Political Language andMetaphorInterpreting and changing the world

Edited by Terrell Carverand Jernej Pikalo

,;1HOIII lI'dql', "'Vilil'.ili'lIiill'I'''iI'

IlllllllltiAlliltllW\lllli

First published 2008by Roueledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

, il11l1lraneously published in the USA and Canada'y HOIII"'dW

10 Mlld;~llll Av~, Ncw York, NY 10016

1\11I1/111"~Ii" Ii 1111 1IIIIII'}IIIO!IIJu '1'11'1/01"& 17t'r.ml'ir GrOll'" a., t'n,r-o I'J " , '. 'l-'} ,n, 'jt rffl,ct fJltSzneSJ

11,1'1111/1,111'11111111111"l'dl'I,,'ilil '11111,,,'', T 'rr~" al'V rand JernejI II 11111,111.l11'1"II,iI I /1111'111M,rill' lilli' ";hlll()l'~

',\I" II III I 1111'11111111"/'\ \ I'III~II /,111, 1I1l/"III1, 'I'll" IIl1d \Xi'lIrII 1111" 111.1/11'1111"1111,11,II IIIIIIIllIlly '1:11 I)i/lillll, 1','\L~Il)W, ComlV:dl

111/1111 II " 1.1 r~1I 1'111 Iii "" 111111111111III' II'plllll('d 01'III III t/1I11 .I III III III 1.1 III II/II /111111III h\1 III/Y /'11'1111l1li! , 11\('(1,,",;( ,d,III III II 1111111/1, III' 1111111/ III 11I1I,dll'l IlIl'f 111/'" 1Il1111dlilM/II" I,IIIIII/lyllil III III III 1I1,Ifl/i ,III 11/11/1\' 11111111111111\:11'II (11'111'('(II'''t'II'lt'VI I ~ 'I ' ", , '11'111, II' 111111/1"'"1 11111III III'lllIlg /11111\"1(' Iltih'i~I't'r~,

I3rll}J/1 UIJlitl' I <.'.tl"/O)(I/III,IIIII l'IIIiIII,111IJ1I 11,1/"

Acaralogllc "~c()rtl I()I' lidll hool, /'IIIVIIIIIIIII" 11'011'Ii,(' Il,'il ish I.ibrllry

Ltbrary of CongruJJ C:ttt(tI()gill,~ ill 1'lIlllkl/lioll 1)1/1"A catalog record for this bouk "II~ hl't'li 1't'qlll'~It't1

U.I'I (<! i//IiJ/r:,1tionJNoles on ronlrib1ttor.r

dUN)!1 / ,etp,ementJ

lid itors' j 11trod Llction'I'I(I\((I(I,L ;A((VnR AND JERNEJ PIKALO

I'i\ J(' I' 1

\'cknc'

'I'h ' ways of stargazing: Newtonian metaphoricityill Am 'ri an foreign policy1)IMI'I'ilIOS 1\, AKRIVOULJS

Slipp"ry slopes in political discourseI)AC S'I'IiNV LJ.ISBNlO: 0-415-41735-x (hbk)

ISBN10: 0-203-93123-8 (ebk)

ISBNI3: 978-0-415-41735-8 (hbk)ISBNI3: 978-0-203-93123-3 (ebk)

M 'chani at metaphors in politics.Illll N Il.l I II A L

I'i\ 1('1' II

'j 1"I1"'lur 'S

M ·raphors of social orderIII( I I' I( I N <: M 1\ I(

Ml'l:Iphors of soli IarilyI~ 1'111 'I' II' IN') 111\ N

X

XlI

XVI

6 Exploring the metaphorical (dc- )<.:011, 11'111 'f ic III oj

legitimacy: a comparison of legicim:,j iOIl .Ii. I'Olll'Sl'S

in American and British newspap 'rsSTEFFEN G. SCHNEIDER

PART IIIEurope

7 Identifying and assessing metaphors: dis ours' onEU reformPETR DRULAK

8 Discursive metaphor analysis: (de)construccion(s) ofEuropeJOCHEN WALTER AND JAN HELMIG

9 Political protest and metaphorCHARLOTTE FRIDOLFSSON

PART IVSexuality

10 Real construction through metaphorical language:how animals and machines (amongst othermetaphors) maketh (hu)man (what 'he' is)TERRELL CARVER

11 Data, anecdote and metaphor in gender equalitypolicy-making: merging 'intellectual and real worldmainstreaming'GEMMA M. CARNEY

12 Metaphors, mini-nanatives and Foucauldiandiscourse theoryVERONJQUE MOTTIER

PART VPolicy

13 Metaphor, catachresis and equivalence: the rhetoricof Freedom to Fly in the struggle over aviation policyin the United KingdomDAVID HOW AR TH AND STEVEN GRIGGS

14 Love and life in Heart-less Town: or, the use ofmetaphor in local planningMERLIJN J. VAN HULST

15 Cognition meets action: metaphors as models ofand models forDVORA YANOW

PART VILanguage

l6 The application of conceptual metaphor theory topolitical discourse: methodological questions andsome possible solutionsALAN CIENKI

17 Metaphorical moves: 'scientific expertise' in researchpolicy studiesPHILIPPE SORMANI AND MARTIN BENNINGHOFF

I H A metaphorical election style: use of metaphor atelection timeI InTER VERTES EN AND CHRIST'L DE LANDTSHEER

I{ Ac [ions'1'1(1(1(111.1. :AI(VIiI( AND JERNEJ PIKALO

'//lI'I/I('/, 1'1'/ /ill,~

II/ Ii', '289291

Contributors siteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His research focuses on semantics,language and cognition and metaphor in thought and its expression inspoken interaction. He is a co-editor of the volumes Conceptual and Dis-courseFactors in Linguistic Structure (CSLI, 2001) and Metaphor and Gesture(Benjamins, forthcoming) and is on the editorial board of the journalCognitive Linguistics.

Petr DruIak is Director of the Institute of International Relations in Pragueand Associate Professor ofInternational Relations at the Charles Univer-sity; he has published on theory of international relations, Europeanintegration and EU enlargement in a number of Czech and internationalpublications. He is author of the first Czech textbook on theory of Inter-national relations (2003); he was Jean Monnet Fellow at the EuropeanUniversity Institute in Florence in 2003/2004.

harlotte Fridolfsson is a Lecturer and the Director of Studies in Law andLegal Science at Orebro University, Sweden. She teaches courses ingender studies and political science where the focus is on qualitative andquantitative method, political theory, feminist theory, Swedish politicsand EU politics. Her main research interests are contemporary contin-ental philosophy, social movements, political parties and identity poli-tics. She is the author of Deconstructing Political Protest (OrebroUniversity, 2006). She defended her thesis Deconstructing Political Protestin 2006. She is currently working as the Director of Studies inLaw/Legal studies and is also teaching political science and genderstudies at Orebro University in Sweden.

Sc'v n Griggs is Lecturer in Public Policy at the University of Birminghamin the United Kingdom. He has published articles on developments inFrench health policy and politics and is currently studying the dynamicsof ommunity governance, in particular the mobilisation and decision-maki n r [ rocesses of community protest campaigns. He is co-author ofl'1'ench Politics: Debates and Controversies (2000) and is editor of thejou rr1:l I 'j"ilicet!Polic] Analysis.

.Jlln II 'Imig is a PhD can lidate at the research tralOlOg group 'WorldSo·j ·ty Makin aod Repr senting the Global' at the University ofIIi ,I .(',1 I, (; ·rmany. His main research interests include metaphors,1\ 'opolil it's nnd military affairs on which he has published several111'1il Iv,',

Dimitrios E, Akrivoulis is Lecturer in International R ,lations at theDepartment of Balkan Studies at the University of West 1'0 Macedonia,Greece. His research focuses on Paul Ricoeur, hermeneutics andquantum conceptions of politics. His work includes Beyond Construc-tIvIsm and RatIonalIsm: A Hermeneutics of International Politics (in progress)and IntroductIon to European Post-Socratic Political PlJiloJO!Jhy(Kritiki2006). '

Martin. Benninghoff is Researcher at the Observatory Science, Policy andSOClety of the University of Lausanne. His work stands at the intersec-tion of resear:h policy studies and social studies of science by focusingon dIfferent Issues such as boundary work, cycles of credit and socialor ranisation of research activities. He is author of the book La recherche4ftlire d'Etelt (PPUR, 2003) and co-editor of La fabrique des science~PPLJH, 006).

(:\'11."1111 M .. 'amey is a Researcher and Policy Analyst with a particular1111~'r('SI In: 'nder equality issues. She undertook a case study of genderlilli/I," r('IIiTIlng In the Republic of Ireland, 2000-2004, for which sheWIIS IIWllr 1. I a PhD by Trinity College Dublin in 2004. She has lecturedi J I pol iIi 'nl s 'i 'nce and women's studies at Trinity College Dublin andI ld lill Cily University and is currently teaching international studiesIII Ih~' Op 'II Univ rity.

'I'v"n·lI, Cal'v '.1' is f rofi ss I' of Politi al Th-ory at th University of Bristol,I JIIII('d 1'"1~ 10m, an 1 '()- 'hnir of th· n PH 'I'h 'ory Stanuing ,roup.11(' hns 1111 Ilsh· 1 W/ Icly Oil )'(" d '1', 1))fIS'ldinil i('s Iind nOI1-r('du', ionisr1Il(·,IIOllolo)\i('s Iin 1 hilS co-('(Iil(·d IWO IiCPI{-hll~('d lolll,(,tion,' or pl'l ('rsIhili 1('111111'('II Ih"ol' /1'lIs(' ,'111/I IIPI 1'0,11II: 1111(,'II1'1'IIIJ,~ 1/1(' I'o/ilk'l/: NI'III

A/I'I/lIi,IIi/Ii,l:it'l HOIIII(''',P,I', /1)1)/ ,111,1I'O/Ilitl 0/ SI' I/,//};II: /rit'lllil)', ,'mi/I'I'.

(:111.1'1/1/111' (1<11I1111't!}',I',II)I)H III 1111' lie iiI< ""II"~ '1111111111'1111Iillllli( IiI 1 t I(~I II II I

I, "1111 IIOI\O!J11i1 i,' SI'l1iilr 1.('('1111'('1'ill polil k:d III 'ol'y ill lh " hool of Poli-I i( /, lilt! 1111"1'11II i,)1111i I{vllll jOIIS, l Jlliv('l'Sil Colll'lI(' I llhlin. 11,1'1111111111111111',1111111.1(' 'IIri"IIt!,., ',I I' 111)1,1'1',III lililllil IJI\('II( 'l'llv I i('s1)('1\ 1'1'11I illll'II' II', I olll'lll\! II"", 1'0/11 /I,d S/II,/II'I ( I()() I ); I :11'11 I~I,/I/I/J/'I,'II

11111(1<1111111,,11',1.IO() ',1111,1,11'1111 l,tllllll ( lillll'II'111 )1'11111111,,),1'/111//1

1Ir,IIIIIIII III 111/1111' ,11/111'/,111111 (I<111111,.Im, '(H) t) III I 111111III 1I'i1,111II\

1\ I,Ill ( I·,,1 i I I I" 11I11 I III JlIII' II' 'I I 1II1IIi' I " "I I Iii 1.1 111111IIII III I iI I 11111'1111II IIIIiI« 1111111111111111111111II 1111 1')( 1111\ Iii II 1111111 11I1 11111II

1111('1("01',lit' III III(' 111111111:11illtl,' or I' '1111Ii ':In h ol'y and in its applica-(11111111111('1',lilt 1IIlIilll"( il i:t,\'llsilip tin I imrnigntion.

