George Lakoff - Metaphors Of Terror

M etaphors of Terror George Lakoff Septe m ber 16, 2001

1:Our Brains Had to Change Everything w e kno w is physically instantiated in the neural system of our brains. W h at w e kne w before Septe mber 11 about A m erica, M a nhattan, the W o rld Trade Center, air travel,and the Pentagon w as intimately tied up with our identities and with a vast a m ount of w hat w e took for granted about everyday life.It was all there physically in our neural synapses. M a n hattan: the gateway to A m erica for generations of im migrants —the chance to live free of w ar, pogro ms, religious and politicaloppression! The M a nhattan skyline had m e aning in m y life,even m ore than I kne w. W h e n I thought of it,I thought of m y m other. Born in Poland, she arrived as an infant,gre w up in M a nhattan, w orked in factories for twenty-five years, and had family, friends, a life,a child.She didn't die in concentration ca mps. She didn't fear for her life.A m erica was not all that she might have w anted it to be, but it was plenty. I grew up in Bayonne, N.J.,across the bay from that skyline. The W o rld Trade Center w asn't there then, but over the years, as the m ajor feature of the skyline, it beca m e for m e as for others the sy m b ol of Ne w York — not only of the business center of A m erica, but also the cultural center and the co m m u nications center. As such, it beca m e a sy m bol for A m erica itself—a sy m b ol for w hat it m e ant to be able go about your everyday life free of oppression and just do your job and live your life,w hether as a secretary or an artist,a m anager or a fireman, a salesman or a teacher or a T V star. I wasn't consciously aware of it,but those images w ere intimately tied to m y identity,both as m e and as an A m erican. And all that and so m uch m ore was there physically as part of m y brain on the m orning of Septe m ber 11. The devastation that hit those towers that m orning hit m e. Buildings are m etaphorically people. W e see features — eyes, nose, and m o uth —in their windo ws. I no w realize that the image of the plane going into South To w er w as

for m e an image of a bullet going through so m e one's head, the flame pouring from the other side blood spurting out. It was an assassination. The tower falling was a body falling.The bodies falling w ere m e, relatives, friends. Strangers w ho had s miled as they had passed m e on the street screa m ed as they fellpast m e. The image afterward w as hell:ash, s m o ke, and stea m rising,the building skeleton, darkness, suffering, death. The people w ho did this got into m y brain, even three thousand miles away. All those sy m bols w ere connected to m ore of m y identity than I could have realized. To m a k e sense of this,m y very brain had to change. And change it did, painfully.Day and night.By day, the consequences flooded m y mind; by night, the images had m e breathing heavily,nightmares keeping m e a wake. Those sy m b ols lived in the e m otional centers of m y brain.As their m e anings changed, I felt e m otional pain. It was not just m e. It was everyone in this country, and m a ny in other countries.The assassins m a naged not only to killthousands of people but to reach in and change the brains of people all over A m erica. It is re markable to kno w that two hundred million of m y country men feel as wrenched as I do.

2: The Po w er of the Images As a m etaphor analyst, I want to begin with the po w er of the images and w here that po w er co m es from. There are a nu m ber of m etaphors for buildings. A co m m o n visual m etaphor is that buildings are heads, with windo ws as eyes. The m etaphor is dor mant, there in our brains waiting to be a wakened. The image of the plane going into South To w er of the W o rld Trade Center activated it.The tower beca m e a head, with windo ws as eyes, the edge of the tower the temple. The plane going through it beco m es a bullet going through so m eone's head, the flame pouring from the other side blood spurting out. Tall buildings are m etaphorically people standing erect. As each tower fell,it beca m e a body falling.W e are not consciously aware of the m etaphorical images, but they are part of the po w er and the horror w e experience w hen w e see the m. Each of us, in the prefrontal cortex of our brains, has w hat are called "mirror neurons." Such neurons fire either w hen w e perform an action or w hen see the sa me action performed by so m e one else. There are connections from that part of the brain to the e m otional centers. Such neural

