"The Market Deals out Profits and Losses" - How Standard Economic Textbooks Promote Uncritical Thinking in Metaphors

Abstract

5 Silja Graupe, Theresa Steffestun "The market deals out profits and losses"-How Standard Economic Textbooks Promote Uncritical Thinking in Metaphors-Standard economic textbooks exhibit a massive and implicit use of metaphors.-This tacit use of metaphors may deceive the student reader and encourage uncritical thinking.-Critical reflection in economic education can encourage and enable a responsible use of metaphors. Purpose: Cognitive Linguistics has repeatedly pointed out the major significance of metaphors. In particular, metaphors are highly effective in the context of political and economic discourse. We analyze the as yet ignored use of metaphors in standard economic textbooks as exemplified by Paul A. Samuelson and N. Gregory Mankiw. The following will focus on the metaphorical semantic context surrounding the abstract concept of "the market". Design: Using textual analysis and drawing from Conceptual Metaphor Theory the authors examine how the concept of "the market" is introduced as an abstract and primarily empty concept, (re-)interpreted with the help of entity metaphors, personifications and orientational metaphors, and linked to ideological and political value judgments. In addition the analysis illustrates how the use of metaphors in textbooks is not made transparent, nor is a critical reflection of the metaphorical rhetoric encouraged. Findings: In conclusion, based on their own teaching experience, the authors, addressing both teachers and students, outline possibilities of promoting the critical and conscious use of metaphors, not only in textbooks but also in public discourse.

Full text

Prof.Dr.SiljaGraupeisPresidentoftheCusanus
Hochschule(temporary),DirectoroftheInstituteof
EconomicsandProfessorforEconomicsand
PhilosophyattheCusanusHochschule.
E‐mail:Silja.Graupe@cusanus‐hochschule.de
TheresaSteffestun,M.A.,isscientificassistantatthe
InstituteofEconomicsattheCusanusHochschule.
E‐mail:Theresa.Steffestun@cusanus‐hochschule.de
CusanusHochschule,Postfach1146,54461
Bernkastel‐Kues,Germany
JournalofSocialScienceEducation
Volume17,Number3,Fall2018   DOI10.4119/UNIBI/jsse‐v17‐i3‐1803

5


SiljaGraupe,TheresaSteffestun

“Themarketdealsoutprofitsandlosses”–HowStandardEconomicTextbooksPromote
UncriticalThinkinginMetaphors

‐Standardeconomictextbooksexhibitamassiveandimplicituseofmetaphors.
‐Thistacituseofmetaphorsmaydeceivethestudentreaderandencourageuncriticalthinking.
‐Criticalreflectionineconomiceducationcanencourageandenablearesponsibleuseofmetaphors.

Purpose:CognitiveLinguisticshasrepeatedlypointedoutthemajorsignificanceofmetaphors.Inparticular,
metaphorsarehighlyeffectiveinthecontextofpoliticalandeconomicdiscourse.Weanalyzetheasyetignoreduseof
metaphorsinstandardeconomictextbooksasexemplifiedbyPaulA.SamuelsonandN.GregoryMankiw.The
followingwillfocusonthemetaphoricalsemanticcontextsurroundingtheabstractconceptof„themarket“.
Design:UsingtextualanalysisanddrawingfromConceptualMetaphorTheorytheauthorsexaminehowtheconcept
of„themarket“isintroducedasanabstractandprimarilyemptyconcept,(re‐)interpretedwiththehelpofentity
metaphors,personificationsandorientationalmetaphors,andlinkedtoideologicalandpoliticalvaluejudgments.In
additiontheanalysisillustrateshowtheuseofmetaphorsintextbooksisnotmadetransparent,norisacritical
reflectionofthemetaphoricalrhetoricencouraged.
Findings:Inconclusion,basedontheirownteachingexperience,theauthors,addressingbothteachersandstudents,
outlinepossibilitiesofpromotingthecriticalandconscioususeofmetaphors,notonlyintextbooksbutalsoinpublic
discourse.

Keywords:
Economictextbooks,PaulA.Samuelson,N.GregoryMankiw,metaphorsineconomicdiscourse,conceptualmetaphor
theory,economiceducation

1Introduction1

Themarketeconomy“shouldleavethemarketforcessufficient
leeway,tounfoldfreeandpowerful.Thiswasthedrivingforce
ofgrowthbeforethecrisisandwillbethedrivingforceof
growthafterthecrisis”.
(AngelaMerkel,WEF2009)2

“Themarketiscurrentlyonlyorientedonsurvivingandnot
makingprofits.”
(JosefAckermann,Spiegel2008)3 

“Amarketisamechanism.[…]Pricesarethebalancewheelof
themarketmechanism.”
(Samuelson&Nordhaus,2010,p.26f)

Recentresearchhasfocusedonthepreeminentsignify‐
canceofmarketmetaphorsincurrentpoliticalthought
anddiscourse(e.g.,Pühringer,2015;Lakoff&Wehling,
2016).Pühringerforexample,whoexaminesthetypeof
argumentationusedbytheGermanChancellorAngela
Merkelascitedabovetopushthroughhereconomic
policiesofausterityaftertheeconomic,financialand
monetarycrisesof2008/2009,summarizeshisresearch
inthefollowingmanner:“Dominantconceptualmeta‐
phorsinMerkel’scrisisnarrativesubordinatepolicy‐
makingtosuperior‘marketmechanisms’,whichare
attributedwithhumanandnaturalcharacteristics.Moral
focusofcrisisnarrativeof‘living‐beyond‐ones‐means’
forcesausteritypolicies”(Pühringer,2015,p.246).Many
ofusarefamiliarwithhowmarketsareunderstood
metaphoricallythroughtheday‐to‐dayuseoflanguage.
Whohasnotheardof“themarket”anditsdrivingforces,
ofmarketforcesandmarketmechanisms,whichweare
notonlycalledupontoplaceourtrustinbutwhichare
apparentlyconditionalforthingstorunsmoothly?Itmay
bethatthekindofmetaphoricimageryusedinpublic
discoursehasbecomesofamiliartousthatwenolonger
questionitsvalidityandinsteadholdittobeliterallytrue
andcapableofguidingthedebateoneconomicissues.
Yetnoonehaseverbeenabletoactuallyseeorliterally
touch“themarketmechanism”inthewayonewould
touchthemotorofacar,forinstance.Thetermcarries
onlymetaphoricalmeaning.Statedsimply,thismeans
thatconceptshavebeentakenfromanareaofexperi‐
ence,suchastheuseofmachinery,which,whilebearing
littleornorelationshiptoeconomics,areyetutilizedto
bringmeaningtoit.
Usingmetaphorsdoesnotmakethediscourseabout
“themarket”asamechanismlesseffective,onthecon‐
trary.Forexample,cognitivelinguistsGeorgLakoffand
ElisabethWehlingspeakexplicitlyof“themarket”asa
“myth”,ametaphorusedbypoliticalconservativesto

JournalofSocialScienceEducation 
Volume17,Number3,Fall2018ISSN1618–5293



6

dominatethepoliticaldiscoursebyinfluencinglanguage
useonanunconsciouslevel(Lakoff&Wehling,2016,p.
45).

“Politicalandeconomicideologiesareframedinmeta‐
phoricalterms.Likeallothermetaphors,politicaland
economicmetaphorscanhideaspectsofreality.Butinthe
areaofpoliticsandeconomics,metaphorsmattermore,
becausetheyconstrainourlives.Ametaphorinapolitical
oreconomicsystem,byvirtueofwhatithides,canleadto
humandegradation.”(Lakoff&Johnson,1980,p.236)

Basedonthisassessmentitseemsappropriateto
expectthateconomics,asascientificdiscipline,would
takeaparticularlycarefulapproachtotheuseofmeta‐
phorsindescribingtheeconomy,includingtheirimplied
ideasandconcepts.Itshouldbeplausibletoassumethat
economicsasanacademicdisciplinewouldencourage
skillsinrecognizingandcriticallyevaluatingtheuseof
metaphors,andoffermethodologicallysubstantiated
alternativeswhenmetaphorsareusedinthepublic
discoursetodescribeabstractconceptssuchas“the
market”or“price”.Particularlysinceimportantrepre‐
senttativesofeconomicshave,despitetheirotherdiffer‐
rences,acknowledgedthepowerof(abstract)ideasfor
decades.FriedrichAugustHayek(1899−1992),advocate
ofasocialorderbasedon“freemarkets”,forinstance
remarked:

“Thepowerofabstractideasislargelybasedonthesimple
factthattheyarenotconsciouslyperceivedastheories,but
thatmostpeopleunderstandthemasimmediatelyevident
truths,whichactastacitlyacceptedpresuppositions.”
(Transl.fromHayek,1980,p.100)4

Hayek’sassessmentshowsthatabstractideastendto
beeasilyinternalizedandbecometheunquestioned
basisforthoughtandaction.5Thisisbecausethey
generatemeaningbasedonspecificassumptionsand
interpretationswhicharehardlyeversubjecttocons‐
ciousreflection,whileinverselymaintainingadetermi‐
nativeeffectonallconsciousdecisionsaswellashabitual
behavior.RecentstudiesinCognitiveLinguisticshave
shownthatabstractideasparticularlyturninto“imme‐
diatelyevidenttruths”whenmetaphorsareuncritically
appliedasameansofinterpretation(cf.Wehling,2016,
p.68;Gibbs,1996,p.309;Jamroziketal.,2016).Thisis
becausethroughmetaphorsitispossibletomakea
connectiontoamostlyunconsciousframeworkofinter‐
pretivestructuresofthoughtdescribedbycognitive
scientistsasframes,whichlendideas,conceptsand
termsimmediateandpersuasiveinterpretativepower.In
thismannermetaphorsimplicitlycreateanimageof
realitywhich,inuncriticallyperceivedpoliticaland
economiccontextsofdiscourse,hasaprofoundeffect.
Theepistemicsignificanceofmetaphorsforthedisci‐
plineofeconomicshasmeanwhilebeenacknow‐ledged
(e.g.,McCloskey1983and1994;Klamer&Leonard,
1994).Brodbeckpointsoutthatthisdiscipline’sspecific
andmostlyunreflectedmetaphoricrhetoric,inparticular
withregardstomechanicalmetaphors,canbe
considereditsverytrademark:

“Economicmechanicsagreeononepointextensively:
EugenvonBöhm‐Bawerk[forinstance][...]lendshisvoice
equallytothechoirofeconomicmechanics–hespeaksofa
‘mechanicsofexchangeablevalueaccumulation’–asdoes
LeonWalras,thefatherofmoderngeneralequilibrium
theory,whospeaksofthe‘mechanicsofcompetition’.Even
Schumpeterconcedesa‘mechanismoftrade’,andeven
describesthe‘dynamicentrepreneur’intermsofama‐
chine:‘Eventheentrepreneurisnotafactorofchangehere
butthevehicleofachangemechanism.’Inanotherexam‐
ple,Keynesspeaksofa‘monetarymachine’.Furthermore,
authorswhodonottrustthetendencyof‘economicforces’
towardsgeneralequilibriumstillcontinuetobespellbound
bytheconceptofmechanicsdespitetheiroppositionto
equilibriumtheory:‘Thesystem’,GunnarMyrdalexplains
withregardtotheissueofunderdevelopment,‘doesnotof
itselfgravitatetowardssomeformofequilibriumofforces
butonthecontrary,movesfarawayfromit.’.”(Transl.from
Brodbeck,1996,pp.41‐42)6

Whileplentyofprofoundresearchhasbeendonein
ordertoidentify,historicallycontextualizeandepistemo‐
logicallyanalyzemetaphorsusedineconomictheories,
economicscholarshiphasdonelittletocriticallyreflect
theiruseineconomiceducationanditsmainmedium,
thetextbook.7Thereforeinthefollowingwewilltryto
contributetoclosingthisresearchgapandaddressthe
specificapplicationofabstractconceptscentraltothe
discipline,suchas“themarket”,“prices”,“supply”,etc.,
ineconomiceducation.Inthefollowingwewillinquire
howtheseconceptsaremetaphoricallyinterpreted,or
ratherre‐interpreted,particularlywithregardtothe
mannertheybecomeemotionallyaswellaspolitically
andideologicallysupercharged.Ouranalysisisbasedon
twotextbooks,whichhavebeenchosennotonlybe‐
causetheyexemplifythestandardgenreofeconomic
textbooks,butalsobecausetheirglobaldistributionand
applicationmakesthemhighlysuccessfultextbooks:
EconomicsbyPaulA.Samuelson(since1985co‐authored
byWilliamD.Nordhaus,inthefollowingsimply
Samuelson)andEconomicsbyN.GregoryMankiw.
Samuelson’stextbookiswidelyrecognizedasthearche‐
typeofthemodernEconomicstextbookandservesasa
rolemodelincontentandstyleforthemajorityof
currentlypublishedtextbooks(cf.Walstadetal.,1998;
Pearce&Hoover,1995;Smith,2000).Weconsider
Mankiw’stextbookasrelevantforourinquiry,sinceitis
distributedonaglobalscaleandisoneofthemostused
textbooksinGermany(cf.v.Treeck&Urban,2016,9;in
caseofGermanysee:Beckenbachetal.,2016,214;
Rebhan,2017,pp.85ff.)8.Methodologyandcontentof
thisanalysiswillinparticularbuilduponarecentstudy
onelementsofpersuasionineconomicseducation
(Graupe,2017).Itwillbeshownthattheapplicationof
metaphorsin,anditsconsequencesforstandardecono‐
miceducationhasnotbeenmadetransparentinthe
analyzedtextbooksnorhasa(critical)reflectionofthe
rhetoricbeenencouraged.

JournalofSocialScienceEducation 
Volume17,Number3,Fall2018ISSN1618–5293



7

Inourarticlewewillproceedasfollows:Sectiontwo
willprovideasummaryofthemostessentialinterdis‐
ciplinaryfindingsonthesignificance,applicationand,
mostimportantly,cognitiveeffectofmetaphors,pri‐
marilydrawnfromConceptualMetaphorTheoryasprin‐
cipallyformulatedbyGeorgeLakoffandMarkJohnson
(Lakoff&Johnson,1980,1999and2003).Afterthisshort
theoreticalintroductionsectionthreewilldescribehow
abstractconceptsareinitiallyestablishedintheintro‐
ductorychaptersofthetextbooksinquestion.Subse‐
quentlywewillfocusontheconceptof“themarket”.In
sectionfourwewillshowhowtheseabstractconcepts,
largelydevoidofeverydayandexperience‐basedmean‐
ing,aremetaphoricallytransformedtocarrynewseman‐
ticmeaning.Thiswillbeexemplifiedbyshowingwhat
roleontologicalmetaphors,personificationsandthe
applicationoforientationalmetaphorsplayinthispro‐
cess.Sectionfivewillbedevotedtoprovidingexamples
ofhowthesetextbooks,oncethemetaphorshavebeen
introduced,subsequentlyincorporatethemintoan
entirenetworkofcognitivepatternsofinterpretation,in
cognitivescienceknownassemanticframes,andasa
consequencelargelybecomeimplicitlytetheredto
political‐ideologicalvalues.Insectionsixwewillconclude
withsuggestionsofhowthisinducementofuncritical
thinkinginstandardeconomictextbooksmaybecoun‐
teredintheclassroomandhoweconomiceducationcan
promotestudents’criticaljudgmentandepistemicabili‐
ties.

2.Thesignificanceandimpactofmetaphors:Ashort
introduction

“Metaphorsframeourthinking”(Jamroziketal.,2016)

Thestudyofmetaphorsisasoldasphilosophyitself.The
understandingofmetaphorsandtheirsignificancefor
humanbeingsdifferthroughoutthistraditionenormous‐
ly(forthefollowingcf.Huber,2005).Commontoall
interpretationsofmetaphorsisthefundamentaletymo‐
logicalmeaningoftheGreekwordmetaphoráastrans‐
ferenceortransposition.Thestartingpointofthe
reflectiononmetaphorsisoftensaidtobemarkedby
Aristotle,whounderstoodmetaphorsasarhetorical
means(cf.Aristotle,1818,pp.329f.).Inhisperception,
metaphorsarewords,whichhaveameaningdifferent
fromtheiroriginalmeaningtransferredtothembasedon
thesimilarityofthetwowords.

“Butametaphoristhetranspositionofanountoasignify‐
cationdifferentfromitsoriginalimport,eitherfromthe
genustothespecies,orfromthespeciestothegenus;or
fromthespeciestospecies,oraccordingtotheanalogous.
[…]Again,eveninghasasimilarrelationtoday,thatoldage
hastolife.Itmaythereforebesaidthateveningistheold
ageoftheday,andthattheoldageistheeveningoflife.
(Aristotle,1818,pp.329ff.)”