David IloWHnh is S '1liol' L' 'IIII' 'I' in Pol iti al Th 'ol'y in tbe Deparrmenr ofovern 111n t ae eh' lIiv 'rs ity f Essex. Hi books in 'lude Discourse

(Open University Pr ss, 2000) and Login of Critical EXjJlanation in Socialand Politic-al Theory (Rourledge, 2007), which was co-written with JasonGlynos. He has published numerous articles and chapters on theories ondiscourse, post-Marxist political theory and its application to empiricalcases, most notably Sourh African politics and new environmenralmovements.

teffen G. Schneider is Research Associate at the TranState ResearchCentre, University of Bremen, Germany. He is co-editor of Legitimacy inan Age of Politics (Palgrave, 2007) and co-author of several book chapterson the legitimation of western democracies. His other research inrerestsinclude party system developmenrs and the political economy of socialand labour market policy reforms in advanced industrial democracies.

Philippe Sormani is Research Fellow at the University of Lausanne,Switzerland, and member of the Inreraction and Social PracticesResearch Group at Fribourg University, Switzerland. Trained as a soci-ologist, he has specialised in higher education and research policytudies as well as ethnomethodological approaches to research practice.

Video analysis of insttuctional activities in various settings, 'scienrific'or 'ordinary', provides his current focus.

I)ag Stenvoll is a Political Scienrist and Senior Researcher at the SteinRokkan Centre for Social Studies, University of Bergen, Norway. Hisresearch inrerests include language and politics, discourse analysis,transnational sex work and trafficking, sexuality and reproductive issues,and Russia. He currently leads the multidisciplinary research projectProstitution, Gender and Migration (2006-2010).

I)i'rer Vertessen holds an MA in Communication Sciences. As a PhDstudent, he is currently working in the Research Unit Political Commu-ni ation at the University of Antwerp. His research focuses on style and(01'111in mediated political discourse, on political metaphors and on thepol iti al implications of a soundbite culture.

/(when Walter is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Sociology, University ofI}i 'lefeld, and is a research associate at the extra collaborative research. 'ner 'The Political as Communicative Space in History'. His mainI' 's 'ar h interests include processes of European idenrity formation, dis-tOll rs analysis, poststtucturalist theories, systems theory and construc-Iivise h I'fllen uti . He has published in the Zeitschrift fur Internationale!il1zi 'hltngen.

I )vora Yallow hold eh Strategic Chair in Meaning and Method at theVl'ij' LJniv'l'sieeie, Amsterdam. Her research has been shaped by anov '1'1111inl'l' 'st in rh' ofllfllunication of meaning in organisational andpol it' $('11 ings. Sh . is d1' author of HoUl does et policy mean? Interpreting/lIIlil)1 /1/111 IJI:Wllliz Ilirnlrli rltlilJrlJ ( lCol' r town University Press, 1996);(:lIlIllItlill,q illll'I/lr('lill/' filliitl /1/lly.ri.r ('ag', 2(00); onstmcting American"1',/(/'" II/I I "('I/Illit il)l",' :tI/('l(IIIY /1I11.ii1l,qill /II/Mit /lIIlity 111./ ('I tmirli.rI·Y:ttionM, 1\, ,'II lilli', 00 ,

Medijn J. van Hulst is Lecturer in Public Administration at the Faculty ofSocial Sciences, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Hisbackground is in Cultural Anrhropology. He recenrly finished his PhDproject on the culture of municipalities. His research inrerests includeculture, narrative, local governmenr, inrerpretive methods and method-ology.

Christ'l De Landtsheer is Professor of Communication Science and Direc-tor of th Research Unit Political Communication at the University of1\ IIIw('rp. T1 'I' I' 's ar h is on psychological, linguistic and technologicalII~P('(IS or polil i nl 0111flluni ation. Among her publications are

1('III/I//(Jrit,11 IYIllrid fJrJlililJ, PolilicalLy peetking, Beyond Public Speech andS 1'/////11/1, I )('///111 Ii II i'oIll illll, lilli'll/II! I/Iiz Itio11 mcf GLobalization Trends and11,//111,1/ (:1111111'1',Smi,tli'oillilill IlIrllir!IIUliort.

VII'I>lIlqlll' Mold"I' i,'i PI'ol;'s,'OI' ill S()'iology ae ehe Univ rsiey of LausanneIII Ii 1 11(·llmvill Sill i" Illd Polilin" S'i'n 'S at J sus College, Cambridge.Slit' is (0 ( IliIiI' or Ill· no It .I'll 'ory tandin Group and has publishedwi I 'Iy iII III ' al' 'flSof so ial an I I oliei al eh ory, gender, sexuality and thestae , and t1i urse analysis, incluling Politics of Sexuality: Identity, Gender,CitizemhijJ (co-edited, Routledge, 1998), Genre et poLitique: dibats et perspec-tives (co-edited, Gallimard, 2000) and Sexuality (OUP, forthcoming).

Jernej Pikalo is Lecturer in Political Theory at the Faculty of Social Sci-ences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. He is authot of NeoLiberal GLob-aLisation and the State (ZPS, 2003) and assistant editor of JournaL ofInternationaL ReLations and Development (Palgrave). His main researchinterests include political concepts, theory of the state, inteq retativmethodology and theories of globalisation.

Erik Ringmar is Professor at ehe Institute for 0 ial an 1 .Lill Iral . I'll Ii '5

and the Center for General Edu ation ae I'h' Nationnl Ciliao '1'1111)lJni.versiey, Hsin hu, T;liw:'lI1. II . h:ls Wl'ill('11wi.ld Oil pol IIi( III ('C 0110111,. ol1ol11ic hislol' , illl('l'llillillll.d l'I,lllli()!I', ,111.1Ildlllllli ',(lC II dill', Ili~1001· ()II II'('I,.lI)!11Id "1"'1'1111111i11111111'''"I. II ,llr/l Ii IIII,/,!)' 1'11111/111'1'11/1''1'/1/1, \ II', 1'ldill'.llId II\' Aililill I I'll III '(1(11 '" ••••

A ·1nowledgement

The editors would like to thank European Consortium for Politi al Research(ECPR) and all participants in the 2004 'Metaphor in Political Science'workshop held in Granada, Spain. Although contributions to this volumeare not limited to Granada papers, the workshop that brought togetherscholars from various disciplines proved to be a catalyst for many freshinsights into political metaphors, political theory and methodology. Theeditors are especially grateful to Heidi Bagtazo of Routledge for her pioneer-ing vision and guidance on this volume. They would also like to thank eachother, and all contributors to this volume, for exemplary helpfulness,patience and forbearance.

'I'his volume presents new methodological and theoretical approaches to theII." of metaphor in political science. It is not, therefore, about politicalIl) 'tal hors. Rather it explores the different ways that metaphor itself can be1111I rstood, in order to demonstrate the utility (and indeed necessity) of111's different conceptions of metaphor to poli tical science. The scholars whollilv' contributed to this work are thus doing two things: providing diverseill[ '''I retations of metaphor (and therefore of language) and offering illusrra-I iv' xemplars of elucidation and explanation that will appeal to political',I icntists, The foundations of this work are in philosophy of language, lin-~"lli~ti' philosophy, linguistics, semiotics, hermeneurics, discourse theory,d('('onstruction, post-structuralism, cognitive psychology and ethnography,llioll ,h different contributors will draw more from some areas than fromolhers. The results will thus appear in an interdisciplinary frame, thoughIIIWII ~ a essible to political scientists, students of politics and social scien-IL"I.' in )'eneral.

liol j ti al scientists are already aware of the importance of metaphors inJloliti 's, I articularly electoral and policy-related politics (Charteris-Black,'00 ; Yanow, 2000). In their studies and research, they come across

111('1i1phors that, whether anyone notices it or not, are influencing our per-1I'Ili iOI1~of politics. 'Body politic', 'branches of government', 'head of state','"I d p or SLat " et . are all metaphors commonly in use for describing polit-II Iii " iIllations and pro sses. There are of course more colourful ones used byJllllil it illliS an I I oliti al a Ivisors. These include contemporary usage such aso"JlIII', 'slirgi ;11strik.', 's x up' and 'blowback'.

I lowl"Vcr, ~lll Ii,s on /)o/'iti'i:tl metaphors as such have thus far mainlyIOIII'i<'t1 Oil llicir II~' ill I oliti 'al discours s that have been subject to some1111111of t1is( OllrS' i111:dy~i~, or p 'rh;q S just 0111111 nt. The theoretical and1II1'lllIldolo~k:d is,'II('S I'dill il1g 10 1IIIJIfI/Jho!" in I olil i al sin e ar th sub-1111', 01 lids Vliltllll\', wliil II liils 111(":li111or :ldVllIl( il1)\ m ',h( 1010 ,i al work.(1IIIIIdliIlOI', 1111'llill', ill 1":li/\llIilljJ, Ill(' mil' 01 11II'I,qllior ill ('11)1 irinll :111<1.11',111111',1'1lII'II'd 1III't1l1l1lolll}',il"', IllIiltlill)', Oil 1111'woll tlOIII' ill \),11('1' tlisl i.1+11111,llillldll IIII} 111'III ~ 11111111'11111'111'111Ii ' \ 11111'.11'1111111',1',111111',II IIII'I rill II III <l 11'111I' Iill' 11'11'1111\' 1111II II ,I 11111III IiIII 1111IIIII}',II"}II, I '1111111111III 11111111

',', 'ar/Jel"and.J. PikaJo

an I meani ng, this work does not as y t r a h Ih ' I('('hIIi 'III I 'v J of linguisticanalysis already pioneered in other di cipli.n 's, This voltln ' thus builds onthe subsranrive work already done in politi al s'j 'II '(' Oil I oli i al metaphorand advances discourse methodology in realm r I 'Vfllil ro I oJitical science.Moreover, it expands the range of studies in I olici 'fll S'ience that canemploy this category - political metaphor - in both substantive andmethodological ways. Each chapter, while develol in J' its own theoreticalperspective, draws theory into practice by undertaking a I tail d and infor-mative case-study.

Etymologically, metaphot is a 'carrying over' or, more olloquially, a kindof 'standing-for' relationship, between one concept and another. Seen in thisway, metaphor is just a rhetorical device, a figure of speech, a tool in lan-guage, a device of poetic imagination, a deviant linguistic expression or 'cat-achresis', a matter of words rather than of thought or action, the primaryrole of which is co describe a social reality by using a 'stand-in' word orphrase different from the one usually taken CO be literal. The 'metaphorical'is thus usually taken co be opposite to, or at least other than, 'the literal', asa way of categorising language-in-use. In this conventional account, lan-guage appears as a cool for viewing the world, or a kind of window onto it,used in an instrumental fashion. This presumes a radical separation betweenthe world of things and the linguistic structures of apprehension throughwhich knowledge of the world 'appears'. On this view, truth, as the criterionfor knowledge, marks a perfect correspondence between word and thing andthus an alignment in principle between language and 'things as they reallyare'. In this conventional view, literal language is a tool through which theworld is apprehended and validated, so therefore metaphor becomes a cor-ruption at worst or a superfluity at best (Shapiro, 1985-86: 200).