circuits are believed to be the basis of e m pathy. This w orks literally— w h en w e see plane co ming toward the building and imagine people in the building, w e feel the plane co ming toward us; w hen w e see the building toppling toward others, w e feel the building toppling toward us. It also w orks m etaphorically:if w e see the plane going through the building, and unconsciously w e m etaphorize the building as a head with the plane going through its temple, then w e sense — u nconsciously but po w erfully — being shot through the temple. If w e m etaphorize the building as a person and see the building fallto the ground in pieces, then w e sense — a gain unconsciously but po werfully — that w e are falling to the ground in pieces. Our systems of m etaphorical thought, interacting with our mirror neuron systems, turn external literal horrors into felt m etaphorical horrors. Here are so m e other cases:

•

• •

•

•

•

Control Is Up: You have control over the situation, you're on top of things. This has always been an important basis of towers as sy m bols of po w er. In this case, the toppling of the towers m e ant loss of control,loss of po w er. Phallic imagery: To w ers are sy m bols of phallic po wer and their collapse reinforces the idea of loss of po wer. Another kind of phallicimagery w as m ore central here. The planes as penetrating the towers with a plume of heat. The Pentagon, a vaginal image from the air,penetrated by the plane as missile.These co m e from w o m e n w ho felt violated both by the attack and the images. A Society Is A Building.A society can have a "foundation" w hich m a y or m a y not be "solid" and it can "cru mble" and "fall."The W o rld Trade Center was sy m b olic of society. W h e n it cru mbled and fell, the threat was m ore than to a building. W e think m etaphorically of things that perpetuate over time as "standing." Bush the Father in the Gulf W a r kept saying, "This will not stand," m eaning that the situation w o uld not be perpetuated over time. The W o rld Trade Center w as build to last ten thousand years. W h e n it cru m bled, it m etaphorically raised the question of w hether A m erican po wer and A m erican society w ould last. Building As Te m ple: Here w e had the destruction of the temple of capitalistco m m e rce, w hich lies at the heart of our society.

Our minds play tricks on us. The image of the M a nhattan skyline is no w unbalanced. W e are used to seeing it with the towers there. Our mind imposes our old image of the

towers, and the sight of the m gone gives one the illusion of imbalance, as if M a nhattan w ere sinking. Given the sy m b olism of M a nhattan as standing for the pro mise of A m erica, it appears m etaphorically as if that pro mise w ere sinking. Then there is the persistent image, day after day, of the charred and s m o king re mains: hell. The W o rld Trade Center w as a potent sy m bol, tied into our understanding of our country and ourselves in a m yriad of w ays. All of w hat w e kno w is physically e m bodied in our brains. To incorporate the ne w kno wledge requires a physical change in the synapses of our brains, a physical reshaping of our neural system. The physical violence was not only in Ne w York and W a s hington. Physical changes — violent ones — h a ve been m a de to the brains of all A m ericans.

3: Ho w The Ad ministration Fra m es the Event The ad ministration's framings and reframings and its search for m etaphors should be noted. The initialframing was as a "crime" with "victims" and "perpetrators" to be "brought to justice" and "punished." The crime frame entails law, courts, lawyers, trials,sentencing, appeals, and so on. It w as hours before "crime" changed to "war" with "casualties," "ene mies," "military action," "war po wers," and so on. Donald Ru m sfeld and other ad ministration officials have pointed out that this situation does not fitour understanding of a "war." There are "ene mies" and "casualties" all right,but no ene m y ar my, no regiments, no tanks, no ships, no air force, no battlefields,no strategic targets, and no clear "victory." The war frame just doesn't fit.Colin Po w ell had always argued that no troops should be co m mitted without specific objectives, a clear and achievable definition of victory, a clear exit strategy — a nd no open-ended co m mit m ents. But he has pointed out that none of these is present in this "war." Because the concept of "war "doesn't fit,there is a frantic search for m etaphors. First,Bush called the terrorists "co wards" — b ut this didn't see m to w ork too w ell for m artyrs w h o willing sacrificed their lives for their m oral and religious ideals.M ore recently he has spoken of "s moking the m out of their holes" as if they w ere rodents, and Ru m sfeld has spoken of "drying up the swa m p they live in" as if they w ere snakes or lowly swa m p creatures. The conceptual m etaphors here are M oral Is Up; Im m oral Is Do w n (they are lowly) and Im m oral People Are Animals (that live close to the ground).

