Master Metaphors To Build Understanding of Complex Issues
By Paul H. Thibodeau
The complexity of issues the humanitarian sector addresses makes it challenging for people to understand them and even have an opinion on how to address them. Metaphors are comparisons that encourage people to use their knowledge of one issue to think about another. Through comparison, metaphors can help people better understand complex problems. Recent research in the cognitive sciences reveals how this process works and why metaphors are so powerful.
- Metaphors help us make sense of nuance
Metaphors help people understand complex issues by providing structure or ways of seeing a problem and potential solutions. Take our understanding of crime, for example. Crime is a complex issue that is comprised of lots of different types of information, such as (a) categories of crime, like theft or assault, (b) roles of people involved, like perpetrator, victim, and police officer, © reasons for criminal acts (d) methods that a community could use to address crime, like reforming the policing system, changing the social environment, and so on. These different pieces of crime-relevant information are an important aspect of our concept of crime and the root causes of how crime operates within our systems and societies. Indeed, the concept of crime itself is driven by systems of power and knowledge production that generate their own preferred metaphors and categories.
Another important aspect of what we know about crime — or any complex issue — is how different components of information relate to one another. Causal relationships are especially important. What causes crime to increase? What causes people to commit crimes? What actions can a community take that will reduce crime?
Our beliefs about any one of these questions will affect how we think about others. For example, if we think crime is caused by bad actors, then we will likely think that the best way to reduce crime is to capture and incarcerate criminals. But if we think crime results from any unjust or unfair system, we are likely to think that creating jobs and educational programs — reforming the system — is the best way to reduce crime.
How we explain these nuanced dynamics has an impact on perceptions of the problem and solutions. We can use metaphor to help people see these dynamics in ways critical for building their support and engagement.
When crime is metaphorically framed as a virus, people are more likely to think about how the social environment gives rise to crime. It further suggests that cities should implement social reforms to eliminate those elements giving rise to crimes. On the other hand, when crime is metaphorically framed as a beast, people are more likely to think that catching and caging criminals is the most effective response (Thibodeau & Boroditsky, 2011). It is clear, therefore, that the choice of metaphor has a direct impact on the marginalization of particular groups, and, in the case of crime, metaphor can serve to reinforce or reject discriminatory systems.
2. Metaphors draw on what we know
For metaphors to resonate, it is important that they leverage what people know or have experienced. This is why common metaphors reference universal embodied experiences like space, motion, and containment, and ubiquitous cultural events like journeys, wars, and viral epidemics (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).
Metaphors work best when people have an understanding or appreciation of the comparison being made between two things. When there’s a lack of understanding, metaphors lose their power to influence. Metaphors typically draw on what people know about less complex issues to help them understand more complex issues. Crime, for example, is often described as a beast problem, as in phrases like “crime attacks and preys on cities,” “predators lurk in the streets,” and “detectives catch and trap criminals.” Crime is also frequently characterized as a viral epidemic, as in phrases like “crime infects and plagues cities,” “crime epidemics have become chronic,” and “detectives diagnose and treat problems.”
Metaphors function like mental maps that help people interpret and draw new inferences about the complex idea that is being communicated but in a way that is easier to grasp (O’Neil, 2007; Thibodeau, Hendricks, & Boroditsky, 2017).
For example, photographer Tom Kiefer helps us enter the world of asylum seekers by taking pictures of personal items confiscated from them at borders. The images depict a literal and metaphorical journey, and the objects humanize the people making the transition. This also counters media coverage that portrays asylum seekers as a mass group of people without names or unique lived experiences.
Similarly, humanitarian organizations feature images of refugees traveling with their belongings. Using journey as a literal and metaphorical frame can help people understand what it means to be displaced.
3. Metaphors are emotional
Emotions can be powerful motivators of decisions and behaviors. That’s why in some cases, a metaphor’s value is the emotional tone it conveys. For instance, characterizing the flu as a beast, riot, army, or weed casts the illness in an urgent and negative light. These metaphors, compared to other less dramatic words to describe the flu, have been shown to increase the likelihood that people will get a flu shot (Scherer, Scherer, & Fagerlin, 2015). Similarly, using war-like language, rather than the language of a race against time, to convey the urgency of acting on climate change causes people to view the issue as especially urgent and to show a greater willingness to adopt pro-environmental behaviors (Flusberg, Matlock, & Thibodeau, 2017). At the same time, one might consider if war language is strategically aligned with the ultimate goals of sustainable ecological practices, value-based action, and policies. In many cases, it may not be. How might our approaches to acting on climate change shift if we were to nurture solutions rather than fight a war on the climate?
It’s important to keep in mind that complex issues often elicit fear, anger, and a sense of helplessness. As a result, metaphors can amplify these emotions and cause people to feel overwhelmed and demoralized. In an interview with metaphor scholar Teenie Matlock, she described her research examining perceptions of risk, wildfires and climate change. She found that beast and monster metaphors are used to create a strong visual image in the mind of the audience, which can evoke a sense of fear and uncertainty. These metaphors reduce people’s sense of agency or power against wildfire and climate change by increasing negative emotions.
According to recent research metaphors that instill a sense of self-efficacy (empowerment) and an opportunity to take action can have a more positive impact (even if a small one) (Morton, Rabinovich, Marshall, & Bretschneider, 2011).