Metaphor as a corruption of language, however, is at odds with the Greekroots of the word 'metaphor' as meta + phorein, meaning 'to carryover'. Thedefining characteristic of metaphor in the Aristotelian tradition is that it isdefined in terms of movement, change with respect co location, mainlymovement 'from, .. co' (Ricoeur, 1981: 17). Although Aristotle applies theword metaphor co every transposition in terms, this does not mean thatmetaphor corrupts an already established logical order of language. For him,metaphor operates within an already existing logical order, the semanticcore of which is oncologically established prior co any use of meta) hor. Hisprocess of epiphora (movement 'from ... to') thus pr sum s that all langLJa ,.is transparent co reality,

Max Black's seminal study ModeiJ mtl MUIr!I;/II)}~I':SllIIlil'.I' ill '~III/!/lt!P/ tmrlPhilosophy (962) mount d fin 1I11:l(k on 111(' (llIs,.i(:1I 11('I'('('plion Ih:1Imetal hor has m 'r 'Iy fIsuhsi ilill ivt, 111111Iillll, All 111111111\III lids vit'w, whell :1Sl 'elk'r 'hoost's 10 I'('plll«' II lill'l II 11'1111\Villi 1111111111I lilli' ,11111'11'111IltHll III(''lIorm:II' 01 'pl'ol"'I' 1111111III I 11111>.,11111IIIIIIpllili 1I111~tlI'ldli l,tI I'. II 1111'11'"dl'oIlIllIl' 1111111111'1,111'1111' 11111II t\lhllll, 11)'11 II 11.1111111'111.II!HI:H, IHI ;,11'.111111111.111111111Ii1II,II)' I IlJlI ') ',111II II 1111111111111111111111111111'

no new information and therefore has no cognitive function. Its only func-tion, according to Black, is that it may come to fill a gap in the dictionaryand thereby act in future as a literal expression but then necessarily disap-I ear as a metaphor.

Black proposes a different view of a metaphor, one that has subsequentlyI come known as the 'interaction view' or cognitive dimension. In thisvi w, metaphor is rarely only something substitutive (and probably decora-Iive), rather it renders a certain nuanced meaning by emphasising somed tails and de-emphasising others.

According to Black's interaction view, a metaphor functions almost like apair of glasses through which the metaphoric object is observed, i.e. reorgan-is'd, Those metaphors which turn out co be successful establish a privileged[l('r 1ective on an object or constitute 'the' object and, by doing so, disap-pear as metaphors (Maasen, 1995: 14-15).

Metaphor ceases to be a mere substitute for a literal term or form ofwor Is, since it is a result of the interaction in thought between two differentIhi n ", According ro this prominent, bur controversial view, metaphors addIII(,ltnings, although they do not have an ontologically creative functionwithin the world.

Writing on political metaphors is often uncritical and unteflective aboutIII(' oncologically creative function of metaphor. This analysis is thus con-111Il'l10 an interpretation of metaphor vis-a.-vis literal sense or, at best, to its11,1'van e in various contexts. This situates metaphor within the referentialIII 'ory of meaning, stipulating that meaning arises from the relationship111'1w ' 'n statements and the 'things' that they are abour, and not within the1IIIIliftn I ractices of meaning-giving actions, including the production of sub-11'1IS ftn I objects within forms of knowledge (Shapiro, 1985-86). Contribu-1111'"loth is volume add to the analysis of metaphor in political science this1IIIIOIogi -dly creative aspect. It arises from a view that the analysis of polit-IIIII 111'taphors should not just be about the interpretation of political1111'1i1phors, but also and above all else about the creative-productive function111.11l!t 'y have in politics and in political science itself. In other words, poli-II.', ,lilt! I oliti aJ s ien e are themselves linguistic phenomena and are thus111',11't1 nn I onstru t d through actions and activities as forms of life and1IIIIwJt.t1g'.

"'or ('ognil iv - lingLlists, utteran e is the usual unit of metaphorical analy-", 'I'!tis is :lIso rh ' npproa'h tak n by most analysts of political metaphors.1'III', i,. pml Ivl1lillic for pol ici 'al s'i -ntists, b· ause it fails CO take inco1111111111IiiI' widl"r (0111'XiS or Sial 'n 'illS all I dis 'ours s n I the circum-111111I", 111111111',11wili( II III(' iln' [ll'odll( (,(I. So'i:1I nnd J10lili 'ill '011 xtS I lay

1.101)111IIill". III IIIIWIIWlllplllll'Soj' polil i(:Ii s il"l\((' ;11'('ddllll'll, !tow Iht,y rill' '-111111iliitl Wllill tllI'll 1II1'llIlill}"~.111' !\1I,liy"ill)' Ill(' 1'lldll'dd('dII('SS or II11111II[,Iltli 111,1111'111111IIIIIIIII'XI I'• .t III'II'~~III ,IIIIIII}',II 11111lid 1 ',:IIP,LIIIOI

.111\ 11,,111111\1'.11111111[.11111"III 111.11111III ~I 111111'.1'111IIIIIIIII}'.IIII\ Iii 111'111111,Ii11.1111I 11111'1i1.11 III lid III 1111111111111111II 1I1t111III ,111111111IIIIIIIdilit

I'. 1••111'1'/' 01//1/). Ila! I/O

\ 1II1I11Illdll il 101,..0 'i:1I (In I s ientifi r lations of I ow r. Since contexts areII' 1,', II,' well, I h 'y should not be objectifie I, as if they had an ontological10111idiliion I rial' to and independent of texts. M~tal hors in this respect act:IS lis 'ursive hubs, developing meaning in the interplay of texts and con-texts.

Metaphors therefore also inform and structure thinking on discourses andcontexts. As Mortier notes in this volume, they are boundary-drawing,boundary-maintaining, ordering and othering 'mini-narratives' that act against abackdrop of tacit knowledge. In this way, they contribute to the working ofdiscursive mechanisms as political and social phenomena in their own right,enabling or constraining the capabilities of actors. The relations of powerwithin discourses are typically condensed and expressed in authorisedmetaphors, and they are thus cent tal to an understanding of the politicalprocess itself.

Metaphors also act as discursive nodal points (Diez, 1999; Torfing, 1999)between the 'outside' and 'inside' of any bounded discourse, acting as nodes,and thus freeing political science from any necessary adherence to linearmodels of causality. They thus represent a potential for creativity in politicsan I I ol.i tical science. This 'poetical' function is closely connected to thewlnsfi r'n of knowledge from one domain to the other. These transfers'h:1I1 'ng , :In I transfi rm m anings across domains and are mediating knowl-

('(lf~('S I ('1we\.'n :111I within dis ·ourses. To political discourses, which tend to1)(' ('OIl,'('rV:11iv' I . ':ILlS' ch 'y draw boundaries and creace 'ochers', metaphorsof'fn:1 101('111inl ()r r acivity, for n w, fcesh insights and critique, includingS .U:'('ri I i It I '.

II( W :III I iII what ways an l11et~ljhors from other disciplines be produc-civ'Jy ilJcoq orac·d into 10Jitical science' Can ptogress on the issue ofmetaphors in poli tical cience be productively exported to other socialscience disciplines' To other sciences? Has this already been the case, andwhat are the underlying mechanisms of transfer? What are the effects? Con-tributions in the sections 'Science', 'Policy' and 'Language' in this volumeaddress these questions in detail.

Different sections of this book address other important research ques-tions. Especially useful for the self-awareness of political science as a discip-line is the question of how politics has been perceived through metaphorsand how the use of metaphors has influenced the perception of politics. Thesections on 'Europe', 'Structures' and 'Sexuality' painstakingly analyse th sissues in detail and case by case from a variety of methodoJogi al positions.

The question of the descriptive and con·titucivc run 'Iions or m 'laphorsin politics and lolitical i n fi'awr's promin('nll in Ihis VOlt1i11'. 'I'llisvolum not only wk 's a sirnifjc:lnl Sl('j) low\ll'ils Vlli:lli',illi: wil" III(' (OIlSI illl-I iv' rUllCIiOIl 01' 1lH'lnp"Ors, IIII i11'H)IlIII'I', 11l111l1\1I,111I' ,111111~,is, I )illl'II'111(1111111'1111I1111Ili',IOI'il ,II 1 11I11I'XI',1111111111IIII' ,I ",I 111111\'1'111,111111'.11111111'1'11111Ilillll'lill 1I11'I\lplllll'l dllll'II'IIII\, ','111'11 l'lllill 1111111111111lilli' Iii 11111'11'011111"1"'/ loll I III 1111'111',1It ". dl'llIllI 01 ,III>1\ I' 111.1111111I 'III lid ,I It III i'd' 11111

I ributors to this book draw on the political scientist's presumption that thew rld is political in the first instance and that human phenomena exist onlywithin power relations. While borrowing from the work, sometimes tech-IIi al of other disciplines, the hope all along has been that political sciencewould have something distinctive to give back, and we very much hope that1h is volume will fulfil this expectation.

The first section of this book explores the relation between science,In ·taphor and society, within a political frame. In the opening chapter, 'Thewilys of stargazing: Newtonian metaphoricity in American foreign policy',I imi trios Akrivoulis investigates the employment of NewtonianIII 'taphoricity in twO distinct phases of American politics: its founding era1111I the early Cold War years. Drawing on Paul Ricoeur's hermeneutics of1111:1ination, he suggests that the Newtonian imaginary had special reson-III" in the founding act of American society. Thus, it had a significantIlIlIXt t on the way that the newly created American state conceived of itselfI tiSIorically and its relations to other states. Relating this conceptualisationIII N wtonian balance forward to the Cold War era's 'balance of power',I\lrivoulis's chapter then shows how this ideological schematisation affectsIllrt' . levels of US foreign policy: projects of action, level of motivation andIIOW'r to act.

I a r tenvoll, in 'Slippery slopes in political discourse', shows how this1,111IiIY f metaphors works constitutively in political discourse, in at least twOVII s. First, it moves the argumentative focus from the matter at hand to the

II 10(h tical, from present to future. An instant case is linked to a danger case,wlii h will, putatively, result from accepting the instant case, The metaphorIII11" 1h twO in such a way that connotations of the danger case attach to the111'il:1I1I'cas. Second, the slippery slope metaphor constitutes politics as avOl'ld of physical objects, where laws of nature rule (as argued in the preceding

1110'11 T by Akrivoulis) instead of unpredictable human and social factors. It1111pi ifi·s 'oml 1 x social issues, establishes easily understandable, determining

IIIII~('" :1I1I effi cs, and naturalises politics.11\ Ih· 'Iosi n > ellal tel' to this section, 'Mechanical metaphors in politics',

II'lll('j Pilwlo argues that metaphors have been used throughout history to11I11I)\ill'silliariolls and outcomes in discourses that are political. Each his tor-11,11pl'I'io I has "n 'rat d differ nt central conceptions of politics, oftenIIIP,I't! Oil il11a I('I'i 'S or natur~. As conceptions of nature have changed, veryill 11111,11i(' Illy ill III' 'as' or 'arly modern natural science, so have metaphors."11'1,lpIIOI'Sor 'ho I " '1l111'hin", 'm' 'hl'1nism', , ell', '>ene' ete. have all been11',/'11III poliliclil (Olllt'XIS ill v:lriolls hiSlOri 'ill ·ras.llis haptet explores the1I111111111!,ltipIli'IWI'('1l Ih(' 11:lllmil SCi('II('VSIllId polilic:1I diSCOLirs '. via sel tedIIII'I'lplllll" 1I111Il',ljl'IIIII'il'" 01 (11111);(', \)(111111is 1111'link I ('lw '('n 11:llur ,Ihllllhil ',111'1111""I!lilil II III lIi',IIIIII~I'" ,1111111H'l.lplllll"( Ilow 1i,1' Ihi,' lillki111111t1 Willi 1111111/11\1'111('11111",11\ ',11('1111'( \ 11I1I III'. Ill'I'11 IIII' Ilill' of11111''Itlllll , Iii 110111111'ill l!lillllI d t1l'illlIll'l '1111 till IlIillIl'ld 1I11'lllplllll'l11111'111111I'd ,i1111111<I 11111,11111.1'1 ,dll1l' " [jlll (III

The next s tion, on "ULI 'WI' 's' I (' ,ill, del.lill'd \111.11sis of specificmetaphors that have ignifi an 'ffl"ls ill 1()1111'lIqHlI'll' politics. ErikRingmar, in 'Metaphots of social 01' I '1", shows hllw IiiI sO'i ,ties face theproblem of social order. Usually, this is LIIlI 'l'slof)l1 II,' II qll 'Slion of how toassure compliance with norms an] laws as a 111:111'1'of'expli'it ontrol andpolicing. Ringmar argues instead that mu h so'i:1I '01111'01is a5SLlred rathermore imperceptibly through the power of met<l! hl)l'. I It 1111I I'takes a com-parison of various metaphorical strategies an I 51 ,/Is OUl th ir politicalimplications. Metaphor, he concludes, is a cru ial 001 for so ial scientistsinterested in inter-cultural comparisons.

