Political metaphors are widely studied empirically as parts of the broader metaphor debate and characterized inductively. Yet their essence remains undertheorized and, consequently, the methods of reading them underdeveloped.This talk builds on my on-going theoretical and methodological research on political metaphors. What, exactly, makes something a powerful political metaphor, I ask, dividing the question into three. First, relying on modern metaphor theory, I characterize metaphor’s essential features: more than superficial rhetoric but less than ubiquitous cognition, metaphors are an active interpretation process and a form of argumentation alongside others. Second, I discuss what makes some metaphors powerful, including their ability to elicit emotions, filter out other options, utilize contextual knowledge, and imply more than they say – all of which are useful functions in politics.Powerful metaphors are often tension-ridden and provocative yet rely on conventional discursive features for support; however, more subtle metaphorical assimilations, too, can be equally effective. Third, building on perspectives from contemporary political theory, I tackle the difficult question of what, exactly, makes political metaphors political – a question, perplexingly, neglected in previous research. Scholars typically push politicality backward into self-evidently “political” issues, institutions, or subjects, which begs the question.I, by contrast, argue for a use-based account: political metaphors are metaphors used in specifically political ways so that they resonate with “the political.” These uses include e.g. distributing significance, urgency, and priority; mobilizing/withholding support by accepting/ rejecting matters normatively; contesting/decontesting matters and regulating the borderline of what is political; including/excluding groups into/from the domain of legitimate political subjects; and preparing/suppressing future-oriented claims. Throughout, I exemplify the argument by discussing a powerful metaphorical utterance presented in the trial against the German Communist Party in 1955 – one that described the communists as a dangerous “center of infection” in the “body” of the Federal Republic.About Timo PankakoskiTimo Pankakoski is a Collegium Fellow at the Turku Institute for Advanced Studies, University of Turku, Finland, where he develops better methods for reading political metaphors. After his doctorate (Helsinki, 2013), he has obtained the Title of Docent (Assistant Professor) in Political Science, worked three times as a University Lecturer of Political Science or European Studies, and held visiting positions in Princeton University and Queen Mary University of London. Pankakoski works mostly on political theory, history of political thought, German intellectual history, radical conservatism, political metaphors, conceptual history, and the methodology of intellectual history. His latest publications have discussed the relationship between war and politics in Ernst Jünger’s early work (New German Critique, forthcoming), the leading concepts of post-pandemic recovery in Europe (Redescriptions, forthcoming), Dolf Sternberger’s metaphorical argumentation against proportional voting (Modern Intellectual History, 2023), the fragmentation of law (Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, 2023), the conservative and revolutionary aspects of the “conservative revolution” (Frontiers in Political Science, 2022), and anti-English sentiments in WWI-era pamphlets and antidemocratic discourse in Germany (Journal of the History of Ideas, 2021).The event is open for all and takes place in the DIAS Seminar Room (V24-412a-0).Introduction: Jeppe NeversLecture: Timo PankakoskiCommentator: Aglae Pizzone