The use of the w ord "evil" in the ad ministration's discourse w orks in the following w ay. In conservative, strict father m orality (see M oral Politics,Chapter 5) evil is a palpable thing, a force in the w orld. To stand up to evil you have to be m orally strong. If you're w eak, you let evil triumph, so that w eakness is a form of evil in itself,as is pro m oting w eakness. Evil is inherent, an essential trait, that determines ho w you will act in the w orld. Evil people do evil things. No further explanation is necessary. There can be no social causes of evil,no religious rationale for evil,no reasons or argu m ents for evil.The ene m y of evil is good. If our ene m y is evil,w e are inherently good. Good is our essential nature and w hat w e do in the battle against evil is good. Good and evil are locked in a battle, w hich is conceptualized m etaphorically as a physical fight in w hich the stronger wins. Only superior strength can defeat evil,and only a sho w of strength can keep evil at bay. Not to sho w over whel ming strength is im m oral, since it will induce evildoers to perform m ore evil deeds because they'llthink they can get a way with it.To oppose a sho w of superior strength is therefore im m oral. Nothing is m ore important than the battle of good against evil,and if so m e innocent nonco m batants get in the way and get hurt, it is a sha m e, but it is to be expected and nothing can be done about it.Indeed, performing lesser evils in the na m e of good is justified—"lesser" evils like curtailing individual liberties,sanctioning politicalassassinations, overthrowing govern m ents, torture, hiring criminals, and "collateral da m age." Then there is the basic security m etaphor, Security As Containment — k e eping the evildoers out. Secure our borders, keep the m and their w eapons out of our airports, have m arshals on the planes. M o st security experts say that there is no sure w ay to keep terrorists out or to deny the m the use of so m e w eapon or other; a determined w ell-financed terrorist organization can penetrate any security syste m. Or they can choose other targets, say oil tankers. Yet the Security As Containment m etaphor is po w erful.It is w hat lies behind the missile shield proposal.Rationality might say that the Septe mber 11th attack sho wed the missile shield is pointless.But it strengthened the use of the Security As Containment m etaphor. As soon as you say "national security," the Security As Containment m etaphor will be activated and with it,the missile shield.

4: The Conservative Advantage The reaction of the Bush ad ministration is just w hat you w o uld expect a conservative reaction w ould be — p ure Strict Father m orality:There is evil loose in the w orld. W e m ust sho w our strength and wipe it out. Retribution and

vengeance are called for. If there are "casualties" or "collateral da m age", so be it.The reaction from liberals and progressives has been far different:Justice is called for, not vengeance. Understanding and restraint are w hat is needed. The m o del for our actions should be the rescue w orkers and doctors —the healers — n ot the bo m bers. W e should not be like the m, w e should not take innocent lives in bringing the perpetrators to justice.M assive bo m bing of Afghanistan — with the killing of innocents — will sho w that w e are no better than they. But it has been the ad ministration's conservative m essage that has do minated the m e dia. The event has been framed in their terms. As Ne wt Gingrich put it on the Fox Net work, "Retribution is justice." W e m ust reframe the discussion. I have been re minded of Gandhi's w ords: Be the change you w ant. The w ords apply to govern m ents as w ell as to individuals.

5: Causes There are (at least)three kinds of causes of radical Islamic terrorism: i. ii. iii.