Iseult Honohan's 'Metaphors of solidarity' then eXIlor s a dual metaphorin the context of the state or political community it elf. While politicalcommunity has often been understood in terms of a body, it has also beenunderstood in terms of different kinds of human relationships. Metaphors ofsolidarity are particularly relevant in the contemporary context, preciselybecause there is increased questioning of the nation-state as the dominantframe for political community and of patriotism as the bond of solidarityamong citizens. Her chapter focuses on examining the ways in whichmetaphors constitute the political community as unitary (whether as anorganic or a mechanical entity) or as more articulated relationships (e,g.social networks, bonding, bridging and linking ties). She also considers howmetaphors portray citizens as vertically mediated by the state or as horizon-tally connected, as a firmly bounded or exclusive group, or one with morediffuse limits. This chapter thus examines the ways in which different kindsof metaphor may facilitate and constrain the development of new discoursesand practices of solidarity.

Steffen G. Schneider's 'Exploring the metaphorical (de)-consttuction oflegitimacy: a comparison of legitimation discourses in American and Britishnewspapers' concludes this section. In it, he explores the use of metaphoticalconcepts in media discourses on the legitimacy of political orders and insti-tutions, arguing that these discourses play an important role. Metaphorsserve as key resources in the (re- )production of legitimacy, and variations inthe nature and scope of national legitimation discourses may be consider-able. Each of these discourses is likely to betray characteristic 'elective affini-ties' between particular metaphorical fields and specific objects or Iatterns oflegitimation. Schneider examines a corpus of newspaper articles from GreatBritain and the United States in order to probe tbese by! otheses, on lu [in'in his comparative study that the American system of gov rnm 'nr npp 'aI'sto be more robust - that is, less vulnerable to harg 's or i/l 'gilim:ICy Ihllilthe British system. Ov rail, h sugg 'srs Ih:ll Ihis flildillg is lillI-cd willI Ihedivergent SLiPIIy ::InI us' of' nH'lilphorinll illl,ll\C'r ill 1\Yo dillel'l'lll disourscs of il'gil ill1l11iOIl,

'I'll(' III'XI I h 1I111'I',I.d I' '1111111111'1',1111'11111'1"11Iii ,.11111\.111'1\111111111', 1111PI'II I )111I\iI... 'Irlllil Jil'llll' 1111,1Ii I' 111/' 11111'11"1111rill 11111,I 1111PI)111111111'III I ItllllIl ililil 1111 '1111" ,1/ 1I111111111111111d11111111 111111111II

metaphor is underdeveloped methodologically and suggests a method bywhich metaphors of international political discourse can be researched. Thisis based on qualitative and quantitative corpus analysis and on the cogni-tivist conceptualisation of metaphor. On the basis of the interaction betweentheory and data, his method identifies and assesses the significance of all rel-vant conceptual metaphors within this chosen area of international interac-

tions. He presents his method as a sequence of steps, outlining each one inabstract terms and then applying it empirically, in order to examine themetaphors through which the recent debate on the reform of the EuropeanUnion reform was conducted.

Jochen Walter and Jan Helmig, in 'Discursive metaphor analysis:(d )construction(s) of Europe', note that language is increasingly conceptu-al ised as important in the social construction of reality, but note that thelinguistic turn in social and cultural sciences has neglected a fundamentalun lerstanding of how reality is imposed. This is because it only refers to the1I'imary level of linguistic consttuction. Not only what we say is decisiveI ut also how we say it. Metaphors thus playa particularly crucial role inconstructing reality. Walter and Helmig engage with discourse theory andwith theories of metaphors, in order to develop a new methodology, sketch-ill" both the macro-level of discourse and the micro-level of metaphor. ToillL1strate these atguments, they consider the (de)construction(s) of Europe asII 'ontinuous example, concluding with comments on what to expect whenIII I lying the discursive analysis of metaphors to the study of the politics of1\L11'01ean enlargement.

The concluding chapter on European politics, Charlotte Fridolfsson's'Pol itical protest and metaphor', explores the use of metaphors, particularly1Iil' I' nder divide, in narratives that structure the understanding of politicalI 1'01''st in Sweden. Two events that have engaged there with European poli-1it s 5 I've as her case-studies. One is the alternative globalisation move-1I1l'llt'Sd monstrations at the EU summit in Gothenburg 2001, where the11I'ot'St r were characterised through metaphor as some type of living1I1'/\:lnism, an animal/natural phenomenon and also as war, which subjectedIii I ivists to 'othern ss'. The metOnymic relation between violence, masculin-IIy :111I pro c:·t was aJ parent in elite discourses and media reports about111(','('l'V 'Ilts, alld women were notably absent as subjects. Women wereIIIOI't'visil I, ill th' s n I ase-stlldy, in which a majority of the SwedishloIl'IIOI'\lIt' VOl' I :lgnin:t intro ILlcin r the Euro as currency in 2003. No-

ill('I',' WL'r<.'COilkns 'd inro nn I 'XI laill I through metaphors such as their'1II'illg' WOIlWIl, rlll'\ll, 11:ll'i(lIlidisl'01' la 'king knowledge. Both hegemonic11.1('1VI'IIIiOlls ,'Illdied 11('1'('IllailllaillL' I :1 socilll ill :Iginllry, a myth, whichIIII\IIIIINI'Spolilll,1! prO(I'SI, wll('lll('1' on 1Ill' :11'('('1.'or in Ihe tailor box. This1111111'1'11"III 1IIIlId""I' Willi ,I libl'I'd d('111111111111idl'ldi::llioll, SII('11liS filiI'III, ',111111,1fl'w IllId .11'1111111',11111111'"III III 1111'II dtll' 11MII I l'ojl'11 ,11111'illi'

. .II"IIIII'd 1'11111111.11111111111'11111111'1'1 1111111'111111',11111'111111111111'\1111111111111'11111,1111'111 .I Id '1111',' I 11dll\' ,I III 111,11111'1111111I! 111111111111'"'1'111

first is Terrell Carver's 'Real constru ·tion LiIrough 111('1aphori al language:how animals and machines (amongst oth r m(:11Ipll()rs mak th (hu)man(what "he" is)'. Carver argues rhar internarional '!IIi ·s, law and l olirics arisewithin a conceptual framework of civilisatjon/bilrbarisn, an I peacetime/wartime. This framework incorporates a myth of unicary, L111problemaricmasculinity - 'warrior man'l'economic man' - whos worl I is not in factbifurcated by a war/peace distinction, but is rather one world of ompetitive,aggressive, self-interested and somewhat paranoi I trate .i 'i nteraction.While this masculinised figure has an obvious relation to sex, gender andsexuality, it is curiously prior to the gender binary, indeed a projection from'within' this masculinised being (of woman as an 'other') is the foundation ofthe gender binary as such. As the foundational 'man' in the human, thehumane and the humanitarian, this figure is also the source of the animal andmachine projections through which 'man's' characteristics are givenmetaphorical reality. Carver concludes that 'man' is the locus through whichpower-flows negate the moral categories (in declarations and conventions ofrights and protections) that - far from being genuinely respected - arethemselves subverted by the destructive peace/war and civilisation/bar-barism dichotomisation of human experience.

Gemma M. Carney's 'Data, anecdote and metaphor in gender equalitypolicy-making: merging "intellectual and real world mainstreaming'"explores this global policy for gender equality that has been adopted bymore governments, supranational and international institutions than anypredecessor. Her chapter defines the use of metaphor in relation to gendermainstreaming policy and investigates the scope of metaphor as an explana-tory category for policy-makers and political scientists. She employsmetaphor as a means for explaining the relative failure of gender main-streaming as a practical initiative for producing gender equality and con-cludes that metaphor could play an important role in helping policy-makersto imagine a more gender equal policy-making programme and to articulatethat vision to the (often patriarchal) establishment.

Lastly in this section, Veronique Mottier's chapter 'Metaphors, mini-narratives and Foucauldian discourse theory' examines the ways in which theanalysis of metaphor fits in with social and political analysis. She argues thatthe social and political analysis of metaphor requires a theory of interpreta-tion as well as an account of institutions and power. While herm neuticsand relevance theory can provide a theory of inteq retation, both p rSI c-tives neglect the role of institutions an I pow'r. Pou aul lifln dis ourstheory shares with relevance th ory a LIS-rIll mov<: IIWII rrom Ih' (;:1rI i 'rhermeneutic emphasis on a sl "Ik('r's illl('11iiOII,:, llill il 1.11ks II ,'opilisl i ':11. Itheory of int rpr'ralion, Ilowevcr, I,'Ollllllrillillll ,11',111111'0('Ih.'ol o(('crs 111\a ounl or I OW('l'Wllil h IIlloWHII', III 111111111'1IIIId 'II' 1.1111I'lllplll)l10 iSSlll'Sor 111(',llIilll'"idl'llIil\' 111111111'>11111111,11',l'dill I1"1 111111'111'1111'\I '>11111'1',01illlllll"Il,111111 1I11 1111111IIi Iii 1111I 'Iilllll 1'11111111111 ,11"11'111'11,lllId 111111111111111111,\'11111 11'111.11111\'1111'1111III I "II 1111111111111111111111101111111,111111I

theory. Her analyses explore the closely articulated networks of metaphorthrough which race/ethnicity, sexuality and identity emerge as power-drivenI olitical constructs.

The 'Policy' section of this book opens with a chapter by David Howarthand Steven Griggs, 'Metaphor, catachresis and equivalence: the rhetoric offreedom to fly in the struggle over aviation policy in the United Kingdom'.l-Iowarth and Griggs investigate the dynamics of current aviation policy inBritain by examining the consultation process surrounding the 'NewLabour' government's 2003 strategic plan to expand airport capacity in theUnited Kingdom. They draw upon recent developments in post-Marxist dis-'ourse theory to examine the rhetorical strategies and mechanisms by whichorganic intellectuals welded together a diverse range of pro-expansion inter-'Sts, thus securing agreement that a policy proposal - in this case for growthin air travel- ought to be the government's overriding demand in the policyand public domains. In so doing, this chapter examines three rhetoricallogics - those of rhetorical redescription, catachresis and equivalence -showing how these informed the new and successful discourse of aviation'x I anslOn.

In 'Love and life in Heart-less town: or, the use of metaphor in local plan-Ilin r', Merlijn van Hulst recounts field research conducted on a decision-111akingprocess in a Dutch municipality. Political actors in the town want10 build a community centre, but the most important criterion in the polit-kid setting is that it should be 'like a heart', There are two aspects to thisill 'taphor, however, and they do not point to the same choice of location.Moreover, the very use of the metaphor legitimised a process that mighthav' lost support among the public had the metaphor not been used.1\ Irh ugh metaphors play an important role in the case, van Hulst's analysisIi 'monStrates that Schon's (1979/1994) theory of metaphors, which empha-Hi,'·s transparency, does not allow for the degree of ambiguity he observed.

