Open Thinkering

Menu

Tag: metaphor

TB871: Framing and reframing

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

As an historian by training, one of the things I’m always aware of when reading about the past is historiography. That is to say, the methods used by historians when writing their accounts. It’s always worth reading as many different versions of the same events as possible if you want to really understand how something happened; not only do some people naturally focus on different things, but it’s also quite likely that whoever is telling the story has a reason for telling it.

The same is true when talking about the present-day. We know that different media outlets are biased in different ways, and so there’s a reason that I subscribe to The Guardian Weekly as opposed to, say, The Daily Express. More recently, as the majority of people access the news through social media, the ‘frame’ through which they access even realtime events is shaped by people trying, consciously or otherwise, to fit those events into a wider narrative.

The use of the metaphor, by relying on an underlying set of premises then, informs, drives and impels the reinforcement of frames. Attention to certain aspects of the situation are filtered, crowded out or focused upon. And the sense of validity about the underlying frame upon which the metaphor is drawing increases by that crowding out. That stronger validation can then reinforce the use of the metaphor.

(The Open University, 2020)

Understanding that your view of the world is framed by your source(s) of information is an important part of what it means to be ‘literate’ in the 21st century. In fact, as a parent, one of the most important things I can do with our two teenagers, is to point out this framing so they learn to spot it for themselves.

Drawing on the idea (metaphor!) of a picture frame, Bateson (1972) notes that frames separate communications of different logical types. The outer frame lets you know something about the type of communication that is contained in the message that exists within the frame. The frame itself indicates that you ought to interpret what is inside the picture frame in a different way from how you interpret the wallpaper. Both Lakoff and Bateson are saying that frames influence what we see by the way that they affect our acts of interpretation. The meaning given to things is highly influenced by how they are framed – is that shop full of charming antiques or second-hand furniture? The meaning of a problem or strategy is affected in just the same way – is losing my job a paralysing disaster or an opportunity for a career change?

(The Open University, 2020)

Taking this to my area of interest for this module, I think public libraries are ripe for reframing. What are they for in 2024? How should we think of them, access them, fund them? There will always be people on both sides who staunchly defend libraries from a traditionalist point of view, and those who attack them from a cost/benefit analysis. But what about the majority of people in the middle?

References

Illustration from absurd.design

TB871: Metaphor, ambiguity, and conceptual blending

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

I’m managing to skip quite a few activities in this module because I’ve thought through the impact of metaphor and ambiguity before, in quite some depth. In fact, I’ve got a whole other blog on it. This post is prompted by the mention of ‘conceptual blending’ in the module materials:

Cognitive scientists Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner (2002) have written about what they call conceptual blending, which is the human mind’s general ability to match two or more different inputs – such as images, words, events, frames, identities or even embodied actions – and to selectively project elements from those different inputs and create a new, blended mental space that has its own structure that retains a connection to those original inputs. They share a range of examples where new mental spaces are produced, including life-stage rituals, sporting achievements and political commentary.

[…]

Significantly, the theory of conceptual blending argues that positions, such as ideas or arguments derived in the blended mental space, can have an effect on our thinking. Consequently, perceptions and judgements about situations involving any of the initial input spaces are modified. Metaphor seems to fit with this way of understanding the mind because it brings together two different notions into a single whole. The boss and dinosaur become an imaginary boss–dinosaur composite. Tutsi and cockroach become a single conceptual blended whole, which could then influence cognition and behaviour in relation to Tutsis or cockroaches.

(The Open University, 2020)
Two overlapping circles, on labelled 'connotative aspect' and one labelled 'denotative aspect'. There is an arrow pointing to the overlap.

Very briefly, then, when we yoke together two ideas we create a zeugma or syllepsis — for example ‘digital literacy’. Or more simply, if we look at prehistoric example, the idea of a “lion man”. Is the emphasis on the first of these (digital/lion) or on the second (literacy/man)? In other words, are we talking about literacy of the digital, or digital forms of literacy. Likewise, are we talking about a man who act like a lion, or a lion that resembles a man?

At the overlap of what something denotes and what it connotes is a space of ambiguity. This is where space is opened up for new ideas and creative/playful thinking. However, there are different types of ambiguity, which I’ve written about in length, including in my thesis, but which I’ll summarise here using this diagram:

Continuum of ambiguity ranging from Generative Ambiguity, through Creative Ambiguity, Productive Ambiguity, and 'Dead Metaphors#

Given that all communication is in some way ambiguous, what we’re trying to avoid are what Richard Rorty calls “dead metaphors”. These are terms which may have had some explanatory power but which have now devolved into cliche.

This is how disinformation works: it creates a space between things that definitely exist and puts them together in people’s minds in such a way that it creates connections that just aren’t there. Political slogans, marketing materials, and even the way that society in general refers to certain groups can be made more or less ambiguous. For change to happen, I’d argue, things need to be productively ambiguous.

References

TB871: Primary metaphors

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

I’ve got a couple of books by George Lakoff sitting waiting in my home office ready for me to read. I really should get around to them. Here he is explaining how fundamental metaphor is to our experience, including literally rewiring the brain.

The argument that Lakoff and others make is that some primary metaphors are embedded in the means by which we come to experience and perceive the world and how those embodied experiences then influence how we conceive, make sense of and come to know about it. These metaphors both reflect the experiences we have in the world and come to influence the mental models, frames or conceptual systems that we hold and which influence our perception. The metaphors that we use influence our mental models.

(The Open University, 2020)

When it comes to systems thinking, part of what we need to be mindful of is the kinds of metaphors and similes people use to describe the systems within which they operate. This reminds me of Gareth Morgan’s book Images of Organization.

References

css.php