Regardless of how inaccurate it may be, the conceptual metaphor of the fiscal
cliff is here to stay, thanks to the way our brains are wired.
Writers on economics have been talking since the election about why the
"fiscal cliff" metaphor is misleading. Alternative metaphors have been offered
like the
fiscal hill,
fiscal curb, and
fiscal showdown, as if one metaphor could easily be replaced
by another that makes more sense of the real situation. But none of the
alternatives has stuck, nor has the fiscal cliff metaphor been abandoned. Why?
Why do some metaphors have far more staying power than others, even when they
give a misleading picture of a crucial national issue?
The reason has to do with the way that metaphorical thought and language work
in the brain. From a cognitive linguistics perspective, "fiscal cliff" is not a
simple metaphor bringing "fiscal" together with "cliff." It is instead a
linguistic metaphor that is understood via a highly integrated cascade of other
deeper and more general conceptual metaphors.
A cascade is a neural circuit containing and coordinating neural circuits in
various parts of the brain.
Because we think with our brains, every thought we have is physical,
constituted by neural circuitry. Because about 98 percent of conscious thought
has an unconscious neural substrate, we are rarely aware of conceptual
metaphors. And because the brain is a physical system governed by conservation
of energy, a tightly integrated cascade of neural metaphor circuits is more
likely to be learned, remembered and readily activated.
Let's take a look at the metaphorical complexity of "fiscal cliff" and how
the metaphors that comprise it fit together. The simplest, is the metaphor named
MoreIsUp, which is a neural circuit linking two distinct brain
regions, one for verticality and one for quantity. It is a high-level general
metaphor widespread throughout the world, and occurs in a vast number of
sentences like:
Turn the radio up; the temperature fell, and so on.
The economy is seen as moving forward and either moving up, moving down or
staying level, where verticality metaphorically indicates the value of economic
indicators like the GDP or a stock market average. These are indicators of
economic activity, such as overall spending on goods and services, or the sale
of stocks. Why is economic activity conceptualized as motion? Because a common
conceptual metaphor is being used:
ActivityIsMotion, as in
sentences like:
The project is moving along smoothly; the remodeling is
getting bogged down, and so on. The common metaphor
TheFutureIsAhead accounts for why the motion is "forward."
In a diagram of changes over time in a stock market or the GDP, the metaphor
used is
ThePastIsLeft and
TheFutureIsRight,
which is why the diagram goes from left to right when the economy is
conceptualized as moving "forward."
When Ben Bernanke spoke of the "fiscal cliff" he undoubtedly had an mind a
graph of the economy moving along, left to right, on a slight incline and then
suddenly dropping way down, which looks like a line drawing of a cliff from the
side view. Such a graph has values built in via the metaphor
GoodIsUp. Going down over the cliff is thus bad.
The administration has the goal of increasing GDP. Here common metaphors
apply:
SuccessIsUp and
FailingIsFalling. Hence
going over the fiscal cliff would be a serious failure for the administration
and harm for the populace.
These metaphors fit together tightly in the usual graph of changes in
economic activity over time, together with the metaphorical interpretation of
the graph. From the neural perspective, these metaphors form a
tightly-integrated neural cascade - so tightly integrated and so natural that we
barely notice them, if we notice them at all.
There is, of course, more content to the "fiscal cliff." Imagine driving
toward a cliff with the possibility of going over. The car you are in is out of
control. The cliff is a feature of the natural environment. If the car goes
over, everyone in it would be harmed or killed. Thus, if the economy is a
vehicle moving forward without control toward the cliff, there is great and
immediate danger, and so the "fiscal cliff" metaphor engenders fear. Thus,
knowledge about driving out of control toward a cliff, together with the
metaphors cited above, characterizes the implications of the "fiscal cliff"
metaphor.
Because the conceptual metaphors constituting the fiscal cliff fit together
so well and so naturally, it is hard to just jettison it and replace it with an
even better integrated metaphor for our economic situation.
Progressive economists like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich have rejected the
fiscal cliff metaphor, but with different arguments and different alternative
metaphors. Krugman points out that the idea of the fiscal cliff is tied to an
economically false argument about the dangers of the deficit. He argues instead
that the deficit is too small and that we need to invest more, not less, in the
development of the economy. The real danger, he argues is that what is called
the "fiscal cliff" is really an "
austerity bomb." The result would be dangerous cuts in
necessary economic investments and safety nets, which would hurt many people and
the economy as a whole, as well - just as austerity programs in Europe have
done. And Krugman has correctly pointed out that using the fiscal cliff metaphor
helps conservatives because it accepts their economic theory of deficits.
Reich suggests "bungee-jumping over the fiscal cliff." He argues that
President Obama should be willing to accept the drastic fiscal cliff cuts in the
budget as of January 1. This could either be a "bluff" to scare the Republicans
into believing the cuts would be pinned on them. Or it could be his "trump
card," since the new Congress could reverse the cuts after January 1.
I agree with Krugman's economic analysis and think that Reich's political
strategy is well worth considering. But from a cognitive linguistic perspective,
their alternative metaphors, whatever their policy value, are not going to make
it. Take "austerity bomb." The Austerity Frame is about self-denial. As used in
Europe, it assumes two conceptual metaphors, TheNationalBudgetIsAFamilyBudget
and TheNation'sWealthIsTheGovernment'sCashOnHand. Both are terribly misleading.
Great Britain is richer than it has ever been, just as America is, if you count
the total wealth of their corporations and citizens. The nations are far from
broke, but the requisite money is not in the government's coffers. A family
budget is nothing like a national budget, because the nation has vastly more
resources and possibilities than any typical family. These are the austerity
metaphors. The causal structure of austerity contradicts the causal structure of
bomb. Austerity implies a long-term responsible form of self-denial that makes
your situation better. Bombs blow up instantly and harm or kill you.
The idea is that austerity as a national policy would be destructive, and it
most likely would be, but the metaphor doesn't have anything like a tightly
integrated cascade of component metaphors.
Reich's "bungee-jumping" contradicts the inferences that arise from the
tightly fitting component metaphors of the "fiscal cliff." And though Reich's
"bluff" and "trump card" metaphors are instances of the commonplace
BargainingIsGambling metaphor, it suggests a political
strategy, but does not characterize our economic situation.
There are two morals here. First, metaphors cannot be proposed at will and be
expected to work, even if they are intended to fit reality better than existing
metaphors. Second, when metaphors are tightly integrated, they are going to be
hard to replace and we may have to live by them, as misleading as they may be.
The national economic debate will most likely continue to be about the
misleading fiscal cliff, not the reality that "austerity bomb" is intended to
convey. This is a sad scientific truth.
