Page 166 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 166
What Do We Know about the World?
are also present situational conditionings. They depend on the identi-
ty of individuals and social roles performed by them as well as on the
time and place, they also depend on the receivers. A person lurking by
the window with a sack on his back may be interpreted as Santa Claus,
if he is seen in December by a four-year-old through his room’s window,
or as a thief if in another season he is seen by a janitor in a storage area.
It is evident that in spite of the apparent contradiction both terms, the
rhetorical situation and the definition of the situation, have something
in common. Similarly we can find a common element in the persuasive
definition. While it is formulated it must take under consideration the
circumstances, which might facilitate or hinder the acceptance of that
definition by the receivers.
And thus, in order to analyze the definition of the situation, which
politicians construe in their pronouncements, it is necessary to consid-
er all three discussed terms in their scope of meanings, since the phe-
nomenon we are discussing is located exactly in the field common to all
those areas.
2. What is a Metaphor in Politics
Actors participating in the public debate use metaphors in order to
illustrate ideas and views. It is possible to speak of the double role of the
metaphors depending on to whom they are addressed. Metaphors, on
the one hand, are a sort of identification signs, pointers that allow for
an instant recognition of the sender and at the same time construct the
sense of the group’s community (Charteris-Black, 2005: 205). Similar to
the graffiti on the walls which point out who rules the district, meta-
phors used by a given political milieu provide clear signals of the uni-
ty of their attitudes to the members. On the other hand the metaphor
addressed to the external world serves as a visible and convincing pres-
entation of a given topic. Naturally most often the same metaphor per-
forms both functions simultaneously. The debate on the exposé by Prime
Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz can serve as an example here. He as-
sumed power in 2005 on behalf of the Law and Justice party (PiS), which
proclaimed the need of fundamental renewal of the Polish public life. He
used a metaphor of the state as a gambling table, where politics, business-
men, special services functionaries and gangsters play bridge. The meta-
phor turned out to be catchy and other politicians and journalists used
it often. For the supporters of the party it was a clear cut brief of the pro-
gram – it is necessary to overthrow the table and return to the concept of
the common good, when political activity is a service and not a dirty play
are also present situational conditionings. They depend on the identi-
ty of individuals and social roles performed by them as well as on the
time and place, they also depend on the receivers. A person lurking by
the window with a sack on his back may be interpreted as Santa Claus,
if he is seen in December by a four-year-old through his room’s window,
or as a thief if in another season he is seen by a janitor in a storage area.
It is evident that in spite of the apparent contradiction both terms, the
rhetorical situation and the definition of the situation, have something
in common. Similarly we can find a common element in the persuasive
definition. While it is formulated it must take under consideration the
circumstances, which might facilitate or hinder the acceptance of that
definition by the receivers.
And thus, in order to analyze the definition of the situation, which
politicians construe in their pronouncements, it is necessary to consid-
er all three discussed terms in their scope of meanings, since the phe-
nomenon we are discussing is located exactly in the field common to all
those areas.
2. What is a Metaphor in Politics
Actors participating in the public debate use metaphors in order to
illustrate ideas and views. It is possible to speak of the double role of the
metaphors depending on to whom they are addressed. Metaphors, on
the one hand, are a sort of identification signs, pointers that allow for
an instant recognition of the sender and at the same time construct the
sense of the group’s community (Charteris-Black, 2005: 205). Similar to
the graffiti on the walls which point out who rules the district, meta-
phors used by a given political milieu provide clear signals of the uni-
ty of their attitudes to the members. On the other hand the metaphor
addressed to the external world serves as a visible and convincing pres-
entation of a given topic. Naturally most often the same metaphor per-
forms both functions simultaneously. The debate on the exposé by Prime
Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz can serve as an example here. He as-
sumed power in 2005 on behalf of the Law and Justice party (PiS), which
proclaimed the need of fundamental renewal of the Polish public life. He
used a metaphor of the state as a gambling table, where politics, business-
men, special services functionaries and gangsters play bridge. The meta-
phor turned out to be catchy and other politicians and journalists used
it often. For the supporters of the party it was a clear cut brief of the pro-
gram – it is necessary to overthrow the table and return to the concept of
the common good, when political activity is a service and not a dirty play
