The Ideological Metaphor of War
Politicians constantly use metaphors to communicate ideas, describe situations, or provide explanations. Sometimes such a rhetorical strategy is intentionally planned, sometimes it’s spontaneous. We should nonetheless study their effects on public political discourse. Rhetorical contexts will supply the nature of some corresponding social problems. Metaphors can function under greater political narratives that shape public opinion subconsciously by diverting our attention, directing fears, even creating imaginary enemies.
Metaphors become ideological when they are used to help to generate particular world-views, which in turn provide a framework under which we are to understand the world and give justifications for identities and actions taken as some arbitrary group. What is fascinating about these ideological metaphors is that they are often inconspicuous, in the sense that the group under ideological illusion often take them for granted as “appropriate” metaphors. For a metaphor to be “appropriate”, the intended audience might feel as if their deep-seated beliefs are confirmed by that metaphor, or the user of that rhetorical strategy has “spoke their mind”. But it is exactly by dissecting those metaphors we better understand the working of such a mechanism and uncover the ideological framework itself. To study such rhetorical strategies, we have to take an “outside” perspective that refuses to take anything for granted.
I want to examine China’s ideological metaphor of war during the coronavirus crisis in early 2020, how the government used such an effective rhetorical strategy to drastically influence the direction of a narrative, and thereby also shaping public opinion. But first, I want to raise some examples of how politicians have used ideological metaphors in the past.
On the issue of immigration.
Build the wall. Trump is not a very original politician, but many Americans seemed to be taken aback by what they think to be the first candidate that spoke to their hearts fear. But it is not enough to generalize the ‘out-group’ as drug dealers or rapists, for its blatant political incorrectness has caused an uproar. In other words, it is not enough because Trump can’t possibly reiterate those terms without suffering serious political consequences. Trump has got to use something more subtle, reiterable, so that the political narrative is sustainable and is able to be more firmly entrenched.
The metaphor of ‘flood’ is the answer to his problem. Again, this is not very original either. But constantly presenting a social issue regarding people as a natural disaster, bring us the impression of immigrants as inanimate substances, which serves its rhetorical strategy by discouraging human empathy. Indeed, imagining immigrants as an invading inhuman force is a vastly different picture from witnessing human suffering intimately. But this is why left-leaning platforms tend to approach the issue of immigration on a personal level. While philosopher Peter-Singer has soundly argued for the need for our moral responsibility to help regardless of the distance to us, it is not a particularly realistic request. It takes extra effort for anyone to care about distanced sufferings. In talking about the ‘flood of immigrants’, we not only distance ourselves from human suffering, but we also portray human suffering as an inhuman force of evil that is trying to disrupt our way of life. The concept of ‘our way of life’ is a self-legitimizing force, on the authority of custom, and the human need for order and security. Describes the nation as a home to be defended against imaginary invaders complements the flood metaphor. If we buy into this rhetoric, such cognitive salient imagery immediately trumps any humanitarian considerations.
We surely find a more extreme version of this practice in Nazi Germany, where the rhetoric centered around eradicating a particular disease in the German nation. With the appropriate historical context, pseudo-science to back up the claim that the in-group is a superior race, and out-group is in some sense subhuman, racist fanaticism can be easily aroused. Rhetorical metaphors are capable of eliciting strong emotional responses especially when they fit in ideological narratives.
On the issue of capitalism and globalization.
Life is a race. You should know what race you are competing in. It is interesting that recent British political discourses utilize a series of competition metaphors to promote certain policy positions. As a more subtle form of ideological metaphor that might not even be intentional, it nonetheless serves the purpose of painting an ideological landscape that influences the national narrative. This set of metaphors includes adjectives such as ‘global race’, ‘speed’, ‘track records’, etc.
Indeed, winning a competition might mean different things to different people. But the concept of competition elicits a similar set of emotional responses, where winning implies a sort of fitness, associated with health, power, and respect. It often does not matter what losing might mean concretely, but just that we all know there are some dire consequences that base on abstract notions of humiliation, or insecurity. Importantly, not competing is just as bad as losing the competition! Not competing might signals a lack of will, or worse, a lack of competence/health.
Losing to China in manufacturing or California in technology instills fear. For David Cameron and Tony Blair, repeated emphasis on competition serves to hammer home a reality of global competition in order to justify the framework of unregulated capitalism and the free market. Sometimes, ideological metaphors are so entrenched into our mode of thinking that it is easy to commit a naturalistic fallacy. In this particular context, we might think that nature is inherently competitive within a neo-Darwinist outlook. But we should not take such things for granted, for it is an open question whether natural is inherently competitive or not. Perhaps fostering the ideological metaphor of global cooperation, instead of global competition, might be a more constructive framework for tackling global inequality, or global climate challenges?
Coronavirus, China.
Fight the people’s war. On April fourth, 2020, the Chinese government held a national day of mourning for those who died on the front line of the Coronavirus pandemic. Officials labeled the healthcare workers as selfless martyrs who sacrificed themselves in the battle against coronavirus. In a demonstration of solidarity between the communist party and the people, we observed silence for three mutes while air sirens blasted across China. We wailed in grief.
What does it mean to be in a war? The condition of war mobilizes the entire nation against enemies. The nation is an all-encompassing structure that includes the state, the body that organizes and direct resources of war, and the people, who do the fighting. We fight a particular kind of enemy. The history of China’s violent struggle against imperialism serves as the backdrop that hints to the subconscious cognition that an enemy in a war is in some sense foreign. In juxtaposition, the solidarity of the Chinese nation, the state, and the people can be presupposed in any war. I have to admit, portraying the coronavirus outbreak as a people’s war is an inspiring narrative, in which a united nation can persevere through severe difficulty, overcome the enemy with an unbreakable national character and win. Winning is always important.
And winning the Chinese nation did. The unfortunate mishandling of Coronavirus, especially in the United States, only strengthened China’s war narrative. The euphoria feeling that China’s government is now portrayed as decisive and effective simply dominates current Chinese public discourse. Dr. Li Wenliang’s story has long been forgotten, and China did not change its policy in governing wildlife animals in any meaningful way.
But no, it’s not actually a war. War is just a metaphor. What is not a metaphor, is that the coronavirus outbreak is a public health failure. That is a fact. But that is an unacceptable narrative for any government, especially one that bases its legitimacy on domestic security, economic prosperity, and effectiveness in governing. Thus characterizing a public health crisis as a war diverts our attention from the failures of the state and radically changes the narrative in a different light. In shifting the focus to the outside, in proclaiming victory relative to other countries (especially the United States), the Chinese government and Chinese people revert back to the default ultranationalistic stance in solidarity. In eradicating dissent both by force and expertly directing a united public political discourse, China is able to pursue more aggressive foreign policies in the near future. It cannot be stressed enough that the actions of authoritarian government critically relies on public opinion as well.