Metaphors can create an emotional experience for the audience by moving them from feelings of inefficacy to efficacy. In other words, metaphors can increase people’s sense of power. In our interview with metaphor scholar Elena Semino for this project, she described the journey metaphor of climbing a mountain. This can be used to describe a struggle that ends with a positive resolution. She also described a war metaphor that for some cultures and communities be empowering and convey solidarity and strength. Importantly, for some people the war metaphor may trigger trauma.
Knowing that metaphors are a powerful tool for eliciting emotion and shaping how people see and feel about an issue is important to consider when building communications to achieve a particular goal.
4. Metaphors are visual
Because visual images are eye-catching and often elicit emotion, using them to support a metaphor can also bolster their influence. Visuals help people focus their attention to a particular aspect of an issue, thereby complementing points that are made through language.
For example, UNHCR’s Innovation Service published a series in Stanford Social Innovation Review exploring what innovation looks like and how it can be a source for change in a complex organization like UNHCR. They worked with visual artist Ailadi to produce a series of title images that frame innovation in different realms of the organization through a journey metaphor. Each journey is depicted differently to help build understanding of the innovation.
In the first image, Ailadi uses a journey to convey innovation around communications strategy. The image includes possible well-defined paths. Ailadi told us that she chose to include clear distinct paths as a way to convey the message that either one you choose as a strategy will take you in a specific direction.
In the image created for “Using Diversity and Inclusion as a Source for Humanitarian Innovation,” Ailadi created an image of people traveling in their own ways, featuring people using different modes of transportation, like running, riding a bike and swimming. Ailadi told us that the image includes different modes of transport as a way to convey the message that all team members should be given the freedom to go toward their goals in their own ways.
In the journey image she produced for the article on ethics titled “Five Ethical Principles for Humanitarian Innovation,” she features three people setting off on a journey without a clear path. In an interview for this project, she said, “It is up to them to define where they want to go and the definition is created by everyone.” This conveys that decision making must be inclusive of everyone making decisions about refugees — including refugees themselves.
People process visual and linguistic information differently. Visual information is processed more heuristically (or superficially), while language is processed more systematically (or deeply) (Chaiken, 1980). As a result, it can be difficult to present a complex argument or idea in an image. When communicating about complex issues, images often work best to complement verbal descriptions.
However, when images are paired with descriptions, the two should be well-integrated (Mayer & Anderson, 1992). That is, the text should describe the visual and the visual should complement the text. In one study (van den Broek, 2015), images were used to communicate the idea that crime was a beast or virus ravaging a city. When the images were well-incorporated and participants understood what they meant, they bolstered the influence of the metaphor. However, when the text didn’t make that connection to the image, people were confused and the metaphor effect was diminished.
In an interview for this research, photographer Aundre Larrow described a set of images from his project “Stories From Here.” For the story “Deborah H.,” Larrow used visual metaphors of moving from darkness to light in combination with text to help his audience understand the experiences of women returning to civilian life after prison. Aundre shared that he used the darkness of stairwells to create feelings of confinement that the women felt in prison. He juxtaposed those images with shots of the women in their new, brightly lit apartments, smiling and feeling joy as a way to express freedom.
Aundre told us that it’s really important that the people he features feel heard, are represented in ways that they like, know exactly how their images will be used and why you are telling their story at this moment. Aundre noted the limitations of visual metaphors, stating they need context or people will otherwise make assumptions about their meaning. He noted that metaphors are not always powerful enough to overcome biases. The nuances of metaphor may be lost on some people who need clear and direct messages. In this case, metaphor might enhance an argument, but should not be the only aspect of an argument.
References
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(5), 752.
Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2017). Metaphors for the war (or race) against climate change. Environmental Communication, 11(6), 769–783.
Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2018). War metaphors in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(1), 1–18.
Flusberg, S.J., Lauria, M., Balko S., & Thibodeau, P.H. (2020). Effects of communication modality and speaker identity on metaphor framing. Metaphor and Symbol, 35(2).
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Landau, M. J., Keefer, L. A., & Swanson, T. J. (2017). “Undoing” a Rhetorical Metaphor: Testing the Metaphor Extension Strategy. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(2), 63–83.
Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of educational Psychology, 84(4), 444.
Morton, T. A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D., & Bretschneider, P. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 103–109.
O’Neil, M. (2007). Can’t I Just Invent My Own Metaphors? Why Research Matters in Developing Metaphorical Models. Washington, DC: FrameWorks Institute.
Ottati, V., Rhoads, S., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). The effect of metaphor on processing style in a persuasion task: A motivational resonance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 688.
Robins, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). The metaphor framing effect: Metaphorical reasoning about text-based dilemmas. Discourse Processes, 30(1), 57–86.
Scherer, A. M., Scherer, L. D., & Fagerlin, A. (2015). Getting ahead of illness: using metaphors to influence medical decision making. Medical Decision Making, 35(1), 37–45.
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PloS ONE, 6(2).
Thibodeau, P. H., Hendricks, R. K., & Boroditsky, L. (2017). How linguistic metaphor scaffolds reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(11), 852–863.
Thibodeau, P., Winneg, A., Frantz, C., & Flusberg, S. (2016). The mind is an ecosystem: Systemic metaphors promote systems thinking. Metaphor and the Social World, 6(2), 225–242.
Thibodeau, P. H. (2016). Extended metaphors are the home runs of persuasion: Don’t fumble the phrase. Metaphor and Symbol, 31(2), 53–72.
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2013). Natural language metaphors covertly influence reasoning. PloS ONE, 8(1).
van den Broek, B. (2015). Treating the virus and capturing the beast. Master’s Thesis. Tilburg University.