Heintroduced,whatiscommonlycalledthesub‐
stitutivefunctionofmetaphors:“eveningoflife”canbe
substitutedbytheliteralexpression“endoflife”orthe
category“age”.Metaphorsinthissenseareareduced
comparison.Thismeansthatitispossibletosay“thelion
isthekingoftheanimals”anddismisswordssignalinga
comparisonoranalogy,suchas“like”.ItwasAristotle
himself,butalsoinfluentialphilosopherssuchasHobbes
orLocke,who,basedontheunderstandingofmetaphors
asfiguresofspeechandrhetoricaldecor,heavilycri‐
ticizedtheuseofmetaphorespeciallyinphilosophical
andscientificcontexts(cf.Hobbes,1992,pp.43and
45f)9:

“Thisisawayofproceedingquitecontrarytometaphor
andallusion,whereinforthemostpartliesthatenter‐
tainmentandpleasantryofwit,whichstrikessolivelyon
thefancy,andthereforeissoacceptabletoallpeople:
becauseitsbeautyappearsatfirstsight,andthereisre‐
quirednolabourofthoughttoexaminewhattruthor
reasonthereisinit.”(Locke,1967,p.123f)

Itisthecognitiveturninlinguisticswhichledtoafun‐
damentalshiftintheunderstandingofmetaphorsfroma
primarilyrhetoricalandlinguisticinterpretationofmeta‐
phorsasfigurativespeechtoabroadercomprehension
ofmetaphorsasbeingthefundamentalbasisofhuman
cognition,judgmentandaction(cf.Cassirer,1983,p.
154;Black,1996b,p.398,citedinHuber,2005,pp.15
and23):

“Thetraditionaltheorynoticedonlyafewofthemodesof
metaphor;andlimiteditsapplicationofthetermmetaphor
toafewofthemonly.Andtherebyitmademetaphorseem
tobeaverbalmatter,ashiftinganddisplacementofwords,
whereasfundamentallyitisaborrowingbetweenandinter‐
courseofthoughts,atransactionbetweencontexts,Thought
ismetaphoric,andproceedsbycomparison,andthe
metaphorsoflanguagederivetherefrom.”(Richards,1936,p.
94;author’semphasis)

Metaphoricallanguageistheresultofmetaphorically
structuredthought;thisisthebasicstatementof
cognitivelinguistics.Althoughthedisciplinemaintains
thefundamentalunderstandingofmetaphorsasthe
transferenceofmeaning,itfocusesonananalyticalstep
priortotherhetoricalandlinguisticanalysisofmeta‐
phorsandthusasksforthenecessarypreconditionsfor
metaphoricallanguageuse.ThephilosophersIvor
Richards(1936)andMaxBlack(1954),whoareunder‐
stoodtobetheearlyrevolutionariesinthecognitiveturn
ofmetaphortheory,pointtothecreativeandinteractive
qualityofthemetaphoricalprocessoftransference(for
thefollowingcf.Black1996a,pp.75f.and1996b,pp.
391f.citedinHuber,2005,p.20).Notonlyistherean
interactionofmeaningbetweenthesource(“king”)and
thetargetofthemetaphor(“lion”),whichcreatesnew
meanings,thecognitiveinteractionintheprocessof
transferenceisunderstoodasamodeofhumanaction.
Thisnewinterpretationofmetaphorssurpassesthe
traditional,especiallysinceitpointstotheinterpretative
contextsofthemetaphoricalsourceandtarget.That
thereisawholerangeofmeaningandnormative
implicationattachedtoeachconceptusedinmeta‐
phoricalthinkingandexpressionisonecornerstoneof

JournalofSocialScienceEducation 
Volume17,Number3,Fall2018ISSN1618–5293



8

thismoderncognitiveapproachtometaphors:someone
whoemploysmetaphorsinteractswithmeaning.She
engageswiththesefieldsofmeaningbyselectingand
therebyhidingandhighlightingcertainelementsinclude‐
edinthesefields.TheInteractionMetaphorTheory(IMT)
formulatedbyBlackisunderstoodtobethepreludeto
themuchmorerecognizedConceptualMetaphorTheory
(CMT)asputforwardbyGeorgeLakoffandMark
Johnson(cf.Jäkel,1997;Liebert,1992).Thefollowingwill
summarizeourshortintroductioninmetaphortheoryby
outliningthemodeofcognition,bywhichthiscognitive
approachandtheperformativequalityofmetaphorsis
underpinned,toillustratetheprofoundsignificanceof
metaphoricalthoughtforhumanaction.10

“Metaphorisformostpeopleadeviceofthepoetic
imaginationandtherhetoricalflourish‐amatterofextra‐
ordinaryratherthanordinarylanguage.Moreover,meta‐
phoristypicallyviewedascharacteristicoflanguagealone,
amatterofwordsratherthanthoughtoraction.Forthis
reason,mostpeoplethinktheycangetalongperfectlywell
withoutmetaphor.Wehavefound,onthecontrary,that
metaphorispervasiveineverydaylife,notjustinlanguage
butinthoughtandaction.Ourordinaryconceptualsystem,
intermsofwhichweboththinkandact,isfundamentally
metaphoricalinnature.”(Lakoff&Johnson,1980,p.3)

FromthepointofviewofthelinguistLakoffandthe
philosopherJohnson,metaphorshelptoclarifythe
meaningofconceptsthroughtheuseofothers,bytrans‐
ferringaparticularsemanticcontent,andthebasic
culturalandsensorimotorexperiencesassociatedwithit,
fromthesourcedomainoftheconceptthemetaphor
referstothetargetdomain,thatistotheconceptin
needofexplanation(cf.Lakoff&Johnson,1980,p.5).
LakoffandJohnsoncallthisprocess“Mapping”(cf.Lakoff
&Johnson,1980,p.14;Lakoff,1993,p.244,citedin
Huber,2005,p.28).Accordingtoconceptualmetaphor
theory,metaphorsarecentralnotonlytostructuring
humanlanguageandthought,butalsohumanaction(cf.
Lakoff&Johnson,1980,p.4;Schmitt,2004).Therebythis
stanceemphasizesmetaphors’performativecharacter,
transcendingtheclassicalAristotelianunderstandingthat
theyaremerelyrhetoricalstylisticdevices,henceonly
significantasdecorativerhetoricaltools(cf.Kirby,1997,
p.532).FollowingLakoffandJohnson‘saccount,meta‐
phorsshedlightoncognitiveinterpretiveframeswith
whichpeopleperceiveandjudgetheworldandupon
whichtheyact(Wehling,2016,17f.).Wehlingpointsto
therelevanceoftheseframesforhumanactionsby
indicatingthat“frames,notfacts,determineour
decisions“(Transl.fromWehling,2016,p.45)11.Inthis
wayframeshaveahighlyselectiveeffectontherangeof
thought,judgmentandaction:

“Framesdeterminehoweasilyfactsandinformationare
grasped,independentlyofwhethertheseseemtobe‘ob‐
jectivelyfactual’ornot.Infact,therearenomore‘objec‐
tive’factseasiertounderstandonceframingcomesinto
play.Thereareonlyfactswhichareeasiertoframethan
others,orthosewhichcannotbeframedatall….”(Transl.
fromWehling,2016,p.36)12
Thedominantroleplayedbyinterpretiveframeworksis
moreclearlyunderstoodonceithasbeenviewedasan
essentialcomponentorevenconstitutiveelementofour
cognitiveunconsciousthatisnotonlysystematically
differentfromallconscious(andthuscontrollable)
thoughtbutprincipallyanticipates,therebysystema‐
ticallyinforms,reflectivethought(cf.e.g.,Lakoff&
Wehling,2016,p.22;Kahneman,2012;Thaler&
Sunstein,2009,p.22):

Ourunconsciousconceptualsystemfunctionslikea‘hidden
hand’thatshapeshowweconceptualizeallaspectsofour
experience.Thishiddenhandgivesformtothemetaphysics
thatisbuiltintoourordinaryconceptualsystems.Itcreates
theentitiesthatinhabitthecognitiveunconscious–ab‐
stractentitieslikefriendships,bargains,failures,andlies–
thatweuseinordinaryunconsciousreasoning.Itthus
shapeshowweautomaticallyandunconsciouslycompre‐
hendwhatweexperience.Itconstitutesourunreflective
commonsense.(Lakoff&Johnson,1999,p.13)

