1998
Enhancing Sustainable Development Strategies through Avoidance of Military Metaphors
***
-- / --
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
- Table 0: Clustering of metaphor substrates for Tables
1 - 4 (tentative)
Table 1: Focus on tangibles
Table 2: Focus on information and explanation
Table 3: Focus on aesthetics and recreation
Table 4: Focus on well-being and relationships
Relevance to other kinds of "gap" that are a challenge to policy (Table 6)
References and links
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
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
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, pp. 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 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)
- 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.
***
***
***
Appropriateness of metaphors to interaction with the environment
Using the same columns as for Tables 1 to 4 (above), the nature of the "gap" can be explored in the case of the environment to which sustainable development strategies are to be designed to relate. Ideally there should be some consonance between the cognitive frameworks and the nature of the environment they seek to manage. It is one thing to manage an environment with the aid of "targets" and "bullets", it is another to engage with it as does an artist or farmer.
Relevance to other kinds of "gap" that are a challenge to policy
The conference which inspired this paper was primarily concerned with the gap between policy-makers and public. Another interesting way to explore this issue is presented in a table Relating leaders and followers (public) in terms of patterns of assertion and denial.
There are many other gaps -- some already acknowledged by policy-makers. Of special interest is the gap between policy formulation (and its associated political promises) and policy effectiveness on the ground (in terms of meaningful change for those "targeted"). Indicators can of course be selected to signify change from the targeter's perspective that may be meaningless from the target's perspective. Many development programmes over past decades are viewed in this light by those on the ground.
Some other gaps are listed out in Table 6 (below). How might these gaps be reframed in the light of non-military metaphors?
References
Tim Adamson, Greg Johnson, Tim Rohrer, Howard Lam. Metaphors We Ought Not Live By [text]
George J. Annas. Reframing the Debate on Health Care Reform by Replacing Our Metaphors. New England Journal of Medicine. March 16, 1995, Volume 332, Number 11 [text]
Dwight Bolinger. Language -- the Loaded Weapon: the use and abuse of language today. Longman, 1980
Olivier D'Herbemont and Bruno César. Managing Sensitive Projects: a lateral approach. Macmillan, 1998
Peter Elbow. Embracing Contraries: explorations in learning and thinking. Oxford University Press, 1986
Dave Grossman. On Killing: the psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. Little Brown, 1995
Anthony Judge:
- Through metaphor to a sustainable ecology of development policies (Paper prepared for the International Workshop on Collaborative Policy Forums for Sustainable Development organized by the Commission on Sustainable Development of IUCN-The World Conservation Union (Claremont CA, 1989) [text]
- Documents relating to Metaphor for Governance [text]
Evelyn Fox Keller. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Have, Yale University Press, 1985
Stephan Landsman. The Adversary System: a description and defense. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1984
John H. Lienhard. Pasteur's Biomilitarism [text]
David Luban. Twenty Theses on Adversarial Ethics. In: H Stacy and M Lavach (Eds.), Beyond the Adversarial System, Federation Press, forthcoming
S. C. Montgomery. The Scientific Voice. The Guilford Press, 1996. See especially Chapter 3.
Jancie Moulton. A Paradigm in Philosophy: the adversary method. In: Discovering Reality. Sandra Harding and Merrill B Hintikka (Eds). Dordrecht, Redl, 1983, pp. 149-164
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. Report of the Defense Science Board Task force on Information Warfare - Defense (IW-D) Washington D.C. 20301-3140 (November 1996) [text]
Walter J. Or. Agonism in Academic Discussion. (Paper for the 96th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, 1997, Washington DC)
Donald Schon. Generative metaphor: a perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In: Andrew Ortony (Ed) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1979, pp. 254-283
Pennie Scott and G. Watson. An exploration of language for biodiversity and regeneration in Australian agriculture. Extension Farming Systems Journal 2(1), 2006. [extract]
David C. Smith. De-militarizing language. Peace Magazine, July-August 1997 [text]
Deborah Tannen. The Atgument Culture: moving from debate to dialogue. Random House, 1998
Elizabeth Thornburg. Metaphors Matter: how images of battle, sports and sex shape the adversary system. Wisonsin Women's Law Journal, 10, 1995, pp. 225-81
Union of International Associations. Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential. K G Saur Verlag, 4th ed, 1994-5, 3 vols. [commentaries on metaphor]
Peter Watson. War on the Mind: the military uses of psychology. New York, Basic, 1978
M Mitchell Waldrop. Complexity: the emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. Simon and Schuster, 1992
|
For further updates on this site, subscribe here |
