Key metaphoric frames conditioning policy

Metaphor and the Language of Futures (Part #6)

It might seem to be unnecessary to explore the language of policy-makers, but it is useful to note the limited number of linguistic devices through which policy initiatives are articulated. It is also important to recognize how much of organization jargon was developed by the Catholic religious orders from the 10th to 15th century. Terms like general assembly, commission, congress, committee, "ordre du jour", and ministry all derive from that context (34).

(a) Container

Much conceptualization is carried out within frameworks dependent on the understanding of directionality implicit in: to and from; up and down; in and out; centre and periphery. Lakoff and Johnson refer to these as orientational metaphors (5, p 14). Both to/from and in/out are vital to any understanding of relationships across boundaries including transfers of any kind. Up/down are currently basic to understanding of levels of development of resources and the success of any initiative. Centre/periphery are important to recognition of any source of control. But as Lakoff and Johnson stress, though such polar oppositions "are physical in nature, the orientational metaphors based on them can vary from culture to culture. For example, in some cultures the future is in front of us, whereas in others it is in the back" (5, p. 14)

The container metaphor has been the subject of a number of studies. Individuals readily perceive themselves as bounded containers. We project our own in-out orientation onto other physical objects that are bounded by surfaces, as well as onto the natural environment even when there are no clear boundaries. Both the visual and conceptual fields are dealt with as containers. What conditioning is implicit in "out of the past" and "into the future".

Understanding of "futures" is thus constrained through understanding it as a "field", as in "futures field", or a study "in the field". Input/Output models depend heavily on the definition of bounded containers. It may be argued that a neat matrix -- so essential to many futures presentations -- constitutes a neat pattern of fields. This raises questions about its context as a window on reality.

One important variant is the so-called conduit metaphor, notably implict in discussion of communication processes (channels, pathways, etc). In his analysis of it, Michael J Reddy argues: "This model of communication objectifies meaning in a misleading and dehumanizing fashion. It influences us to talk and think about thoughts as if they had the same kind of external, intersubjective reality as lamps and tables". And also: "to the extent that the conduit metaphor does see communication as requiring some slight expenditure of energy, it localizes this expenditure almost totally in the speaker or writer. The function of the reader or listener is trivialized." (35, p. 308)

(b) Construct

Much use is made in futures literature of an implicit construction or construct metaphor that draws its advantages from the mechanical unambiguousness of building. References to "frameworks", "building the future", "institution building", are of this kind. "Scenario" and "model" may also be used with such implications.

Slaughter has made explicit use of the "architectural metaphor" to demonstrate that social structure (customs, laws, language, symbols, etc), as a superstructure, rests on a hidden structure (norms, assumptions, etc) namely foundations. "This makes it abundantly clear why superficial analyses often fail: they only consider surface structures." (36, p. 454). Although construct metaphors reveal "levels" and structures, they de-emphasize dynamic connections. To what extent is futures thinking prone to inappropriateness equivalent to the construction of ranks of high rise buildings without any recreational facilities?

(c) Skill

Skills may be used metaphorically to highlight a particular approach, at the same time obscuring others. Thus "cultural editing" suggests limited and partial views, whilst also pointing towards the active processes of meaning-making and meaning limitation. Treating information as an editable text, however also raises the issue of uneditable texts (sacred books, laws, etc.)

Negotiation as a skill has been used metaphorically in the term "negotiated meanings". This suggests that meanings lend themselves to negotiation in the same way as tangible and behavioural concerns. But because they are less measurable in practice, such meanings are less stable than the metaphor implies. It has been said of metaphors thay they negotiate the inability of any philosophy to rid itself of the subjective and erect a purely objective view of the world.

Mapping as a skill, and the "future maps" that are produced, imply a degree of objectivity in such mental maps which may be quite insensitive to the significant variations in subjective interpretations. On mapping, Sternberg et al argue that "it seems plausible that highly verbal or literate individuals might prefer larger between-subspaces than do less verbal or literate individuals." (14, p. 345)

Study itself, as in "futures study", is used metaphorically to imply that the most legitimate approache to the future is in a study mode. There is therefore a conflict with efforts at "innovating", "inventing", or "imagining" the future, or educating people about the future, since these may call upon other faculties. Such approaches can then only be taken into account when they are "studied". This issue may be one of the constraints on the future development of the World Futures Studies Federation -- it can only study the use imagination by others, rather than articulate a discipline for the imagination.

