Metaphors- A Real Post

The super-clever opening to the seminar paper that spawned this project began with this quote as an epigraph:

The sexual language used by Renaissance rhetoricians also makes rhetoric, at least potentially, a most sinister and troubling affair, for if the orator's performance constitutes a violent, irresistible sexual penetration of the auditor, then that performance looks uncomfortably like rape. Indeed, the discourse resonates with the word itself, which appears in barely disguised form every time a vernacular writer speaks of ravishment, and more directly in Latin texts whenever one encounters the verb rapere. That rhetoric should evoke rape should not be surprising, since rape is a crime of violence, an assault on a victim who is penetrated and possessed sexually by the attacker. (158)
Wayne A. Rebhorn The Emperor of Men's Minds: Literature and the Renaissance Discourse of Rhetoric

Followed by this opening line:

This is not a paper about Renaissance rhetoric.

I then went on to trace this "anxiety of violence" within the rhetorical tradition. After all, Gorgias's Encomium of Helen uses the comparison of persuasion to rape as a defense of Helen of Troy's actions. And then use that to introduce Gearhart's claim that "any intent to persuade is an act of violence."

I'm fascinated by the kinds of metaphors surrounding rhetoric and the terms used to describe it. Take, for example, how we describe an argument or a position paper, it's all set up in battle language.

George Lakoff and Mark Johnson have an interesting book called Metaphors We Live By in which they describe how metaphor isn't just pretty.

"Metaphor is typically viewed as a characteristic of language alone, a matter of words rather than thought or action. [...But] metaphor is pervasive in everyday life [...] Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature" (3).

In some ways, what they are talking about is similar to Kenneth Burke's terministic screens (which is probably while I like it). Like terministic screens, our conceptual system is not something we are not normally aware of. There are metaphors that "structure how we perceive, how we think, and what we do" (4) all behind our back. You know, until we turn around.

So, you inquirers of rhetorical truth, turn around with me and lets shed some light on argument (which happens to be L&J's first example).

Your claims are indefensible.
"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.
You disagree? Okay, shoot!
If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out.
He shot down all of my arguments.

It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguments in terms of war. We can actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack. Many of things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war" [...] It is in this sense that the ARGUMENT AS WAR metaphor is one we live by in this culture; it structures the actions we perform in arguing (4).

Is your brain on fire yet? As I've been writing my draft, it's been so strange to find myself using the terms that connote this metaphor of war so easily, so naturally.

This is a concept and a book cited a lot by the group of feminists I'm looking at. And as peace loving feminists, they have to take action against this War. Most want to through it out or at least revision it. But here is the problem with that--L&J go on to describe another culture that has an ARGUMENT AS DANCE metaphor. "In such a culture, people would view arguments differently, experience them differently, carry them out differently, and talk about them differently. But we would probably not view them as arguing at all: they would simply be doing something different" (5). So based on that, doesn't it seem like revision is kind of undoable? I think it might be possible to argue that this is why their attempts to change argument haven't really done much. It would also strengthen an argument to just through argument out entirely and present a different metaphor, but then, is that possible?

As you can tell, I haven't completely worked in all out in my brain yet, that, and it's time for more pain meds. But, what do you think?