Depravity is the effect of boredom
by Prof Dr Sohail Ansari ‘“All generalizations are false, including this one.” “Every one of your (people) is
responsible, and everyone is responsible for whatever falls under his
responsibility. A man is like a shepherd of his own family, and he is
responsible for them”(Bukhari
and Muslim).
Creative engagements are to be devised
·
Intelligent children
are dangerous. Creative engagements are to be devised for them because often
the depravity on their part is merely the effect of boredom.
In the News - Metaphor
Published on 28 July 2013
Metaphor
allows us to talk about things in a descriptive or poetic way, and gives us a
fresh way of thinking about something. Take Jacques' opening monologue in As You Like It - "All
the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." This
comparison of life to a play could inspire many different interpretations,
perhaps giving us a powerful impression of our place in the world, or the
brevity of life.
However,
metaphors aren't merely a part of the language we use. They shape the very way
in which we think. In Metaphors
We Live By, Lakoff and Johnson discuss the example of arguments, which we
often talk about as though they were similar to war – 'His argument was blown
out of the water', 'They battled for hours', 'She won the argument'. They call
these overarching metaphors – such as ARGUMENT IS WAR – conceptual metaphors.
These 'organising' metaphors are so deeply embedded in our way of thinking that
they seem quite natural to us. However, Lakoff and Johnson suggest that these
conceptual metaphors are not beyond change – could life be quite different if,
for example, we saw arguments through a conceptual metaphor of ARGUMENT IS
DANCE?
When
we stop to think about the influence of metaphor, we realise that it is
inescapable, and extremely influential. How many relationships have ABBA ruined
with their conceptual metaphor of RELATIONSHIPS ARE A GAME in 'The Winner Takes
It All'? Use of metaphor in this way can have a profound ideological effect due
to the ease with which we understand and take up new metaphors. Below are a few
examples of metaphor gathered from the Language in Conflict Twitter feed.
Think about how these metaphors affect our perception of the world around us.
Can you think of alternative conceptual metaphors that might allow us to think
about subjects in a different way?
·
IMMIGRANTS ARE INVADERS – the likening of immigration to an
invasion, or even a natural disaster, is very common. In spite of the
sensitivity of this topic, we are accustomed to hearing about 'floods of
immigrants', 'deluges of foreigners' and 'invasions from abroad'. The possible
dehumanising effects of such metaphorical language are discussed in a Guardian article,
as well as the fact that the use of the IMMIGRANTS ARE INVADERS metaphor tends
to be hyperbolic and melodramatic. The press's use of this metaphor has also
received linguistic attention in a paper by Gabrielatos and Baker (2008).
·
Gun metaphors – a recent NPR programme discusses the prominence of
gun-oriented phrases in our language – 'shooting from the hip', 'delivering the
silver bullet', 'biting the bullet'. This metaphorical language has even been
used in political discussion regarding the control of gun violence in the
United States, with Vice President Joe Biden suggesting that "there is no
silver bullet" for the situation, and saying "I'm shooting for
Tuesday" in response to a question regarding when new proposals might be
made. On the programme, Katherine Connor Martin suggests that the readiness
with which we use these metaphors could serve to demean the seriousness of
instances when phrases like 'coming under fire' might have a very literal, real
use.
·
POLITICS IS A GAME – metaphors comparing politics to a game
might be seen to be quite damaging. Some might suggest that such important
matters should not be treated as though they are as trivial as a simple game,
while others might feel that the idea of politicians 'competing' with each
other and trying to 'win', rather than seeking to achieve positive things for
their electorate through cooperation, seems rather unhealthy. However, a recent Guardian editorial noted that the POLITICS IS A GAME
metaphor has a long history, reflecting on Major Streatfield's recent
comparison of the political situation in Afghanistan to a cricket match –
"We put the Taliban into bat in 2001 and took a flurry of early
wickets...with half an hour to play we find ourselves some runs short."
Metaphor and simile
Studies
such as Lakoff and Johnson's Metaphors We Live By take a cognitive approach to metaphor.
This approach suggests that metaphor is not only a means of describing
things in a literary way, but that it also acts as the basis for the way we
conceive the world around us, and how we act and interact within it. Metaphor allows us not only to talk about one
thing in terms of another, but to experience one thing in terms of how we
experience something else. For example, we don't just say 'Your position is
indefensible' or 'I blew him out of the water' to note the similarities between
arguments and war; we actually experience arguments as though they are similar
to wars.
