1998
Enhancing Sustainable Development Strategies
through Avoidance of Military Metaphors
- / -
Reflections on underlying communication challenges emerging
at the European Conference on Bridging the Gap: New Needs and Perspectives
for Environmental Information (London, 1998) under the auspices of the European
Environment Agency
Introduction
Background
Case study: use of "targets" and "bullets"
Mutual targeting in a democratic process
Role of metaphor in science and policy-making
Metaphor complementarity vs Reliance on a particular
set of metaphors
Framework for exploration of a range of strategic metaphors
Appropriateness of metaphors to interaction with the environment
(Table 5)
Relevance to other kinds of "gap" that are a challenge
to policy (Table 6)
References and links
Introduction
There is a desperate worldwide search for sustainable development strategies
and for the appropriate means for their implementation. To a large extent
such strategies are elaborated and presented through the use of military
metaphors. In discussing the associated challenges of communication, great
emphasis is placed on "target audiences", "targets", and "targeting" in
designing "campaigns" and "mobilizing" resources. Typically in slide presentations,
notably those enhanced by Microsoft's Powerpoint software, strategies
are structured in terms of "bullets" -- which are also characteristic of
the documents in support of such presentations.
The question asked in this paper is whether such simplistic language
is adequate to the challenges of communicating complex insights in response
to complex environmental issues -- or of eliciting the support of partners
vital to the success of such initiatives. Furthermore, there would seem
to be a strong possibility that such language is based on mindsets and
frameworks that were fundamental to the generation of the problems that
sustainable development strategies purport to address. In this sense use
of military metaphors may contribute directly to inhibiting and undermining
any useful implementation of such strategies.
The obvious response to this criticism is that "targets" and "bullets"
are mere metaphors of purely rhetorical function and that the significance
of this interpretation is totally exaggerated. The whole debate concerning
political correctness in language has however severely undermined the legitimacy
of this retort. Use of inappropriate metaphors has become unacceptable
because of the manner in which it conditions and reinforces discriminatory
thinking. It is therefore useful to ask how dangerous such language (and
thinking) may be in the case of sustainable development strategies. Especially
interesting is that the "command and control" principles governing military
action encourage efforts to "take control of the target" and ensure that
it is maneuvered into "killing zones".
Background
Management researchers have been concerned over the past decades with
the appropriateness of particular metaphors to the understanding
of major corporations and their strategies. Consultants have been highly
successful in articulating their advice through metaphors other than those
derived from military and sporting contexts. It remains true that the very
concept of strategy derives from the challenges faced in the military and
considerable thinking continues to be developed within this framework typically
by "think-tanks". Such thinking has been applied very successfully in promotional
campaigns of every level of sophistication. This has undoubtedly continued
to sustain the assumption that such frameworks are applicable to the complex
challenges of sustainability. As the old quote goes: "if all you have is
a hammer, then every problem needs to be treated like a nail...". Put differently,
are we engaged in tackling tomorrow's problems with yesterday's language?
The warning signals are that institutions of every kind are viewed with
increasing suspicion by the public. Related apathy extends in many ways
to advertising and political campaigns. In both cases the confidence of
the public has been progressively eroded. Relying on possibly out-dated
thinking may therefore be a recipe for failure in relation to sustainable
development.
Case study: use of "targets" and "bullets"
As noted above, the communication challenge of "Bridging the Gap"
is articulated in terms of "targets". The content of the communication
is defined in terms of "bullets". This is the case whether it is
the policy-makers communicating their policy conclusions to the public
(whose behaviour they seek to change), or in the case of the public (or
advocacy groups) endeavouring to communicate with the policy-makers (whose
decisions they seek to change). In both cases "campaigns" may well be the
vehicle for this effort. A "briefing" may be used to communicate necessary
information for execution of the "campaign" -- notably in efforts by intergovernmental
organizations to demonstrate that they are consulting with nongovernmental
organizations. (These metaphors, and others, correspond to various columns
of the military (first) row in the table below).