W o rldview: The Religious Rationale Social and PoliticalConditions: Cultures of Despair M e ans: The Enabling Conditions

The Bush ad ministration has discussed only the third:The m e ans that enable attacks to be carried out. These include: leadership (e.g.,bin Laden), host countries, training facilities and bases, financial backing, cell organization, information networks, and so on. These do not include the first and second on the list. i.

W o rldview: Religious Rationale

The question that keeps being asked in the m e dia is," W h y do they hate us so m uch?" It is important at the outset to separate out m o derate to liberal Islam from radical Islamic funda m entalists,w h o do not represent m ost M u slims. Radical Islamic funda m entalists hate our culture. They have a w orldview that is incompatible with the way that A m ericans — a n d other w esterners —live their lives. One part of this w orld view concerns w o m e n, w ho are to hide their bodies, have no right to property, and so on. W e stern sexuality,m ores, m usic, and w o m e n's equality all violate their values, and the w orldwide ubiquity of A m erican cultural products, like m o vies and m usic, offends the m. A second part concerns theocracy: they believe that govern m ents should be run according to strict Islamic law by clerics.A third concerns holy sites, like those in Jerusalem, w hich they believe should be under Islamic politicaland military control.A fourth concerns the

co m m e rcial and military incursions by W e sterners on Islamic soil,w hich they liken to the invasion of the hated crusaders. The w ay they see it,our culture spits in the face of theirs.A fifth concerns jihad — a holy war to protect and defend the faith.A sixth is the idea of a m artyr, a m an willing to sacrifice himself for the cause. His reward is eternal glory — a n eternity in heaven surrounded by willing young virgins.In so m e cases, there is a pro mise that his family will be taken care of by the co m m u nity. ii.

Social and PoliticalConditions: Cultures of Despair

M o st Islamic w ould-be m artyrs not only share these beliefs but have also gro wn up in a culture of despair:they have nothing to lose. Eliminate such poverty and you eliminate the breeding ground for terrorists.W h e n the Bush ad ministration speaks of eliminating terror, it does not appear to be talking about eliminating cultures of despair and the social conditions that lead one to w ant to give up one's life to m artyrdo m. Princeton Ly m a n of the Aspen Institute has m a de an important proposal —that the w orld wide anti-terrorist coalition address the causal real-w orld conditions as w ell. Country by country, the conditions (both m aterial and political)leading to despair need to be addressed, with a w orld wide co m mit m ent to ending the m. It should be done because it is a necessary part of addressing the causes of terrorism — a n d because it is right! The coalition being formed should be m a de into a long-term global institution for this purpose. W h at about the first cause —the radical Islamic w orldview itself.Military action w on't change it.Social action w on't change it.W o rldviews live in the minds of people. Ho w can one change those minds — a n d if not present minds, then future minds? The W e st cannot! Those minds can only be changed by m o derate and liberal M u slims — clerics, teachers, elders, respected co m m u nity m e m b ers. There is no shortage of the m. I do not kno w ho w w ell they are organized, but the w orld needs the m to be w ell-organized and effective.It is vital that m o derate and liberal M u slims form a unified voice against hate and, with it,terror. Re m e m b er that "taliban" m eans "students." Those that teach hate in Islamic schools m ust be replaced — a n d we in the W e st cannot replace the m. This can only be done by an organized, m o derate, nonviolent Islam. The W e st can m a k e the suggestion, but w e alone are po w erless to carry it out. W e depend on the good will and courage of m o derate Islamic leaders. To gain it,w e m ust sho w our good will by beginning in a serious way to address the social and politicalconditions that lead to despair.

But a conservative govern m ent, thinking of the ene m y as evil,will not take the primary causes seriously. They will only go after the enabling causes. But unless the primary causes are addressed, terrorists will continue to be spa wned.

