Rhetoric and real vs unreal metaphors

Adam Fforde <fforde@unimelb.edu.au>

date May 25, 2007 12:26 AM

subject [Vsg] Rhetoric and real vs unreal metaphors

Dear cats and dogs ...

I had an interesting experience in Vietnam last week. Comments from the

culturally unchallenged and those really really good at Vietnamese -

English translation and vice versa would be appreciated. If anybody is

horrid they may expect something strange to happen to them. A segue from

this to the things that have been starting fights would seem a tricky one,

though you never know ... it is hard to stop the boys from scrapping.

I have long had the feeling that a characteristic of Vietnamese 'policy

development' (bearing in mind that 'policy' has very different senses

here(s) and there(s)) has been a strong tendency to avoid abstraction in

favour of 'reflection on the real'. I see this as a tendency, though. Any

reflection on hard line Communist policy would suggest the opposite. Be

that as it may I think the tendency is certainly there. Cuoi ngua xem hoa

...

Be that as it may, I have written a paper - in English - that is about the

nature of ideas and policy, specifically, to do with the issue of

inconsistency. Modern techniques of disbursement against outputs (rather

than paying for activities) mean that inconsistencies in policy logics

between agencies are institutionally more acceptable to higher levels. No

matter the colour of the cat ... Be that as it may ...

I wanted to construct metaphors for such inconsistencies, and did it

twice: first, 'one agency said that the sky is purple, the other that it

is green'; second 'one agency said that children are really pixies, the

other that they are hobbits'. Here clearly I am asserting stark contrasts

by usually hypotheticals that are clearly unreal. I am being quite

normally 'Tay' in doing so. It works to such audiences. They do not feel

uncomfortable thinking in terms of impossible hypotheticals.

But I was then advised by the translator that I would do better

rhetoricaly, in Vietnamese, if I used stark metaphors that were

intrinsically <<real>>, and yet also contradictory - e.g. 'one agency said

that the sky was black, the other that it was white'; 'one agency said

that the children were basically the same, if they were boys or girls, the

other that they were intrinsically different'. The translator was as

ordinary as you or me. This was very interesting. For example, it could

suggest that 'Big Bang' policy is rather unthinkable.

What do people think?

First, how does this make sense?

Second, does it make sense to use this to argue that 'policy' and its

construction will 'therefore' be different from 'Tay'? Though of course

modern 'Tay' process-oriented methods are different from classic forms

that are thought of in terms of blueprints.

Third, how does this use of stark 'impossible' hypotheticals look through

Vietnamese eyes?

Anything else, please 'chu dong'

Regards

Adam

Return to top of page