metaphor. Both
involve strategy, have teams, have an objective, etc. These analogies
are *not* coincidental, since many games, such as football, chess,
soccer, boxing, etc. were invented as metaphors for war. There are
certainly ways in which war is not like any game, namely the fact that
many people get killed, and a team may not be punished for breaking
the rules.

Rather than saying simply that "War= a game" is a bad metaphor, Lakoff
could contribute something real to the debate if he pointed out some
particular mistakes people were making based on a faulty use of this
metaphor. A possible mistake is to assume that "Those people on my
team are people I can trust", which is certainly wrong in the case of
certain allies such as Syria.

(2) Saddam = Iraq

This is a pretty lame example for Lakoff. People only believe this
metaphor to the extent that it is appropriate. Saddam Hussein *is*
Iraq to the extent that his will determines whether Iraq invades or
withdraws from Kuwait, etc. To get Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, it is
Saddam Hussein who must be convinced, not the average Iraqi citizen.
In what sense has this metaphor misled anyone?

(3) Saddam=dragon, US = white knight, Kuwait= damsel in distress.

Another lame example. I don't think anyone believes this analogy
except in the most obvious sense. Once again, if you claim "It just
*ain't that simple*!!" tell us how people are being misled by the
analogy.

> 	CNN reported that while 51% of Americans (when asked point-blank)
> are in favor of going to war with Iraq, that figure drops to something like
> 30% when they're asked if getting Iraq out of Kuwait is worth 1000 American 
> lives.  That %age drops to around 15% if you postulate 20,000 dead.  Deaths
> just don't seem to be part of the war=game metaphor and it's too easy to 
> forget!  The game metaphor also makes it too easy to forget about the "post-
> game" situation.  It is NOT all over once the fat lady sings!

Your evidence doesn't back up your claims. The poll quite obviously
indicates that people are willing to risk lives to get Iraq out of
Kuwait, but aren't willing to lose a large number. How does this show
that people are being misled by the "game" metaphor? If anything, it
shows that people are overconfident of US military prowess to think
that a war can be won with a small number of American casualties. It
*is* a serious problem if people have an unrealistic expectation of
the costs of war, but there is no evidence that metaphorical thinking
caused this state of affairs.

> 	In sum, I don't think it is a good idea to underestimate the role
> of metaphor in reasoning.  It can play a causal role.  Lakoff's analysis
> cannot be brushed off so easily.

Yes, it can. Quite easily.

Daryl McCullough