Inthispointofviewthecognitiveunconsciousworks
intuitively,spontaneously,effortlessly,quasiautoma‐
ticallyandthusisuncontrollabletoconsciousthought(cf.
Kahneman,2002,pp.450f;Lakoff,2001).Hence,withre‐
gardtohowthecognitiveunconsciousfunctions,meta‐
phorsplayacentralrole.Moreprecisely,theymustbe
consideredanessentialstructuralelementofcognitive
interpretiveframeworks.Inordertodeepenourunder‐
standingofthis,itisimportanttoknowthatinterpretive
frameworksdonotjustappearfromoutofnowhere.
Rather,theyareestablishedfromtangible,oftenrecur‐
ingindividualaswellascollectivehumanexperiences,
whichessentiallybecometherebyembodied(cf.Lakoff&
Johnson,1999):

“Thecontentandstructureofaframe,thusitsindividual
semanticframe,emergefromourexperienceswiththe
world.Theseincludealsobodilyexperiences,e.g.motion
sequences,space,timeandemotions,aswellasforinstan‐
cefromexperienceswithlanguageandculture.”(Transl.
fromWehling,2016,p.28)13

Sinceabstractconceptsessentiallylackreferenceto
concreteexperience,metaphorsplayasignificantrolein
interpretingthese,asindicatedabove,bylinkingthemto
otherconceptswhicharelessabstractandrefermore
directlytotangibleexperience.Yet,theoriginalcontextin
whichtheyareembeddeddoesnotneedtobearmuch
relationtothenewcontextinwhichtheyarebeinglinked
to,afacttheuseofmetaphorsconceals.Aspecific
exampleofthisisrepresentedbytheEuropeanUnion’s
anditsEurozonemembers’creationofahighlycomplex
packageofmeasurestoavoidinsolvencyamongits
individualmemberstates,metaphoricallytitledasa“res‐
cueumbrella”(“Rettungsschirm”inGerman).Thehighly
complexstructuretheycreated,itsconcretelegal,
politicalandfinancialconsequences,extendwaybeyond
thepossiblerangeofexperienceonthepartofamajority
ofEUcitizens.Referringtothispackageasa“rescue
umbrella”engendersametaphoricalinterpretationofits
implications.Inthiswayitbecomespossibletotriggera

JournalofSocialScienceEducation 
Volume17,Number3,Fall2018ISSN1618–5293



9

primarilyunconscious,thusseeminglyeffortlessunder‐
standingofcomplexpoliticaldecision‐makingprocesses
withinthe(limited)scopeofasemanticframe,i.e.the
metaphor’soriginalcontextorsourcedomain.Becauseit
referstoareadilyunderstoodandfamiliarphysical
experience,itdoesnotrequireanyrealknowledgeofthe
metaphor’stargetarea(thoseverylegal,politicaland
financialprocessesmentionedabove).Theterm“rescue
umbrella”connotesthattheresolutionspassedbythe
EuropeanUnionandEurozonememberstatesaregeared
toward“protection”,“security”andprovidinga“bul‐
wark”againsttheinconvenienceofnaturalandthus
uncontrollableforces.Essentially,themetaphortriggers
similarconnotationsformostpeople,irrespectiveof
whetheritsassociationsadequatelyrepresentthekindof
politicalmeasuresinvolvedornot.Saiddifferently:
beyondappearingnotonlyhighlyselective,metaphors
alsocanalsobedeceptive.Respectivetothemetaphor
involved,anentiresemanticframeworkanditsunder‐
lyingculturalandsensorimotorexperiencesbecome
activated,wherebysomearemoreprominentlyempha‐
sizedthanothers.Themetaphornotonlyallowsor
restrictscertainpossibilitiesofperceivingrealitybut
moreover,asLakoffandJohnsonemphasize,italsopro‐
motescertainwaysofdealingwithreality(cf.Jamroziket
al.,2016).14

“Metaphorsmaycreaterealitiesforus,especiallysocial
realities.Ametaphormaythusbeaguideforfutureaction.
Suchactionswill,ofcourse,fitthemetaphor.Thiswill,in
turnreinforcethepowerofthemetaphortomakeexperi‐
encecoherent.Inthissensemetaphorscanbeself‐fulfilling
prophecies.”(Lakoff&Johnson,1980,p.156)

WealreadymentionedthataccordingtoCognitive
Linguisticsmetaphorsplayanimportantroleinexplain‐
ingabstractconcepts(cf.Gibbs,1996,p.309;Jamroziket
al.,2016),theirdistinguishingcharacteristicbeingthat
theylackreferencetothekindofhumanexperience
whichmustbesimulatedinordertounderstandthem:
“Throughmetaphorsweconnectabstractideastophy‐
sicalexperience,whichallowsthemtobe‘thought’
(Transl.fromWehling,2016,p.68).15Inthewordsof
LakoffandJohnson:“[W]etypicallyconceptualizethe
nonphysicalintermsofthephysical–thatis,wecon‐
ceptualizethelessclearlydelineatedintermsofthe
moreclearlydelineated”(Lakoff&Johnson,1980,p.59).
CognitiveLinguisticsshowsthatthisformofmeta‐phoric
conceptualizationoftenslipsundertheradarofrational
thoughtandthusescapesitsconsciouscontrol:

“Forthesamereasonsthatschemasandmetaphorsgiveus
powertoconceptualizeandreason,sotheyhavepower
overus.Anythingthatwerelyonconstantly,unconsciously,
andautomaticallyissomuchpartofusthatitcannotbe
easilyresisted,inlargemeasurebecauseitisbarelyeven
noticed.Totheextentthatweuseaconceptualschemaora
conceptualmetaphor,weacceptitsvalidity.Consequently,
whensomeoneelseusesit,wearepredisposedtoaccept
itsvalidity.Forthisreason,conventionalizedschemasand
metaphorshavepersuasivepoweroverus.”(Lakoff&
Turner,1989,p.66)
3Introducingtheabstractconceptof“themarket”
Metaphorssuchas“themarketisamechanism”areonly
effectivewhenspecificmodesofexpressionarelacking
todelineateatargetdomain(here:economicactivityin
theformofmonetaryexchange),sothatoneisforcedto
drawfromthemostlyimplicitbasicconceptsexistingin
thesourcedomaintoapproximateunderstanding.How‐
ever,thefollowingquotebyMankiwillustratesthat,in
economicseducation,thespecificeconomiclanguage
peopledoindeedacquireintheireverydayexperienceis
tobesupersededbyabstractconcepts:

“Oneofthechallengesfacingstudentsofeconomicsisthat
manytermsusedarealsousedineverydaylanguage.In
economics,however,thesetermsmeanspecificthings.The
challenge,therefore,istosetasidethateverydayunder‐
standingandthinkofthetermorconceptaseconomistsdo.
Manyoftheconceptsyouwillcomeacrossinthisbookare
abstract.Abstractconceptsareoneswhicharenotconcrete
orreal–theyhavenotangiblequalities.Wewilltalkabout
markets,efficiency,comparativeadvantageandequilibrium,
forexample,butitisnoteasilytophysicallyseethese
concepts.Therearealsosomeconceptsthatare
fundamentaltothesubject–ifyoumastertheseconcepts
theyactasaportalwhichenablesyoutothinklikean
economist.Onceyouhavemasteredtheseconceptsyou
willneverthinkinthesamewayagainandyouwillnever
lookatanissueinthesameway.Theseconceptsare
referredtoasthresholdconcepts.”(Mankiw&Taylor,2014,
p.17)

AccordingtoMankiw’sreasoning,economiceducation
isgearedtowardabandoninganeverydayunderstanding
ofeconomicprocessesandreplacingitbyabstractcon‐
ceptswhichhavelittletodowiththeformerorother
commoneconomicconceptsfamiliartothestudents.
Thisessentiallyinvolveslooseningorevendissolving
existinginterpretivestructuresofthecognitiveun‐cons‐
ciousinaprocessofunlearning.Metaphoricallywecan
speakofuprootingthoughtfromitsoriginalsoil.
Persuasionresearchspeaksinthisregardofdepattern‐
ing,changemanagementrespectivelyofunfreezingor
movingthoughtfromestablishedpatternsandstructures
ofthought(cf.Lewin,1947;Schein,2006).16
However,isitpossibletounequivocallyidentifysuch
processesinstandardeconomictextbooks?Accordingto
ouranalysisofSamuelson‘sEconomicsundMankiw’s
Economicstheanswerwouldhavetobeyes.Toillustrate
this,letustakeacloserlookatSamuelson’sEconomics
andhowtheconceptof“themarket”isintroducedinthe
secondchapter:

“Themarketlooksasajumbleofsellersandbuyers.It
seemsalmostamiraclethatfoodisproducedinsuitable
amounts,getstransportedtotherightplace,andarrivesin
apalatableformatthedinnertable.ButacloselookatNew
Yor k orothereconomiesisconvincingproofthatamarket
systemisneitherchaosnormiracle.Itisasystemwithits
owninternallogic.Anditworks.”(Samuelson/Nordhaus,
2010,p.26)

Theabovedescribes“themarket”asamiraculous
“jumble”which(purportedly)successfullyguaranteesour

JournalofSocialScienceEducation 
Volume17,Number3,Fall2018ISSN1618–5293



10

foodsupply.17Theauthorsclaimthat“acloselook”will
unmaskthemiracle.Yetthequestionwhoexactlywillbe
looking“closer”,what“acloser”lookentailsandwhat
“closer”meansprecisely,remainsunclear.Thetextsim‐
plysuggeststhattherearetwowaysofperceiving“the
market”:onethatallowsittogenerallyappearasa
wondrouschaos,anda“closer”onethatseesbeyond
appearancesintoa“system”that“works”.
Theaboveexemplifieshowthetext’slanguagema‐
neuversstudentsintoastateofuncertainty,sincetheir
pre‐existingcognitiveinterpretivestructureswesaidto
providelittleornoknowledgeofthesubject.Thisstateis
implicitlyreinforcedbyphrasessuchas“youmaybesur‐
prisedtolearn”or“seehowremarkablethisis”(2010,
26).Inaddition,theauthorspromiseasituationinwhich
atsomepointalltheconfusing,chaoticandastounding
characteristicswillmakesurprisingsense.Thisis
specificallyconjuredbyintroducingthemetaphorofthe
“unseenhand”,whichSamuelsonintroducesasa
“paradox”(2005,28‐30):Thekindofeconomicinsight
transmittedthusinvolvesinformationwhich,tothe
beginner,simplyappearssurprisingandunexpected,
shockingthereaderintoquestioninghisorherown
conventionalwisdom.Atthesametimeapeekintoa
new,intellectualunderstandingofthesubjectiscon‐
jured,whichstudentscanbeholdwithawefromtheir
perspectiveofnon‐comprehension:“Oneofourgoalsin
thisbookistounderstandhowSmith’sinvisiblehand
worksitsmagic”,Mankiwwrites(2014,p.8).The
implicationhereis,whateverisshroudedinthefogof
conventionalunderstandingwillatsomefuturepointbe
moreclearlyunderstoodbythestudents.
Inouropinionthisstateofuncertaintyisreinforcedby
afurthertactic:Everystudentatthebeginningoftheir
studyofeconomicshaslikelyalreadyacquiredabroad
networkofinterpretivestructures,i.e.acomplexframe
semantic,inwhichdifferenteconomictermsandcon‐
ceptshavebeencognitivelyintertwinedwithimplicit
experience‐basedreferences.Whatisstrikingishow
quicklytheseeconomictextbookssucceedinencou‐
ragingstudentstoignoremostoftheiracquiredsemantic
frames.Thishasbeenidentifiedasastrategyofcon‐
cealmentwhichcanleadtoaphenomenoncalled
hypocognition:

“Hypocognitionmeansthenon‐existenceorlossofideas
throughalackoflanguagedescribingtheseideas.Stated
morecasually:Whatdiscoursesdon’tmentionissimplynot
beingthought.Wherethereisalackofwordsideascannot
becomeestablishedorbemaintainedovertime.Ourbrain
circuitsdonotbecomefired,theyshrivel.”(Transl.from
Wehling,2016,pp.64‐65)18

Thestrategyofconcealmentidentifiedinbothtext‐
bookanalysesisbasedinparticularonfocusingecono‐
miclanguageanditsdescriptionofcomplexeconomic
phenomenasolelyontheterm“themarket”withoutany
clearjustificationfromtheveryfirstchapteron.Inthis
mannerSamuelsonclaimsinhisintroductorychapter:
“Mosteconomicactivityinmosthigh‐incomecountries
takeplaceinprivatemarkets–throughthemarket
mechanism–sowebeginoursystematicstudythere”
(2010,26).“Theeconomy”issubsequentlyreducedto
“themarket”,firstbybeingtransformedintoa“system
ofpricesandmarkets”,fromwhichpointitisexclusively
referredtoas“marketsystem”,orevenfurtherabridged
tojust“markets”oreven“themarket”(cf.Samuelson&
Nordhaus,2005,p.26).Themannerinwhichconceptu‐
alizationisnarrowedtowheremuchofthepreviously
acquiredknowledgeofeconomicsissuspendedcanalso
befoundinMankiw.Whilesubsuminghislastsixprin‐
ciplesofhistenprinciplesofeconomicsunderthe
generalheading“howpeopleinteract”,Mankiwframes
everyformofhumaninter‐actiondirectlywithintermsof
“trade”,thenintermsof“marketeconomy”andulti‐
matelyintermsof“themarket”,thelatterbeingdirectly
linkedwiththeconceptoftheinvisiblehandmentioned
above.Itiswithinthislinguisticcontextthatallother
issuesareembedded.Thefollowingreads,forinstance:

“Iftheinvisiblehandofthemarketissowonderful,whydo
weneedgovernment?[…]Althoughtheinvisiblehandoften
leadsmarketstoallocateresourcesefficiently,thatisnot
alwaysthecase.Economistsusethetermmarketfailureto
refertoasituationinwhichthemarketonitsownfailsto
produceanefficientallocationofresources.”(Mankiw&
Tay l o r,2014,p.8)

Theaboveexemplifieshowdescriptionsoftheeco‐
nomyarereducedto“themarket”,atermwhichonthe
onehandisimbuedwiththeauraofnovelty,income‐
prehensibilityaswellaswonder,whileontheotheris
alsopromotedtooneofthecoreconcepttualizations
studentsmustunderstandinordertoadvanceintheir
studies.Theintroductionof“themarket”conceptthere‐
foretakesplaceatamomentofcognitiveuncertainty
whereprevioussemanticconnectionsaredissolvedin
horror(overone’sapparentignorance)andawe(over
theapparentmagicof“themarket”).Inthesense
intendedbyMankiw,therefore,theterm“themarket”is
tobeconsideredathresholdconcept(cf.thequoteof
Mankiwcitedabove):a“conceptualgateway”or“portal”
wherethestudentmustleaveheroldconceptualizations
behindinordertobreakthroughtoanew,anduntilyet,
unattainableunderstanding:“anewwayofunderstand‐
ing,interpreting,orviewingsomethingmaythusemerge
–atransformedinternalviewofsubjectmatter,subject
landscape,orevenworldview”(Meyer&Land,2005,p.
373).Thepromisethat,throughtheirtextbookstudy,
studentswouldbecomeeconomistsproficientinthesee‐
minglymagicalworkingsof“themarket”mayalsofunc‐
tionasarespectiveinvitationtocrossthethreshold.

4Themetaphoricrhetoricof“themarket”
Howisitpossibleforstudentstonotonlyreachbutalso
passthroughthisconceptualgateway?Formulatedin
termsofpersuasionresearch,oncedepatterninghas
occurred,howdoesrepatterninghappen?Howarepre‐
viouscognitivestructuresdissolved,newstructures
created,or“moved”,thenpermanentlyestablished,or
“refrozen”?Toclarifythisissuewenowwouldliketo
analyzethetwostandardeconomictextbooksingreater

JournalofSocialScienceEducation 
Volume17,Number3,Fall2018ISSN1618–5293



11

detailwithregardtohowdifferentkindsofmetaphors
areintroducedandused.