Target behaviour: If the military metaphor is the metaphor of
choice in articulating sustainable development strategies, the question
to be asked is what might be expected of a group that is "targeted" in
this way. It tends to be assumed that a "target" will somehow remain stationary
in response to targeting and being hit by "bullets". But in practice, as
any military situation rapidly demonstrates, a fuller range of possibilities
might usefully include:
-
target remains stationary
-
target absorbs bullets without effect (target "apathy" or "indifference")
-
target moves predictably to escape being struck further
-
target moves evasively to frustrate further targeting
-
target takes cover or disappears from target detector's view
-
target retreats outside the range of further strikes
-
target actively repels attack
-
target deflects bullets (possibly to direct detriment of attacker)
-
target counter-attacks, retaliating with similar weaponry ("bullets")
-
target counter-attacks with weaponry against which the attacker has no
defence
-
target modifies its equipment in order to acquire competitive advantage
in this way
-
target destruction
-
target missed (possibly with unintended collateral damage)
-
bullets trigger incommensurate explosive reaction
The interesting point about these possibilities is that they all have their
better known equivalents in nature, being typically employed in the struggle
between species. Reflecting the dynamics of the natural environment, this
suggests that they may have some relevance to the design of sustainable
development strategies -- if these are to be sustainable. Policy-makers
might usefully learn from the complexity of the environment they seek to
protect. But, to what extent is communication with regard to sustainable
development currently designed in anticipation that the "targets" may well
"strike back"? How naive is it to assume that the "targets" will remain
stationary (and accessible to "target detection" and "acquisition"
facilities) -- behaving like passive "herbivores", rather than like proactive
"carnivores"?
It might be thought that use of "targets" in relation to achievements
against some set of indicators might escape the criticism implicit in this
argument. In this case the targets are clearly not people. The question
is whether envisaging achievements in this way distorts understanding in
ways that might inhibit the transition to sustainable development and quality
of life. The point can be most succinctly made by considering how useful
it is to set targets for the improvement of dysfunctional marital or community
relationships. In this case it could well be the case that the target-setting
mentality might be exactly what was undermining the subtleties required
to sustain a functional relationship. Furthermore, in a policy environment,
it is mistake to assume that such achievement "targets" are necessarily
static and do not have their own dynamic. This is clearest in situations
when the "goal posts have shifted" and safety thresholds later prove to
be toxic, contrary to what was assumed when they were set.
Bullet functions: However, within this military metaphor, assuming
that the "bullets" are indeed "harmless", how is it currently assumed that
the "targets" will receive them? Are the targeted individuals and groups
expected to catch the "bullets" with their fingers as they fly -- and to
somehow be inspired by them to new patterns of behaviour? Is it the sound
of the "bullets" that is assumed to inspire a "target audience"? Are the
"bullets" to be willingly caught by their bodies? Or is it into their brains
that the "bullets" are supposed to penetrate? Of course the intention is
to modify behaviour, so perhaps body and brain should be understood here
as behaviour pattern and body of knowledge (or mindset) respectively. That
groups should be targeting each other's "patterns" is somehow more acceptable.
But, if the identity of an individual is intimately associated with such
patterns, then perhaps the intention is somewhat more questionable.
It may be useful to think of the "bullets" as being unlike typical steel-coated
lead bullets or their "harmless" rubber variants. These metaphorical bullets
may, as in laser surgery, be designed to "take-out" specific neural connections
or control organs that the targeter considers inappropriate to sustainable
behaviour patterns. They may be like the tranquilizer darts used by veterinarians
and zoologists to introduce drugs that induce sleep or otherwise modify
behaviour. In either case, questions might usefully be asked about the
skills of those dispatching them. What portion of the target are they capable
of "hitting" accurately? Do they really know what they are doing? Or, like
unskilled soldiers equipped with automatic weapons, are they simply spraying
the "target audience" in the hope of some effect -- despite any unfortunate
collateral damage?
Reactions of intelligent targets: Ideally the static "target",
once "hit", is conditioned by the "impact" of the "bullet" into some new
pattern of behaviour. In the real world however, "targets" are on the move
and will be induced to move even more unpredictably by being "targeted"
or "hit". Unless the "targets" are to be considered as fundamentally masochistic
or stupid, they will tend to react "negatively" to being "hit" and having
their behaviour "modified". But perhaps those "hitting" such "targets"
see the situation more as do cattle herders, or abattoir slaughter-men,
who direct cattle by using electrical prods? Any such framings of course
raise questions about the supposedly two-way nature of the communication
process.
