How does social power impact the use and dominance of metaphors?
By Joseph Radice
Social sciences view social power as a form of control that social actors — individuals, groups, institutions — exert over one another (Foucault, 1977). Any social actor has the ability to wield this power (Lukes, 1986; Wrong, 1979). What can we infer about power based just on the metaphors at work in these two statements? First, if power must be exerted, it is active, effortful, possibly even exhausting. If power can be wielded it has something in common with a weapon. And in another common metaphor, when we speak of an individual’s grip or hold on power, what we are acknowledging is that power can be lost. By taking even this cursory look at the metaphors inherent to discussions of power, we immediately see that the apportioning and exercising of power within societies is neither passive nor static, but an active social process (van Dijk, 2008).
“By closely observing the circulation of dominant metaphors within a society we can gather crucial insight not only on how social power and group dominance is created and sustained at the level of speech, but also how it can be subverted.”
In general, the greater the power people have, the better they are able to assert control and use their influence to achieve social goals (Foucault, 1977). But the question of who has that power in modern societies with legacies of injustice is fraught. By closely observing the circulation of dominant metaphors within a society we can gather crucial insight not only on how social power and group dominance is created and sustained at the level of speech, but also how it can be subverted.
Understanding social power in intergroup dynamics
At the most basic level, a metaphor serves the dominant power within a group by reinforcing the systems that enable that power. The history of scapegoating in modern societies offers a way to understand how such metaphors work. When certain powerful groups described the European refugee situation as an ‘invasion’, a sensational metaphor was used to create a rhetorical sense of “us” versus “them”, challenging a conception of European states as bearers of humanitarian responsibility .
Sensational and dehumanizing metaphors are often well-served by media environments that favor immediacy over nuance and emotional versus fact-based appeal.
Part of the work of the humanitarian sector must be to create new metaphors that can circulate as adeptly in that media environment.
Witnessing power move from the margins to the mainstream
The spread of metaphors can also be a way minority and historically disenfranchised groups within a society exert power and influence by shifting the language of a culture (Eckert, 1989).
Take the history of certain metaphors originating in Black and Latino LGBTQ+ communities in the United States, whose acceptance by broader segments of American society has coincided with an increased representation of those communities in popular culture. Throwing shade (passive aggressive communications), slaying (doing something really well), and spilling tea (gossiping), are all metaphors which, just 10 years ago, would have been totally obscure to non-LGBTQ individuals, but now have entered the mainstream popular language. How did this transfer occur and what does it mean for the metaphors’ originators? Does such expanded usage suggest increasing acceptance of LGBTQ+ people of color within American society? Or is it simply another example of cultural appropriation by white American pop culture industry executives and audiences? Can it be both?
When we look closer we see how a politically disempowered group of individuals influence culture at large (Barrett, 2017). What we note overall in considering these metaphors is mass media’s highly impactful role in widening their use.
Still, what can we say has occurred when a straight white woman spills the tea or throws shade? The recycling of such metaphors reveals a certain kind of social caché, demonstrating the speaker as being au courant and culturally literate. When divorced from their original context, such appropriated metaphors function in much the same way as a fashion. What remains to be seen is whether the increasing cultural prominence of LGBTQ+ people of color, in part due to their increasing representation in media (what we might call “soft power”), corresponds with some improvement in the material conditions of the lives of that community.
Harnessing social power through metaphor in the media
Individuals and groups may draw social power from a variety of sources, from wealth and status to influencing political agendas (Mayr, 2008; van Dijk, 2015). Those with the power to influence public discourse, in particular, can manipulate current topics of interest. Media has the power to shape the news we hear and the metaphors we use to understand the world around us. For example, researchers have found that the media tend to rely on negative metaphors that frame Syrian refugees fleeing violence in a host community as a flood, situating refugees as a burden to a host community (Abid et al. 2017). Conservative media outlets in the UK and Australia have framed refugees as an unwanted invader (Parker, 2015)
With such a powerful hold on public discourse, media sources can feed into what the public already knows and, to a certain extent, wants to hear next. Many of us have a favorite source for news and, chances are, our preferred outlets are based on how closely they align with our own values and identities. The tendency to seek information that resonates with our values and aligns with our worldviews is known as confirmation bias. The language we hear through these select channels becomes the language we use; the metaphors we read, see or hear absorb and shape our ways of thinking.
For example, one way that UNHCR may be countering stereotypes about refugees as a burden to a host community, a popular anti-refugee sentiment, is by showing how refugees give to their new communities. One way they have done this is by highlighting examples of refugees working to fight COVID-19.
By highlighting refugees around the world who are helping to address COVID-19, UNHCR seems to be making the case that refugees are part of the solution, rather than people who solely need our support.
Conclusion
Metaphor can be a powerful tool, but it is a power we must scrutinize and monitor. Though social power is everywhere — created moment to moment in every social interaction — it can be massaged and manipulated through strategic language use and exploitation by the media. If the circulation of metaphors maps the circulation of power, those who understand that circulation are well positioned to disrupt it.
References
Abid, R. Z., Manan, S. A., & Rahman, Z. A. A. A. (2017). ‘A flood of Syrians has slowed to a trickle’: The use of metaphors in the representation of Syrian refugees in the online media news reports of host and non-host countries. Discourse & Communication, 11(2), 121–140.
Barrett, R. (2017). From drag queens to leathermen: Language, gender, and gay male subcultures. Oxford University Press.
Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. Teachers College Press.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish (A. Sheridan, trans.). Random House.
Lukes, S. (1986). Power. Blackwell.
Mayr, A. (2008). Language and power: An introduction to institutional discourse. Continuum.
Parker, S. (2015). ‘Unwanted invaders’: The representation of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK and Australian print media. ESharp, 23(1), 1–21.
van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Palgrave Macmillan.
van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 466–485). Wiley.
Wrong, D. H. (1979). Power: Its forms, bases and uses. Blackwell.
