Metaphors of Violence
by MikeGeneBiologist Paul Myers is upset with President Bush, the Republicans, the Discovery Institute (proponents of Intelligent Design) and "the theocrats, faith-healers, and snake-oil artists." Dr. Myers feels that they have betrayed "the promise of the Enlightenment" and "the cause of civilized humanity." While Dr. Myers' intentions to defend the Enlightenment and Civilization are noble, I am concerned that he may have inadequatedly consulted with his enlightened colleagues in other departments. The reason I am troubled is found in his language of violence.
Dr Myers calls for a vigorous attack on those who have betrayed the Enlightenment and Civilization. Even more heart-wrenching were his metaphors of weaponry:
I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.
Ouch. One can only imagine all the real victims of steel-toed boots, brass knuckles, and hammers, who read this call for action and had to relive their violent past. In our Global Village, those of us who strive to promote Enlightenment and Civilized values stress Peace, Tolerance, and Fairness. Certainly there is plenty of room at humanity's table for all sorts of viewpoints. I'm worried that Dr. Myers is unintentionally betraying our efforts to promote these values with his reliance on metaphors of violence. When metaphors of violence are used, they only encourage a like response and the cycle of violent language continues, adding to our Culture of Violence. I would plead with Dr. Myers to consider the more enlightened approach of using non-violent metaphors.
In 2002, Dr. M.J. Hardman held a workshop entitled The Language of Peace. It was sponsored by the Community Coalition Against War & Terrorism and held at the University of Florida.
We read:
If we did not speak of most of our daily work as some sort of fight or battle, or hear others speak in a constant stream of their fights and battles, our overall health might be better, for example:
"Johnny don't fight at school. Your mother is helping the war on cancer. Your father has his battles everyday at work. Your sister has to attack her studies. We just can't have you fighting at school."
How might the above be redone? The workshop will draw on the creativeness of the audience to weave the threads that could lead us to non-violent, non-hypocritical language for those of us who would wish a non-violent or at least a less-violent society.
For example, to beat a dead horse involves not only futility but the notion that, if the horse were alive, violence would lead to success or compliance. Some suggestions, drawing on cooking, are to unbake a cake or to unscramble eggs; or we might use to blow up a popped balloon; or, drawing from weaving we might say to reknit cut threads.
For Dr. Myers to more effectively defend the Enlightenment and Civilization, I would again plead with him to replace his violent, aggressive metaphors by weaving the same concerns and goals using the threads of a peaceful language. One can simply scroll down Hardman's web page to come up with more civilized ways of getting the point across.
For example, instead of writing, "It is the leaders and enablers who must be vigorously attacked," Dr. Myers should borrow from weaving metaphors and write: "We need to help people see the dropped stitches in the arguments of the leaders and enablers."
As for the brass knuckles and hammers, those must go. Instead of saying, "I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots," borrow from the metaphors of cooking:
"I say, their pastries have a bad taste. It's time for scientists to break out the aprons and mixing bowels, and get out there with a better cake."
Or what about drawing from metaphors of knitting and weaving?
"I say, their sweaters have holes. It's time for scientists to break out their knitting needles and multi-colored yarn and knit something that is much more pleasing to the eye."
Can't we all just get along?
August 25th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
LOL! Great post, Mike. Unfortunately, the metaphors (or maybe not metaphors) of violence coming fromPZ's end specifically are not limited to steel toes and brass knuckles. To wit:
Yeah, it's a creatively altered comic book reference. It's not that funny to me.
Comment by Joy — August 25, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Right, Joy. I wish I could take Myers's approach as being totally benign and merely metaphorical. I doubt he wants to initiate militia-style violence, but he's not out just to tickle us with mild thoughts of how ID and religions are weak concepts. He wants to stamp it all out.
Comment by TomG — August 25, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Mike, this post was funny the first time, and dang it if it isn't just as funny the second! Excellent choice of a repost.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — August 25, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Damn
That is so sad that you can so misrepresent a point of view.
The brass knuckles thing was in response to people not doing their job. I mean if I was to sign on as a bone fide representative of any point of view and receive payment for that job and then espoused the opposite point of view,I think that I'd expect some negative feedback, wouldn't you?
c'mon I mean wow if you take such folk out of context how can you expect non believers to ignore terms like apostate, barbarian, heretic, excommunicate, sin, rapture, worthy, chosen etc.
Comment by DaveC — August 26, 2007 @ 2:07 am
August 26th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I'm not sure why everybody thinks the "enlightenment" was such a good idea. Most of its fruit is rotten.
Comment by thesciphishow — August 26, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
DaveC:
??? Are you saying that science education is just indoctrination in a certain point of view? That satisfactory completion of requirements to earn a practice level degree in science is just certification of adherence to that certain point of view? That the actual practice of science ["job"] is just to forever parrot a particular point of view? That any discovery or approach that challenges the prior point of view is grounds for summary excommunication and revocation of certification? When did science become metaphysics?
It's a darned good thing PZ Myers doesn't have the authority to police science with steel toed boots or brass knuckles, or the legal authority to paint his walls with the blood of his victims. If he's so dumb as to use this sort of violent rhetoric while Hollywood cameras are rolling, he can expect some negative feedback. Wouldn't you?
Comment by Joy — August 26, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Hi Dave,
Actually, these terms are fairly well ignored on Telic Thoughts. At least I don't recall seeing them used. Well, expect perhaps for 'heretic' because, after all, we are the heretics with the dangerous ideas.
Comment by MikeGene — August 26, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Hi Joy
At the very early stages of education accepted theories and facts are usually stated as so. I remember in maths learning the tables. Also I remember trusting that my log tables were up to snuff without having conduct independent experiments or investigations at the tender ages where these concepts were introduced.
Anybody who agreed to teach an introductory classes in maths or trig really should not be saying 2×3 is 7 or that Pythagora's theorem is wrong and if they did they do deserve to be disciplined.
If that is a metaphysical pov then guilty as charged.
Teaching introductory science is not practicing science, rather it is trying to equip students well enough to practice science in the future. Early on this does require using metaphors and estimates and it nearly always assumes that the student is not already a sophisticated researcher in a particular field. After all that would render any education un-necessary if students came to college completely up to date in the fields they had chosen to study.
Mike
Fair enough
Comment by DaveC — August 27, 2007 @ 6:18 pm