"War isn't an instinct. It's an invention."
"The metaphor is probably the most fertile power possessed by man."
"Conversation is the socializing instrument par excellence."
-José Ortega y Gasset
In the movie "Patton," the general says, "Compared to war, all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance." In a moment of self-admonishion he adds, "God help me, I love it so."
And so do we. For proof all we have to do is pick up a trade magazine. Or better yet, fire up a search engine.
Altavista says more than one million documents on the Web contain the words Microsoft, Netscape and war. Hotbot lists hundreds of documents titled "Microsoft vs. Netscape," and twice as many titled "Netscape vs. Microsoft."
It's hard to find an article about the two companies that does not cast them as opponents battling over "turf," "territory," "sectors" and other geographies.
It's also hard to start a conversation without using the same metaphorical premise. Intranet Design Magazine recently hosted a thread titled "Who's winning?? Netscape vs. Microsoft." Dave Shafer starts the thread with "Wondering what your informed opinion is on who is winning the internet war and what affects this will have on inter/intranet development." The first respondent says, "sorry, i'm from a french country," and "I'm searching for economical informations about the war between Microsoft and Netscape for the control of the WEB industrie." Just as telling is a post by a guy named Michael, who says "Personaly I have both on my PC."
So do I. Hey, I've got 80 megs of RAM and a 2 gig hard drive, so why not? I also have five ISPs, four word processors, three drawing programs and two presentation packages. I own competing products from Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Netscape, Adobe, Yamaha, Sony, Panasonic, Aiwa, Subaru, Fisher Price and the University of Chicago -- to name just a few I can see from where I sit. I don't sense that buying and using any of these is a territorial act, a victory for one company or a defeat for another.
But that doesn't mean we don't have those perceptions when we write and talk about companies and the markets where they compete. Clearly we do, because we understand business -- as we understand just about everything -- in metaphorical terms. As it happens, our understanding of companies and markets is largely structured by the metaphors BUSINESS IS WAR and MARKETS ARE BATTLEFIELDS.
By those metaphors we share an understanding that companies fight battles over market territories that they attack, defend, dominate, yield or abandon. Their battlefields contain beacheads, bunkers, foxholes, sectors, streams, hills, mountains, swamps, streams, rivers, landslides, quagmires, mud, passages, roadblocks, and high ground. In fact, the metaphor BUSINESS IS WAR is such a functional conceptual system that it unconsciously pumps out clichés like a machine. And since sports is a sublimated and formalized kind of war, the distances between sports and war metaphors in business are so small that the vocubularies mix without clashing.
Here, I'll pick up the nearest Business Week... it's the January 13 issue. Let's look at the High Technology section that starts on page 104. The topic is Software and the headline reads, "Battle stations! This industry is up for grabs as never before..." Here's the first paragraph, with war and sports references capitalized: "Software was once an orderly affair in which a few PLAYERS called most of the shots. The industry had almost gotten used to letting Microsoft Corp. set the agenda in personal computing. But as the Internet ballooned into a $1 billion software business in 1996, HUGE NEW TERRITORIES came up for grabs. Microsoft enters the new year in a STRONG POSITION TO REASSERT CONTROL. But it will have to FIGHT OFF Netscape, IBM, Oracle and dozens of startups that are DESPERATELY STAKING OUT TURF on the Net. 'Everyone is RACING TO FIND MARKET SPACE and get established...'"
Is this a good thing? Does it matter? The vocabularies of war and sports may be the most commonly used sources of metaphors, for everything from academic essays to fashion stories. Everybody knows war involves death and destruction, yet we experience little if any of that in the the ordinary conduct of business, or even of violent activities such as sports.
So why should we concern ourselves with war metaphors, when we all know we don't take them literally?
Two reasons. First, we do take them literally. Maybe we don't kill each other, but the sentiments are there, and they do have influences. Second, war rarely yields positive sums, except for one side or another. The economy the Internet induces is an explosion of positive sums that acrue to many if not all participants. Doesn't it deserve a more accurate metaphor?
For answers, lets turn to George Lakoff.
"Answer true or false," Firesign Theater says. "Dogs flew spaceships. The Aztecs invented the vacation... If you answered 'false' to any of these questions, then everything you know is wrong."
This is the feeling you begin to get when you read George Lakoff, the foremost authority on the matter of metaphor. Lakoff is Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Science at UC-Berkeley, the author of Women, Fire and Dangerous Things and Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don't. He is also co-author of Metaphors We Live By and More than Cool Reason. All are published by the University of Chicago Press.
|Maybe that's why they didn't give us the real story in school. It would have been like pulling the pins out of a bunch of little hand grenades.|
In English class -- usually when the subject was poetry -- they told us that meaning often arises out of comparison, and that three comparative devices are metaphor, simile and analogy. Each compares one thing to another thing that is similar in some way:
But metaphor is the device that matters, because, as Lakoff says, "We may not always know it, but we think in metaphor." And, more to the point, "Metaphors can kill." Maybe that's why they didn't give us the real story in school. It would have been like pulling the pins out of a bunch of little hand grenades.
But now we're adults, and you'd think we should know how safely to arm and operate a language device. But it's not easy. Cognitive science is relatively new and only beginning to make sense of the metaphorical structures that give shape and meaning to our world. Some of these metaphors are obvious but many others are hidden. In fact, some are hidden so well that even a guru like Lakoff can overlook them for years.