6: Public Discourse Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California),w h o I a m proud to ackno wledge as m y representative in Congress, said the following in casting the lone vote against giving President Bush fullcongressional approval for carrying out his W a r on Terrorism as he sees fit: I a m convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States. This is a very co m plex and co m plicated m atter. . . . Ho w e ver difficultthis vote m a y be, so m e of us m ust urge the use of restraint.Our country is in a state of m o urning. So m e of us m ust say, let us step back for a m o m e nt. Let us just pause for a minute and think through the implications of our actions today so that this does not spiral out of control.. . . I have agonized over this vote, but I ca m e to grips with it today and I ca me to grips with opposing this resolution during the very painful yet very beautiful m e m o rial service. As a m e m b er of the clergy so eloquently said, "As w e act, let us not beco m e the evil that w e deplore." I agree. But w hat is striking to m e as a linguist is the use of negatives in the statement: "not prevent," "restraint" (inherently negative),"not spiral out of control," "not beco m e the evil that w e deplore.''Friends are circulating a petition calling for "Justice without vengeance." " Without" has another implicitnegative. It is not that these negative statements are wrong. But w hat is needed is a positive form of discourse. There is one. The central concept is that of "responsibility,"w hich is at the heart of progressive/liberal m orality (See M oral Politics).Progressive/liberal m orality begins with e m pathy, the ability to understand others and feel w hat they feel. That is presupposed in responsibility— responsibility for oneself,for protection, for the care of those w h o need care, and for the co m m u nity. Those w ere the values that w e sa w at w ork a m ong the rescue w orkers in Ne w York right after the attack. Responsibility requires co m petence and effectiveness. If you are to deal responsibly with terrorism, you m ust deal effectively with all its causes: religious, social,and

enabling causes. The enabling causes m ust be dealt with effectively.Bo m bing innocent civilians and har ming the m by destroying their country's do m estic infrastructure will be counterproductive — as w ell as im m oral. Responsibility requires care in the place of blundering, overwhel ming force. M a ssive bo m bing w o uld be irresponsible.Failure to address the religious and social causes w o uld be irresponsible.The responsible response begins with joint international action to address all three: the social and politicalconditions, and the religious w orldview, and the m e ans with all due care.

7: Foreign Policy I have been w orking on a m o nograph on foreign policy. The idea behind it is this:There are m a ny advocacy groups that have long been doing important good w orks in the international arena, but on issues that have not officially been seen as being a proper part of foreign policy:the environ ment, hu m an rights, w o m e n's rights, the condition of children, labor, international public health issues (e.g., AIDS in Africa),sustainable develop ment, refugees, international education, and so on. The m o nograph co m es in two parts. First,the book points out that the m etaphors that foreign policy experts have used to define w hat foreign policy is rules out these important concerns. Those m etaphors involve self-interest (e.g.,the Rational Actor M o d el), stability (a physics m etaphor),industrialization (unindustrialized nations are "underdeveloped") , and trade (freedo m is free trade). Second, the book proposes an alternative w ay of thinking about foreign policy under w hich all these issues w ould beco m e a natural part of w hat foreign policy is about. The pre mise is that, w hen international relations w ork s m oothly, it is because certain m oral nor ms of the international co m m u nity are being followed. This m ostly goes unnoticed, since those nor ms are usually followed. W e notice problems w hen those nor ms are breached. Given this,it m a kes sense that foreign policy should be centered around those nor ms. The m oral nor ms I suggest co m e out of w hat I called in M oral Politics "nurturant m orality." It is a view of ethical behavior that centers on (a)e m pathy and (b)responsibility (for both yourself and others needing your help).M a n y things follow from these central principles:fairness, minimal violence (e.g.,justice without vengeance),an ethic of care, protection of those needing it,a recognition of interdependence, cooperation for the co m m o n good, the

