![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Change the metaphor, change the process
Nov. 7th, 2006 02:51 pmAfter reviewing some work on Metaphorical Criticism and listing to endless pundits postulate on who will "win" this election season as I was on my way to vote, it occurred to me exactly WHY we have the problems that we do with voting.
It's the metaphors we use to speak about the process.
We use sports and war metaphors to describe the entire campaign and voting process. One candidate wins , the other loses. They are opponents. It is a congressional race. In debates they demolish the other side, and shoot down each other's arguments. With a two party system we have opposing sides, and if one member of a party leaves they have helped the other team. Like fair weather fans of most sports, people don't vote for a 3rd party candidate because they have no chance at winning. People love routing for the underdog candidate. Each side uses tactics to demoralize the other. Some play dirty in their campaign.
Such metaphors are more than just linguistic decoration, they explain how we conceptualize our world.
If we want to change the process, TRULY change it, we need to change the language by which we refer to it.
What if we changed it from a race to a job interview in which candidates were vying for a position within the employ of the US citizenry?
Would people think of their vote more if they thought of it as the power to hire and fire people who didn't perform?
Instead of debates, we'd have interview panels of citizenry. Rather than evasive non-answers they'd have to give answers about hypothetical situations pertaining to the job, where they see themselves in 5 years, what they can bring to the organization that is the US Government, and what their greatest weakness is?
What if those who held office were subject to public performance reviews?
It's just a thought, really. I'm sure there might be other metaphors that would fit, though it will be difficult to find them because the Sports and War metaphors for elections are so ingrained in our language that most of you probably never even thought about it.
I know I didn't until today and I study this stuff.
One thing I am certain of, as long as we speak about elections in terms of things that have only TWO sides to them, we'll never break free of this two party folly we have now.
It's the metaphors we use to speak about the process.
We use sports and war metaphors to describe the entire campaign and voting process. One candidate wins , the other loses. They are opponents. It is a congressional race. In debates they demolish the other side, and shoot down each other's arguments. With a two party system we have opposing sides, and if one member of a party leaves they have helped the other team. Like fair weather fans of most sports, people don't vote for a 3rd party candidate because they have no chance at winning. People love routing for the underdog candidate. Each side uses tactics to demoralize the other. Some play dirty in their campaign.
Such metaphors are more than just linguistic decoration, they explain how we conceptualize our world.
If we want to change the process, TRULY change it, we need to change the language by which we refer to it.
What if we changed it from a race to a job interview in which candidates were vying for a position within the employ of the US citizenry?
Would people think of their vote more if they thought of it as the power to hire and fire people who didn't perform?
Instead of debates, we'd have interview panels of citizenry. Rather than evasive non-answers they'd have to give answers about hypothetical situations pertaining to the job, where they see themselves in 5 years, what they can bring to the organization that is the US Government, and what their greatest weakness is?
What if those who held office were subject to public performance reviews?
It's just a thought, really. I'm sure there might be other metaphors that would fit, though it will be difficult to find them because the Sports and War metaphors for elections are so ingrained in our language that most of you probably never even thought about it.
I know I didn't until today and I study this stuff.
One thing I am certain of, as long as we speak about elections in terms of things that have only TWO sides to them, we'll never break free of this two party folly we have now.