4.1Ontologicalmetaphors
Ingeneral,metaphorsplayahighlysignificantroleinthe
contextofdissolvingandrestructuringthewaytheeco‐
nomyisconceptualized,wherebyontological(orentity)
metaphorsplayaparticularlyimportantrole.Ontological
metaphorsascribetermsmeaningasiftheywereself‐
contained,discreteentitiesorthingsinordertomake
themeasiertoconceptualize(cf.Lakoff&Johnson,1980,
p.25).Samuelson’stextbookstandsclearlyinthetra‐
ditionofeconomicscholarshipinitsuseofentitymeta‐
phorsdrawnfromthefieldofmechanicsorfrom
commonknowledgeofmachinery(cf.thepreviousquo‐
tationbyBrodbeck).Inthismannerinhistextbook
chapter“Whatisamarket?”onefinds,aftertheecono‐
myisreducedto“markets”orjust“themarket”as
quotedanddiscussedabove,thefollowing“definition”:
“Itisasystemwithitsowninternallogic.Anditworks”
(2010,p.26).Thekeytothisnew,transformedperspec‐
tiveistobefoundinapurelymetaphoricaldescription,
thesourcedomainofwhich–systemsencompassing
self‐organizingcomponentsthatcanguaranteetheirown
functioning–isnotgoneintoinanydetailwhatsoever
but,rather,uncriticallyacceptedasthedeparturepoint
formetaphoricalmapping.Asaresult,students’concept‐
tualizationsarebeingimplicitlyguidedtoreinterpret
“themarket”–originallyaplaceofsocialexchangeand
infinitehumaninteraction–intoadiscrete,self‐contain‐
eduniformentity.Thegreat“jumble”ofcomplexsocial
processescharacteristicofeconomicactivityisnolonger
describedinitsgenuinelysocialcontextbutexclusively
reformulatedasa“systemwithitsowninternallogic”.
Moreover,itsreformulationoccurswith‐outconscious
reflectiononthetransformationprocessithasbeen
subjectedto.
Inaddition,thetextbooksemanticallyaugmentsthe
entitymetaphorof“themarketisasystem”byfurther
embeddingitinabroaderfieldofmetaphoricalmean‐
ings.Theessentialsourcedomaininthisprocessisde‐
riveed,asalreadymentioned,fromthefieldofmecha‐
nicsandconventionalknowledgeofmachinery.The
chapterprovidesafirstdefinitionof“themarket”inthe
followingmanner:“Amarketisamechanismthrough
whichbuyersandsellersinteracttodeterminepricesand
exchangegoodsandservices”(2010,p.26,authors’
emphasis).Themetaphorof“themarketisamecha‐
nism”issyntacticallysimpleandsemanticallyempty,
wherebytheword“is”functionsmerelyasacopula
carryingnofurthercontentdetermination.Thetextdoes
notmakeconsciousissueofwhethermoresemantically
precisemetaphoricalmappingsareneededtoanswer
questionssuchas:Howcangenuinelysocialprocessesof
exchangebeadequatelycomparedtomechanismsorthe
waymachineswork?Or,whatlimitsdoesthiscom‐
parisonhave?Instead,inthecourseofthechapter,the
metaphorof“themarketisamechanism”isrepeatedly
andimplicitlyestablishedasanapparentlyontological
statementthroughtheuseofotherequallyuncritical
mechanicalmetaphorssuchas“balancewheel”,“market
equilibrium”,“balance”,“elaboratemechanism”,“super‐
computer”,“signal”,“functioning”(Samuelson&
Nordhaus,2010,pp.26‐27).Becausenoindicationfor
criticalreflectionisgivenonhowametaphorical
understandingofmechanicscanbeappliedtoecono‐
mics,itmustbeassumedthatconcepttualizationsof
economicrelationshipsaretobeestablishedwithinnew
semanticframesunconsciously,whereinparticular
consciousandcriticalreflectioniscircumventedandim‐
plicitknowledgeof,andtacitexperienceswithmachinery
areusedtoreplaceotherconceptualizationsofeconomic
experience.

4.2Personification
Metaphoricalmapping,however,doesnotendhere.
Particularlyconspicuousisthefactthatentitymetaphors
suchas“themarketisamachine”areoftenascribedan‐
thropomorphiccharacteristicsandthusinthesenseof
LakoffandJohnsontheyalsofunctionaspersonifications
(cf.Lakoff&Johnson,1980,p.33f.).Makingcomplex
socialprocessesandexperiencesappeartoactas
subjectsadditionallyimbuedwithhumancharacteristics
andmotivationshelpsconceptstobecomeimplicitly
understandable.Importantly,thesubjectisnotonly
identifiedasapersonbutisalsoimbuedwithparticular
characteristics.Inordertoexemplifywhatismeantby
this,letustakealookatthemetaphor“monarchsofthe
marketplace”usedinSamuelson’sEconomics(2005,p.
28):Samuelsoninitiallyspeaksmetaphoricallyof“tastes
andtechnology”asso‐called“dualmonarchs”.Inano‐
therexamplehespeaksof“profits”as“rewardsand
punishments”,which“guide”themarketmechanism.He
goesontosay:“Likeafarmerusingacarrotandastick
tocoaxadonkeyforward,themarketsystemdealsout
profitsandlossestoinducethefirmtoproducedesired
goods”(ibid.).Tounderstandthecomplexmetaphorical
mappinginvolvedonemustlookattheirinherentlogical
ambiguities:Dotastesreallyguidethemarketmecha‐
nismoraretheysimplyforcesactingwithinit?Does“the
market”dealoutprofits,ordoprofitscoercecertain
resultsin“themarket”?Insteadofprovidingclarityon
theseissues,thetextbookcontinuestocallupanabun‐
danceofsimilarmetaphorswhichequallyimplicitlyand
diffuselycreatetheimageofanall‐powerful,indistinctly
delineatedmonarchnoindividualeconomicparticipant
canwithstand.
Afurtherexampleofpersonificationinvolvesthe
conceptof“themarket”inSamuelsonsEconomicswhich
isdescribednotonlyasifitwereathing(ontological
metaphor),henceasmachineormechanism,butalsoas
anindependentlyactingindividual(personification)‐a
machine‐likesubjectactingautonomously,guidingand
regulatingprocessesandoperatingaccordingtopre‐
definedplansorinthecontextoffixedconditions:“Yet
inthemidstofallthisturmoil,marketsareconstantly
solvingthewhat,how,andforwhom.Astheybalanceall
theforcesoperatingontheeconomy,marketsarefind‐
ingamarketequilibriumofsupplyanddemand”
(Samuelson&Nordhaus,2010,p.27,ouremphasis).

JournalofSocialScienceEducation 
Volume17,Number3,Fall2018ISSN1618–5293



12

Illustration1showsadiagramfromMankiw’stextbook:
Combiningentitymetaphorswithpersonificationsallows
anextensiveinterpretiveframeworktoemerge–created
bythecombinationof“themarket”metaphorwith
otherssuchas“system”,“mechanism”and“person”–to
induceanimplicitunderstandingof“themarket”asa
superactorwiththequalitiesofamachine,i.e.withthe
regular,predictablecalculationsofacomputer,for
instance,coupledwiththehumanabilitytodecideand
actindependently.
Mankiw’suseofentitymetaphorsandpersonifications
todescribesocialprocessesinhisEconomicsis,inour
opinion,considerablymoresubtlethaninSamuelson’s
textbook.Forexample,Mankiwusesmechanicalmeta‐
phorslessfrequently;instead,hisuseoftheterm“for‐
ces”ismorecommonthanthatof“mechanism”.How‐
everthemetaphoroftheinvisiblehandandregulating
playerisusedofteninhisintroductorychapter(“the
‘invisiblehand’ofthemarketplaceguidesthisself‐
interestintopromotinggeneraleconomicwell‐being”;
2014,p.7,ouremphasis;“oneofourgoalsinthisbookis
tounderstandhowSmith’sinvisiblehandworksits
magic”;ibid.,p.8,ouremphasis).
Inotherways,how‐ever,“the
market”(orothersynonymous‐
lyusedterms)isjustasubiqui‐
touslyandself‐evidentlyascrib‐
edqualitiesofanindependent
andsovereignplayer.Inthis
mannermarketeconomiesare
describedasorganizingecono‐
micactivityandaddressingkey
issuesofeconomicswhileprice
andself‐interestsguideecono‐
micdecision‐making(2014,p.
7).

