Metaphor Shapes Our World

I recently read the book, I is an Other: The Secret Life of Metaphor and How it Shapes How We See the World. It is about how metaphor is embedded in all languages and even, as Emerson says, "Language is fossil poetry" Many words and phrases we use are actually metaphors, even though we don't always think of it that way. It's not just in phrases such as "Love is a red, red rose." (Shakespeare), but when we say things like "I don't get it." The metaphor is embedded in the phrase. We even will extend the metaphor by saying, "I don't grasp your meaning."

Metaphor is also a powerful way of shaping the way we think about things. Advertisers, politicians, newscasters know this. For example, when the US was fighting the First Gulf War, General Schwarzkopf said that a certain attack would be a "Hail Mary pass." Now that metaphor cast the US Armed Forces in the underdog role, and thus elicited more sympathy for the war by the US public. (Or at least that was the goal).

Metaphors force us to think and confront ideas in new and different ways. We use lots of metaphors implying fighting/war when we're talking about cancer, specifically. We fight, we battle, we're survivors, etc. Some studies have shown that these metaphors can have a negative effect on some patients who don't believe they're going to win. The mindset of battle can actually have a negative consequence.

My personal experience with metaphors came to a head with our new ad campaign at school. I was put off and hit hard by the phrase used: "Custom Fit Learning." Now that shouldn't have been such a hard punch to me, as I'm familiar with the concepts of individualized/differentiated learning and instruction. Somehow, those phrases did not intimidate me as much as "custom fit." That was terrifying and seemed impossible for me. It helped to think carefully about this. Do I want the opposite: "One size fits all" learning? Well, no, I don't like that, either. So after thinking about the metaphor it became clearer to me what the goal of education should be. So I see custom fit as an ongoing process, and thus seems less intimidating. The main point being that it was only when I saw the metaphor, that it got me to think more deeply and clarified what individualized/differentiated was supposed to be about, anyway.

Metaphor also is used by students who receive a grade. "I got an A." As a teacher, I have thought about "giving the student a grade." The downside is it implies that the student is given the grade and the teacher is giving, which is top-down. The teacher is higher and handing the grade down. It can even imply, at least in many students' thinking that I've noticed, that the student has no control over the grade. I've been thanked for giving a certain grade and I try to explain that it was their work and effort. Now, I'm thinking about a different metaphor for grading. How about "show"? I guess the fancy word is "demonstrated", but I think it easier for students to think of "showing" or "displaying" something. The responsibility then shifts from teacher to student. It also takes some of the stigma off a grade, I think. The student may be a great reader, but write little and talk little about their reading. If we let the metaphor of "show" sink in to the culture at large, the student, and parents hopefully, will understand that low grade in reading is only on what they have "shown" or "displayed." As I say to students often, "I'm not a mind reader. I can only go by what you show me. If you hand me a blank page, well I don't have much of a choice, do I?" I really wonder

how different parents and students would react to a grade if they really thought of it as something "shown" and not "given."

On Hypocrisy

In the most recent Reader's Digest, Margaret Wente writes about David Suzuki - "Canada's Prophet of Doom". It talks about his opposition to Kyoto - even though to fully implement will meant bankrupting Canada's economy. He also opposes genetic modified foods -which he should know are really the only key to fighting hunger around the world. I wonder how consistent he is with his beliefs? George W. Bush, Suzuki says, is "the ultimate eco-terrorist on the planet." I wonder what Suzuki would say if he knew that the Bush ranch is eco-friendly? I wonder how cosistent Suzuki's beliefs are with his lifestyle.


This article made me think of a book I have just finished reading. It details how US liberals actually live and make their money. Michael Moore, for example, talks about how he owns no stock, but actually owns quite a bit. He even owns stock in the very companies and corporations that he speaks against, like Halliburton. I have had such a struggle with Michael Moore since his last "documentary" - Farenheit 9/11. When he tried to get senators to sign up their own kids into the army, I felt like shouting at him: "But parents CAN'T sign up their own kids in an all VOLUNTEER army!!!!" His criticisms of the war were criticisms of war in general. He actually had very little to say about the war in Iraq, other that the oil connections - which is no news to anyone. It was there that I lost most of the respect that I had for Michael Moore, or whatever was left of it. I have a copy of Stupid White Men which I will hand over for free to whomever asks for it, by the way - I found his prose even more irritating than the movies. The only thing he did that I'm hanging on to is Canadian Bacon, which is a really funny movie...

The books basic premise is that the major liberal spokes people like, Ralph Nader, Moore, Barbara Streisand, Noam Chomsky and Al Franken fail to live the anti-capitalist lifestyle that they say they do. None of them are doing what they're saying, in other words.

The book is a fun read, although I do want to say I'm taking it with a grain of salt. I found it very interesting that the hypocrisies are so dramatic, though.

Bibliography:

Schweizer, Peter. Do As I Say (Not As I Do). New York: Doubleday, c 2005

Wente, Margaret. "Canada's Prophet of Doom" Reader's Digest (Canada), April 2006, pp 135-138.