building of co m m u nity, m utual respect, and so on. W h e n applied to foreign policy, nurturant m oral nor ms w o uld lead the A m erican govern m ent to uphold the A B M treaty, sign the Kyoto accords, engage in a form of globalization governed by an ethics of care — a nd it w o uld auto matically m a k e all the concerns listed above (e.g.,the environ ment, w o m e n's rights)part of our foreign policy. This, of course, implies (a)m ultilateralism, (b) interdependence, and (c)international cooperation. But these three principles, without nurturant nor ms, can equally w ell apply to the Bush ad ministration's continuance of its foreign policy.Bush's foreign policy, as he announced in the election ca m paign, has been one of self-interest ("what's in the best interest of the United States")—if not outright hege m ony (the Cheney/Ru msfeld position).The De m ocratic leaders incorrectly criticized Bush for being isolationist and unilateralist,on issues like the Kyoto accords and the A B M Treaty. He w as neither isolationist nor unilateralist.He w as just following his stated policy of self-interest. The mistaken criticism of Bush as a unilateralistand as uncooperative will no w blow up in his critics'faces. W h e n it is in A m erica's interest (as he sees it),he will w ork with other nations. The " W ar against Terrorism" is perfect for changing his image to that of a m ultilateralistand internationalist.It is indeed in the co m m o n interest of m ost national govern m ents not to have terrorists operating. Bush can co m e out on the side of the angels w hile pursuing his sa m e policy of self-interest. The mistake of Bush's critics has been to use "multilateralism" versus "unilateralism" as a w ay categorizing foreign policy.Self-interest crosses those categories. There is,interestingly,an apparent overlap between the nurturant nor ms policy and an idealisticvision of the Bush ad ministration's ne w war. The overlap is,simply, that it is a m oral nor m to refuse to engage in,or support, terrorism. Fro m this perspective, it looks like Left and Right are united. It is an illusion. In nurturant nor ms policy, anti-terrorism arises from another m oral nor m: Violence against innocent parties is im m oral. But Bush's ne w w ar will certainly not follow that m oral nor m. Bush's military advisers appear to be planning m assive bo m bings and infrastructure destruction that will certainly take the lives of a great m a ny innocent civilians. Within a year of the end of the Gulf W a r, the CIA reported that about a million Iraqi civilians had died from the

This argu m ent w o uld hold water if the Bush W a r on Terrorism w ere really about m orality in the way that m orality is understood by progressives/liberals.It is not. In conservative m orality,there is fight between Good and Evil,in w hich "lesser" evils are tolerated and even seen as necessary and expected. The argu m ent that killing innocent civilians in retaliation w o uld m a k e us as bad as the m w orks for liberals,not for conservatives. The idealisticclaim of the Bush ad ministration is they intend to wipe out "allterrorism." W h at is not m e ntioned is that the US has systematically pro m oted a terrorism of its o wn and has been trained terrorists,from the contras to the m ujahadeen to the Honduran death squads to the Indonesian military.Indeed, there are reports that two of the terrorists taking part in The Attack w ere trained by the US. Will the US govern m ent stop training terrorists? Of course not. It will deny that it does so. Is this duplicity? Not in terms of conservative m orality and its view of Good versus Evil and lesser evils. If the ad ministration's discourse offends us, w e have a m oral obligation to change public discourse! Be the change you want! If the US wants terror to end, the US m ust end its o wn contribution to terror. And w e m ust also end terror sponsored not against the W e st but against others. W e have m a de a deal with Pakistan to help in Afghanistan. Is it part of the deal that Pakistan renounce its o wn terrorism in Kash mir against India? I w o uld be shocked if it w ere. The Bush foreign policy of self-interest does not require it. The question m ust be asked. If that is not part of the deal, then our govern m ent has violated its o w n stated ideals;it is hypocritical.If the terrorism w e don't mind — o r might even like —is perpetuated, terrorism will not end and will eventually turn back on us, just as our support for the m ujahadeen did. W e m ust be the change w e want! The foreign policy of m oral nor ms is the only sane foreign policy.In the idea of responsibility for oneself,it re mains practical.But through e m pathy and other forms of responsibility (protection, care, co m petence, effectiveness, co m m u nity develop m ent),it w ould lead to international cooperation and a recognition of interdependence.

