Arguing for an alternative metaphor

In their book, Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson say American culture views arguments in terms of physical battle, and that this is revealed in the way we talk about arguing. We say things like: “He attacked every weak point; His criticisms were right on target; With that strategy, she’ll wipe you out; She shot down all the arguments.”

Lakoff and Johnson say our view of “argument is war” goes far beyond our methods of speech, into our behaviors. They say “it structures the actions we perform in arguing.” Attacking and defending become the order of the day, and feelings of gaining or losing ground are inseparable from the issues under discussion.

“The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another,” say Lakoff and Johnson. They note that quite a lot of us may never consciously associate argument with war, but the fact remains that “argument is partially structured, understood, performed, and talked about in terms of war,” and it is, in the U.S., the “ordinary way of having an argument and talking about one.”

So when republicans and democrats see each other as opponents to be stomped into the dirt, it may not only be out of cussedness, or a quirky desire to be as ineffective as is humanly possible. It may in part be due to the fact that our country is currently lacking a metaphor for argument that could help them out.

Right now they see anybody who disagrees as an opponent, and they face every discussion in terms of beating the other side or getting beaten. What we need is a metaphor that would allow for clearer thinking. Something that promotes a point of view where solving problems is winning, and not solving problems is losing.

Something to get rid of the attitude that says, “I will do any stupid, counterproductive, devastatingly backwards, chuckleheaded, and ill-informed thing as long as my team came up with it, because that’s still winning.”

Lakoff and Johnson talk about what arguments would be like in a culture where “argument is dance” replaces “argument is war.” For one thing, winning wouldn’t be destruction of the other person or group – it would be figuring out how to get better and better at keeping things moving despite differences.

They wrote the book in 1979, and an Afterword in 2003, where they express frustration at those who see metaphors as “a mere matter of words” and not as something that shapes thought and behavior. They point out that if one spouse’s metaphorical concept for marriage is of a partnership forging ahead, and the other spouse’s concept is marriage as a haven from the outside world, the thoughts and behaviors shaped by those metaphors will be very different. “Because we reason in terms of metaphor, the metaphors we use determine a great deal about how we live our lives.”

Well, I’m game. If adopting a different metaphor for argument has a microscopic chance of helping Congress put their heads together on wars, the economy and healthcare, I’m for it.

Dancing is good. We need a new rhythm for moving forward.