Economic Metaphors, Behavioralism, and Political Theory: Some Observations On the Ideological Uses of Language
rT -HE IMPORTANCE of metaphorical language in structuring a political theory, though generally recognized, is a subject little discussed in the literature of political science.' Virtually every history of political philosophy cites Plato as an illustrative example of this relationship. His references to the expertise of the ship captain, the physician, the horse trainer, etc., are but poetic expressions of basic presuppositions about political reality which characterize Plato's substantive political thought. Yet, while the role of metaphor finds an established place in the history of political thought, its applicability as a way of understanding contemporary political thought is much more suspect. Doubtless, the roots for this negative attitude toward the use of metaphorical language to support or express political ideas extends at least as far back as Hobbes. Metaphors, he proclaimed in the Leviathan, are to be "utterly excluded" from "all rigorous search of truth."2 Despite the fact that Hobbes himself made extensive use of metaphor in the elaboration of his own political theory, he maintained that the application of the principles of science to politics did not require the use of "deceptive" language, which he attributed to the theologically centered political theories advanced by his contemporaries.3 More recently, of course, the application of positivistic standards to the use of language, the influence of Ayer, Weldon, and others have continued the effort to circumscribe the employment of metaphors within political science. It is not part of my purpose in this essay to provide even the briefest history of this methodological attitude with respect to metaphorical language. I mention it only to indicate its general predominance within the discipline and as part of any explanation as to why a relationship so obvious to understanding the meaning of a political theory receives so little attention in the literature of contemporary political science. In addition to the philosophical criticism of metaphorical language as a way of formulating a political theory, there is a recognition that language is or can be a persuasive instrument for mobilizing people to take political action. This is a much-discussed issue in the history of political philosophy, and constitutes one of the major points of Socrates' critique of the Sophists. But here again, Hobbes is a figure of some importance, since he associates the tendency to employ metaphorical language not only with political deception, but, more importantly, with the making of a revolution.4 This tendency, to link metaphor, ideology, and revolutionary political objectives, which, I believe, constitutes the ultimate sociopolitical standard for the modern negative attitude toward such language, has its origins