<nettime> http://www.uia.org/metaphor/23chsust.htm

[JSalloum@aol.com]

Much has been written about the deliberate cultivation of an image by
politicians and their increasing investment in media consultants and image
makers, following the example of corporations. It has been argued that image is
becoming as important as content in politics, if not more important. The need
for visionary leadership is stressed (Dror, 1988a). Given the intimate
relationship between policies and the politicians presenting them, it is
appropriate to ask to what degree policy-making is now "image-led" as opposed
to "content-led". For whilst it is possible to formulate policies based on the
most appropriate scientific models and the greatest of expertise, it is
increasingly recognized that if such policies do not communicate well they have
little chance of being either understood or approved. 

These points are made, not in order to denigrate sophisticated models and
conscientiously articulated policies, but in order to suggest that the leading
edge of the policy approval process is now the image through which the policy
is envisioned and presented. But although these are clear examples of the
extensive use of metaphor in relation to governance or in support of it, the
question remains whether the role of metaphor is limited to a public relations
function, namely, to the communication function noted earlier. Metaphors may
affect the way people think about the governance of complex issues (e.g.
references to Reagan's "John Wayne"/"Rambo" approach to governance), but do
they affect the processes of governance itself and the way choices are made?
The literature cited above provides ample evidence of the use of metaphor by
politicians in parliamentary debate to clarify an issue or attack the position
of the opposition. Criticism of Thatcher's policy of privatization was recently
given a very sharp focus through former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan's
phrase "selling off the family silver". Thatcher's subsequent reply in
justifying and reiterating that policy was "selling the family silver back to
the family". This is a good example of policy clarification at the metaphoric
level. 

In the case of President Reagan, it has frequently been pointed out that he
preferred to receive information in the form of video films and imagery in
general, rather then through briefing documents. Is it possible that the kinds
of policy that he supported were limited by the kinds of metaphors to which he
was sensitive? Would more appropriate policies have become credible if their
conception could have been supported by richer metaphors? 
---
#  distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@desk.nl and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/  contact: nettime-owner@desk.nl