As noted above, a target faced with disproportionate force will normally
take evasive action. In nature this may simply consist of freezing or curling
up -- although typically it involves rapid withdrawal to shelter. Equivalent
behaviour is seen amongst both citizens and policy-makers faced with
insistent message-bearers and information overload. It would be interesting
to explore the extent to which such evasion can be compared to withdrawal
up hierarchical conceptual "trees", retreating to the moral "high ground",
or burrowing down to fundamental principles and comfort zones. Audiences,
notably of television, may simply "change channel". These behaviors are
present a real challenge in the implementation of sustainable development
strategies where the purpose of communication is the development of fruitful
partnerships.
More intriguing is the tendency of some targets to develop their resistance
to "bullets" by creating some form of bullet-deflecting "armour". This
reduces the effects of "impact" and the possibility of "penetration". Many
policy-makers effectively wear "body armour" to protect them from "bullets"
fired at them by the public and opponents (possibly as a natural counterpart
to bullet-proof clothing). Designers of campaigns may seek to overcome
such resistance by effectively developing "armour-piercing bullets" or
"explosive bullets". These devices may then be seen as the mark of a highly
resourceful campaign.
Another approach by some potential targets is to develop some form of
"fortress" or defensive "work". This can be done by equivalents of "burrowing",
"sandbagging" or the actual construction of "fortifications". It is possible
that many members of the public, and their organizations, have effectively
taken this route already. It is certainly the case that policy-makers have
developed such fortifications to protect them from being targeted by members
of the public or by vested interests. Terrorist threats then provide welcome
justification for any effort to increase the inaccessibility of decision-makers.
Such is the world in which people see communication as an exchange of "bullets".
It is also useful to reflect on the learnings of intelligent targets
that are "wounded" by "bullets". As in the wild, some become both cunning
and dangerous -- whether the wounds heal or not.
Mutual targeting in a democratic process
The democratic process could indeed be usefully seen as a process of
mutual targeting. The electorate targets the elected with its petitions
and demands. The elected target the public in efforts to solicit their
support and change their behaviour. Both make use of publicity campaigns
that are almost completely based on targeting..
Many questions are raised about the democratic process and the apathy
of the electorate faced with increasingly unmeaningful choices in a manipulative
environment. It is worth asking whether the language in which the democratic
process is understood could be usefully reframed to avoid use of military
metaphors.
A book by Olivier d'Herbemont and Bruno César (1998) indicates
the challenges of managing sensitive projects. It could be argued that
both democracy and the concern with sustainable development are "sensitive
projects" that merit the kind of "lateral" approach that they advocate.
They too indicate the importance of avoiding adversarial dynamics if such
projects are to be successfully brought to fruition.
Role of metaphor in science and policy-making
The following perspectives complement those already presented in earlier
papers and commentaries by Anthony Judge that are accessible as web documents.
These include commentaries
on metaphor in the Encyclopedia
of World Problems and Human Potential and papers
on metaphor and governance.
Deborah Tannen points out that: "Military metaphors train us to think
about -- and see -- everything in terms of fighting, conflict, and war.
This perspective then limits our imaginations when we consider what we
can do about situations we would like to understand or change." (p. 14)
For the director of the first economic initiative of the Sante Fe Institute
(1987-89), W Brian Arthur: "Nonscientists tend to think that science works
by deduction. But actually science works mainly by metaphor. And what's
happening is that the kinds of metaphor people have in mind are changing....Instead
of relying on the Newtonian metaphor of clockwork predictability, complexity
seems to be based on metaphors more closely akin to the growth of a plant
from a tiny seed, or the unfolding of a computer program from a few lines
of code, or perhaps even the organic, self-organized flocking of simpleminded
birds." (Waldrop, p. 327 and 329; see also p. 149)
Arthur indicates that the institute's role is to look at the ever-changing
river of complexity and to
understand what they are seeing. "So we assign metaphors. It turns
out that an awful lot of
policy-making has to do with finding the appropriate metaphor. Conversely,
bad policy-making almost always involves finding inappropriate metaphors.