4.3Orientationalmetaphors
Mankiw’sEconomicsalsooffers
aparadigmaticexampleofthe
subtleuseoforientational
metaphorsineconomicstext‐
books.Orientationalmetaphorsrelyonfundamental
spatialandphysicalexperiences,suchasinsideand
outside,upanddown,leftandright,frontandback(cf.
Lakoff&Johnson,1980,p.14).Inastrikingexample,
Mankiwcompares“themarket”metaphoricallytoa
containerandtherebyintimatesalimitingboundaryas
wellasaninner‐outerorientation:

“Freemarketscontainmanybuyersandsellersofnu‐
merousgoodsandservices”.(Mankiw&Taylor,2014,p.7;
ouremphasis)

“Competitivemarket.Amarketinwhichtherearemany
buyersandsellerssothateachhasanegligibleimpacton
themarketprice”.(Mankiw&Taylor,2014,p.42;ourem‐
phasis)

Whatthesemetaphorssuggestisthat“themarket”is
notmadeupofpeoplebutencompassesthem,asaglass
wouldwater,andwhichislikewisenotimpactedbyits
qualitiesorcharacteristics.Assuch“themarket”,under‐
stoodasacontainer,remainsinthistypeofframing
impassiveinthefaceofsocialprocessestakingplace
withinit.Themetaphorfurthersuggeststhateconomic
processescannotbedelineatedclearlyoutward;further,
whatlies‘beyond’or‘outside’itremainsunclear.The
suggestivepowerofthismetaphor,however,liesinits
abilitytotriggermoresubtleandwidelyunconscious
associationsconnectedtocommonexperiencesin
handlinganddealingwithcontainersandvesselssuchas
buckets,cupsandsaucersetc..
Wenowwouldliketodiscussonemoreexampleof
orientationalmetaphorusedbyMankiw,whichwe
considertoplayasignificantroleinstandardeconomic
textbooks.Itconcernstheimplicitframingofthetarget
domaininthecontextofspatialorientationssuchas
“up”,“down”,“right”,“left”and“atthesameplace”and
illustratedwiththehelpofdiagrams,yetwithoutany
consciousreflectiononthecontext’sappropriateness.


Source:Mankiw,2012,p.68.

Thediagramisdescribedasfollows:“Lawofdemand.
Theclaimthat,otherthingsbeingequal,thequantity
demandedofagoodfallswhenthepriceofagoodrises”
(2012,p.68,ouremphasis).Fromtheperspectiveof
cognitivelinguistics,bycombininggraphicandverbal
descriptions,phenomenaofquantity(demandbecomes
more)becomemetaphoricallyreinterpretedintermsof
spatialexpansionormovement:Bybeingabletoriseor
fall,amountsandpricesappeartomovelikespheresin
physicalspace.Moreprecisely:Thesentence“demand
falls”isametaphorbasedontheorientationmetaphor
“lessisdown“,thusalsoonnaturalphysicalexperiences
suchasaverticalbuild‐upofbuildingblocks.Themeta‐
phor“pricesrise”derivesinturnfromtheorientation
metaphor“moreisup”foundedequallyonbasicexperi‐
encessuchasanincreaseofwaterlevelswhenfillinga
glass.19

JournalofSocialScienceEducation 
Volume17,Number3,Fall2018ISSN1618–5293



13

Inthismannerhighlycomplexsocialphenomenasuch
aseconomicdemandbecomeimplicitlyapprehensible
becausetheirinterpretationisconceptuallyandintuit‐
tivelyreducedtonotonlytangiblebutalsoeasily
predictableandthusprincipallycontrollablephysical
conditionsofeverydaylife.Whatthetextbookneglects
todoistomakeitsanalogytophysicsexplicitandthus
itsconnectiontoadifferentfieldofknowledgeaccessible
toreason.Asaresult,readersarehardlycapableof
identifyingtheseanalogiesasmetaphors,ifatall,be‐
causetheytacitlydrawuponfundamentallycommon
physicalexperiences.Hence,knowledgeappearingcom‐
pletelyself‐evidentwithinthecontextofitssource
domainisuncriticallyusedtoaugmentknowledgeina
targetdomain.Furtherresearchhastoinquire,ifand
howtheconstantuseoftermssuchas“rising”and“fall‐
ing”,whichbecauseoftheirrelationtoandexperience
withgravityanditsincontrovertiblepredictabilityinthe
contextoftheirsourcedomain,canactuallyleadtoa
completelyuncriticalunderstandingof“principles”inthe
economicsphere(cf.Mankiw’sexampleabove),which
becomestacitlyreinforcedbytherepetitiveandcon‐
sistentuseoforientationalmetaphorsinthesenseofthe
mentioned‘repatterning’or‘refreezing’.

5Emotionallyandideologicallychargingtheconceptof
“themarket”
Theexampleoforientationmetaphorsillustrateshow
standardeconomictextbooksembedmetaphorically
framedeconomictermsinwhatCognitiveLinguisticscall
deepseatedframestothepointwherestudentsbeginto
grasptheeconomywithouteverhavingtocriticallyre‐
flectonit.Thefactthatmetaphorshelpcomplexeco‐
nomicphenomenaappearmoreunderstandablesimply
byconnectingthemtophysicalexperiencedoesnot
mean,however,thatthesedeepseatedframesauto‐
maticallyalsoinvolvepolitical‐ideologicalvalue
judgments(cf.Wehling,2016,p.61‐62).20 Yetboth
standardtextbooksunderanalysisexhibitedinstancesof
implicitjudgmentwhichcanbedescribedasemotional
orideologicalframing.Thistypeofframingnotonly
makesaparticularsemanticinterpretiveframework
accessiblebutalsomakesamoraljudgment(cf.ibid).
Again,followingcognitivelinguistics,thisjudgmentdoes
nottakeplaceonthelevelofrationalthoughtbutrather
ontheleveloftheunconscious.
Here,too,afewexampleswillhelpusillustratethe
issue.Letusturntotheintroductorychapteron“Whatis
amarket?”bySamuelson.Astudyofthephrasinginthe
chaptershowsthatitisconsistentlystructuredaccording
toantagonisticdualismsinwhich“good”and“bad”
confronteachother.







Illustration2providesanoverviewofthedualisms
exhibitedinthischapter.
Verge of starvation
Mortal terror of a breakdown
Coercion
Centralized direction
Government
Control of economic activity
Government intervention
Central intelligence
High-Income countries
Private markets
Market mechanism
Voluntary trade
Improve own economic
situation
Invisibly coordinated
Doing very well economically
Sleep easily
Elaborate economic processes
Coordinated through the
market
Willingly
Elaborate mechanism
Communication device
Functioning remarkably well
Source:Authors’graphicdepiction.Sampleofdualismsfrom
“TheMarketMechanism”(cf.Samuelson&Nordhaus,2010,p.
26).

Inlieuofacleardefinitionof“themarket”,
Samuelson’stextbookstructurestheconceptaccording
tocomplimentaryorpositiveaspectsthroughdirectcon‐
nectiontotermssuchas“well”,“elaborate”,and“volun‐
tary”,seenontherightsideofthelistabove.Incom‐
parison,“themarket”iscontrastedbyqualitiesascribed
togovernment,exclusivelyassociatedwithwordscarry‐
ingnegativeconnotationssuchas“intervention”,“coer‐
cion”,and“starvation”withoutprovidinganyexplicit
empirical,historicalorotherformofdocumentationand
justificationtobackthisview.Thiscanbeidentifiedasa
caseofemotionalframing,sincebothsidesoftheanta‐
gonisticpolaritybetween“themarket”and“thenon‐
market”(Ötsch,2009,p.21)areeachdescribedina
mannertriggeringpositiveornegativefeelingsintuit‐
tively.Hence,everythingnotbelongingtothe“the
market”,i.e.the“non‐market”,isdescribedinpejorative
contextsinwhichtermssuchas“mortalterror”and“ver‐
geofstarvation”appear,whileeverythingtodowith
“themarket”isexplainedaccordingtopositivelyconnot‐
edexpressionssuchas“sleepeasily”,“doingwell”.
Morestrikingexamplesofideologicalframingof“the
market”aretobefoundinbothtextbooks.Eachis
structuredalonga“BlackandWhiteFallacy”(cf.Hill,
2015,276).Forinstance,inSamuelson’sintroductionon
thesignificanceofstudyingeconomics,onereadsthe
following:

“Awordtothesovereignstudent:Youhavereadinhistory
booksofrevolutionsthatshakecivilizationstotheirroots–
religiousconflicts,warforpoliticalliberation,struggles
againstcolonialismandimperialism.Twodecadesago,eco‐
nomicrevolutionsinEasternEurope,intheformerSoviet
Union,inChina,andelsewheretorethosesocietiesapart.
Youngpeoplebattereddownwalls,overthrewestablished
authority,andagitatedfordemocracyandamarketeco‐
nomybecauseofdiscontentwiththeircentralizedsocialist
governments.Studentslikeyourselvesweremarching,and
evengoingtojail,towintherighttostudyradicalideasand
learnfromWesterntextbookslikethisoneinthehopethat
theymayenjoythefreedomandeconomicprosperityof