8: Do m estic Policy

I have a rational fear: a fear that the Septe mber 11th attack has given the Bush ad ministration a free hand in pursuing a conservative do m estic agenda. This has so far been unsayable in the m e dia. But it m ust be said, lest it happen for sure. W h ere is the $40 billion co ming from? Not from a rise in taxes. The sacrifices will not be m a de by the rich. W h ere then? The only available source I can think of is the Social Security "lockbox," w hich is no w wide open. The conservatives have been trying to raid the Social Security fund for so m e time, and the De m o crats had fought the m off untilno w. A w eek ago, the suggestion to take $40 billion from the Social Security "surplus" w ould have been indefensible.Has it no w been done — w ith every De m o cratic senator voting for it and all but one of the De m o crats in Congress? Think of it:Are your retirement contributions — and mine — are going to fight Bush's "war." No one dares to talk about it that w ay. It's just $40 billion,as if it ca me out of no where. No one says that $40 billion dollars co m es from your retirement contributions. No one talks about increasing taxes. W e should at least ask just w here the m o ney is co ming from. If the m o ney is co ming from social security,then Bush has achieved a m ajor goal of his partisan conservative agenda — w ithout fanfare, without notice, and with the support of virtually all De m ocrats. Calling for w ar, instead of m ere justice,has given the conservatives free rein.I fear it will only be a m atter of time before they claim that w e need to drillfor oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge for national security reasons. If that m ost "pristine" place falls,they will use the national security excuse to drilland mine coal all over the country. The energy progra m will be pushed through as a m atter of "national security." All social progra ms will be dismissed for lack of funds, w hich will be diverted to "national security." Cheney has said that this war m a y never be co m pleted. Ne wt Gingrich estimates at least four or five years, certainly past the 2004 election. With no definition of victory and no exit strategy, w e m a y be entering a state of perpetual war. This w o uld be very convenient for the conservative do m estic agenda: The w ar m achine will determine the do m estic agenda, w hich will allow conservatives to do w hatever they want in the na m e of national security. The recession w e are entering has already been blamed on The Attack, not on Bush's econo mic policies.Expect a

m ajor retrench ment on civilliberties.Expect any W T O protesters to be called terrorists and/or traitors.Expect any serious opposition to Bush's policies to be called traitorous. W h o has the courage to discuss do m estic policy frankly at this time? Afterword: Since this w as written, a Ne w York Times editorialackno wledged that the m o ney is co ming from the social security "lockbox." A W all Street Journal editorial called for the President to take advantage of the m o m e nt to push his overall agenda through. Senator Frank M urko w s ki introduced a rider on the war appropriations billauthorizing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve. The original na m e given to the operation was "Infinite Justice." This had the connotation of "perpetual war" in A m erica; in Islam, where only God is Infinite,it had the connotation of w ar against Islam; and so the na m e has been changed.

George Lakoff is professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and a senior fellow of the Rockridge Institute.He is the author of M oral Politics: W h at Conservatives Kno w That Liberals Don't (University of Chicago Press, 1996),W o m e n, Fire And Dangerous Things: W h at Categories Reveal About The Mind (University of Chicago Press, 1987),M ore Than Cool Reason (with M ark Turner, University of Chicago Press, 1989),M etaphors W e Live By (with M ark Johnson, University of Chicago Press, 1980),and other books. In the early days of the internet, Lakoff's essay " Metaphor and W a r" was perhaps the m ost widely distributed critique of the Gulf W a r. " Metaphors of Terror" appeared in shorter form in In These Times on October 29, 2001.

Copyright notice: ©2001 by George Lakoff. All rights reserved. This text m a y be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it m ay be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is carried and provided that the University of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any m ediu m, requires the consent of George Lakoff.