For example it may not be appropriate to think about a drug 'war', with
guns and assaults. So, from this point of view, the purpose of having the
Sante Fe Institute is that it, and places like it, are where the metaphors
and vocabulary are being created for complex systems." (Waldrop, p. 334)
The mathematical biologist Evelyn Fox Keller (1985) describes the case
of investigations into slime mold in which researchers had accepted a metaphor
that led them to detect something that was not there. It was her insight
that researchers tended to view nature as hierarchical and that "We risk
imposing on nature the very stories we like to hear". This prevents people
from reaching understanding that may be more appropriate to the situation.
In a key paper, Donald Schön (1979) argues that "the essential
difficulties in social policy have more to do with problem setting than
with problem solving, more to do with ways in which we frame the purposes
to be achieved than with the selection of optimal means for achieving them."
For Schön "the framing of problems often depends upon metaphors underlying
the stories which generate problem setting and set the direction of problem
solving."
As an example he explores the case of slum housing. If the underlying
metaphor is a slum is a "blight" or "disease", then this encourages an
approach governed by the corresponding medical remedies,
including the surgery whereby the blight is removed. On the other hand,
if the underlying metaphor is
that the slum is a "natural community", then this orients any response
in terms of enhancing the life of
that community. The two perceptions and approaches are quite distinct
and have quite different
consequences in practice.
Geologist Scott Montgomery's book, The Scientific Voice (1996),
explores the language of science, and what he finds is anything but scientific
detachment. He tracks the way the language of science bends science itself
to fit cultural norms and metaphors. Louis Pasteur introduced what might
be termed bio-militarism, through which people were "attacked" by diseases.
Montgomery argues that the only way we'll bring medicine into better alignment
with our human nature, is by heightening awareness. Just as we've
had to do in areas of sexism and racism, we have to be aware of the words
we use. Medicine can be changed and, indeed, it must be. The military metaphor
has run to the end of its usefulness. But the necessary changes are ones
we can make only after we've created a new language of medical discourse.
George J. Annas in an article on Reframing
the Debate on Health Care Reform by Replacing Our Metaphors, notes
that use of the military
metaphor has had a pervasive influence on both the practice and the
financing of medicine in the United States, perhaps because until recently,
most U.S. physicians had served in the military. "Medicine is a battle
against death. Diseases attack the body, and physicians intervene. We are
almost constantly engaged in wars on various diseases, such as cancer and
AIDS.". The article concludes that the military metaphor leads to:
-
overmobilization
-
thinking of medicine in terms that have become dysfunctional
-
acceptance as inevitable organizations that are hierarchical and dominated
by men
-
viewing the patient's body as a battlefield
-
favouring short-term, single-minded tactical goals
-
concentration on the physical
-
seeing control as central
-
encouragement of expenditure of massive resources to achieve
dominance
In terms that could as well have been applied to sustainable development
and treatment of the environment, Annas suggests that "it seems reasonable
to conclude that if Congress is ever to make meaningful progress in reforming
our fast-changing system for financing and delivering medical care, a new
way must be found to think about health itself. This will require at least
a new metaphoric framework that permits us to reenvision and thus to reconstruct
the American medical care system. I suggest that the leading candidate
for a new metaphor is ecology."
In contrast, Annas advocates attention to the "ecologic
metaphor". He notes that: "Ecologists use words such as "integrity,"
"balance," "natural," "limited (resources)," "quality (of life),"
"diversity," "renewable," "sustainable," "responsibility (for future generations),"
"community," and "conservation.". If applied to health care, the
concepts embedded in these words and others common to the ecology movement
could have a profound influence on the way the debate about reform is conducted
and on plans for change that are seen as reasonable." The relevance
of this metaphor for sustainable development has been explored in another
paper (Judge, 1989).
Metaphor complementarity vs Reliance on a particular
set of metaphors
This paper has so far focused on the inadequacies of military metaphors.
It is clear that other metaphors may have insights of value in responding
to the challenges of sustainable development. It is important however to
avoid the tendency to shift from one set of metaphors to another -- only
to be subject to the cognitive traps of another kind. Undoubtedly the ecologic
metaphor has its own traps.
One way out of this dilemma is to identify and work with a complementary
set of quite distinct metaphors. In this way every metaphor is understood
to be a trap, but a choice of metaphor has to be made on every occasion.
This is rather like having to choose what clothes to wear (unless one is
a nudist). Each choice has its strengths and weaknesses. This point is
argued more extensively elsewhere (Designing
metaphors and sets of metaphors ).
There would then clearly be a place and a time for military metaphors.
The broader cognitive framework would then encourage greater understanding
of when such metaphors were appropriate and when they undermined sustainable
development strategies.
An interesting dilemma in this process of avoiding reliance on military
metaphors is that the notion of "strategy" is itself derived from a military
mindset.
Framework for exploration of a range of strategic
metaphors
In order to focus this discussion, it seems best to use the following,
very tentative, tables. In it different
metaphors are explored in terms of the insights they might offer and the
ways in which they might condition thinking.
| Table 0: Clustering
of metaphor substrates for Tables 1 - 4 (tentative) |
|
Table 1 |
Table 2 |
Table 3 |
Table 4 |
| "Function / Style" |
Imposing / Constraining |
Informing / Explaining |
Entraining / Reframing / Designing |
Well-being / Inspiring / Relating |
| Metaphor substrates |
Military, Police
Sport
Business, Commerce
Engineering
Laws, Regulations
Politics, Policy-making
Farming, Gardening |
Science, Research
Promotion, Advertising
Media, Television
Education, Learning
|
Design, Architecture
Music
Song
Dance
Crafts, Painting
Drama
Story-telling, Poetry
Leisure, Recreation, Entertainment |
Health
Relationships, Sex
Religion, Spirituality
Stimulants, Relaxants
Food, Gustation |
| "Focus" (cf Jung) |
Sensation/Tangibles |
Thinking |
Emotion |
Intuition |
| Key to integration |
Touch |
Vision |
Sound |
Intuition |
Tentatively integrated into this table are:
-
an indication of the function or style associated with each cluster of
metaphor substrates
-
the metaphor substrates explored in detail in Tables 1 to 4
-
an indication of the corresponding psychological function from the perspective
of Jung and others
-
an indication of the prime function employed in integrating strategic thinking
(of which "vision" is the prime example)
In Tables 1 to 4 below, the columns endeavour to identify (again very
tentatively) different approaches to the "gap" and the different
meanings that might be associated with "bridging" or "crossing" it -- all
of these terms being essentially engineering metaphors.. The columns used
are as follows (with the military case given as an example):
-
what carries the pattern that is passed across the gap (eg bullets in the
case of the military metaphor)
-
the nature of the pattern that is carried (eg command and control systems)
-
the process, method or understanding of "crossing" (eg shooting)
-
the know-how of skill required for "crossing" (eg targeting)
-
the nature of the "other" on the other side of the "gap" (eg targets)
-
the effect of "crossing" in the short-term (eg impact, penetration)
-
the effect of "crossing" in the longer-term (eg destruction, conquest)
-
the framework, context or effector for "crossing" (eg campaign)
-
the means of assessing the "crossing" process
In exploring the following tables it is important to note how the "gap",
its "crossing" and what is on the "other side" are all effectively reinterpreted.
The differences are less radical within tables than between tables (all
of which have the same column attributions). The different interpretations
condition different styles of interaction with "the other" -- and there
fore have different implications for alternative approaches to sustainable
development.