In the final chapter in this penultimate section, Dvora Yanow asks, 'Whatwork 10 metal hors do in policy and other political contexts?' Metaphoric1.111'ila' enables a 'seeing-as', which may in turn lead to action. How doesIIlis s 'ein r-as I ro ess work? What is seen, and what is concomitantly not-'!I'('II? Wh 'r' 10 s th vis.ion come from, and what action(s) does it enable?11\'1' 'IHq t 'r 'Cogniti n meets action: metaphors as models oland models/or'ollcl's illuSLrllLiv' answers ro thes questions. Such questions direct attentionlowilrds Ih' :111:dysisor I L1bli loli ies an I d bates, which can elucidate com-1lllIlIiril( ivl' I 10'k:!g(;S :Ind, at Lin 'S, I 'a I to mutual understanding and11I'lll.lp,'('V('II10:1 I' 'SOIUIion or ill' lir~'r '11' 'S I 'Lw"n ont nd rs.

III III(' lill:I! ,'('(liOll ol'll1i,' volumc, '1.:1111',11:11\<",(hr" -hapt rs pLirsue theIIIIl'I,t1i'i(iplill,11 lild, h('IW('CIl lilll'liisli( 111('01' 1111<1:In:I!ysis fln I <h' SILldyIrl !llrlllll d lilll'll(lIllf'lllI 1\1.111Cil'ld i'N "1'111'IIpplil'\lion or 'Oll('Cplllill1111'1111111111111I'(lIyIII I1Ir1II II ,11.11'0111111'.(1I1I'''1I1I1111111",d1I11('~li()IIS:11111SOIlI!'1111",1111,.'1Ir111111111'1111111111111'11111111111,oIlIlIllllIlIlIllIlll",I'IIIIIIIIII'IIIIIII~ III'

11111111II I 1111 11111111111)III 1IIIIIIIrlilid 11111011"111111l'1,,1 1111I 111'11

I () ',', (:,11'/1('1' III II IJ i/..? /10

kll()wl<-d},v;1 'SI i,\, for I tal hors proposed in this way ;1 'ainsr a small data-hilSV or' '0'"1 LIS')of tol i ally appropriate politi al rI 'I'ori '; I'h LIseof small'0'"1 ora of sJ c 'ches by politicians to propose con el tual 111 'nq hors in themfor riti al discourse analysis; the use of a small coI"Jus of journalistic textson a 1 olitical topic to research selections of large coq ora strategically; and arecent experiment by Cienki himself to find out what 1 atterns of relationsnon-specialists in linguistics or political science may fin I in sets ofmetaphoric expressions from political rhetoric. In conclu 'ion, Cienki pre-sents his own composite methodology.

In the next chapter, 'Metaphorical moves: "scientific expertise in researchpolicy studies" " Philippe Sormani and Martin Benninghoff examine the useof metaphor in specific studies of research policy. Formal studies of researchpolicy seem to be bound up in a hermeneutic circle: the eXIertise they callupon takes part in the domain of science it defines. Research policy studiesare thus a critical case for studying the reflexive implication of scientificexpertise, all the more so as 'axiological neutrality' is the declared 'scientific'objective. Their chapter is written from a descriptive stance that considersthe question, How are these phenomena textually organised? What particu-lar reading do they yield? The procedural description offered in this chapterspecifies what kinds of metaphorical moves are involved in the discursivearticulation of scientific expertise. Before turning the 'reflexive implication'of research policy studies into a critical issue, however, this chapter addressesit as an empirical phenomenon,

In the concluding chapter to this section, and to this volume, DieterVertessen and Christ'l de Landtsheer examine the dynamic application ofstyle in politics, depending upon the rhetorical situation, by looking at itsrelationship to metaphor. In 'A metaphorical election style: use of metaphorat election time', they use public television, commercial television, qualitypapers and tabloids and analyse how approaching elections change the rhet-orical situation. Employing two theories - the 'metaphor power' or 'C-index'and the 'crisis communication combination' or 'CCC-index' - Vertessen andde Landtsheer conclude that metaphors become more important at electiontime because they simplify language and prepare the public for persuasionand action.

The chapters in this volume have thus covered philosophical and theo-retical issues, research methodologies and procedures and a onsid rablenumber of political phenomena and events of contem\ orary rei >van '. 1n afinal brief chapter, the co-editors Carv I' and Piblo shar' l'h 'ir 'R ,(I, I ions'on what was promised, what has b 11 a'hi'vetl and whel'(' ('III'lh('l' r'scar'hand inquiry might be lir t· I.

Editors' introduction 11

Charteris-Black,]. (2005) Politicians and Rhetoric: the persuasive power of metaphor, Bas-ingsroke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Diez, T. (1999) Die EU lesen: Diskursive Knotenpunkte in der britischen Europadebatte,Opladen: Leske and Budrich.

Maasen, S. (1995) 'Who Is Afraid of Metaphors?' in S. Maasen, E. Mendelsohn andP. Weingart (eds) Biology as Society, Society as Biology: Metaphors, Dodrecht: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Ricoeur, P. (981) The Rule of Metaphor, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.'hon, D.A. (1979/1994) 'Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem-settingin Social Policy', in A. Orrony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

'l'oding,]. (1999) New Theories of Discourse: Ladau, Mouffe and ZiZek, Oxford: Black-well.

Y:lI10W, D. (2000) Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis, Newbury Park, CA: Sage./.ashin, E. and Chapman, P. C. (974) 'The Uses of Metaphot and Analogy: Toward

a Renewal of Political Language', TheJournalofPolitics, 36: 290-326.

1\1111, 1\1 (III I' "",I,1i ,1//,1/\1,1,1/'/'"11 \111,11 I 1// 101111/"", ,1II1/1'(,i/'"II/,/"" 111111111,f'j (1111111111111 '" 11\ I'

1 The ways of stargazingNewtonian metaphorici ty inAmerican foreign policy

One night, while quietly nestled down under a fig tree, I looked at a starwith that curious passion which captures children and to which my preco-cious melancholy added a kind of sentimental understanding .... She [thegoverness} pretended to look for me and called me. I answered. She came tothe fig tree where she knew I was.'What are you doing there?' she said.'I am looking at a star.''You are not looking at a star,' said my mother, who heard us from herbalcony. 'Can one know astronomy at your age?'

'l'lli~ 'x eq t from Honore de Balzac's novel opens Eugene Minkowski's dis-I II;,:iOI1 of man's poetic encounter with nature in his Vers une cosmologie(I i )): 163-72). What the quoted dialogue reveals are two contrastingWII : or stargazing: on the one hand, there is the scientific way, that is,"I'il1).; che heavenly bodies in their objective materiality. On the other

111111(1,1'.11re is the poetic way, that is, looking at the stars in a manner thatI",,'~ 1h' ra/..e from the confines of the heavenly bodies' tangible existence.1'11(','(' ar ch ways of the astronomer and the poet, representing the twoII(',I~ Ihac d olimit our dealings with the metaphorical relevance of natureIIIi 1 :( i '11" to poJitics.

Nilillr' is I robably the most profound source of metaphoricity, represent-IIII), 111('wi 1 St r 'aim to whi h poli tical thought has resorted for metaphori-Id in,'pirulion and rcferen e, Particularly in the last four centuries, ani1II'I'111ion in rhe 1'(1I1icion of Jcn has confined this area to the domain ofI111I11I'ld,( il'nee an I ~ 'i 'l1I'i fI . ' 1is ov ri s' that hav offered the most widely11111'.1III.! 1IIIhori~(' I m()dcl~ n(~rrll'r\lr':ln I pro '~S. POI' xamlle, how dif-1111'1111,wOld,1 Ih ' Col I \Xlar h dalln' or powu havl' hit'n 'on '11'LI:1lise I ifI 11I1INi'wl\J11 llil.! IHll 'disl'ovl'rl'\I' I Ill' IIIW,' (d' pllllll'IIII' 1'l'IIvilal iOIl?

No 11111111'1'1111W1'11)',II)),ill/\Hili II II (I'I\'HI iOIl 1IIi)-lhi Ill', il "'III "1 ('(lId.! 11('IIII·lIl'ildill/I,III/oI11I11 1'1il 11'11"/1 ill i{'III,' illlll!I, Illtllilllll'llI I,d II 1/11''/111iOll01il.I'ld '!lIIII'XI I 11111'1 111I1'II'!'I, IlIlilllllll"ll II ill!' 11'1"" il I' '11I'IIIIIIiII' 1111"111.1' IiiI' Iii Ii l'l'l,ill '1'11111II11 111'11111 III 111'1111IIVII 11\0I1i11 III i111II

The ways of stargazing 17

of the machine metaphor (Foley 1990; Kammen 1994; Cohen 1995) offera more synthetic and systematic view of the impact of Newtonianmetaphor, without fully departing from the assertions made in traditionalhistoriography.

Nevertheless, a more thorough approach indicates that Newtonianismitself resists 'any hard-and-fast definition or even a convenient narrativettoping; it cannot be identified simply with a specific political program or ahandpicked group of Newton's disciples' (Markley 1993: 178). Indeed, thedistance separating Newton's own theories from the culture of Newronian-ism in terms of both content and aims is notable. Newton's thought wasrecontextualised and its internal tensions repressed; this produced the dis-ursive underpinnings of the so-called culture of Newtonianism. Newroni-

1ll1ism is the intellectual locus for diverse recontextualisations and ctucialmetaphors that sought to contain Newton's original legitimatingI' presentation of the natural order.

Because Newton's science was metaphorically deployed as Newtonianismin the sociopolitical rhetoric of the times, its meaning was constantly gener-lite I and regenerated through what could be called, following RicoeurI 97: 95-6), the 'living powers' of metaphoricity. After being imported

into America, Newronianism was in a stage of constant metamorphosis,I ·jng filtered through diverse sociopolitical, theological and philosophicald 'velopments (May 1976: 25). The dissemination and popularisation ofN 'wton's theories intensified with parallel evolutions in science and techno-logy, which played an increasingly important role in the lives of the firstAmericans, often equating Newtonian metaphoricity with the machine,11'tal hor. This development was also facilitated by the parallel impact oflIurol ean mechanistic concepts, mostly of French origin, as well as the111lltrialism implicit in the writings of some English republicans and French/JI))/osophes.The result was the metaphorical blending of the Newtonian plan-('(nry ystem regulated by gravitational forces with the functions of a11111'hin (Btooke 1956: 170). This Newtonian imaginary depicted 'man' as aph si 'al object in a society obeying the same laws of attraction and repulsionI'~ I h . I stial system or functioning like the highly ordered parts of a1I1.1~hill . Aft r all, the r cipients of this dissemination 'were repeatedly toldIhili whar th y were learning sanctioned the existing social and constitu-IiOllnl or I '1"(Ja ob 1987: 137).

