Of political marriage and divorce … metaphorically speaking

… the greatest thing, by far, is to be a master of metaphor. It is the one thing that cannot be learnt from others; and it is also a sign of genius since a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of similarity of dissimilars. Through resemblance, metaphor makes things clearer. ( Aristotle, Poetics)

I’m tickled pink (as I’m sure are millions of my fellow Indians) by the great Congress – Left tamasha that’s taken centre stage in Indian politics. I just hope the whole thing doesn’t end in farce –  elections.

 What interests me is the language in which this “relationship” and the sordid parting of ways is being couched. Major English news channels describe the Congress-Left liaison as “marriage” and the Left’s pulling-out as “divorce”.  The newsreader on NDTV last night actually said, absolutely deadpan,”The left has taken the divorce papers to the President.”

And the grounds for divorce? I suppose you could call it adultery (after a fashion!) – the Left taking umbrage at the Congress liaison with the US. The Congress claims it’s a platonic relationship, but I’m inclined to think the Left’s suspicions are not unfounded, looking at the way the Congress is rushing into another liaison –  with the Samajwadi Party – even while the Left is still processing the divorce papers!  Triangle upon triangle,  eh? 

Marriage is a popular metaphor, and not just in literature. It’s an oft-used Biblical metaphor for the human-divine relationship. It’s also pretty common in business parlance. I’ve read at least one article in Journal of Business Research that uses the marriage metaphor to describe organizational relationships, bringing into play the entire gamut of interpersonal relationships –  individual partner expectations, communication behaviour, appraisal processes, problem-solving.

Metaphors? Pshaw!! Ornamentation, rhetoric, flourish, you say? Not something one uses in ordinary speech and writing? Well, you’ll have to read Lakoff and Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By  to change your mind! A book in which the authors argue that the way we think is essentially metaphorical in nature, that metaphors don’t just make thoughts more vivid and interesting, they also structure the way we perceive things – our conceptual system. 

To take the most famous example in the book, the “Argument is War” metaphor structures the way we think about argument. Consider the words we use to talk about arguments: winning, losing, opponent, attacking, defending, planning, strategy …

As Lakoff and Johnson put it, many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war:

He attacked every weak point in my argument.

His criticisms were right on target.

I demolished his argument.

I’ve never won an argument with him.

If you use that strategy, he’ll wipe you out.

The war metaphor forces us to think and speak of argument in terms of  winning, losing, defending and attacking. Would some other metaphor make us perceive it differently?

How does the marriage metaphor structure the way we look at coalitionist relationships? Does it create expectations of loyalty, commitment, bonding, responsibility and such like? And if the breaking of the relationship is seen as divorce, does it carry associations of betrayal, mistrust, and bitterness?

One could really go berserk here. For instance, viewing the marriage as an “arranged” one, a “love” marriage, or a marriage of “convenience” would probably influence the expectations we have of it.  Also, who in this relationship are we inclined to think of as the husband and who the wife? Would that determine who the aggrieved party is?

An editor from the ToI insisted, on CNN-IBN, that the Congress-Left arrangement was never a relationship to begin with – the Left was always on the outside. So a marriage of convenience then, something we are not unfamiliar with today. Does viewing it this way make the break-up seem less damaging?

I’m inclined to think that describing the relationship in terms of marriage and divorce lends emotional content to what would otherwise seem a prosaic, business-like association for narrow political ends. And therefore greater viewer interest is guaranteed!! 

 

 

 

Advertisements

2 Comments »

  1. Quirky Indian said

    It should have been a prosaic, business-like association for (hopefully) the greater good, but it was an association for narrow political ends.

    I think both the Congress and the Left took the marriage metaphor so seriously they actually indulged in role-play. So we were witness to the squabbles, the accusations and the recriminations, the attempts at reconciliation….

    If we’re really unlucky, we may get to see some make-up sex.

  2. asmokescreen said

    QI:

    🙂
    Make-up sex? Wicked! And here I was ever-so-gingerly trying to skirt that!

    Anyways, making-up seems to be the last thing on the Left’s mind. Notice the I-can-do-it-too kind of vengefulness, vis-a-vis the BSP.

RSS feed for comments on this post

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: