FINAL
PRESENTATION: META-NARRATIVES
IS290-1
News Media
“What metaphor does is limit what we notice,
highlight what we do see, and provide part of the inferential structure that we
reason with. Because of the
pervasiveness of metaphor in thought, we cannot always stick to discussions of
reality in purely literal terms. There is no way to avoid metaphorical thought,
especially in complex matters like foreign policy. I am therefore not objecting to the use of metaphor in itself in
foreign policy discourse. My objections
are, first, to the ignorance of the presence of metaphor in foreign policy
deliberations, second to the failure to look systematically at what our
metaphors hide, and third, to the failure to think imaginatively about what new
metaphors might be more benign.”
~George Lakoff, Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in
the Gulf (2 parts), November 1991.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Lakoff’s work provided the
basis for looking at the articles from my Assignment 5 but using the
script methods used in my
Assignment 3, where we tasked with Inverting
the Pyramid (description of the original class assignment). The assignment asked us to review domestic and
foreign stories to find a script or schema that would be able to pick out
details of a event in order to summarize or aggregate multiple news stories
about the event. I used the script
applier mechanism to work out how a system would pick out the details of a
story and summarize them. The object of
metaphor extraction is to determine how a system might go through the same
stories to find the metaphor or metaphors implicit in each one.
I started by reviewing and summarizing George
Lakoff’s analyses on metaphors around the Gulf War and the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. I wanted to compare the
various metaphors he described in order to pick out which metaphors were most
used in terrorist news stories, and then manually pull the metaphor from the
story. I then looked at ways a system
could pull the same information, so that in addition to the basic script of the
story created in Assignment 3, the metaphors would be obvious.
The
metaphors, summarized in the link above, which seemed most useful in terrorist
stories, are as follows:
1. War is politics pursued by other means
2. State-as-person system
3. Ruler can stand for the state as well as the state-as-person
(only for illegitimate rulers)
4. Fairy tale of the Just War
5. Rational Actor model
6.
Risk Metaphors
7.
Strict
Father Morality
8.
Buildings
as metaphors
9.
Control is
up; standing is both time and strength
10.
Causal Commerce System
Terrorism/Middle East
Article Metaphor script:
1. information/story framed
2. metaphor laid out
3. target/terrorists/action
named using metaphor
4. information/evidence given
to support metaphor
In addition to the metaphor scripts, I also looked
at metaphor descriptors
that could be used to find metaphors because of the specific word choices made
by writers of news articles. This list
of words was developed with stories about the Middle East and terrorism in
mind, directly from the articles below.
The idea is that this system would look for stories with this subject
matter and then match words that point to metaphors used in describing the
actions and actors, using words that often are used to imply a metaphorical way
of looking at the story. Obviously, a
much greater list would be necessary for a system to find the metaphors, but I
wanted to make an attempt to find those words that would be necessary for the
specific stories analyzed below.
ARTICLES ANALYSED:
http://www.dawn.com/2002/02/28/top5.htm
February 12, 2002
Metaphors used:
1.
Strict Father scenario (irresponsible leaders must be punished)
2.
Immoral/evil people are animals (bin Laden, Mulla Omar are
hunted)
3.
Fairy tale of the just war (Victim, hero and perpetrator are
identified)
4.
Rational Actor Model (countries and individuals act in their own
best interests)
(terrorism- metaphor script $alert
‘((ptrans (Actor ?Hero) (Object ?terrorists) (to ?hunt down))
(mtrans (Actor ?Victim) (Object (root out (animals)
(henchmen)
(action))
(mtrans (Actor ?Perpetrator) (Object (what they did) (target)
(civilized world)
(action))
((verify) (Actor? Hero) (Object ?civilized
world) (object ?terrorists) (object ?action))))
(atrans (Actor ?Perpetrator)
(Object (part-and-parcel) (?Al-Qaeda)
(for ?what
they did)
(to
?warning))
(ptrans (Actor ?Hero) (Object ?Pakistan) (to?stood with)
(Object ?United States) (to?support))))
US to continue hunt for
Osama, Omar
By Our Correspondent
NEW YORK, Feb 27: The United
States would continue to
hunt down Osama bin
Laden, Taliban leader Mulla Omar and their "henchmen" throughout the
world.
Reiterating that the US
war on terrorism would continue until Al Qaeda is rooted
out, State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said: "It's hard to
predict" whether there can
be any closure without the arrest or death of bin Laden. He was briefing news correspondents
in New York on Tuesday following President Bush's visit to China, Japan and
South Korea.
Reeker, when asked to comment on reports that on Osama bin Laden is still alive
in Afghanistan, said: "I cannot verify the variety of reports other than
what the president had said that we would continue to hunt for him and Mulla Mohammed Omar but also their henchmen, the
Taliban, who were part and parcel of Al-Qaeda for what they did to our
country and many others in the civilized world."
He said the campaign "won't end and certainly I cannot predict when it
would end." Asked about the fallout of President Musharraf's campaign to rid the country
of radical elements, Reeker said following Musharraf's address (of Jan 12)
"silent majority of
Pakistanis have stood up
with him, the
dire warnings were misplaced."
"The silent majority of
Pakistanis has not only stood up not only with us, the United States, in the aftermath of
Sept 11 but with the
civilized world also seeing what is best for Pakistan."
© The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2002
ARTICLE 2: From the Tribune, India
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020213/world.htm#6
Metaphors used:
1.
War is
politics pursued by other means (sort
of reverse reference, in that the US is confused and doesn’t know where to direct this metaphor
next)
2.
State-as-person
system (US, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, N.
Korea)
3.
Ruler can
stand for the state as well as the state-as-person (only for illegitimate
rulers) (Hussein)
4.
Fairy tale
of the Just War (US is the self-defender)
5.
Strict Father Morality (other countries are irresponsible children to be disciplined)
(terrorism- metaphor script $alert
‘((ptrans (Actor ?Hero) (Object ?axis-of-evil states) (to ?deal with)
(mtrans (Actor ?Victim) (Object (move to (anti-terror campaign)
(henchmen)
(action))
(mtrans (Actor ?Perpetrator) (Object (is/are) (shadowy war)
(shadowy people)
(action))
((missle) (Actor? Hero) (Object ?attack) (object ?Al-Qaeda suspects) (object ?action))))
(atrans (Actor ?Residents) (Object (killed) (?innocents)
(for ?what
they did)
(to
?warning))
(ptrans (Actor ?Hero) (Object ?Pakistan) (to?stood with)
(Object ?United States) (to?support))))
USA fighting ‘fog of confusion’
Washington,
February 12
The USA has admitted it
was battling a fog of confusion in post-war Afghanistan but signaled it could
soon move into the next
phase of its anti-terror
campaign — dealing with
“axis of evil’’ states.
Pentagon officials,
responding to reports that US
forces have targeted wrong people in mopping up Al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants, said yesterday the
truth was hard to establish in Afghanistan.
“To
say that... conditions in Afghanistan are confusing is an understatement, you
know,’’ said spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, who addressed a briefing with Rear
Adm. John Stufflebeem.
Stufflebeem
added: “It’s a shadow war.
These are shadowy people
who don’t want to be found.’’
But
the officials said they were confident the latest attack about which questions
had been raised, a missile fired
at a group of Al-Qaeda
suspects by a remote controlled drone, had been on target.
The
Washington Post yesterday quoted residents of the area as saying three innocent peasants had been killed in the missile strike a
week ago, not Al-Qaeda leaders
as US officials
reported at the time.
Mr
Clarke and Admiral Stufflebeem said an investigation into another US attack
three weeks ago on Afghans believed, possibly mistakenly, to be Al-Qaeda or
Taliban was being expanded to look at charges that some detainees had been
beaten while in US custody.
At
the White House, spokesman Ari Fleischer suggested President George W. Bush
wanted quick action against his “axis of evil’’ nations — Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein hit back at
Washington. “The American behavior and conduct imply clear tyranny and evil
hostility against people,’’ Iraqi television quoted him as saying at a meeting.
Reuters
ARTICLE 3: From the Tehran
Times
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=2/28/02&Cat=14&Num=1
Metaphors used:
1. State-as-person system (Iran,
Germany, Austria, Afghanistan, US)
2. Risk Metaphors (countering bad influences in the region)
3.
Strict Father Morality (Iran, Germany and Austria
have responsibility for security, to stand up to US monopoly)
4.
Control is up; standing is both time and
strength (Iran and EU work to make
stability, security, take responsibility)
5.
Rational Actor Model (each country is working in it’s own best interests)
Because
this article is written from the Iranian point of view, the metaphor script and
metaphors used are directed from that point of view.
(middle east- metaphor script $status
‘((ptrans (Actor ?Iran) (Object ?comprehensive talks) (to ?held)
(mtrans (Actor ?Germany) (Object (focused (US unilateralism)
(Middle East)
(German-Iranian ties)
(action))
(ptrans (Actor ?Iran) (Object ?comprehensive talks) (?held)
(mtrans (Actor ?Austria) (Object (similar talks)
(action))
(mtrans (Actor ?EU) (Object (have) (extensive relations)
(appropriate groundwork)
(action))
(ptrans) (Actor? Iran) (Object ?maintaining) (object
?appropriate groundwork) (object
?action))))
(atrans (Actor ?US) (Object (blind support) (?Zionist regime)
(for
?suppression)
(of
?Palestinians))
(ptrans (Actor ?Iran) (Object ?peace and security) (intervene)
(atrans (Actor ?other major players) (Object (fair and peaceful solution) (seek)
(action))
(ptrans (Actor ?cooperation) (Object ?regional security) (maintaining)
(Object ?unilateralist and monopolistic US Policies) (countering))))
Iran, EU Opposed to U.S. Hegemony
Iranian Foreign Minister
Kamal Kharrazi, who arrived in Berlin Tuesday for a two-day visit, held comprehensive talks with German Parliament Speaker Wolfgang
Thierse which focused
on German-Iranian ties, Afghanistan,
the Middle East issue, and other global developments such as U.S. unilateralism.
In
addition, one day prior to Kharrazi's talks with Thierse, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for
Euro-American Affairs Ali Ahani held similar
talks with the Austrian
Parliament speaker and acting foreign minister.
Germany and Austria are two
countries that have extensive relations with Iran at the bilateral
level as well as within the framework of cooperation between the European Union
(EU) and the Islamic Republic. In fact, the close views of Iran, Germany and
Austria on the Middle East issue and developments in Afghanistan have prepared
an appropriate
groundwork for cooperation in maintaining regional security and stability and in other areas such
as fighting terrorism and drug trafficking.
As
far as the Mideast issue is concerned, the blind U.S. support for the Zionist regime's suppression of Palestinians has
escalated the crisis in the region. Therefore, it is the responsibility of other major
players on the international arena to intervene and seek a fair and peaceful solution to the issue.
With
regard to Afghanistan, maintaining
peace and security in
that country requires contributions from all countries to support Afghanistan's interim
government, regardless
of political considerations.
Considering
the efforts made by Iran at the Bonn Conference to help form the interim
government in Afghanistan, it is clear that Tehran and Berlin hold similar
positions on the above issue.
Therefore,
in the light of the considerable progress made in the comprehensive dialogue
between the Islamic Republic and the European Union, Kharrazi's negotiations
with German officials and Ahani's visit to Austria indicate that Iran and the
EU have opted for continued consultations and cooperation on major regional and
international issues. This cooperation
aims to secure several objectives, the most important ones being maintaining regional security and countering unilateralist and monopolistic
U.S. policies on the international scene.
ARTICLE 4: From
the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/weekinreview/24PURD.html?pagewanted=print
Metaphors used:
1. War is politics pursued by other means (Israeli/Palestinian conflict)
2. State-as-person system (US, Israel, etc.)
3. Ruler can stand for the state as well as the state-as-person
(Arafat)
4.
Rational Actor model (US and others work in their own best
interests)
5.
Risk Metaphors (calculations of strength and
power)
6.
Strict Father Morality (Arafat is
to be controlled or disavowed)
7.
Control is
up; standing is both time and strength (US strength can straighten out Middle
East)
8.
Causal
Commerce System (force Arafat to crack down on violence or risk isolation,
isolation will follow not being responsible)
(middle east- metaphor script $status
‘((ptrans (Actor ?Washington) (Object ?crucial) (to ?has been)
(mtrans (Actor ?American Presidents) (Object (have played (powerful role)
(Middle East)
(negotiations)
(action))
(mtrans (Actor ?Peace) (Object (has seemed (closest)
(America)
(involved)
(action))
‘((ptrans (Actor ?Washington) (Object ?squarely) (stand)
(Object
(to? Isolate and pressure (with Mr. Sharon)
(Mr. Arafat)
(to crack down on violence)
(action))
WASHINGTON
An old Middle East
hand once likened the conflict there to riding a bicycle: If you're moving,
however slowly, you don't fall down. But if you try to stand still, you fall.
After 17 months
of intifada, suicide bombings, smuggled arms, unsparing Israeli reprisals and
bloody stalemate, there is an inescapable sense that the bicycle is inches from
the ground. And, as it always has at such times, the world is looking to
America for forward momentum.
Washington's involvement has always been the crucial element in any breakthrough in the Middle East.
From Harry S. Truman's swift recognition of the new state of Israel, through
Jimmy Carter's Camp David summitry in the 1970's and Bill Clinton's handshake
deal in the 1990's, American
presidents have played
a powerful role in molding
the shape of Middle East negotiations. Peace has always seemed closest when America is most involved. Though this downward
spiral of violence has generated doubts about any hope for a solution, a wide
array of voices — representing many lands and views — are now suggesting that
renewed American involvement is the key.
But what should
the Bush administration do and, more important, can it accomplish what it
desires?
"I think we
have got to start with a pretty frank recognition that whatever we have been trying
for the past year has not worked," said William B. Quandt, a national
security official in the Nixon and Carter administrations. "We've kind of
gone through a cycle of what you might call benign neglect — it's up to them to
get their act together."
A sampling of
opinion from academic experts and current and former government officials
produced a variety of possible ideas for American action. Send in a new high-level American envoy,
with the stature of, say, former Secretary of State James A. Baker. Press for a 10-day cooling off period in which Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel would ease the siege of Palestinian areas
long enough to see if Yasir Arafat
would crack down on violence — or face a cutoff of relations
with the United States.
Howard Teicher,
a former National Security Council official in the Reagan administration, said
there are dangers for the administration in getting more involved. For example,
American efforts could alienate Arab nations when their cooperation is vital.
Mr. Bush would also risk political and diplomatic capital to broker an
agreement in a region where American success has never been assured.
But the
alternatives are worse. "The fundamental weakness of our policy now,"
Mr. Teicher said, "is that in saying, `It's up to Sharon and it's up to
Arafat,' we're leaving it up to the extremists. That's what America did with Al
Qaeda and Islamic terrorists. We waited until 3,000 Americans were killed
before we did anything. In the cold-war era, our fundamental vital interest was
to prevent a dispute in the Middle East from becoming a U.S.- Soviet conflict.
There could be some very high costs imposed on us by not continuing our
efforts."
In fact, Shibley
Telhami, a professor of government at the University of Maryland, just published
a statistical study of 20 years of daily analysis of how Israelis and
Palestinians react to each other. He said that from 1995 to 2000, when the
peace process was progressing — with American leadership — terror declined
every year in the Middle East. By 1999, it had the lowest level of incidents of
any region on the globe, except North America.
"When
breaks in the violence happen, it's usually because you have some extremely
courageous leader, like Sadat or Rabin — people who give their own lives,"
Professor Telhami said. "But you can't depend on that. It's more likely if
you have some external pressure."
Indeed, progress over the last
decade has come only through American pressure.
In 1991, the first President Bush convened the Madrid peace conference in fulfillment
of a commitment to Arab nations who joined the international coalition that
ejected Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Madrid conference, and the Oslo accords
that followed in 1993, significantly advanced the negotiating terms for a final
settlement on a homeland for Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories
in the West Bank and Gaza. But the momentum of Madrid and Oslo foundered for
many reasons, including government changes in Israel and a rising tide of
extremism among Palestinians.
YET Washington can play a role, and there could even be an opening. Last week,
the C.I.A. brokered secret talks between top-ranking Israeli and Palestinian
officials to discuss political and security issues. Seeking to lessen the
tension, Israeli officials said Friday that the government was considering
releasing Mr. Arafat, the Palestinian leader, from the West Bank city of
Ramallah, where it trapped him for more than two months.
Meanwhile,
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, returning from a trip to Asia with
President Bush, told reporters on Friday that he was concerned about the
growing level of violence and planned to "spend a good part of the weekend
re-engaging both sides." He said he saw promise in a recent peace overture
by the ruling crown prince of Saudi Arabia.
But no one
pretends the road back will be smooth. Vice President Dick Cheney plans a
Middle East trip next month that the administration said will not focus on
peacemaking but on broader American relationships in the region as the war on
terrorism expands. The notion that the two can even be separated is
controversial.
"He's going
on the reigning theory that you can have a solution to the United States
relationship to terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction without
dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," said Stephen Cohen, a
visiting professor at Princeton University. "This trip is going to test
that assumption."
President Bush
took office last year wary of deep involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
not least because it was a priority for his predecessor, Bill Clinton, and one
that ended in disappointment with the collapse of negotiations at Camp David.
Last fall, the
administration began to take a more forward-leaning approach, with Mr. Bush's
pledge of support for a Palestinian state and the dispatch of a special envoy,
Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine general, to help negotiate a cease-fire and
resumption of peace talks.
FOR the last two months, especially since Israel's seizure of a 50-ton boatload
of Iranian- supplied arms that it said were bound for the Palestinian
Authority, Washington
has had a single strategy: stand
squarely with Mr. Sharon
to isolate and pressure Mr. Arafat to crack down on violence.
Yet the violence
has only grown worse, and the administration withdrew General Zinni and has
declined to send him back until it goes down again. "This is now
Algeria," said Judith Kipper, director of the Middle East Forum at the
Council on Foreign Relations here. "Each side is going to continue to
escalate. Neither side can get the other to submit."
She added:
"They've both been very good at saying no to us. But in the end, we're the
big guys. We need to say we're sending Zinni back; and he's going to work with
you to have an immediate cease-fire. And for those who do not cooperate, here
are the consequences for you: whether it's public criticism, cutoff of
contacts, no more phone calls, all the way up to whatever instruments the
United States has at its command."
Many analysts
said the administration should do all it can to explore the suggestion by Crown
Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia that his kingdom would be prepared to fully
normalize relations with Israel in exchange for full Israeli withdrawal from
the territories it occupied at the end of the 1967 war, with suggestions of
flexibility on other questions, including control of holy sites in Jerusalem.
Israeli
officials have so far offered muted reaction, but the idea has been greeted
with overwhelming support in the Arab world. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt,
which has traditionally seen itself as the principal Arab peace broker in the
region, is due in Washington next week, and officials say he may well try to
signal a willingness to up the ante.
And President
Bush could then enter into the traditional role of an American president — by
getting directly involved in seeking peace in the Middle East.