(d) Dynamic

"Network" has played a significant role in recent decades as a metaphor for doing whatever compensated for the defects of hierarchy, hence "networking". That it's use has been primarily metaphorical is seen from the total lack of interest in mapping out the networks in question. As a further reaction to structural inadequacies, it is to be expected that more dynamic metaphors will emerge from the natural sciences. "Chaos" may take on this role -- and, in response to it, "sustainability". Use of the latter already functions as a carry-all for a very wide spectrum of definitions. Rethinking provoked by the metaphor of chaos may prove of greater significance to futures than its more respectable use in models based on measurable factors.

Attitudes to the future have been encapsulated in such metaphors as "future shock" and the "Doomsday Syndrome" (possibly with apocalyptic implications). This encourages reactive responses to the future and a victim psychology. At the other extreme is the apocalyptic and chiliastic view of religious fundamentalists that welcome such transitions.

There is a strange metaphorical mix around "innovation" and the emerging "new" (eg new insights, New Age) which in some situtations carries all that is associated with "young" and "fresh". This is then contrasted with "old" as "obsolete" and "outdated". But new/old may also be used in an inverted form whereby "new" implies "gimicky", "untried", or "immature", which is then contrasted with the "old" as "mature", "respectable", "experienced" -- notable examples include traditional technologies and medicinal expertise, and respect for the wisdom of the past. Such simplistic polarization suggests the need for a more "ageless" or "perennial" dimension to futures studies.

(e) Part/Whole relationships and dysfunctionality

Structural understanding in social systems is highly dependent on distinctions signified that are an artifact of prefixes in classical European languages. They include: sub-, multi-, cross-, pluri-, inter-, super-, trans-, and meta-. The importance of these is seen in their use with national (e.g. inter-national), disciplinary (e.g. multi-disciplinary). Evaluations of various forms of dysfunctionality are dependent on the use of negative prefixes: non-, de-, dis-, ill-, un-, hyper-, anti-, and a-. The distinctions implied by these sets of prefixes have not been clearly defined and much confusion prevails. Any distinctions made are poorly conserved in translations to languages other than English, especially since there are no equivalents for some prefixes (37). Forms unknown in English may also be available.

(f) Numerology

Understanding of relationships, desirable goals or destablizing conditions, is strongly conditioned by numeric qualities. Thus words associated with oneness (unity, agreement, consensus) are betoken positive achievement. Those associated with twoness tend to be seen either positively (collaboration, cooperation, etc) or negatively (difference, disagreement, etc). There is little understanding of relationships dependent on higher orders of patterning (38). But in Asia the capacity of certain number combinations to betoken auspicious or inauspicious circumstances is taken extremely seriously.

(g) Geometry

Finally it is important to recognize the ways in which simple geometry is used to articulate understandings of policy agendas and debates: points (on an agenda), line (of argument), angle (of approach), area (of concern), triangle (of political forces), a square (deal), a volume (of information).

The question to be asked is whether there are not fundamental restrictions or biases in our uses of these devices to understand and respond to the emerging future. For example, can policies of sufficient complexity (in terms of Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety) be based on the simple geometry implied by the previous paragraph? It may be argued that more integrative approaches need to explore configurations of "lines of argument" and "areas of concern" which could be best understood through three-dimensional polyhedra, rather than through the zero-, one- and two-dimensional geometrical elements currently favoured (39). And, given the need of computer technologists to explore 4-dimensional hyper-structures, it may be asked whether these too could not prove important. It is no longer helpful to "make a point" in a debate or "develop a line of argument", unless these can be integrated into more comprehensive structures as a basis for action. Might these not be the basis for higher orders of consensus appropriate to a "new world order" of requisite complexity?

Main menu

Directions

You are here

Main menu

Search form

Directions

You are here

Key metaphoric frames conditioning policy