Lakoff's latest book, "Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know and Liberals Don't," was inspired by his realization that the reason he didn't know what many conservatives were talking about was that, as a Liberal, he didn't comprehend conservative metaphors. Dan Quayle's applause lines went right past him.
After much investigation, Lakoff found that central to the conservative worldview was a metaphor of the state as a strict father, and that the "family values" conservatives espouse are those of a strict father's household: self-reliance, rewards and punishments, responsibility, respect for authority -- and finally, independence. Conservatives under Ronald Reagan began to understand the deep connection between family and politics, while Liberals remained clueless about their own family metaphor -- the "nurturant parent" model. Under Reagan, Lakoff says, conservatives drove the language of strict father morality into the media and the body politic. It won hearts and minds, and it won elections.
So metaphors matter, big time. They structure our perceptions, the way we make sense of the world, and the language we use to talk about things that happen in the world. They are also far more literal than poetry class would lead us to believe. Take the metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR --
"It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguments in terms of war. We can actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attach kis decisions and defend our own. We gain and lose ground. We plan and use strategies... Many of the things we do in arguing are partially structured by the concept of war." (From Metaphors We Live By)
In our culture argument is understood and structured by the war metaphor. But in other cultures it is not. Lakoff invites us to imagine a culture where argument is viewed as dance, participants as performers and the goal to create an aesthetically pleasing performance.
Right now we understand that "Netscape is losing ground in the browser battle," because we see the browser business a territory over which Netscape and Microsoft are fighting a war. In fact, we are so deeply committed to this metaphor that the vocabularies of business and war reporting are nearly indistinguishable.
Yet the Internet "battlefield" didn't exist a decade ago, and the software battlefield didn't exist a decade before that. These territories were created out of nothingness. Countless achievements have been made on them. Victories have been won over absent or equally victorious opponents.
In fact Netscape and Microsoft are creating whole new markets together, and both succeed mostly at nobody's expense. Netscape's success also owes much to the robust nature of the Windows NT Server platform.
|The war stories we're telling about the Internet are turning into epic lies.|
Growing markets are positive-sum creations, while wars are zero-sum at best. But BUSINESS IS WAR is an massive metaphorical machine that works so well that business war stories almost write themselves. This wouldn't be a problem if business was the same now as it was twenty or fifty years ago. But business is changing fast, especially where the Internet is involved. The old war metaphor just isn't doing the job.
Throughout the Industrial Age, both BUSINESS IS WAR and MARKETS ARE BATTLEFIELDS made good structure, because most industries and markets were grounded in physical reality. Railroads, shipping, construction, automobiles, apparel and retail were all located in physical reality. Even the phone system was easily understood in terms of phones, wires and switches. And every industrial market contained finite labor pools, capital, real estate, opportunities and natural resources. Business really was war, and markets really were battlefields.
But the Internet is hardly physical and most of its businesses have few physical limitations. The Web doesn't look, feel or behave like anything in the analog world, even though we are eager to describe it as a "highway" or as a kind of "space." Internet-related businesses appear and grow at phenomenal rates. The year 1995 saw more than $100 billion in new wealth created by the Internet, most of it invested in companies that were new to the world, or close to it. Now new markets emerge almost every day, while existing markets fragment, divide and expand faster than any media can track them.
For these reasons, describing Internet business in physical terms is like standing at the Dawn of Life and describing new species in terms of geology. But that's what we're doing, and every day the facts of business and technology life drift farther away from the metaphors we employ to support them. We arrive at pure myth, and the old metaphors stand out like bones from a dry corpse.
Of course myths are often full of truth. Fr. Seán Olaoire says "there are some truths so profound only a story can tell them." But the war stories we're telling about the Internet are turning into epic lies.
|Describing Internet business in physical terms is like standing at the Dawn of Life and describing new species in terms of geology.|
First, there's nothing we can do to break the war metaphor machine. It's just too damn big and old and good at what it does. But we can introduce some new metaphors that make equally good story-telling machines, and tell more accurately what's going on in this new business world.
One possibility is MARKETS ARE CONVERSATIONS. These days we often hear conversations used as synonyms for markets. We hear about "the privacy conversation" or "the network conversation." We "talk up" a subject and say it has a lot of "street cred." This may not be much, but it does accurately structure an understanding of what business is and how markets work in the world we are creating with the Internet.
Another is the CONDUIT metaphor. Lakoff credits Michael Reddy with discovering hidden in our discussions of language the implication of conduit structure:
My problem with both CONDUIT and CHANNEL is that they don't clearly imply positive sums, and don't suggest the living nature of the Net. Businesses have always been like living beings, but in the Net environment they enjoy unprecedented fecundity. What's a good metaphor for that? A jungle?
Whatever, it's clearly not just a battlefield, regardless of the hostilities involved. It's time to lay down our arms and and start building new conceptual machines. George Lakoff will speak at PC Forum next week. I hope he helps impart some mass to one or more new metaphorical flywheels. Because we need to start telling sane and accurate stories about our businesses and our markets.
If we don't, we'll go on shooting at each other for no good reason.
Here are a few links into the worlds of metaphor and cognitive science. Some of this stuff is dense and heavy; but hey, it's not an easy subject. Just an important one..
I also explored the issue of push media in Shoveling Push and When Push Becomes Shove. And I visited the Microsoft vs. Netscape "war" in Microsoft + Netscape: The Real Story. All three are in Reality 2.0.
To the top
To Previous Article
To Reality 2.0