A cognitive approach to early conservatism

Abstract

Conservatism is notoriously difficult to define. In the present study, conceptual metaphor theory is used to elucidate the nature of this ideology in its early phase when it emerged in England as a force struggling with the ideas of the French Revolution. It can be shown that conservative authors frequently do not conform to the pattern of orientational metaphors described by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980), according to which "up" is usually regarded as positive and "down" as negative. Conservatives often associate their own ideas with depth or a downward movement, whereas the loathed ideas of the political opponents are related to height or an upward movement. This dichotomy is closely connected to the polarity between solidity, stability and weight on the one hand and gaseity, volatility and lightness on the other. The study bases its analysis on numerous political tracts, pamphlets, and novels from the 1790s and early 1800s.

Enemies of freedom and defenders of democracy: The metaphorical response to terrorism

“…According to Fischer and Schubert (2014: 206), metaphor analysis ‘has proven particularly fruitful for the analysis of political discourse’. Several scholars have examined the relationship between metaphors and political discourse (Ahrens, 2009; Chilton, 1995; Fischer, 2014; Goatly, 2007; Musolff, 2004, 2014; Tsakona, 2012; Underhill, 2011; Woodhams, 2012; see also special issue on the political impact of metaphors in Metaphor and the Social World , 2015). Lakoff himself has written several texts about politics and metaphors (Lakoff, 1996, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2008).…”

“…These differences might be explained by Lakoff’s moral models, which entail different conceptions of evil. Even though Lakoff’s models have been criticised for having limited relevance outside of an US context (Fischer, 2014), and have yielded mixed results when tested (Cienki, 2005), they have proven useful in this analysis. By focusing on a key element in the two systems (the nature of evil), fundamental differences in the speeches were put into focus.…”