Although S' 'I ri 'ism was 0 asi nally eXI ressed by most of the foundingIII hi'l'S \XInshil1g(ol1 1(, :. I I; J ,ff, rson 1950: 395-6; Hamilton 1961a,II II hi Mndisoll I( : I ),)-li) wirh I' 'S! ''t" ro I'h ! ossibility of a perpetualIII I'l'I'k( I It)!'lll or govnllllll'lll, AdnlliS (I ( 711: n), I 77: 135) referred to1111'Ni'W(OIJi.l11S SII'III, I'('dll(('d 10 n 1IIII'IIIOIliollsIliid I nlnn ,I n a hin , as1111'111111101il III I' dl'pllllOl1 01 II IlIlIllllIl'd j',IIV('IIIIIi('III, 'l'hu,', 'OV 'l'nm 'Ill'1IIIdd 1'11'1111',1,1111,,11',11\II II'plI",I'IIIIIIIIII, II', II'plllll,IIIM) I'Slnlli ..hill/' III('

.111111"llI'ld 1I,1\IIIIIII',llIl\I'I'IIIIII1III11 111111111111111111',11111IIIOlilllll" '1'1 illi 111,1111111'"III II 11111111111,NI 1111\1111111111'1111111\ III 1111/iI\ II 'I 1I'II'd 1111

11)'I:" hori ':11I' 'Iation brings forth two cardinal an I I I'ohl 'mmi biases. TheIiI' r I' lates to a concrete, pre-scientific cOnCeptLI3IiSliliOI1or na tLIre left to be'discovered' through scientific endeavour and th -, I rov i ling the natural andhence legitimate patterns for sociopolitical organ isatiOIl nnd int raction. Thesecond relates to the treatment of metaphors as th m 'ans for such model-ling in terms of what science has already represented as nill'Ural.

In what sense could scientific metaphors then (I' -)inform our politicalmethodologies? Astronomers are supposed to look at th bj tive material-ity of the stars in a way that offers us an accurate representation of the orderand interaction of the heavenly bodies found in nature. Should we thenmodel our political structures and interactions as systems in a similar way?Or, should we, like the boy's mother, dismiss any possibility of imagina-tively representing international politics through the employment of scient-ific metaphors as necessarily full of inconsistencies and imprecisions? (see,for example, Sokal and Bricmont 1998).

Answering this question presupposes an engagement with the role ofmetaphorical language in the sociopolitical imagination, as well as withhow nature and science are treated in the process of metapherein, To put itanother way, looking at the patterns and legalities 'discovered' in naturerhrough science as metaphor, and thus as the linguistic modes for sociopo-litical modelling, also involves questioning the claim that science is able todecipher and mimetically represent natural regularities, and thus the claimthat a scientific outlook is radically distinct from a non-scientific one. Theway of the poet advocated here treats scientific metaphors as deeplyingrained in political methodology, without necessarily implying thescientific modelling of politics. The relevance of this process for inter-national politics is rendered momentous, once the employment of scientificmetaphors transcends individual use and becomes embodied in politicaldiscourse, This gives rise to powerful social imaginaries and thus becomes asocial form of poetic stargazing.

Newtonian metaphors in the American founding era

The history of ideas has often addressed the culture of Newtonianism as anexclusively American phenomenon, due to its deep resonance in eighte nth-century American political thought, Some authors have even 'ugg ste I thatNewtonian politics continues to be the prevailing mode of I oliti 'ill thou Thtand action in the United States (see, for exam! 1 , I arb 'I' I (HIi), N 'v 'rrh -less, more often than not, NewtonjaniSI11 I as Il' 'I) (1'':lll'd liS :111:I' 'ur:ll 'reflection of Newton's own th 'ori 'S (Hoell,' I( HH: j~; Sll'illl'l' I( I 'i), wllil,its ideological ont nl' ~InI rUI1C1i()l1n'IIII,il' 1.,/111"111."1111('\ 111'11id 'III i/il'dwith an I 1" III 'cd 10 Ill(' II~('01 ,111'111.11111111'1111'11'1"11)1,1111'11111'111I I" NI'WIIlllillniSll1 Oil ill(' WI ill'l'I III 1111'/\1111'11101111111111.11111'.1111111111111',I', (' ('II ill II",liolll'J! Ily ',111111111111111,1111}'IIIIIII.I III ilil ,1,1111 11'1 Ii 1111'11111111III1111111'11111'(11111111111I'll \ 11,11'''1111''11111'11/ '11r) 1\11111IlllIII 11111111111

the same purposes and with the same m anin 's, Ilor w'r the images ofsociopolitical balance they evoked alway C'lk 'n Lilli roblematically forgranted (e.g. Farrand 1937: 82, 135, 153,421),

This diversity in content, aims and normativ hims r'v als a contesta-tion less abour the complexities of a balanced Ameri 'an r vernment thanabout the internal tensions within the images of N wconian metaphoricity.The states were often likened to the 'planets' of the 'solar' Fe Jeral system ofnational government, with their orbits of 'movement' immovable, fixed andlegitimated by natute itself, though there was of coutse disputation aboutwhat exactly the properties of these orbits really were. Similar tensions werealso evident in the discussion of the checks-and-balances system of the newconstitution. They were imagined interchangeably as a giant clock, amachine or the planetary system, and this was reinvoked later in times ofcrisis (Washington 1935; Adams 1971a: 391; Jefferson 1979: 161).

During this pristine phase of the newly formed American state, politicaldiscourse focused almost exclusively on the organisation of the governmentalsystem. The accounts addressing the external affairs of the state were limitedand mostly related to America's relations with England. In his 'CommonSense' (1776), Thomas Paine metaphorically evokes a Newtonian image,likening England to the 'primary planet' and America to its 'satellite', onlyto reject this by referring to the 'common order of natute' and thus replacingthis with a new yet still Newtonian image. '[I)n no instance', he writes,'hath nature made the satellite larger than its primary planet; and asEngland and America, with respect to each other, reverse the common orderof nature, it is evident that they belong to different systems' (Paine 1945(1776): 24). Here the 'common order of nature' was used to destabilise theprevailing order between the two states and thus to legitimate America'sindependence as belonging to a different gravitational system.

The same anxiety of the newly born state to be acknowledged and recog-nised as an autonomous, 'independent entity is also evident in ThomasPownall's Memorial ... to the Sovereigns of Europe (1780: 4-5), whereindependence appears 'fixed as fate', and America as 'a mistress of her ownfortune'. To further legitimate his assertion, Pownall employs a Newtonianmetaphor portraying an even mote dynamic, almost cosmic image of theAmerican state, depicting independence as its 'proper orbit'. 'This newsystem of power united in a moving round its own proper centre', h wri t s,'is growing, by accelerated notions, and accumulated accretion of I artS, incoan independent organised being, a great and lOW rfLd ml iI". 1f- has rillcnits equal station with the nations upon earth' (1780: ). Nev("rrh 'less, lal '1'in the same text, Pownall not s that Anwrica hiS IW('()IIl(''a II('W Irilllaryplanet in the syst m or lh· world' (I 7H(): ) Whill' 111i~pl.lI\('1 1111111':111follows ii'S OWIIorhil, il '1I1\ISIIIIIVI'1'111'1i 11111111'1111111Iii I' 1'1 Iii hl'l plllll('I':llId ('V('1I1111111'shifl rill' 111111111(111'1'11111'I,f J\I I II\' Iii Jill IlIdl" '.11111IIIi1II' 1\1111111('111wllild' PilI 1111111!H1l I)

1\ illl'llIl I, 1IIIIIIId 1\1111111111111111III dill 11'"11111111111111II 1111111111

The ways of stargazing 19

interstate system already operating in balance-of-power terms, it had first toI' nder this system intelligible and to discover the laws that regulate it. InEurope, the counterpoise imaginary was already frequently evoked tolescribe the dynamics of the balance-of-power system (de Vattel 1982)."riven the impact of Newtonianism in American political discourses relevant

1'0 the organisation and functions of the new state, it comes as no sutpriserhat this counterpoise imaginary was accommodated in the early Americandiscourses of international relations imbued with Newtonian metaphors.The order found in the interplanetary system was thought to provide theI 'gitimate pattern for understanding the laws that regulate the behaviour,Ih interests and the relations of states (Gilbert 1961: 92,98).

Once incorporated in the American founding textuality, Newtonian111 'taphors contributed to the repeatability of the nation's inaugural event inso 'ial memory as a perpetuation of the initial energy of the founding act (EllulI(7 : 335-54). This process offered a basis of identification for future genera-Iion , who came to understand themselves and their origins in terms of theIII 'as embodied in this founding textuali ty. This grounding rendered thellillion's understanding of itself possible without being delimited by the hereIIIII now of the present. It is in this temporal distance from the founding act toII,' r lture perpetuation that Newtonian metaphoricity comes into play (Man-dl·Ii1laum 1977: 5-11; Ricoeur 1981: 25, 1984: 194-203,1988: 216-19),

In this process of metaphorical representation, and as the temporal gaplill I' 'a d, justification and rationalisation took the place of former convic-111111and consensus. The Newtonian imaginary became an argumentativeIII'Yi' that justified and legitimated what the American nation came to be.I", goal was less the mobilisation of the nation than the justification of whatII hl! I b come. In that sense, the metaphorical representation of the Amer-111111goY rnment, nation or individuals, mobilised in terms of a machine, a1IlIck or a planetary system, was less an object of thought per se, than some-IIllil~' rhat g nerated thought, the Standort from which this thought was pos-.dll(' (Ri oem 1978: 47). In other words, the Newtonian imaginary1IlIIIIIIIL'1so i ty through a justificatory belief in the founding act, so that1111','i he·( Isn s, jLl mess and necessity of the society's existence and organ-i' 111011wo Ii I b affirm I.

'I'his allil :Irion was lossible through the schematising and codifying111111IiOIlor Ih . n 0 I 'S of N 'Wf()I1ian metaphoricity employed, thus facilitat-Illf 111('id~':dis:ll i011or Ih· An 'ri 'an nation's image of itself and of its rela-IIIIIISwilli oilicrs ill Illcs~' carly formativ ' y aI's of its existence, as well as the1'1'1ll'111,1(inll or Illis II('W i I ':disl'tl in :lgc ill Lh' rLlILlr (Ri 0 1.11'1988:'Iii Ill), Willi Ihis IIHIl:lliolllll Iholl!'111 illiO I(),'II, Ih(' N('w,oni~1l1 ima i-

1111\,1111"1111111'<1,11lill' Il'Yd 01 1'111illllllli",11illll, ,I~ il,s 1IH'llIpllOI'SW(T(' 'ra hl-lilly ,,,1<11,<1III i1II' IIIiIIIIIIii dl('l(llli '. III ill(' 11111/",II 11('1111'1 1111('III 1 I'Ovi<li'II11111111'11"1111'111111/\1'III 'j(l(lilll1llll1ll" 111"11',1111<1II 111111Iii 1111'"II 1111,,11'II 11111'111111,11'1111111111lllli'l 1I11<1l'lilllll 1111111111111,11111111111'1'<1III 11111')'1,111 1\ 1111III III III II1\

In the Newtonian imaginary, with everything rdlt-cI in' harmony andorder, and also being sanctioned by it, what v r ·XiSI·d ill so iety and poli-tics was considered legitimate, as long as it cou I I 'orr 'spon J to the mecha-nised, harmonious and balanced view of politi al r 'al il'Y. This is how thediscourses of Newtonian metaphoricity served a 'xlx'ssions of politicalontology. Whatever was assimilable to this metaphori ity was legitimate,and whatever was legitimate, in turn, then existed. If th initial function ofideology is to 'perpetuate a founding act in the mo 1 of r presentation'(Ricoeur 1981: 227), then the ideological function of th Newtonian imagi-nary implicit in American founding textuality was to interpret what countsas real in politics, thus resulting in a kind of ideological 'blindness' and'closure' (Ricoeur 1986: 199).

We could say that this highly uncritical moment is bur an instance of theideological function of a Newtonian imaginary, which is full of checks-and-balances, and law-governed and predictable political interactions, in a fixed,preordained spatio-temporality. At least in the case of what has beenaddressed as American Newtonianism, this ideological function of the New-tonian imaginary is presented here as one deeply rooted in the founding actof American society itself.

