(22) 5. Metaphor and Cultural Coherence The most fundamental values in a culture will be coherent with the metaphorical structure of the most fundamental concepts in the culture.As an example,let us consider some cultural values in our society that are coherent with our UP-DOWN spatialization metaphors and whose opposites would not be. "More is better"is coherent with MORE IS UP and GOOD IS UP."Less is better"is not coherent with them. "Bigger is better"is coherent with MORE IS UP and GOOD IS UP."Smaller is better"is not coherent with them. The future will be better"is coherent with THE FUTURE IS UP and GooD Is UP.The future will be worse"is not. "There will be more in the future"is coherent with MORE IS UP and THE FUTURE IS UP. "Your status should be higher in the future"is coherent with HIGH STATUS IS UP and THE FUTURE IS UP. These are values deeply embedded in our culture.The future will be better"is a statement of the concept of progress."There will be more in the future"has as special cases the accumulation of goods and wage inflation."Your status should be higher in the future"is a statement of careerism.These are coherent with our present spatialization metaphors;their opposites would not be.So it seems that our values are not independent but must form a coherent system with the metaphorical concepts we live by.We are not claiming that all cultural values coherent with a (23)
((22)) 5. Metaphor and Cultural Coherence The most fundamental values in a culture will be coherent with the metaphorical structure of the most fundamental concepts in the culture. As an example, let us consider some cultural values in our society that are coherent with our UP-DOWN spatialization metaphors and whose opposites would not be. "More is better" is coherent with MORE IS UP and GOOD IS UP. "Less is better" is not coherent with them. "Bigger is better" is coherent with MORE IS UP and GOOD IS UP. "Smaller is better" is not coherent with them. The future will be better" is coherent with THE FUTURE IS UP and GooD Is UP. The future will be worse" is not. "There will be more in the future" is coherent with MORE IS UP and THE FUTURE IS UP. "Your status should be higher in the future" is coherent with HIGH STATUS IS UP and THE FUTURE IS UP. These are values deeply embedded in our culture. The future will be better" is a statement of the concept of progress. "There will be more in the future" has as special cases the accumulation of goods and wage inflation. "Your status should be higher in the future" is a statement of careerism. These are coherent with our present spatialization metaphors; their opposites would not be. So it seems that our values are not independent but must form a coherent system with the metaphorical concepts we live by. We are not claiming that all cultural values coherent with a ((23))
metaphorical system actually exist,only that those that do exist and are deeply entrenched are consistent with the metaphorical system. The values listed above hold in our culture generally-all things being equal.But because things are usually not equal,there are often conflicts among these values and hence conflicts among the metaphors associated with them.To explain such conflicts among values (and their metaphors),we must find the different priorities given to these values and metaphors by the subculture that uses them.For instance,MORE IS UP seems always to have the highest priority since it has the clearest physical basis.The priority of MORE IS UP over GOOD IS UP can be seen in examples like "Inflation is rising"and "The crime rate is going up."Assuming that inflation and the crime rate are bad,these sentences mean what they do because MORE IS up always has top priority. In general,which values are given priority is partly a matter of the subculture one lives in and partly a matter of personal values.The various subcultures of a mainstream culture share basic values but give them different priorities.For example,BIGGER IS BETTER may be in conflict with THERE WILL BE MORE IN THE FUTURE when it comes to the question of whether to buy a big car now,with large time payments that will eat up future salary,or whether to buy a smaller,cheaper car.There are American subcultures where you buy the big car and don't worry about the future,and there are others where the future comes first and you buy the small car.There was a time (before inflation and the energy crisis)when owning a small car had a high status within the subculture where VIRTUE IS UP and SAVING RE- SOURCES IS VIRTUOUS took priority over BIGGER IS BETTER. Nowadays the number of small-car owners has gone up drastically because there is a large subculture where SAV-ING MONEY IS BETTER has priority over BIGGER IS BETTER. In addition to subcultures,there are groups whose defining characteristic is that they share certain important values (24) that conflict with those of the mainstream culture.But in less obvious ways they preserve other mainstream values.Take monastic orders like the Trappists.There LESS IS BET-TER and SMALLER IS BETTER are true with respect to material possessions,which are viewed as hindering what is important,namely,serving God.The Trappists share the mainstream value VIRTUE IS UP,though they give it the highest priority and a very different definition. MORE is still BETTER,though it applies to virtue;and status is still uP,though it is not of this world but of a higher one,the Kingdom of God.Moreover,THE FUTURE WILL BE BETTER is true in terms of spiritual growth(uP)and,ultimately,salvation (really uP).This is typical of groups that are out of the mainstream culture.Virtue,goodness,and status may be radically redefined,but they are still uP.It is still better to have more of what is important, THE FUTURE WILL BE BETTER with respect to what is important,and so on.Relative to what is important for a monastic group,the value system is both internally coherent and,with respect to what is important for the group,coherent with the major orientational metaphors of the mainstream culture Individuals,like groups,vary in their priorities and in the ways they define what is good or virtuous to them.In this sense,they are subgroups of one.Relative to what is important for them,their individual value systems are coherent with the major orientational metaphors of the main-stream culture
metaphorical system actually exist, only that those that do exist and are deeply entrenched are consistent with the metaphorical system. The values listed above hold in our culture generally—all things being equal. But because things are usually not equal, there are often conflicts among these values and hence conflicts among the metaphors associated with them. To explain such conflicts among values (and their metaphors), we must find the different priorities given to these values and metaphors by the subculture that uses them. For instance, MORE IS UP seems always to have the highest priority since it has the clearest physical basis. The priority of MORE IS UP over GOOD IS UP can be seen in examples like "Inflation is rising" and "The crime rate is going up." Assuming that inflation and the crime rate are bad, these sentences mean what they do because MORE IS up always has top priority. In general, which values are given priority is partly a matter of the subculture one lives in and partly a matter of personal values. The various subcultures of a mainstream culture share basic values but give them different priorities. For example, BIGGER IS BETTER may be in conflict with THERE WILL BE MORE IN THE FUTURE when it comes to the question of whether to buy a big car now, with large time payments that will eat up future salary, or whether to buy a smaller, cheaper car. There are American subcultures where you buy the big car and don't worry about the future, and there are others where the future comes first and you buy the small car. There was a time (before inflation and the energy crisis) when owning a small car had a high status within the subculture where VIRTUE IS UP and SAVING RESOURCES IS VIRTUOUS took priority over BIGGER IS BETTER. Nowadays the number of small-car owners has gone up drastically because there is a large subculture where SAV-ING MONEY IS BETTER has priority over BIGGER IS BETTER. In addition to subcultures, there are groups whose defining characteristic is that they share certain important values ((24)) that conflict with those of the mainstream culture. But in less obvious ways they preserve other mainstream values. Take monastic orders like the Trappists. There LESS IS BET-TER and SMALLER IS BETTER are true with respect to material possessions, which are viewed as hindering what is important, namely, serving God. The Trappists share the mainstream value VIRTUE IS UP, though they give it the highest priority and a very different definition. MORE is still BETTER, though it applies to virtue; and status is still uP, though it is not of this world but of a higher one, the Kingdom of God. Moreover, THE FUTURE WILL BE BETTER is true in terms of spiritual growth (uP) and, ultimately, salvation (really uP). This is typical of groups that are out of the mainstream culture. Virtue, goodness, and status may be radically redefined, but they are still uP. It is still better to have more of what is important, THE FUTURE WILL BE BETTER with respect to what is important, and so on. Relative to what is important for a monastic group, the value system is both internally coherent and, with respect to what is important for the group, coherent with the major orientational metaphors of the mainstream culture. Individuals, like groups, vary in their priorities and in the ways they define what is good or virtuous to them. In this sense, they are subgroups of one. Relative to what is important for them, their individual value systems are coherent with the major orientational metaphors of the main-stream culture
