When Political Metaphors Go Wrong
The unintended consequences of not thinking your metaphors all the way through.
Did you ever develop a message, only to find that you have handed your opponent ammunition to use against you? Metaphors are more than just pretty words. They tell people how to think. If we’re not careful, we can end up doing more harm than good. This comparison of two metaphors for gentrification shows why we need to think our analogies all the way through.
Anatomy of a Metaphor
Developing an effective political metaphor actually takes a lot of work. If you take shortcuts, you can make critical mistakes. You have to flesh out the entire narrative and make sure your metaphor actually applies to the situation the way you think it should.
In this case, we are talking about fighting gentrification. Neighborhoods are more than just buildings. They are communities full of people. How can we get voters and city leaders to see that just because landlords and developers could replace poor tenants with rich ones, it doesn’t mean that they should?
Here are two possible metaphors. In one, a neighborhood is portrayed as a garden. In the other, a city is portrayed as a family. Let’s look at how these two different analogies play out.
Thank you for reading Reframing America! This is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts by email please consider becoming a subscriber. All content is free, but some people choose to become paying subscribers to support this mission!
A Neighborhood is a Garden
A few years ago, I was brainstorming messaging options with an activist fighting gentrification. His neighborhood was admittedly struggling with crime and drugs, yet had a strong community and great historical significance. He suggested, “What if we framed our neighborhood as a garden? Maybe people will think of us as deserving to be nurtured and cultivated.” On the surface, this sounds like a good way to evoke an emotional perspective of care and responsibility toward the community’s residents. Sounds okay. What’s the problem?
What questions do we need to ask?
Who is in which role? Which parts of the garden represent which parts of the neighborhood?
Gardens have plants and flowers, and they have gardeners. The plants and flowers would be the renters. The gardeners would be property owners and developers, and perhaps the city government.
From whose perspective do you view a garden?
The gardeners.
Who has rights? Who has power?
A garden is not for the benefit of the plants. Plants have no rights, no ability to act or make decisions. The owner has all the power and makes all the decisions.
How are people expected to behave in this situation? What behavior would be logical or morally acceptable? What do we expect gardeners to do when prettier plants become available?
It would be logical for a gardener to replace the old plants with the new ones. There is no moral judgment about the plants that get removed.
What goal does this analogy establish?
The goal is to have the nicest possible garden, for the benefit and enjoyment of the owner.
Does this analogy unintentionally provide counter-productive reasoning?
Yes. You run the risk of having your opponents label you or your neighbors as “weeds.” What do you do with weeds? Pull them out and get rid of them.
The “neighborhood as garden” scenario already has a bad history. I am sure you have heard of the term “urban blight” or “neighborhood blight.” Blight is actually a fungus that grows on tomato plants. The only solution is to cut it out the moment you see it, because otherwise it will spread to all your plants. The blight analogy was used to condone “broken windows” policing and to condemn and bulldoze whole low-income urban neighborhoods, lest they spread and infect “good” neighborhoods.
CONCLUSION
The last thing you want your neighborhood seen as, is a garden. It actually provides your opponent with opportunities to make their case.
A City is a Family
What would be a better analogy? How about “a city is a family,” a community with a shared history.
What questions do we need to ask?
Who is in which role? Which parts of the family represent which parts of the city?
The residents would be family members. The land and buildings would be their house.
From whose perspective do you view a family?
You view a family from the perspective of its members.
Who has rights? Who has power? Who is a family for?
A family is about the people in it. The buildings are just there for the family’s benefit.
Does this framing create scenarios with behavioral expectations?
You expect a family to care for all its members. You don’t throw some out when they fall on hard times. You work together to help each other.
What happens when new people come along?
Families get new people all the time. People find life partners. Kids get born. You welcome them. You expand and you make room. What you don’t do, is chuck out members of your family to make room for the new ones.
CONCLUSION
The “a city is a family” analogy creates fruitful questions that could change the way we think about cities and the neighborhoods in them.
The Bottom Line
Any time you base your political communication on a metaphor, think through all the possible narratives that could be developed from that metaphor. Make sure it makes you the good guy and gets people to see the situation from your perspective. Make sure it puts you and your side in the right role. Make sure that it creates expectations of the kinds of actions you would want people to take.
In the situation above, my recommendation was to center their campaign around the idea of the city as a family, and push questions like “What is a city?” and “Who is a city for?” “Is a city a collection of properties and businesses, or is a city a group of people?”
Like a family, a city is a community of people. People may come and go, but there is a continuity defined by its history, culture and character. Like a family, the mission of the city government is to improve the quality of life for the people in it. If the purpose of the physical part of a city is to make life better for the people who live in it, how can you justify acting in a way that hurts or removes the people who live there?
Gentrification is an admittedly difficult problem, but if you can get people talking about the fact that a city is a body of people rather than a collection of physical attributes and financial assets, you can get them to work toward the right goal: improving neighborhoods for the people who live in them.
Thanks, as always, for reading and subscribing! I hope you are able to use this in your work and your activism! Thank you for your patience with the irregular schedule as I develop the training workshop!
In solidarity,
Antonia