During the founding years of its existence, the United States was imagined,as we have seen, as anew, primary planet that would grow into a powerfulempire affecting and finally shifting the common centre of gravity in thewhole balance-of-power system. This moment was not reached until theemergence of Cold War bipolarity, when the United States was clearlyimagined for the first time as the gravitational centre of power of the 'freeworld'. The imaginative depiction of the Cold War balance-of-power systemin terms of the Newtonian metaphoricity of its founding years was so perva-sive that the United States came to understand its expectations as 'acts notof conscious obedience to something external but of self-realisation, of sur-vival as what [it} hard} become' (Ashley 1984: 276).

By relating the imaginative conceptualisation of balance duringAmerica's founding years to the Cold War balance-of-power system, thefocus here will be on' the ideological functions of the imaginary that ide-alised, rationalised and repeated the initial energy of its foull 1in act.Following David Campbell's 0998: 91) assertions that 'Am'ri 'I is thimagined community par excellence' an I that 'n or' rhall ,IllY ()l'h 'r sral' "the imprecise process of ima ination is Wh:11('OIlS(illll(',' 1\1l1l'l'i('r11litlt'll-tity', the Unit d Stat-~ i~ rr ':11"('1 hrl" :IS h\':lvily dCIWIIlI/'liI OIl1olo!',i/':dlUlon its n,:pl'es 'nl:1I iOIl:d 111':1/'(i/ I'S. III /lIdl'I' III illll',1 I II" 1IIl' idt'IIII1/',illrifllnn iOIl,' or lid,' illlll/I,illll' .II'pilllll)\ 111l' (Illd \ II 111.111111/'Iii IIlIWI'I,~.'1I1'1I1illll'llIl,liI NI'\ 111111111111111'11'11,1111111'.1"'lllrlllllllll'l 11'111111'11I11d,'III11'111 i111 IlIlIrlll\'111111I11/ Nl \\'1111111/1111111'Idllil III r~,,( (,H, III, ""III

The ways of stargazing 21

ment that set the basic lines of US Cold War policies (US Department oftate 1950).

I can think of no better account relating the Cold War balance-of-powersystem to the American conceptualisation of balance evident in its foundingt xtuality than the one offered by Hans Morgenthau in his Politics amongNations (1973), written amid the early Cold War years. There Morgenthaur lates the idealised balance in the domestic organisation of the American stateas expressed in its own Constitution with the one regulating internationalpolitics as a system of power relations that metaphorically correspond to theI' lations of forces in classical mechanics. For Morgenthau, this balanced con-stitution is but the kind of 'mechanism' described by The Federalist that, onceI'ransferred into the domain of international politics, could render it moreintelligible, As he remarks (1973: 178), 'one needs only to substitute the ter-fninology of international politics for the concepts used by The Federalist'.

As the old system of European power politics has given way to Cold Warhil olarity, the old metaphor of a fragile, uncertain equilibrium produced by1h wavering balance of scales has been replaced by the Newtonian metaphorof' a bipolar and gravitational international system that has inherent powers$:lfeguarding its stability, by virtue of the natural, rational and secular lawsrilrmulating the calculable interests that govern the systemic behaviour of,'lates. In this system, state-policies are fixed like planetary movements andI"'gulated by measurable state-interests, as if they followed calculable orbitsill a cosmos (international system) that itself provides these legitimate andillfalli ble patterns of behaviour (Morgenthau 1973: 343-5, 351; see also(;hilton 1996: 96-7).

The same imaginary was often evoked in American Cold War textuality,1I1t!the case of NSC-68 is typical in this respect. This figurative representa-Iion is particularly striking, since NSC-68 was not written for public con-$111111tJOn:

That sucb a restricted audience, one normally thought to be removedfr m th more colourful aspects of political life and endowed with theability to s the world as it really 'is', should be actively concernedwith th, fi'Llrativ r presentation of its mission necessarily requires us1'0 r 'chilli< th m aning of foreign policy making. We should no longerr '1-\>lr1 rhos' who 0 CUIY tbe secretive domains of the national securitySlal 'as I 'in,li,oLitsi I, of th mlt1trctl /Jctrctrlzetersof the national security inwll()st, Ililnw Ihey op 'nit,

l'I'IIt"p,~ lit/'ll, II w/)lrlll 1)(' IllOf'(' 1ll(':lIlill/',f,rI 10 1lIlll('l'~llIlld 11011'IIi·s· ItI-111111111111111111'11'1111'/'1/' 1'1'111'11/',1ill 1111'1110,1" 11111111'11fill ,'1111111I il/III'illivt'11'1'''''11'111,1111111111111,III 111111,ill 1\1111'111I" '11'11'11IIlid 11I1 Iii (1I1d \ III 11Illii·11111il'lrilly '1'1.111IiIVlti 1'/. 1111"Klrll.llilllllI \11 1111 III 1111lid II II III 111I1/lllli111111111/1WIIlIiI till «111.1 \ III I Ki" 1111111 \'11 1111'1dllll, 1111111'1111111\'\1'

l

posited and enacted. Thus, the 'writill " :111(1'I"(':ldillt\' 0(' NS -68 could bestudied not as an individual ctct, but .instC:It! :I.' !III illl!l)1ill:ll'iv codificationand concretisation of political action, parr or nil ; !vologi 'al world-makingdiscursive enterprise. The metaphors corr sJ ond Inn Ilel I u iId up an imagi-native conceptualisation of the Cold War balan '-or-pow'r system in termsof Newtonian constellations. In that sense, N - 8 shaulll brad less as anindividual, unique attempt to set up an imaginativ s'h matisation of theCold War system, than as a political expression r A ·tin a much widersocial process conceptualising the place and role of th United States inpost-Second World War international politics.

Presenting the 'Background of the Present Crisis', NSC-68 first focused onthe change from the multipolar 'historic distribution of power' to Cold Warbipolarity (US Department of State 1950: 2). The complex set of factorsresponsible for this change was twofold: first, the defeat of the Axis Powersand the eventual decline of the old European powers 'have interacted with thedevelopment of the United States and the Soviet Union in such a way thatpower increasingly gravitated to these two centres' (US Department of State1950: 2). Second, it was by then evident that the USSR was 'animated by anew fanatic faith, antithetical to our own' (US Department of State 1950: 2).The result was the development of gravitational forces exercised by the twocentres of power, the two antithetical poles. The new balance of powerdemanded a re-evaluation of the strategic plans and goals of the United Statesto make them appropriate for the new dynamic system. Moreover, the UnitedStates was presented as bound to respond to Soviet aspirations because of itsposition in the system 'as the principal centre of power in the non-Sovietworld' (US Department of State 1950: 3). Under these circumstances, theUnited States had no choice bur to restore the balance of power. Yet, NSC-68did not stop there: 'This fact imposes on us, in our interests, the responsibilityof world leadership' (US Department of State 1950: 6).

The document also discussed the relations of the Kremlin with its 'satel-lites'. The respective wording referred to fixed policies, which look more likeorbits around the gravitational centre of the Soviet Union. In this context,no alternative courses of action were available to the Soviet satellites (USDepartment of State 1950: 8-14). The American response should be propor-tional, that is, to preserve the balance of power through similar satellite-building. In this case, though, the wording was much different from the oneused to refer to the Soviet allies:

Our position as the centre of power in the fr" world I In' 'S n h 'avyresponsibility upon the Unite I tat s for I ':Id ·rship. \Xlv 1I111Sfor!':lIliscand enlist the energi s an I rCSO\II'('('Sor 1I1I' ('1'('('wol'l( I ill II posil iv('program for Icn'(' which will f'rtl,~fI'III,'tlH' I 1('11.1111dl' 1t',11101'wlll'idelomillilioll I 1I'(':liilll\ I :.11111111111III III(' fl('(' \Vltlld 1'1 wllilll III('I' 1('lIl1ill williII'I '11I1j1l.III'tlllIllIllll'.1

The ways of stargazing 23

The United States, as the principal centre of power in the non-Soviet world,thus had to react to the 'fundamental design' of the antithetical pole. Never-theless, this reaction had to be proportional and balanced to the Sovietaction. Quoting The Federalist (No. 28), the aurhors of NSC-68 insisted that'[t}he means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mis-hier (US Department of State 1950: 8). The Cold War American objectives

were thus imposed and legitimated by the very 'counterbalancing' nature ofthe international system itself.

As in any text of its kind, NSC-68 had a mediated relationship withimernational reality such that it represented what 'international reality' wasthought to be as it emerged in the writing of the text (Ricoeur 1991: 177).

onsequently, the formation of United States' Cold War foreign policy, thevery schematisation of the various projects and motivations of politicala tion, as well as America's own capacity to act internationally, were insep-arable from this imaginative process. The imaginary depiction of the ColdWar balance-of-power system in the cosmological terms of Newtonian con-st llations contributed substantially to the configuration of the noematiccontent of the foreign policy projects of the United States. As we have seen,hy metaphorically imagining its own position as the centre of power in theI' e world, the project of attaining world leadership appeared almost fixed as

1111article of faith, a heavy responsibility imposed upon the United States byits very place in the balance-of-power system. This project involved more-ov r a similar satellite-building project around its own gravitational centre.III R.icoeur's language, the project of America's leadership became America'sown jJragrna, the thing to be done, the foreign policy project to be aspired to.II having been configured through a Newtonian imaginary, the noematic('Ollt nt of this pragrna already contained a certain schematisation of possi-hi Ii ti s and limitations imposed by the balance-of-power system itself. Thisilll:l 'inative conceptualisation of the balance of power by the United States:,('!'V 'cl a the imaginary schema through which it could 'tryout' differentIOUI'Ss of foreign policy action. However, these possibilities were alsotI(,limite I by the necessities imposed by the conceptualisation of the ideo-lOtI; ':II syst m itself.

Mol' 'OV '1", th,is imaginary depiction also functioned at the level of motiva-I iOIl I y I rovi lin" th miJieu in which the United States could compare and('v,.II1:II'its liv 'I'se motives for fOl'eign policy action. At this level, the imagi-11111rlII1('1i011.t1:ISIhc tCl'l'ain of omparison and mediation berween the will,1III'dl'sil"fll1dllwl'gifimn'yofs'cringollcasl ifi Iroj rofacrion.Yet,asIII(' 11Ill'IlHiIie ('(ll1it'lli or lh' us 1'01'l'ign I oliey pl'oj' 'IS was nfi Llred andII ('d I) III(' idmlo!',ielrl f'llilel iOIl l)(' t IIf' N,'WIOlli:1I1illlll!\ill:II'Y, for'ign loli yIIHlliv,lIioll, 1('1,1111('id('lIlifi('d wiill 1111\1l'II1('lllill\,,1 hilI(' pl'(' ('xislill'III'II'~ II III 11\I III 11111111111'1illlpll'll'tI Ily 111\" ~II'III'I,"11"(rll\ II II', ')'111"Iloin'1111'11111'1111111·1111111'"'0111111'11111"I', IIllillll\ I11111II 111111'1.11('111>111I' jllll!"11

·Wlllriti IIIIIIIIIIII'I}/ 1"111ill '1'1111111111\ 1111"1,111'111' 1111"'vlllIl Ii 1111"",' III,'1111llllllli'lIl "I :11111Iild) II 1111111111Villd', 1111"'"llIllIhlllllli till" ", III

l

24 D. E. Akrivoulis

to follow the foreign policy project appropriate for the I ader of the 'freeworld' was always already preconditioned by America's imaginative schemati-sation of its role as its gravitational centre.

