Page 170 - 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. 170
What Do We Know about the World?
among them greater than usual license for quick decision making by the
rulers. It is then easy to give up regular democratic procedures of debate,
justifying it with the necessity of an immediate response. Such mecha-
nism could be observed after 09.11, mainly in the USA. The opposition
metaphors suggest, on the other hand, that there is somebody respon-
sible for the crisis, it is possible to point out an incompetent architect,
hence the images of “a poorly constructed edifice, of the European home
erected on quicksand”. This last image, evoking the evangelical parable
in the mouth of the rightist envoy assumes an additional meaning, since
the audience (and particularly supporters of the party) are used to the
opinion that the EU is an institution whose activities are far from the
conservative or Christian values, and often openly hostile to them.
The metaphor of the EU as a home is used also by the government
side, which is explaining that implementation the opposition’s vision
would put Poland in a cul-de-sac, or will remain in the anteroom and in
the draft. The metaphor of the common home, household, marriage is
universally used in the discourse on the EU (Musolff, 2006). The meta-
phor of the EU as a home according to Paul Chilton and Mikhai Ilyin
(1993) has been started by Michail Gorbachov with the statement made
in the mid-80s about the common European home in the context of mu-
tual responsibility of the states for Europe.
Let us have a look at the metaphors used in the debates. Different
metaphors imply different ways of dealing with things, Norman Fair-
clough comments (1989: 120). If the problem rests in the faulty foun-
dations of the building, it needs general renovation. If the problem rests
with an incoming tornado, escape might be the only rational action.
Naturally in the analyzed cases those two solutions did not material-
ize since, as I said, the metaphors did not serve as ways of looking for
solutions but as the method of identifying the culprits. Simultaneous-
ly that example indicates another important feature of the metaphors –
their customary character. Almost each metaphoric image may be used
in many different ways. Let’s return to the image of the state as a build-
ing. We may pay attention to the foundation of values, on which the
state is posited or stress the open door for immigrants (Fairclough, 1989:
120). The choice of a given aspect depends on the situation and the send-
er’s intention.
One of the more frequent images is the one of a boat/ship. All par-
ties accepting the Union politics of the government use this metaphor
although they use it in many different ways. EU may be a “navy ship”,
which cruises in the stormy sea and it should be aware of other ships in
among them greater than usual license for quick decision making by the
rulers. It is then easy to give up regular democratic procedures of debate,
justifying it with the necessity of an immediate response. Such mecha-
nism could be observed after 09.11, mainly in the USA. The opposition
metaphors suggest, on the other hand, that there is somebody respon-
sible for the crisis, it is possible to point out an incompetent architect,
hence the images of “a poorly constructed edifice, of the European home
erected on quicksand”. This last image, evoking the evangelical parable
in the mouth of the rightist envoy assumes an additional meaning, since
the audience (and particularly supporters of the party) are used to the
opinion that the EU is an institution whose activities are far from the
conservative or Christian values, and often openly hostile to them.
The metaphor of the EU as a home is used also by the government
side, which is explaining that implementation the opposition’s vision
would put Poland in a cul-de-sac, or will remain in the anteroom and in
the draft. The metaphor of the common home, household, marriage is
universally used in the discourse on the EU (Musolff, 2006). The meta-
phor of the EU as a home according to Paul Chilton and Mikhai Ilyin
(1993) has been started by Michail Gorbachov with the statement made
in the mid-80s about the common European home in the context of mu-
tual responsibility of the states for Europe.
Let us have a look at the metaphors used in the debates. Different
metaphors imply different ways of dealing with things, Norman Fair-
clough comments (1989: 120). If the problem rests in the faulty foun-
dations of the building, it needs general renovation. If the problem rests
with an incoming tornado, escape might be the only rational action.
Naturally in the analyzed cases those two solutions did not material-
ize since, as I said, the metaphors did not serve as ways of looking for
solutions but as the method of identifying the culprits. Simultaneous-
ly that example indicates another important feature of the metaphors –
their customary character. Almost each metaphoric image may be used
in many different ways. Let’s return to the image of the state as a build-
ing. We may pay attention to the foundation of values, on which the
state is posited or stress the open door for immigrants (Fairclough, 1989:
120). The choice of a given aspect depends on the situation and the send-
er’s intention.
One of the more frequent images is the one of a boat/ship. All par-
ties accepting the Union politics of the government use this metaphor
although they use it in many different ways. EU may be a “navy ship”,
which cruises in the stormy sea and it should be aware of other ships in