The
cognitive view suggests that readers and hearers are able to process the
meanings of conventional metaphors – LIFE IS A JOURNEY or IDEAS ARE FOOD -
just as easily as more literal language. Indeed, we might struggle to actually
talk about life or ideas without metaphors like 'She reached the end of her days',
'They were just setting out in life', 'The students fed off the ideas of the
linguist'. Some scholars have suggested that we find metaphors easy to understand because we think in terms of them. This could explain
why we have no more trouble understanding the statement 'Everyone will need to
tighten their belts during these tough times for the economy' than we would
'Everyone will have to be careful to not spend too much money during these
tough times for the economy'.
Just as Lakoff and Johnson
(1980) argue that our conceptions of the world around us and metaphor are inextricable, so other researchers
have argued that ideology – the ways in which we see the world, shared by
different members of society – is embedded in our world view (Jeffries, 2010).
If both metaphor and ideology play a part in shaping our
outlook, then it seems quite possible that the two could come together to
affect the way we think about things. An article on the use of metaphor to talk about the economy suggests that
this is the case with the metaphor THE ECONOMY IS A MACHINE: such is the
pervasiveness of metaphors such as 'Greece must kick-start its
economy', 'The European economy has broken down' or 'Attempts are being made to
fix the American economy' that we might struggle to view economic matters in
any other way. This could cause problems: we are used to being able to control
machines, but the economy is something so enormous and conceptual that the idea
of it being something we can control could be seen to be hubristic.
|
Spotting metaphor and
simile
One of the examples of a conceptual metaphor that Lakoff and Johnson discuss in Metaphors We Live By is ARGUMENT IS WAR. They suggest that this metaphor is so embedded in our way of understanding the world that we don't even see phrases such as 'He destroyed his argument' or 'I blew his suggestions out of the water' as metaphorical. Lakoff and Johnson even suggest that our whole concept of arguments would be completely different if we understood them in terms of a conceptual metaphor such as ARGUMENT IS A DANCE. While you might find it hard to imagine thinking of arguments in this way, take note of the way that arguments are talked about – 'He defended his position', 'He was defeated by her greater logic' – and consider whether these metaphors affect how we experience this particular type of interaction. Or, when you next find yourself in an argument, think about whether and how your experience of it is shaped by the WAR metaphor! |
In the News - Opposition
Published on 12 August 2013
Oppositions
seem to be fundamental to the way we think about the world around us. Left/right, black/white,
hot/cold –
we recognise these as opposites from a very young age, and few of us would
argue that they represent binaries. Indeed, there is a linguistic name for
these types of opposites – antonyms, pairs of words which share a relationship
of opposition with each other.
We do not only find linguistic evidence of opposition in pairs of single words. Certain opposition frames – for example, it was X, not Y – allow us not only to express relationships of opposition between 'conventional' opposites such as night and day, but also between original, constructed opposites. In Language in Conflict workshops, much fun has been had getting pairs of participants to write down a noun each, then place these nouns into an opposition frame. This has led to constructed oppositions such as it was pavement, not love and he wanted anarchy, she wanted trams. Notice that however odd these oppositions might seem, we automatically seek to imagine some way in which they might be opposite – perhaps the first example is talking about something that was mundane rather than passion-inducing; perhaps the second example describes one person craving chaos and disorder, the second structure and stability?
Below are a few examples of opposition gathered from the Language in Conflict Twitter feed. Each highlights a different aspect of the possible (mis)uses of opposition. As you read through them, think about how the different examples demonstrate the power of opposition for shaping how we perceive the world.
Speakers and writers can make use of our understanding of opposition, and use it to create powerful rhetoric. Barack Obama, a politician well-known for his rhetorical abilities, makes frequent use of opposition structures in his public speaking. In her analysis of Obama's inaugural speech in 2013, Biljana Scott notes his use of not X but Y frames. For example, in his discussion of climate issues, Obama stresses that "America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it." Here, Obama marks a clear opposition between 'resist' and 'lead'. Note that this is not a conventional opposition; however, by placing resist and lead in an opposition frame, Obama is able to stress that the former is 'undesirable' or 'bad', and the latter 'desirable' or 'good'. The simplicity of this approach is underlined in his words on health policy, in which he states that the kind of reforms he wants to see "do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great." Again, we see that one element is clearly negative ('a nation of takers'), and the other positive (being free to take risks). Here, opposition is being used not only to try to rally people onto one side of an argument, but also to depict the argument as a simple two-sided affair in the first place.