Not all cultures give the priorities we do to up-down orientation.There are cultures where balance or centrality plays a much more important role than it does in our culture.Or consider the nonspatial orientation active-passive.For us ACTIVE IS UP and PASSIVE IS DOWN in most matters.But there are cultures where passivity is valued more than activity. In general the major orientations up-down,in-out,central-peripheral,active-passive,etc., seem to cut across all cultures,but which concepts are oriented which way and which orientations are most important vary from culture to culture. (25) Ontological Metaphors Entity and Substance Metaphors Spatial orientations like up-down,front-back,on-off,center-periphery,and near-far provide an extraordinarily rich basis for understanding concepts in orientational terms.But one can do only so much with orientation.Our experience of physical objects and substances provides a further basis for understanding-one that goes beyond mere orientation.Understanding our experiences in terms of objects and substances allows us to pick out parts of our experience and treat them as discrete entities or substances of a uniform kind.Once we can identify our experiences as entities or substances,we can refer to them,categorize them,group them,and quantify them-and,by this means,reason about them. When things are not clearly discrete or bounded,we still categorize them as such,e.g.,mountains,street corners,hedges,etc.Such ways of viewing physical phenomena are needed to satisfy certain purposes that we have: locating mountains,meeting at street corners,trimming hedges.Human purposes typically require us to impose artificial boundaries that make physical phenomena discrete just as we are:entities bounded by a surface. Just as the basic experiences of human spatial orientations give rise to orientational metaphors,so our experiences with physical objects(especially our own bodies)provide the basis for an extraordinarily wide variety of on- tological metaphors,that is,ways of viewing events,activities,emotions, ideas,etc.,as entities and substances. Ontological metaphors serve various purposes,and the (26) various kinds of metaphors there are reflect the kinds of purposes served.Take the
Not all cultures give the priorities we do to up-down orientation. There are cultures where balance or centrality plays a much more important role than it does in our culture. Or consider the nonspatial orientation active-passive. For us ACTIVE IS UP and PASSIVE IS DOWN in most matters. But there are cultures where passivity is valued more than activity. In general the major orientations up-down, in-out, central-peripheral, active-passive, etc., seem to cut across all cultures, but which concepts are oriented which way and which orientations are most important vary from culture to culture. ((25)) 6 Ontological Metaphors Entity and Substance Metaphors Spatial orientations like up-down, front-back, on-off, center-periphery, and near-far provide an extraordinarily rich basis for understanding concepts in orientational terms. But one can do only so much with orientation. Our experience of physical objects and substances provides a further basis for understanding—one that goes beyond mere orientation. Understanding our experiences in terms of objects and substances allows us to pick out parts of our experience and treat them as discrete entities or substances of a uniform kind. Once we can identify our experiences as entities or substances, we can refer to them, categorize them, group them, and quantify them—and, by this means, reason about them. When things are not clearly discrete or bounded, we still categorize them as such, e.g., mountains, street corners, hedges, etc. Such ways of viewing physical phenomena are needed to satisfy certain purposes that we have: locating mountains, meeting at street corners, trimming hedges. Human purposes typically require us to impose artificial boundaries that make physical phenomena discrete just as we are: entities bounded by a surface. Just as the basic experiences of human spatial orientations give rise to orientational metaphors, so our experiences with physical objects (especially our own bodies) provide the basis for an extraordinarily wide variety of ontological metaphors, that is, ways of viewing events, activities, emotions, ideas, etc., as entities and substances. Ontological metaphors serve various purposes, and the ((26)) various kinds of metaphors there are reflect the kinds of purposes served. Take the