Finally, it was upon such a Newtonian imaginary that the United Statescould tryout its power to act, as well as measure the scope of its possibilityto act. To put it in Ricoeur's 0991: 178) own terms, the United Statescould 'take possession of the immediate certainty of its power only throughthe imaginative variations that mediate this certainty'. Indeed, this imagi-nary imputed the power to act of the United States itself as the agent of itsown action. Yet, whereas this would have been possible through a depictionof this power 'in the fotm of imaginative variations on' the possible projectsof its foreign policy action, these imaginative variations reflected less thepossibilities than the necessities of a specific project by virtue of the ideo-logical function of the imaginary in question. The Newtonian imaginarydepicted in NSC-68 was but an historical expression of this process, aninstance of the 'stylized repetition' of America's founding act (Campbell1998: 10).

In this cosmological context, the inscription of international relations by theAmerican texruality examined here offered a new 'world map', an authorita-tive reading of the nature of international politics. It delineated a space ofaction and identification, and through the creative capacity of the metaphorsemployed, it came to constitute an order that was thought of as given. Itscore seems to represent the essential construction of the 'nature' of inter-national politics, seeing world politics, to borrow Roland Barthes's 0974:174) term, as lisibte, an aesthetic totality, a cosmos, reigned by an intelligiblelogos, the balance-of-power system. This system, in rurn, with all its poles,orbits or satellites, was imagined as an accurate description or formulation ofinternational politics. Yet, it also and most ctucially came to be a proposi-tional interpretation of Cold War international polirics.

In the imaginary discussed here, the possibilities for political action weresanctioned by the cosmological matrices generated by Newtonianmetaphoricity, ideologically determining a given political order. This ideo-logical determination of political reality involved the I arall I transfOrl11'ltionof a series of questions. Hence, while metaphors wer' 'n I loy '<1to mal- threality of Cold War politics more intelli ibl " ILieSIiOllS Iikt' 'wh:ll is' w r'transformed into ones like 'what oughr ro I (.', l'II('I'),i..ill}' "pl'('ifi( C'OIlSII':linISof political action and xp Ii 'n 'Yo I kll(', Ihis (,01<1 \ III Nnviollillil 'os-mology legitimat 1 flnd IIOl'lllirlis('d Wlllil Illlrill III' <11",11I'd, III illrl,II('<1 01'

attain I in inl('l'llllliolliri J1olilil,~. lilli', III,II'IIII) 11111111111)\111111/',1"1'IIII'il)('<I('OIII'S('Sor illl('I'II\11ilill rI 11111'111111111III 1111 11111''''1/\11II 111111111111111'111,1111'111111111'1I1i1IlIdll Iii 1111'11'111111'Iii 11111111,1111111111111"1111VII' 11111,1,,111111,111111/1/,1/1111,.1 II II III1}d1 1111 111111111111111111111I"dllil 1111,II lI\iI"l 1111,1I'" ""I

The ways of stargazing 2 5

Newtonian metaphors offered the conditions of possibility for this cosmo-logical configuration, first by rendering it into a form of symbolic power andthen by legitimating its truths in a universal meta-discourse.

Yet, how could any relating of the American imaginary schematisation ofthe Cold War balance-of-power system in terms of Newtonian constella-tions, with its conceptualisation of balance formulated during the foundingyears of the republic, be of importance to the American conceptualisation ofitself and its relations with others in the post-Cold War era? To proclaimthe end of the Cold War and to call for an alternative mode of politicalimagination already presupposes that we know what the Cold War was andhow its politics was imagined. In Campbell's 0998: 15) words, we cannot'onsider the issue of 'where we go from here' without first problematising'how we got to here'. As I have tried to suggest in this chapter, problematis-ing this final 'how' is a process that, in the American case, involves an inves-ti at ion of the representational practices upon which American society has1 en so exceptionally dependent. These practices involve, inter alia, animaginative schematisation of balance-of-power poli tics in terms of N ewton-illn constellations.

Adams,]. (1971a) 'A Defence of the Constitutions of the Government of the UnitedStates of America (1786-1787)', in C.F. Adams (ed.), The Works of John Adams,17 5-1826, vol. 4. New York: AMS Press.

Adams,]. (1971b) 'Adams to James Sullivan, May 26, 1776', in C.F. Adams (ed.),'I 'be Works ofJohn Adams, 1735-1826, vol. 9. New York: AMS Press.

Adnl .,]. (1977) 'Adams to James Waren, April 22, 1776', in R.]. Taylor, G.].Lint and C. Walker (eds), Papers of John Adams, vol. 4. Cambridge, MA: BelknapI rcss of Harvard U niversiry Press.

Asl.l 'y, R.K. (1984) 'The Poverty of Neorealism', International Organization 38 (2):5- 6.

1IIII'!)'I', B. (1984) trong Democracy, Berkeley: Universiry of California Press.11'"'1Ii 's, R. (1974) S/2, trans. R. Miller. New York: Hill and Wang.IllIorsl'in, D.]. (J953) The Genim of American Politics. Chicago, 11: University of

eh i ngo PI' SS.

Ilrook', II. (1956) '(he PII'rJltit of Science in Revolutionary America, 1735-1789. ChapelIlill: North nrolina nivcrsity Press.

( ,11111)1"II, I . (I (( R) VVritili/!, Sec//"rity: United tetteJ Foreign Policy and the Politics ofIdlllllill, Mill1c!WSI('r:M:l1Ih 'SI' I' Univ rsity PI' '5.

( Iii II illl, P,A, (I (( » Suml'il /iiI '1IjJ!Jol',r: ;o/t! WIll' I i,I'I'(II/I',re/1"0111 ontetirt1lzent to:0111/1/111/1111111/',New ork: I '\ 'I' L:llIg,

( lilll'lI, 1.11. 11)1 ,\',i"IIII' IllIdl/ill li'I/II,t!)I/,li li,ltlil'/'I: ,\")1'1/11' )111/11' I'II/ilil";/ 'J'/lIlIIg/.J1'1/1,//1'/'101/,li"III/NIII, II dill/II, ,1111//\iI,ldil'IIl, Nl'w VII" 1111111.1111111111'\Y./,\X/, NClI'llIll,

HllliI, J 11)1\ '1,1'1 II' 111I,lIilll'lll111,1'1111'11111/1,11,',11\I( (11'111'111I'll ),/)1111)11/'),11111111/'1 Ii/'IIIIIW' 1'1111'11\ Id 111'1

.1'11\1111\",tv! 1,,1 cl'il/) 1/1, /"1'1'11,1111///1, ",,111,1/1111/1'1/111111/111/ .'I ,1111 I /1111111111I) 11111111111'I I <III I'll

Foley, M. (1990) Laws, Men and Machines: Modern Americcm overmnent cmd the Appealof Newtonian Mechanics. London and New York: Routledge.

Gilbert, F. (1961) To the Farewell Address: Ideas of Eady A1ltericetrJForeign Policy.Princeron, N]: Princeron University Press.

Hamilton, A. 0961a) 'The Federalist, No. 65', in C. Rossiter ( d.), The FederalistPapers. New Yotk: New American Library.

Hamilron, A. 0961b) 'The Federalist, No. 85', in C. Rossiter (ed.), The FederalistPapers. New York: New American Library.

Jacob, M.C. (1987) 'Scientific Culture in the Early English Enlightenment: Mechan-ism, Industry, and Gentlemanly Facts', in A.c. Kors and P.]. Korshin (eds),Anticipations of the Enlightenment in England, France, and Germany. Philadelphia:U niversiry of Pennsylvania Press.

Jefferson, T. (950) 'Jefferson to Madison, September 6, 1789', in ].P. Boyd (ed.),The Papers of Thomas jefferson, vol. 15. Princeton, N]: Princeton University Press.

Jefferson, T. (979) Thomas jefferson on Democracy. New York: New AmericanLibrary, Mentor.

Kammen, M. (1994) A Machine that Would Go of Itself: The Constitution in AmericanCulture. New York: St Martin's Press.

Madison,]. (1962) 'Madison ro Jefferson, September 6, 1787', in W.T. Hutchinsonand W.M.E. Rachel (eds), The Papers of james Madison, vol. 10. Chicago, 11:Chicago University Press.

Mandelblaum, M. (977) The Anatomy of Historical Knowledge. Baltimore, MD, andLondon: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Markley, R. (993) Fallen Languages: Crises of Representation in Newtonian England,1660-1740. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press.

May, E.R. (976) The Enlightenment in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Minkowski, E. (1936) Vers une cosmologie.Paris: Aubier.Morgenthau, H.J. (1973) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace.

New York: Knopf.Paine, T. 0945 [l776}) 'Common Sense', in P.S. Foner (ed.), The Complete Writings

of Thomas Paine, vol. 1. New York: Citadel Press.Pownall, T. (1780) A Memorial Most Humbly Addressed to the Sovereigns of Europe, on the

Present State of Affairs Between the Old and New World. London: Printed for ].Almon.

Ricoeur, P. (978) 'Can There Be a Scientific Concept of Ideology?' in]. Bien (ed.),Phenomenology and the Social Sciences:A Dialogue. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Ricoeur, P. (981) 'Science and Ideology', in ].B. Thompson (ed.), Hermeneutics andthe Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ricoeur, P. (984) Time and Narrative, vol. I. Chicago, 11: University of Chicago Pre s.Ricoeur, P. (1986) Lectures on Ideology and Utopia. New York: Columbia University

Press.Ricoeur, P. (988) Time and Narrative, vol. III. hicago, 11: Univ 'rsil'y f Chi :Lgo

Press.Ricoeur, P. (991) 'Imagination in Dis 'ourse i1l1d itt ACI iOtt', itt lil'fJ/II 'f'~, '//0 /\('Iioll:

Essay.r in Hermenetlt!t,:r,vol. II. I\VilttSI'I)tt,II.: NIlI'I hWI'/III't'tl 1)IIIVI'1'I111PI'I'NN,Ri 0 'ur, P. (I ( ( 7) '1'/)(' 1(1/11' o/IHI'lfl/lllIlI': /'vill//i 1 )/III/lli,I,,,')1 S/I/I//I'\ (II 111II (,'l'l'iIli(l1l '!/

1\I11'f/lli,I,1( ill 1,i/Ii,I:/fd,l(ll, I.tlIldllll 111.1111'1\11', HIIIIIII'I1'1 ,,, I 1',11111'11111I\Olillll,IIII, ,J t\ (I f) I/) 'NI'Wllllllltlli'llil lill.l I III I 111111111111111',11,/11'1'11l(lfliiMI III

""It/holl,\IIIII't I ( / I 'I' (,II

The ways of stargazing 27

Roche,]. (988) 'Newton's Principia', in]. Fauvel, R. Flood, M. Shortland and R.Wilson (eds), Let Newton Be! A New Perspective on His Life and Works. New York:Oxford University Press.

Sokal, A. and Bricmont,]. (998) Intellectual Impostures: Postmodern Philosophers' Abuseof Science. London: Profile.

triner, R. (1995) 'Political Newtonianism: The Cosmic Model of Politics in Europeand America', William and Mary Quarterly 52: 583-608.

US Department of State (950) 'NSC-68', in Foreign Relations of the United States,vol. I. Washington, DC: US Department of State.

Ie Vanel, E. (1982) The Law of Nations (1758). New York: AMS Press.Washington, G. (935) 'Washington's First Draft for an Address, enclosed in his

letter of May 15, 1796 ro Hamilron', in V.H. Palsits (ed.), Washington's FarewellAddress. New York: New York Public Library.

Washingron, G. (1939) 'Washingron ro Bushrod Washingron, November 10,1787', in].C. Fitzpatrick (ed.), The Writings of George Washington from the OriginalManuscript Sources, vol. 29. Washington, DC: USGPO.