New oppositions can also be constructed by taking single words not usually seen as antonymous, and making them so. A recent article by Stephen Reid on nef notes how a lot of the debate about benefits cuts in the UK has centred on the notion of skivers and strivers: the former being those who work hard and help support the economy, the latter those who take advantage of apparently generous benefits, and who contribute nothing themselves. This creates a very simplistic picture of the population of an entire nation: each citizen is either one or the other (and again notice that one is 'good' and the other 'bad'). As Reid notes, use of skivers and strivers rhetoric by politicians and the media "divides people against each other and creates a scapegoat."
The news of Margaret Thatcher's death in April prompted much revisiting and analysis of her political career and beliefs. Appropriately, perhaps, for such a divisive figure, Thatcher made ample use of opposition in her political speech. For example, the former Conservative leader is famous for declaring that "There is no such thing as society." Less frequently noted is that this statement was one half of a constructed opposite, in which Thatcher went on to suggest that "There are individual men and women, and there are families." This second part of Thatcher's statement added emphasis to this take on citizenship: the very things (men, women, families) that many would suggest make up society were placed in opposition to the very idea of society, hammering home her point. Elsewhere, Thatcher's insistence that "I am not a consensus politician. I am a conviction politician" creates a powerful statement of her political character. By placing consensus and conviction in plain opposition, Thatcher suggested that her will was so great that other, possibly opposing, views were unnecessary!
We do not only find linguistic evidence of opposition in pairs of single words. Certain opposition frames – for example, it was X, not Y – allow us not only to express relationships of opposition between 'conventional' opposites such as night and day, but also between original, constructed opposites. In Language in Conflict workshops, much fun has been had getting pairs of participants to write down a noun each, then place these nouns into an opposition frame. This has led to constructed oppositions such as it was pavement, not love and he wanted anarchy, she wanted trams. Notice that however odd these oppositions might seem, we automatically seek to imagine some way in which they might be opposite – perhaps the first example is talking about something that was mundane rather than passion-inducing; perhaps the second example describes one person craving chaos and disorder, the second structure and stability?
Below are a few examples of opposition gathered from the Language in Conflict Twitter feed. Each highlights a different aspect of the possible (mis)uses of opposition. As you read through them, think about how the different examples demonstrate the power of opposition for shaping how we perceive the world.
Speakers and writers can make use of our understanding of opposition, and use it to create powerful rhetoric. Barack Obama, a politician well-known for his rhetorical abilities, makes frequent use of opposition structures in his public speaking. In her analysis of Obama's inaugural speech in 2013, Biljana Scott notes his use of not X but Y frames. For example, in his discussion of climate issues, Obama stresses that "America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it." Here, Obama marks a clear opposition between 'resist' and 'lead'. Note that this is not a conventional opposition; however, by placing resist and lead in an opposition frame, Obama is able to stress that the former is 'undesirable' or 'bad', and the latter 'desirable' or 'good'. The simplicity of this approach is underlined in his words on health policy, in which he states that the kind of reforms he wants to see "do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great." Again, we see that one element is clearly negative ('a nation of takers'), and the other positive (being free to take risks). Here, opposition is being used not only to try to rally people onto one side of an argument, but also to depict the argument as a simple two-sided affair in the first place.
New oppositions can also be constructed by taking single words not usually seen as antonymous, and making them so. A recent article by Stephen Reid on nef notes how a lot of the debate about benefits cuts in the UK has centred on the notion of skivers and strivers: the former being those who work hard and help support the economy, the latter those who take advantage of apparently generous benefits, and who contribute nothing themselves. This creates a very simplistic picture of the population of an entire nation: each citizen is either one or the other (and again notice that one is 'good' and the other 'bad'). As Reid notes, use of skivers and strivers rhetoric by politicians and the media "divides people against each other and creates a scapegoat."
The news of Margaret Thatcher's death in April prompted much revisiting and analysis of her political career and beliefs. Appropriately, perhaps, for such a divisive figure, Thatcher made ample use of opposition in her political speech. For example, the former Conservative leader is famous for declaring that "There is no such thing as society." Less frequently noted is that this statement was one half of a constructed opposite, in which Thatcher went on to suggest that "There are individual men and women, and there are families." This second part of Thatcher's statement added emphasis to this take on citizenship: the very things (men, women, families) that many would suggest make up society were placed in opposition to the very idea of society, hammering home her point. Elsewhere, Thatcher's insistence that "I am not a consensus politician. I am a conviction politician" creates a powerful statement of her political character. By placing consensus and conviction in plain opposition, Thatcher suggested that her will was so great that other, possibly opposing, views were unnecessary!
Comments
Post a Comment