| Table 1: Focus on tangibles |
| Crossing the Gap |
A
Pattern carrier |
B
Pattern to be communicated |
C
Process (of crossing) |
D
Know-how
for crossing |
E
"The Other" (across the Gap) |
F
Effect of crossing
(S-T) |
G
Effect of crossing
(L-T) |
H
Framework for crossing
|
I
Assessing
communication |
| . |
Units |
Framework
Context
Connectivity |
Delivery method |
Discipline
Skill |
Receptors
Recipients |
S-T Effect |
L-T Effect |
Effector |
Performance
Indicators
Prioritizing |
Military
Police |
Bullets
Bombs
Missiles |
Command & control
|
Shooting
Sniping
Artillery
Bombing
Rocketry |
Maneuvering
Targeting
(selection, detection, acquisition,
locking)
Aiming
Striking |
Soldiers
Target
Enemy
Casualties |
Impact
Penetration
Wounding
Resistance
Pillage
Looting |
Destruction
Submission
Retaliation
Incapacity
Conquest |
Mobilization
Campaign
Battle
War |
Megatons
Body count
Kills
Hitting target
Triage |
| Sport |
Points
Moves
Ploys |
Plays
Teamwork
Patterns |
Game |
Skill |
Opponents
Spectators |
Satisfaction
Achievement |
Reciprocation
Character |
Tournaments
Series |
Goals
Scores
Points
League
tables |
Business
Commerce |
Products
Items
Transactions |
Package
Deal |
Promoting
Marketing
Advertising |
Enterprise
Initiative
Salesmanship |
Customers
Consumers
Clients
Mark, Punter
Market
Competition |
Impact
Penetration
Resistance |
Purchase
Sale
Deal
Transaction
Customer loyalty |
Mobilization
Campaign |
Numbers
Share price |
Engineering
Construction |
Elements
Constraints
Devices |
Plans
Designs |
Construction |
Ingenuity
Skills
Experience |
Users
Clients |
Construct
Building |
Approval
Acceptance
Rejection |
Construction program |
Completion
Usage
Overruns
Failures |
Laws
Regulations |
Articles |
Directives
Edicts
Laws |
Legislation |
Framing |
Lobbies
Citizens
Abusers |
Constraints
Facilities |
Acceptance
Compliance
Non-compliance |
Legislative program |
Offences
Complaints |
Politics
Policy-making |
Issues
Initiatives |
Policies |
Policy-making |
Initiative |
Electorate
Opponent |
Influence
Pressure
Decision |
Action |
Governance
Strategy
Campaign |
Votes |
Farming
Permaculture
Gardening |
Plants
Animals
Pesticides
Insecticides
Herbicides |
Crops
Herds |
Cultivation
Husbandry |
Skill
Experience |
Nature
Pests
Market |
Harvesting
Intervention
Weeding |
Depletion
Health |
Crop cycle |
Crop size
Stability |
***
| Table 2: Focus on information and explanation |
| Crossing the Gap |
Pattern carrier |
Pattern to be communicated |
Process (of crossing) |
Know-how
for crossing |
"The Other" (across the Gap) |
Effect of crossing
(S-T) |
Effect of crossing
(L-T) |
Framework for crossing
|
Assessing
communication |
| . |
Units |
Framework
Context
Connectivity |
Delivery method |
Discipline
Skill |
Receptors
Recipients |
S-T Effect |
L-T Effect |
Effector |
Performance
Indicators
Prioritizing |
Science
Research |
Facts
Concepts
Problems |
Hypotheses
Theories |
Experiment |
Methodology |
Ignorance
Peers
Funders |
Disproof |
Explanation
Proof
Acceptance
Publication |
Research program
|
Papers
Reviews |
Promotion
Advertising |
Concepts
Attractants |
Package |
Advertising
Dissemination |
Design |
Sponsors
Audience
Market |
Impact
Influence |
Persuasion
Conviction |
Promotional
campaign |
|
Media
Television |
Frames
Items
Photos
Videoclips
Soundbites |
Sections
Segments
Programs |
Broadcasting
Printing |
Programming |
Viewers
Audience
Readers
Sponsors |
Appreciation
Involvement |
Loyalty
Enculturation |
|
Ratings
Critics |
Education
Learning |
Facts
Concepts
|
Curriculum
Modules
Units |
Course
Training
Teaching
Learning |
Teaching skills
Learning skills |
Students
Faculty
Funders |
Knowledge
Skill |
Know-how
Culture |
Education program |
Marks
Grades
Qualifications |
***
| Table 3: Focus on aesthetics and recreation |
| Crossing the Gap |
Pattern carrier |
Pattern to be communicated |
Process (of crossing) |
Know-how
for crossing |
"The Other" (across the Gap) |
Effect of crossing
(S-T) |
Effect of crossing
(L-T) |
Framework for crossing
|
Assessing
communication |
| . |
Units |
Framework
Context
Connectivity |
Delivery method |
Discipline
Skill |
Receptors
Recipients |
S-T Effect |
L-T Effect |
Effector |
Performance
Indicators
Prioritizing |
Design
Architecture |
Constraints
Harmonies
Materials |
Style
Design
Plan |
Design |
Originality
Skill
Experience |
Users
Funders |
Feel-good
Aesthetic |
Acceptance
Rejection
Enculturation |
|
Reviews |
Music
Rhythm |
Notes
Chords
Harmonies
Instruments |
Melodies
Piece
Movement
Score
Arrangement |
Performance
Recital
Gig |
Skill |
Audience | |