experience of rising prices,which can be metaphorically viewed as an entity via the noun inflation.This gives us a way of referring to the experience: INFLATION IS AN ENTITY Inflation is lowering our standard of living. If there s much more inflation,we ll never survive.We need to combat inflation. Inflation is hacking us into a corner. Inflation is taking its toll at the checkout counter and the gas pump. Buying land is the best way of dealing with inflation.Inflation makes me sick. In these cases,viewing inflation as an entity allows us to refer to it,quantify it,identify a particular aspect of it,see it as a cause,act with respect to it,and perhaps even believe that we understand it.Ontological metaphors like this are necessary for even attempting to deal rationally with our experiences. The range of ontological metaphors that we use for such purposes is enormous.The following list gives some idea of the kinds of purposes,along with representative examples of ontological metaphors that serve them. Referring My fear of insects is driving my wife crazy. That was a beautiful catch. We are working toward peace. The middle class is powerful silent force in American politics. The honor ofour country is at stake in this war. Quantifying It will take a lot of patience to finish this book.There is so much hatred in the world. DuPont has a lot of political power in Delaware.You've got too much hostility in you. (27) Pete Rose has a lot of hustle and baseball know-how. Identifying Aspects The ugly side of his personality comes out under pressure.The brutality of war dehumanizes us all. I can't keep up with the pace of modern life. His emotional health has deteriorated recently. We never got to feel the thrill of victory in Vietnam. Identifying Causes The pressure of his responsibilities caused his breakdown.He did it out of anger. Our influence in the world has declined because of our lack of moral fiber. Internal dissension cost them the pennant. Setting Goals and Motivating Actions He went to New York to seek fame and fortune. Here's what you have to do to insure financial security.I'm changing my way of life so that I can find true happiness.The FBI will act quickly in the face of a threat to national se- curity. She saw getting married as the solution to her problems. As in the case of orientational metaphors,most of these expressions are not noticed as being metaphorical.One reason for this is that ontological metaphors,like orientational metaphors,serve a very limited range of purposes-referring,quantifying,etc.Merely viewing a nonphysical thing as an entity or substance does not allow us to comprehend very much about it.But ontological metaphors
experience of rising prices, which can be metaphorically viewed as an entity via the noun inflation. This gives us a way of referring to the experience: INFLATION IS AN ENTITY Inflation is lowering our standard of living. If there' s much more inflation, we' ll never survive. We need to combat inflation. Inflation is hacking us into a corner. Inflation is taking its toll at the checkout counter and the gas pump. Buying land is the best way of dealing with inflation. Inflation makes me sick. In these cases, viewing inflation as an entity allows us to refer to it, quantify it, identify a particular aspect of it, see it as a cause, act with respect to it, and perhaps even believe that we understand it. Ontological metaphors like this are necessary for even attempting to deal rationally with our experiences. The range of ontological metaphors that we use for such purposes is enormous. The following list gives some idea of the kinds of purposes, along with representative examples of ontological metaphors that serve them. Referring My fear of insects is driving my wife crazy. That was a beautiful catch. We are working toward peace. The middle class is powerful silent force in American politics. The honor of our country is at stake in this war. Quantifying It will take a lot of patience to finish this book. There is so much hatred in the world. DuPont has a lot of political power in Delaware. You've got too much hostility in you. ((27)) Pete Rose has a lot of hustle and baseball know-how. Identifying Aspects The ugly side of his personality comes out under pressure. The brutality of war dehumanizes us all. I can't keep up with the pace of modern life. His emotional health has deteriorated recently. We never got to feel the thrill of victory in Vietnam. Identifying Causes The pressure of his responsibilities caused his breakdown. He did it out of anger. Our influence in the world has declined because of our lack of moral . fiber. Internal dissension cost them the pennant. Setting Goals and Motivating Actions He went to New York to seek fame and fortune. Here's what you have to do to insure financial security. I'm changing my way of life so that I can find true happiness. The FBI will act quickly in the face of a threat to national security. She saw getting married as the solution to her problems. As in the case of orientational metaphors, most of these expressions are not noticed as being metaphorical. One reason for this is that ontological metaphors, like orientational metaphors, serve a very limited range of purposes—referring, quantifying, etc. Merely viewing a nonphysical thing as an entity or substance does not allow us to comprehend very much about it. But ontological metaphors
may be further elaborated.Here are two examples of how the ontological metaphor THE MIND IS AN ENTTTY Is elaborated in our culture. THE MIND IS A MACHINE We're still trying to grind out the solution to this equation.My mind just isn't operating today. Boy,the wheels are turning now! I'm a little rusty today. We ve been working on this problem all day and now we re running out of steam. (28) THE MIND IS A BRITTLE OBJECT Her ego is very fragile. You have to handle him with care since his wifes death.He broke under cross-examination. She is easily crushed. The experience shattered him. I'm going to pieces. His mind snapped. These metaphors specify different kinds of objects.They give us different metaphorical models for what the mind is and thereby allow us to focus on different aspects of mental experience.The MACHINE metaphor gives us a conception of the mind as having an on-off state,a level of efficiency,a productive capacity,an internal mechanism,a source of energy, and an operating condition.The BRITTLE OBJECT metaphor is not nearly as rich.It allows us to talk only about psychological strength.However,there is a range of mental experience that can be conceived of in terms of either metaphor.The examples we have in mind are these: He broke down.(THE MIND IS A MACHINE) He cracked up.(THE MIND IS A BRITTLE OBJECT) But these two metaphors do not focus on exactly the same aspect of mental experience. When a machine breaks down,it simply ceases to function.When a brittle object shatters, its pieces go flying,with possibly dangerous consequences.Thus,for example,when someone goes crazy and becomes wild or violent,it would be appropriate to say "He cracked up."On the other hand,if someone becomes lethargic and unable to function for psychological reasons,we would be more likely to say"He broke down. Ontological metaphors like these are so natural and so pervasive in our thought that they are usually taken as self-evident,direct descriptions of mental phenomena.The fact that they are metaphorical never occurs to most of us.We take statements like "He cracked under pressure"as being directly true or false.This expression was in fact used by (29 various journalists to explain why Dan White brought his gun to the San Francisco City Hall and shot and killed Mayor George Moscone.Explanations of this sort seem perfectly natural to most of us.The reason is that metaphors like THE MIND IS A BRITTLE OBJECT are an integral part of the model of the mind that we have in this culture;it is the model most of
may be further elaborated. Here are two examples of how the ontological metaphor THE MIND IS AN ENTITY IS elaborated in our culture. THE MIND IS A MACHINE We're still trying to grind out the solution to this equation. My mind just isn't operating today. Boy, the wheels are turning now! I'm a little rusty today. We' ve been working on this problem all day and now we' re running out of steam. ((28)) THE MIND IS A BRITTLE OBJECT Her ego is very fragile. You have to handle him with care since his wife' s death. He broke under cross-examination. She is easily crushed. The experience shattered him. I'm going to pieces. His mind snapped. These metaphors specify different kinds of objects. They give us different metaphorical models for what the mind is and thereby allow us to focus on different aspects of mental experience. The MACHINE metaphor gives us a conception of the mind as having an on-off state, a level of efficiency, a productive capacity, an internal mechanism, a source of energy, and an operating condition. The BRITTLE OBJECT metaphor is not nearly as rich. It allows us to talk only about psychological strength. However, there is a range of mental experience that can be conceived of in terms of either metaphor. The examples we have in mind are these: He broke down. (THE MIND IS A MACHINE) He cracked up. (THE MIND IS A BRITTLE OBJECT) But these two metaphors do not focus on exactly the same aspect of mental experience. When a machine breaks down, it simply ceases to function. When a brittle object shatters, its pieces go flying, with possibly dangerous consequences. Thus, for example, when someone goes crazy and becomes wild or violent, it would be appropriate to say "He cracked up." On the other hand, if someone becomes lethargic and unable to function for psychological reasons, we would be more likely to say "He broke down." Ontological metaphors like these are so natural and so pervasive in our thought that they are usually taken as self-evident, direct descriptions of mental phenomena. The fact that they are metaphorical never occurs to most of us. We take statements like "He cracked under pressure" as being directly true or false. This expression was in fact used by ((29)) various journalists to explain why Dan White brought his gun to the San Francisco City Hall and shot and killed Mayor George Moscone. Explanations of this sort seem perfectly natural to most of us. The reason is that metaphors like THE MIND IS A BRITTLE OBJECT are an integral part of the model of the mind that we have in this culture; it is the model most of