JournalofSocialScienceEducation 
Volume17,Number3,Fall2018ISSN1618–5293



14

democraticmarketeconomies.”(Samuelson&Nordhaus,
2010,p.xxii)

Thesignificanceofeconomicseducationisimplicitly
placedinthecontextofpoliticalstrugglesthathavebeen
ideologicallyinterpretedinadvance.Thepoliticalseman‐
ticframeactivatedbySamuelsonintheabovequote
couldbeoutlinedasfollows:Anenemyisbuildingwalls,
therebylimitingfreedom;theenemyissustainedby
establishedpowersidentifiedassocialistsandcentralists
whothrowstudentsintojail.Theenemymakesyoung
peopleunhappy.Incontrasttothis,thereisasidethat
supportsfreedom,prosperityanddemocracy.The
argumentationisclearlybasedonthefollowing
ideologicalmodel:(absolute)Evilagainst(absolute)Good
(cf.Ötsch,2009,40‐41),whereby“Good”isalways
associatedwithone’sownside.Thiscreatestheideaofa
“dividedworldinwhichthereisa“WE”inaperennial
battlewith“THEOTHERS”(Transl.fromÖtsch,2002,p.16‐
17).21
Thepassagesendsthefollowingimplicitmessage:This
handbookservesthegood.Bystudyingityouwillbelong
tothegoodguys,THEWE.Atthesametimeyouwillbe
drawndirectlyintothebattlebetween‚good‘and‚evil‘.
Ifothershavesacrificedthemselvesforthestrugglefor
“thegood”,whowouldselfishlycloserankswith“THE
OTHERS”,thebadguys,byrejectingthekindofeconomics
presentedinthetextbook,therighttowhichTHEWEhad
tofightsofiercelyfor?
Inshort,Samuelson’sintroductionimmediatelyacti‐
vatesanideologicalframewhichmeanwhilehaspro‐
bablybecomeatleastpartiallyestablishedinthe
unconsciousmindsofmanyWesternreaders,aframe
associatednotwithscholarshipbutwithpolitical‐ideo‐
logicaldebates.InthisframeSamuelsonendeavorsto
extendthesemanticframe‚EastversusWest‘,‚capi‐
talismversuscommunism’toinclude“themarket”or
marketeconomy.Withoutdefiningwhat“themarket”or
marketeconomyactuallyis,Samuelsonembedsthe
conceptwithinthesemanticframeofadivided,or
bifurcatedworldview.Thisoccursinmannerbywhich
“themarket”isautomaticallyplacedonathe‚right‘,i.e.
‚good‘side:

“Thebifurcated(dualistic)worldisconveyedbyabifur‐
catedlanguage(adualcode).themarketisonlyendowed
withpositivequalities.Itisdescribed[…]asgood,desirable,
worthwhile.[…]Thenon‐market,howeverisattributed
witheverythingthatisbad.[…]Languagemusttherefore
differentiateclearlybetweenthetwoparts.Abifurcated
languageisthemeansthroughwhichabifurcatedworldis
conveyed.”(Transl.fromÖtsch,2009,p.21)22

Additionally,thestudyofeconomicsitselfbecomes
linguisticallyintertwinedwiththenetworkofpositively
connotedconceptsoffreedom,prosperity,democracy,
marketeconomy.Samuelson’stextbookappearsonthe
sideofTHEWE,henceonthesideof‘good’.Whatis
essentialisthattheconfrontationbetween‘freedom’
and‘lackoffreedom’asdescribedbySamuelsonisinno
waysubstantiatedbyfacts:Noproofisgivenwhether
youngmenandwomentooktothestreetsorrisked
beingimprisonedintheSovietUnionoranywhereelse
fortherighttoreadSamuelson’stextbook.Norare
referencesmadetoexplicithistoricalplaces,personsor
relevantliterature.Samuelson’sintroductorytext
addressespolitical‐ideologicalexperiencesandtheir
correspondingemotions,notcriticalreasoning.Itthrows
studentsimmediatelyintoaheatedconflictwherelittle
opportunityisgiventoreflectonwhatsidetotake.
InMankiw’stextbooksimilarlypoliticallycharged,
black/white,dualistconceptualizationstakeplacewith
regardtothebattleofsystemsbetweenEastandWest,
communismandcapitalism,inwhich“themarket”isalso
embedded,eveniftheemotionalassociationsthey
engenderaremoresubtle.Adistinctiveexampleofa
politicallychargedconceptualizationinMankiwisfound,
forinstance,intheformulationofhis“TenPrinciples”,
whichseektoconveythecondensedessenceofeco‐
nomicthought.Concludingthissectionthepassageis
quotedinitsentiretysothatthereadercanformheror
hisownopinion:

“ThecollapseofCommunismintheSovietUnionand
EasternEuropeinthe1980smaybethemostimportant
changeintheworldduringthepasthalfcentury.
Communistcountriesworkedonthepremisethatcentral
plannersinthegovernmentwereinthebestpositionto
guideeconomicactivityandanswerthethreekeyquestions
oftheeconomicproblem.[...]Thetheorybehindcentral
planningwasthatonlythegovernmentcouldorganize
economicactivityinawaythatpromotedeconomicwell‐
beingforthecountryasawhole.Today,mostcountries
thatoncehadcentrallyplannedeconomies[…]have
abandonedthissystemandaretryingtodevelopmarket
economies.Inamarketeconomy,thedecisionsofacentral
plannerarereplacedbythedecisionsofmillionsoffirms
andhouseholds.[…]Atafirstglance,thesuccessofmarket
economiesispuzzling.Afterall,inamarketeconomy,no
oneisconsideringtheeconomicwell‐beingofsocietyasa
whole.Freemarketscontainmanybuyersandsellersof
numerousgoodsandservices,andallofthemareinterest‐
edprimarilyintheirownwell‐being.Yet,despitedecentra‐
lizeddecisionmakingandself‐interesteddecisionmakers,
marketeconomieshaveprovenremarkablysuccessfulin
organizingeconomicactivityinawaythatpromotesoverall
economicwell‐being.”(Mankiw&Taylor,2014,pp.6‐7)

6Conclusion
Theabovepresentedexamplesofhowmetaphorsare
tacitlyusedinstandardeconomictextbooks,followedby
adiscussionwhetherthisusecouldpromoteanunno‐
ticedtransformationoftheconceptualizationofthe
economyandhinderitscriticalreflection.Thereare,
however,broaderissuesinvolvedwhichmustbe
addressedbyfutureresearch,suchas:1)Towhatextent
aremetaphorsusedinstandardeconomictextbooks?2)
Whatistheimpactofthisuse,andhowcanitbe
verified?3)Towhatextentisthisimpactintentionalon
thepartoftheauthorsandifso,why?4)Istherea
correlationbetweentheuseofmetaphorsineconomic
textbooksandeconomictheoryandifso,howdidthis
evolve?

JournalofSocialScienceEducation 
Volume17,Number3,Fall2018ISSN1618–5293



15

Wewouldliketoaddressonelastbutimportantques‐
tion:Ifweweretoassumethattheuseofmetaphorsas
discussedabovepromotesuncriticalacceptancewith
regardtotheconceptualizationof“themarket”,howcan
thisimpactbecounteracted?Wewouldliketopointto
FriestadandWright(1984),whodevelopedpersuasion
knowledgemodelsbywhichtheactualsuccessofper‐
suasionstrategiescannotbemeasuredsolelybythe
qualityofthemethodsused.Rather,eachinstanceof
persuasionisdeterminedbytheinterplaybetweenthose
intendingtopersuadeandtherecipients’copingstra‐
tegies.Accordingtothisreasoning,therefore,itwouldbe
importanttorecognizethateverysingleeffortto
promotestudents’criticalreflectionhelpstoattenuate
theeffectofpersuasionstrategiesinstandardeconomic
textbooksthroughtheiruncriticaluseofmetaphors–
independentofwhetherpersuasionwasintendedbythe
authorsandpublishersornot.
Inthisregardwewouldliketomentiontwosuccessful
examplesofpromotingstudents’andteachers’powers
ofcriticalreflection.Firstitmustbenotedthattheuseof
metaphorsisnotrejectedperse,which,accordingto
cognitivelinguistics,wouldbecompletelynonsensical.
Instead,usingmetaphorsprovidesstudentswithacrea‐
tivetoolofhumanthoughtwhile