When Metaphors Go Wrong

The cognitive linguist George Lakoff has argued that metaphors play a crucial role in how we interpret the world. Political questions are no exception, so our metaphor of choice in understanding an issue might have a powerful effect on the answer we are likely to give. 'Should we, as a society, provide X' might well essentially be the same question as 'should the state use tax payer money to fund X', but it is not hard to see that those different ways of framing the question might well lead to different answers being given. One conceptualises the state as an external actor, the other does not. It is of course very hard to establish the chain of causation: does the metaphor bring about the opinion, or does the opinion lead to a tendency to find a particular metaphor more intuitive? It might well be some combination of the two.

In this light, Anand Menon is right to see the centrality of metaphors in the debate over a no deal Brexit, an option which should surely be ruled out as insane. In his appearance this Thursday on BBC question time, something quite shocking happened. The audience cheered loudly and enthusiastically when the prospect of no deal was raised. The metaphor used to encourage no deal was key: it had been compared, by Isabel Oakeshott, to whether or not to buy something. The problem with this, as Menon recognised, was that it implied on some level that no deal meant something akin to the status quo ante- if we decide not to buy something, we are in a position no different to the one before. His deconstruction of this was impressive, and I would recommend viewing it here. 

We may be on the verge of an extraordinarily bad outcome to the Brexit negotiations, and a bad metaphor may well end up playing a crucial role. In some sense, this is nothing new. The household metaphor for the economy was likely an important part of the psychological appeal of austerity. In a typical household, spending has no impact on income, which is more or less fixed. The only way, in that situation, to pay down any debts is to do so from existing income, which all other things being equal, means economising elsewhere. 

With regard to no deal Brexit, I fear that there might be deep reasons why Oakeshott's metaphor carried the audience. This is as many people fundamentally do not believe the EU is institutionally necessary. By this I do not mean that people do not think it does any good things. It is that the legal and institutional structures of the EU are viewed as burdensome and pointless. This is distinct from saying they fulfil a role badly. It is that they are often viewed as fulfilling no particular role at all. If this is the starting point, why shouldn't 'no deal' represent the status quo ante? The only difference would be the absence of things which are burdensome and pointless. This preconception may unfortunately be too hard to change in the space of time available.